--- Snickerdo <snickerdo@...> wrote:

> Agreed, it's nuts.  The only way I would -ever-
> support the removal of the
> elevated Gardiner is if they were to replace it with
> a wide, 12-lane minimum

But not 12 through lanes.  What I've been envisioning
is maybe only 2 through lanes (as currently); other
lanes would branch off the sides as sort of a hybrid
of an additional lane/very long ramp.  Of course, this
isn't all that different from the current situation.
Part of the problem is in storage area, in the ramps
backing up onto the freeway.  Left turn lanes won't
solve this, and in addition, if the storage area is
integrated with actual lanes on the road (either a
left-turn lane or deceleration lane), not only are
there safety issues, but especially here you'll have
people cruise by the line to the actual gore point,
jam on the brakes and put on their signal.  If you
could have an actual lane "hierarchy" begin, say,
around Bathurst, divided by either curbed or Jerseyed
medians, it would solve the problem of traffic backing
onto the through lanes as well as the problem of
people "jumping the queue", although it would make for
a wider cross-section.

> expressway (note - not nessassarily freeway) from
> east of the Humber River
> to the DVP.  Why do I say expressway?

To clarify: do you anticipate any signals?  (Isn't
that part of what defines a true expressway -- it has
some limited at-grade access?)

   Well, it
> would be built to lower
> standards, maybe a 60-80KM/h speed limit, but it
> would have small SPUI
> interchanges at each of the major crossings and the
> center divider would
> break for nothing, and it would be depressed in the
> sense where it's below
> street level, but it would be done the same way as
> the 406 - nice
> grass-lined sloped sides, not concreate retaining
> walls like most depressed
> freeways in a downtown.

There is a difficulty in this, and it's the same
difficulty with the idea I mentioned above -- ROW will
be extremely expensive in this area, and both our
"visions" will likely require somewhat
wider-than-normal cross-sections which could be viewed
as a bit of a luxury!  There is a reason why, as you
say, a lot of depressed freeways in a downtown use
concrete retaining walls rather than sloped sides.
Although, OTOH, a 10-lane boulevard with room for
landscaping (since that's what "boulevard" implies)
would be pretty wide on the cross-section too!

   From the way I see it, it
> would work just the same
> as the Gardiner now (trade lanes for lower speed
> limit), look awesome (there
> are some very cool things you can do with sloped
> sides)

Such as the current floral advertising around the
Humber Bay up next to the Gardiner/rail corridor.  If
there were overpasses, I bet it'd provide a really
neat effect from the Gardiner -- akin to the Jameson
Ave. area, or the south end of the DVP.

When I was thinking about a depressed freeway for
here, I wondered if there would be difficulties due to
either its proximity to the lake or due to the fill
(/garbage) Toronto used 80-100 years or so ago to
extend the waterfront -- but I suppose all those
condos must have pretty deep footings, and they're
further out than the Gardiner'd be.  There would be
difficulties with the Harbourfront LRT, which is in a
tunnel between Union Station and Queen's Quay.

Brent

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

--- cameron@... wrote: > --- In
canroads@egroups.com, "Snickerdo"
> <snickerdo@h...> wrote:
> > > If they indeed tear down the Gardiner, are they
> still talking
> about that
> > 10
> > > lane street plan?

There's been very little, if anything, publicized
since a year or so ago when the original idea was
given *major* coverage in the Toronto Star (the plan
to replace it with a 10-lane boulevard).  There's been
so many things "tested out" on the public like this
that I tend to have some skepticism, but this did seem
a bit more serious than others.

>What is the general feeling of the
> city's residents
> towards
> > this
> > > highway?
>
>
> It is kind of a love-hate relationship I think. Many
> residents are
> not overly fond of the sight of the Gardiner's
> elevated portion

Agreed.  "Eyesore" is a word that is frequently used
by both people and the media.  I will give the
Gardiner that it gives an excellent view for drivers
(or, perhaps more accurately, for passengers) --
compare the entrance via GO or VIA train to the
entrance by the Gardiner!

, but
> if polled, I'm certain that everyone with a car in
> Toronto uses it
> and would thus be upset if it was destroyed.

The CAA in particular.  They are being/will be
extremely vocal about Gardiner demolition.  This may
be a bit of a bad thing, though, for pro-Gardiner
forces, as the CAA tends to have a very extreme
pro-car voice, and extremist voices are more easily
brushed off.  What pro-Gardiner forces need are
equally strong but more moderate-leaning voices, ones
more willing to negotiate.

