Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion

[urbanclient]

My math was wrong, but the point stands.

To keep the Gardiner? Totally with you on that one.

But I am still wholeheartedly against any southward extension of Allen Road, tunnelled or otherwise. Even the thought to entertain it makes no sense. Even with an unlimited budget, the 401 tunnel + express metro/subway should be built first.

European cities still loop, but slightly wider out so you have a larger contiguous urban core.

Not slightly wider. Much, much wider. And in Paris' case not even a freeway at all, but a 50 kph arterial ring road. Completely apples and oranges for Europe vs. Toronto / North America.

 

[innsertnamehere]

To keep the Gardiner? Totally with you on that one.

But I am still wholeheartedly against any southward extension of Allen Road, tunnelled or otherwise. Even the thought to entertain it makes no sense. Even with an unlimited budget, the 401 tunnel + express metro/subway should be built first.

I don't entirely disagree. I do think the 427 being so far west of Downtown is problematic for the wider road network and is one of the few missing pieces of Toronto's road network, but there isn't an easy solution there.

Purely from a traffic planning perspective the Allen should never have happened, and The Crosstown Expressway along with the 400 extension south to the Gardiner should have happened instead. That would have given a ~25km long loop around the downtown to capture traffic in around the central city without having to run freeways right into the core. They could have been 4-lane highways too, no need to be too crazy but enough to pull traffic off the local arterials and far enough out that it would have avoided unsightly highways right in the core.

The only real pain point would have been the 400 connection to the Gardiner which would have had to cut through some neighbourhoods somewhere west of downtown, the crosstown could have followed the CP corridor and been pretty harmless to existing residential areas.

Today though the areas are far too developed and would never work.

 

[urbanclient]

@innsertnamehere I would suggest maybe you make a disclaimer or something for the ring roads and freeways you mentioned earlier. Someone who has no knowledge of those cities might actually think they have freeways in the periphery of a downtown equivalent. Paris' Blvd Périphérique is an arterial, not a freeway that is 9-10km wide at certain areas, but that's the diameter, not the circumference. The speed limit is 50 km/h and similar to what you've shown, the length is 35 km.

Freeways or close enough if freeways don't make up the whole loop, roughly: Amsterdam is 32km, Madrid 44 km, Barcelona 37 km, Prague is 36 km, Frankfurt's shortest diameter is closer to 8 km, not 6 km, and the hypothetical ring road length is roughly 38 km if the north east-west is partly the A66.

 

[nfitz]

I-81 has a decent alternative for traffic going north and east, but traffic going west will have to use the new at-grade road as the detour is too large onto I-481.

I-481 has a higher speed limit, and moves faster than I-81. The travel time (northbound) to the Thruway is about the same on both. So basically the extra time is about 9 km on the thruway. About an extra 5 minutes.

But wait - I've used I-690 to do the north-to-west turn from I-81 to I-90 (though I normally try and avoid Buffalo/Niagara). It's already faster than just I-81 to I-90 according to Google Maps right now. A little upgrade wouldn't hurt - and I thought that was the plan.

 

[innsertnamehere]

@innsertnamehere I would suggest maybe you make a disclaimer or something for the ring roads and freeways you mentioned earlier. Someone who has no knowledge of those cities might actually think they have freeways in the periphery of a downtown equivalent. Paris' Blvd Périphérique is an arterial, not a freeway that is 9-10km wide at certain areas, but that's the diameter, not the circumference. The speed limit is 50 km/h and similar to what you've shown, the length is 35 km.

Freeways or close enough if freeways don't make up the whole loop, roughly: Amsterdam is 32km, Madrid 44 km, Barcelona 37 km, Prague is 36 km, Frankfurt's shortest diameter is closer to 8 km, not 6 km, and the hypothetical ring road length is roughly 38 km if the north east-west is partly the A66.

Blvd Périphérique is a limited-access freeway. Most of it looks like this:

It does have a 50km/h limit as it has very low design speeds owing to it winding through a dense urban area. But it's a centre-barrier, limited-access, interchange access road only.

Some parts are even elevated and look remarkably like the Gardiner Expressway!

My references to distances was always intended to be the diameter. Only you are interpreting them as circumferences.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I-481 has a higher speed limit, and moves faster than I-81. The travel time (northbound) to the Thruway is about the same on both. So basically the extra time is about 9 km on the thruway. About an extra 5 minutes.

But wait - I've used I-690 to do the north-to-west turn from I-81 to I-90 (though I normally try and avoid Buffalo/Niagara). It's already faster than just I-81 to I-90 according to Google Maps right now. A little upgrade wouldn't hurt - and I thought that was the plan.

The part being demolished is south of I-690.