  As
> discussed earlier in
> m.t.r. posts, the general concensus is that a
> depressed or tunnelized
> freeway is the right solution.

I think even among the public.  I suspect the Big Dig
has scared a lot of people away from the tunnel
aspect, though.

  The problem with the
> 10-lane boulevard
> plan is all of the stupid traffic lights that would
> have to be set up
> at crossing intersections. Any planner that thinks a
> city street can
> handle traffic better than a freeway should go back
> to school.

In a way, it does make a bit of sense, in that there's
little through traffic; most gets off at one of the
downtown exits.  If this is true, there might be a way
to get around this with signals (only the downtown
section was to have them).  Traffic exiting the
Gardiner right now has a signal at Lake Shore Blvd.
anyways.

  I feel
> that a 20-lane Lakeshore Blvd. would handle traffic
> no better than a
> 6-lane Gardiner.

Would encourage a lot of weaving, which would be
dangerous as well as detrimental to traffic flow, IMO.

> > Well, at first when I heard about the plan I
> didn't think it would
> be that
> > bad so long as it's replaced with a 10-lane
> Lakeshore Blvd.  Then I
> realized
> > that it's technicly 12 lanes now.  6 Gardiner
> elevated and 6
> Lakeshore Blvd,
> > you'd be reducing it all by 2 lanes.

Part of the plan was to have a flyover to/from Front
Street around the Ex, and then to expand/enhance Front
Street, so that traffic bound for the west part of
downtown wouldn't be clogging up the exits (whether
intersections or interchanges) downtown -- which does
make more sense when you consider that those same
vehicles would have to be filling left-turn lanes on
Spadina or University.

   As for the
> feeling towards the
> > highway, I think the 'blocking the lake' issue is
> HIGHLY over-
> rated, and
> > that most Torontonians couldn't give a care about
> it.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but not
with the last part.  It definitely is seen by most as
being a major barrier to the lake, visually if not
physically (i.e. walking to harbourfront from
downtown, which wouldn't be any easier over a 10-lane
Lake Shore Blvd.).  However, I do agree that it is
overrated.  It wouldn't really suddenly open up a
grand vista to the lake -- just a grand vista to a
swath of condos!

Brent


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

> An excellent point! It Toronto, one has to pay $750,000+++ for that
> condo with the waterfront view anyways. The removal of the Gardiner
> would probably just drive land prices at Harbourfront up even further
> into the stratosphere. In regards to the 12 lanes being reduced to 10
> lanes, I think this just furthers the suspicion I had that it is the
> Olympic Promoters running city hall these days!!!

Agreed, it's nuts.  The only way I would -ever- support the removal of the
elevated Gardiner is if they were to replace it with a wide, 12-lane minimum
expressway (note - not nessassarily freeway) from east of the Humber River
to the DVP.  Why do I say expressway?  Well, it would be built to lower
standards, maybe a 60-80KM/h speed limit, but it would have small SPUI
interchanges at each of the major crossings and the center divider would
break for nothing, and it would be depressed in the sense where it's below
street level, but it would be done the same way as the 406 - nice
grass-lined sloped sides, not concreate retaining walls like most depressed
freeways in a downtown.  From the way I see it, it would work just the same
as the Gardiner now (trade lanes for lower speed limit), look awesome (there
are some very cool things you can do with sloped sides) and at the same time
Toronto would still have its vital downtown freeway link.

--- In canroads@egroups.com, "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@h...> wrote:
> > If they indeed tear down the Gardiner, are they still talking
about that
> 10
> > lane street plan?  Is there any other mitigation for what could
be a
> traffic
> > nightmare?  What is the general feeling of the city's residents
towards
> this
> > highway?


It is kind of a love-hate relationship I think. Many residents are
not overly fond of the sight of the Gardiner's elevated portion, but
if polled, I'm certain that everyone with a car in Toronto uses it
and would thus be upset if it was destroyed. As discussed earlier in
m.t.r. posts, the general concensus is that a depressed or tunnelized
freeway is the right solution. The problem with the 10-lane boulevard
plan is all of the stupid traffic lights that would have to be set up
at crossing intersections. Any planner that thinks a city street can
handle traffic better than a freeway should go back to school. I feel
that a 20-lane Lakeshore Blvd. would handle traffic no better than a
6-lane Gardiner. The Gardiner may be a slow ride at times, but at
least it keeps moving for the mostpart.


> Well, at first when I heard about the plan I didn't think it would
be that
> bad so long as it's replaced with a 10-lane Lakeshore Blvd.  Then I
realized
> that it's technicly 12 lanes now.  6 Gardiner elevated and 6
Lakeshore Blvd,
> you'd be reducing it all by 2 lanes.  As for the feeling towards the
> highway, I think the 'blocking the lake' issue is HIGHLY over-
rated, and
> that most Torontonians couldn't give a care about it.  Besides,
those 20-30
> storey condos on the waterfront block the lake much more then an
elevated
> freeway does :)


An excellent point! It Toronto, one has to pay $750,000+++ for that
condo with the waterfront view anyways. The removal of the Gardiner
would probably just drive land prices at Harbourfront up even further
into the stratosphere. In regards to the 12 lanes being reduced to 10
lanes, I think this just furthers the suspicion I had that it is the
Olympic Promoters running city hall these days!!!


Cameron

--- In canroads@egroups.com, "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@h...> wrote:
> But
> > tearing down freeways?  Come on.  Tearing down the Gardiner is
going to
> put
> > that much more pressure on ON-401.
>
> Yeah, that's one thing about Toronto, you feel safe walking around
the main
> part of the city at night.  Tearing down the Gardiner though...
ugh, they'd
> have to replace it with at least something, or pay for the right-of-
way
> needed to widen the 401 to 30 lanes.

Yeah, tearing town the Gardiner without a suitable replacement is
just utter madness. The sad part is that the 2008 Olympic Promoters
are going to put enormous pressure on Toronto City Planners to
demolish the Gardiner and replace it with a boulevard or some other
road with full access. After the Olympics are over, the promoters
walk away with their money, and the planners will spend the next 30
years wondering why they made such a fatal mistake. I'll be the first
to admit that Downtown Toronto would be improved aesthetically if the
Elevated Gardiner were removed. I am totally opposed, however, to any
plan that would simply substitute a full access city street for the
Gardiner. An 8-10 lane depressed or tunnelized freeway is the best
long-term solution for Toronto. Oh, and if any of Toronto's Planners
happen to get wind of this post, I have this advice: Do not allow the
Olympic Promoters to change the City's long-term transportation
objectives. Remember, the Promoters are in this for short-term
profit, and most could care less if traffic in Downtown Toronto stops
solid after the 2008 Games slide into the history book.

Cameron

> If they indeed tear down the Gardiner, are they still talking about that
10
> lane street plan?  Is there any other mitigation for what could be a
traffic
> nightmare?  What is the general feeling of the city's residents towards
this
> highway?  Is it almost as bad as San Franciscans felt towards the
> Embarcadero?

Well, at first when I heard about the plan I didn't think it would be that
bad so long as it's replaced with a 10-lane Lakeshore Blvd.  Then I realized
that it's technicly 12 lanes now.  6 Gardiner elevated and 6 Lakeshore Blvd,
you'd be reducing it all by 2 lanes.  As for the feeling towards the
highway, I think the 'blocking the lake' issue is HIGHLY over-rated, and
that most Torontonians couldn't give a care about it.  Besides, those 20-30
storey condos on the waterfront block the lake much more then an elevated
freeway does :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
To: <canroads@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [canroads] Re: Some Americans, ugh...


> > Toronto has some of its "areas" but you are right--it is a lot better
than
> > many big US cities.  And I did feel safe walking around there at night.
> But
> > tearing down freeways?  Come on.  Tearing down the Gardiner is going to
> put
> > that much more pressure on ON-401.
>
> Yeah, that's one thing about Toronto, you feel safe walking around the
main
> part of the city at night.  Tearing down the Gardiner though... ugh,
they'd
> have to replace it with at least something, or pay for the right-of-way
> needed to widen the 401 to 30 lanes.

If they indeed tear down the Gardiner, are they still talking about that 10
lane street plan?  Is there any other mitigation for what could be a traffic
nightmare?  What is the general feeling of the city's residents towards this
highway?  Is it almost as bad as San Franciscans felt towards the
Embarcadero?

>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> canroads-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

> Toronto has some of its "areas" but you are right--it is a lot better than
> many big US cities.  And I did feel safe walking around there at night.
But
> tearing down freeways?  Come on.  Tearing down the Gardiner is going to
put
> that much more pressure on ON-401.

Yeah, that's one thing about Toronto, you feel safe walking around the main
part of the city at night.  Tearing down the Gardiner though... ugh, they'd
have to replace it with at least something, or pay for the right-of-way
needed to widen the 401 to 30 lanes.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Kerr" <dkerr1@...>
To: <canroads@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: [canroads] Some Americans, ugh...