Google says taking I-481 if going northbound on I-81 out of Syracuse takes about 2 minutes longer, I agree that's generally acceptable. Going westbound on I-90 though, detouring via I-481 will add about 8 minutes of travel time, which means it will still be faster to use the at-grade component, breaking the direct interstate connection and creating a sort of mini-Breezewood condition in Downtown Syracuse.

 

[north-of-anything]

I think the MTO needs to finally get on with unfinished projects or projects that have been on the books for 15 to 20 plus years. Good examples would be the extension of Highway 400 to Sudbury and widening the 401 from Tilbury to London, and many more. It seems like another 20-plus years will pass, and a lot of the projects that have been around forever will start not be done. The pace at which we move in Ontario is insanely slow.

I can attest that the extension of Highway 400 to Sudbury is not happening any time soon. The MTO is currently looking at a reconstruction of the 69 at the 400's northern limit that maintains its existing undivided highway setup. I wouldn't count on more progress on that front for at least a decade...

 

[nfitz]

Google says taking I-481 if going northbound on I-81 out of Syracuse takes about 2 minutes longer, I agree that's generally acceptable. Going westbound on I-90 though, detouring via I-481 will add about 8 minutes of travel time, which means it will still be faster to use the at-grade component, breaking the direct interstate connection and creating a sort of mini-Breezewood condition in Downtown Syracuse.

Interesting. It's almost as fast (and 9-miles shorter) to take leave I-81 at Binghamton and take I-86, I-390 and NYS-63 (from Genesee to Batavia); it would be faster after those changes. Shame they don't have an interstate to connect Genesee to Batavia - that would be faster than any current route. Even staying on I-390 up to the I-90 only adds 3 minutes more - though is even longer.

 

[Westey]

I sometimes think that the Spadina Expressway was the worst freeway idea of the lot.
Assuming the 427-401 Toronto bypass gets built, I'd put the rest in this order.

1. DVP
2. Gardiner
3. 400 Extension to Gardiner.
4. Crosstown Expressway (400 Extension to DVP).
5. Scarborough Expressway.
6. Richview Expressway or Spadina Expressway.

And Spadina Expressway required a 20+ bridge interchange - where the money could have been spent elsewhere.
(sort of reminds one of the FWLRT).

 

[urbanclient]

It does have a 50km/h limit as it has very low design speeds owing to it winding through a dense urban area. But it's a centre-barrier, limited-access, interchange access road only.

Agree to disagree, what makes it not a freeway* is not due to an arbitrary speed limit (50 km/h). Consider the fact that the lack of speed is in part due to the lack of any shoulder and the narrow lanes. The lanes look to be narrower than higher speed Toronto arterials: all this necessitates the low speed limits. The actual curve radiuses, i.e. 'winding through a dense urban area', are not the limiting factor for speed, the Boulevard as you've demonstrated in those pictures is relatively straight.

By your definition, the majority of the hundreds of elevated ring roads and elevated arterials in China would be considered controlled access highways, which the government there does not. They often have mainline speed limits significantly greater than Blvd Périphérique (up to 80 and 100 depending on the city) and curve radiuses can be much greater too. Instead, their built form of narrower lanes, no shoulder, partially controlled-access, frequent, very short exit ramps reflects a design intent for traffic separation and redirection to reduce congestion within the city. Not to connect wider cities and regions. These characteristics apply to Periph as well, that's why it's called a Boulevard and not an Autoroute.

"The Boulevard périphérique is a Parisian municipal road [...] It most often has four lanes of traffic in each direction (two or three lanes between Porte d'Italie and Porte d'Orléans, five lanes between Porte de Montreuil and Porte de Bagnolet, three lanes between Porte d'Orléans and Porte de Sèvres). [...] and vehicles entering it from the right have priority over those already on it (in the right-hand lane only), contrary to the priority rules usually in force on expressways, but in accordance with those in force on Parisian roads."

My references to distances was always intended to be the diameter. Only you are interpreting them as circumferences.

Even those 'diameter' distances are often gross underestimates of even the shortest axis as I mentioned before.

Frankfurt's shortest diameter is closer to 8 km, not 6 km

Your estimated diameters, even for the irregular shapes are just very off. Multiply your diameters by 3, roughly pi, and you get 27 as opposed to 35 in reality for Paris, 15 vs. 32 for Amsterdam, 18 vs. 38 for Frankfurt for the shortest possible loop that includes local arterial roads. And even though Madrid has the longest at 44km (and largest area covered), you talk about it like it's got a crazy dense freeway network within the inner city.

Who in their right mind assumes "~6km freeway loop around downtown [Frankfurt]" means the diameter of the loop, when a perfect circle would actually be ~30 km in circumference and the actual loop is 38 km? Would you not agree a 60 to 110% underestimate is a bit misleading? The Frankfurt autobahn only loop is closer to 50 km.

The road lines are wide and there is no scale in the maps of each city, so it's even more misleading.

*sometimes called a controlled-access highway in Canada. The Blvd Périph in Paris is controlled-access sure, but it doesn't meet the standards so as to be rightfully called a 'controlled-access highway' or 'freeway' like a 400 series or even a lowly municipal expressway/parkway.
A lot of jumbled terms that are inconsistent province to province, but the Blvd Periph doesn't meet the definition for any: freeway, municipal expressway, or controlled-access highway in the Ontario context etc...
Unless you wanna go with the Ontario HTA definition that all public roads are 'highways'.

 

[narduch]

Didn't expect to see an article like this in the Daily Commercial News

Transit Over Traffic report: Bradford Bypass, 413 and 401 tunnel need to be axed - Daily Commercial News

In a hard-hitting analysis that takes direct aim at the province’s land use and transportation policies, a new report says residents in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area would be better served if the government focused more on public transit and less

canada.constructconnect.com

 

[Westey]

I wouldn't say zero but they won't do a ton.

The Bradford Bypass will relieve some pressure on the central 401 for example - rerouting traffic coming from Northern Ontario and Simcoe County wanting to go the the east end of the city (and downtown!) eastwards.

413 will similarly pull traffic going west.

Overall those numbers are pretty small though, and the traffic modelling for those highways corroborate that. The 413 and Bradford bypass have hugely beneficial traffic impacts but it's actually mostly from relieving more local traffic patterns in and around the municipalities they run through. New highways are good for corridors that don't already have good road connections like Kitchener-Hamilton, they aren't as good for relieving an existing route.

The cheapest and best way to fix congestion on a highway is widen that highway as it has a direct 1:1 impact for all trips on the corridor and is often cheaper than new corridors anyway - you need less land and often less new structures. There is a reason MTO opted to widen the 401 to Kitchener instead of building a 413 connection to create a second freeway link - it's cheaper and did a better job of actually reducing travel times.

A reminder of what MTO wants to build in the GGH over the next 25 years:

View attachment 710622

There are small handful of extra projects not on that map that MTO is building towards as well, like HOVs on the QEW from Oakville to Toronto.

Looking at this map, it's clear they need to find a way of extending 413 to Highway 404, and probably all the way to 412 (where one could go down to 401, or across on the free portion of 407 to 418 or 115).

 

[innsertnamehere]

Didn't expect to see an article like this in the Daily Commercial News

Transit Over Traffic report: Bradford Bypass, 413 and 401 tunnel need to be axed - Daily Commercial News

In a hard-hitting analysis that takes direct aim at the province’s land use and transportation policies, a new report says residents in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area would be better served if the government focused more on public transit and less

canada.constructconnect.com

It's quoting Environmental Defence.. It's like quoting Greenpeace about oil pipelines or PETA about zoos.

 

[turini2]

And even in Europe, London is the only major european city to really lack an inner city freeway connection, and even then it's basically moved it's modern downtown east to where freeway connections do exist (Canary Wharf).

This is completely incorrect - the City of London has around ~670k workers in the week and Canary Wharf has around ~120k, and that's before you've even considered the West End ( government (around ~100k workers), tourist attractions like theatres, Europe's busiest shopping street (Oxford St)).

Also - Canary Wharf does have good road access, but the transit connections are so exceptional (thanks to original Canadian developers, Olympia and York!) that the predicted mode share for their u/c expansion is extremely sustainable and impressive. When transit, walking and cycling are good quality, fast and frequent, reliable etc - people choose it in numbers!

Cities like London and Vancouver which completely lack inner city freeways instead need to have lots of very large arterial roads and have lots of commercial through traffic routed onto local roads. It doesn't work as well for pedestrians or cars.

London didn't build a substantial highway network (you can see the plans here https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways) and is frankly a much better city because of it. It has 1 orbital motorway, and a few big roads - but it's barely a network at all.

Traffic levels have fallen since 2000 across the entire city, thanks to substantial investment in walking, cycling, public transport - as well as policy measures like strict parking maximums, discouraging commuting by car and of course the congestion charge. Population in the same period has increased from roughly 7.1 million to 8.8 million, with huge economic growth.
Clearly it does work!

Efforts like the Ultra Low Emission Zone and electrification of vans, cars and buses has also helped to make the city significantly safer to live in, air pollution wise.

 

[narduch]

It's quoting Environmental Defence.. It's like quoting Greenpeace about oil pipelines or PETA about zoos.

At least they have better arguments than the pro highway crowd here, who's biggest defence of new highways is that it will make their own personal lives better and not that these new highways are actually worth the billions we are planning to spend on them.