>
> Remember, I am American.  While Ontario signage may be different than in
> the U.S. (lack of the word "EXIT" on exit tabs, but you can point to the
> whole bilingual dilemma for that I guess), it is certainly not bad from
> what I've seen.  Proper interchanges is what they don't build in New York
> City (like you have to go on city streets to get from I-495 to I-678,
> etc).  It's more like there are sets of different philosophies between
> different states and provinces.  I'm not a fan of the gravel shoulders
> used on the 400-series of Ontario expressways (what can I say, I am a New
> Yorker), but that it certainly does not make MTO any worse.  Once again, I
> stress difference in philosophy.

I had no problems figuring out where I was using Canadian Freeways. They
were all well signed and actually understandable.  Not all US signage is
that way.



>
> =Douglas Kerr (dkerr1@...)=
> http://members.xoom.com/dougtone
> a.k.a. Dougtone- AOL IM . ICQ#- 947029
>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Snickerdo wrote:
>
> > I received this as a private email today from the guy who seems to hate
> > Ontario roads and signage because we aren't clones of the United States.
> > Anyone else have some comments on this, I'd love to see what you all
think
> > :)  I would love to know where he gets off saying Ontario doesn't build
> > proper interchanges, considering we don't have a single full cloverleaf
left
> > that I can think of.  Despite what Brent and I may think about them,
6-ramp
> > parclos -work well- :)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "GA is Not On My Mind" <GAisNotOnMyMind@...>
> > To: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: I-75 Cincinnati-Toronto
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
> > > Newsgroups: misc.transport.road
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:14 AM
> > > Subject: Re: I-75 Cincinnati-Toronto
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Hehe.  Personally, I prefer the European blue on white signage....
> > > >
> > > > As do I, but slightly darker like what is used on the 407 and the
> > > collector
> > > > lanes of the 400, 427 and 401.  I wouldn't mind seeing ALL of
Ontario go
> > > > blue, just to piss off Americans who will automaticly think our
signage
> > > > sucks because it isn't the same colour as the US signs :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, Americans regard Canadians as color-blind.  Signage is crap in
> > > Ontario as it is, but other provinces tend to be better.  Ontario
still
> > does
> > > not know how
> > > to build proper interchanges.
> > >
> > > Perhaps Ontario MTO and you fellow Canadian roadgeeks would do
yourselves
> > a
> > > favor and take an excursion down to Michigan to get educated on how
roads
> > > are engineered.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > canroads-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> canroads-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
To: <canroads@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: [canroads] Re: Some Americans, ugh...


> > Ha!! Considering that Ontario is home to some of the busiest freeways
> > in the world, I think Ontario's interchange designs are okay overall,
> > thank-you-very-much!
>
> I know, maybe the guy took Brent and I's bitching about 6-ramp parclos to
> heart, and thought that we don't like they because they don't work, not
> because they're plain and generic :)  I love cloverstacks though.  But
those
> damn Hockey Stick (as the MTO calls them) interchanges have -got to go- !
>
> > Anyone who thinks that the following Michigan interchange
> > configuration is logical and worthy of such braggary is smoking the
> > same cheap garbage that the original freeway designer in the 1960s
> > must have been smoking!! To enter Southbound I-75 from the Ambassador
> > Bridge, you have to travel North on a badly-signed side-street, avoid
> > the on-ramp for I-75 North (which is a left hand exit, I might add!),
> > do a U-turn across a bridge over I-75 via two left turns, follow
> > another side street for some distance, and then enter I-75 via a
> > horribly signed on-ramp. To crown the experience of the I-75 on-ramps,
> > all of this nonsense is located in one of the most "charming" urban
> > neighbourhoods in the US. Any thoughts? Or rebuttals?
>
> Oh yeah no doubt about that.  The situation in Buffalo with the Peace
Bridge
> is similar, and Buffalo is, again, not all that great of a place to be
> driving around looking for an onramp.  We should be thankful we live in
> Canada, because I have yet to see 'slums' in Toronto like I have in some
> parts of the southern United States.

Toronto has some of its "areas" but you are right--it is a lot better than
many big US cities.  And I did feel safe walking around there at night.  But
tearing down freeways?  Come on.  Tearing down the Gardiner is going to put
that much more pressure on ON-401.


>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> canroads-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

> Ha!! Considering that Ontario is home to some of the busiest freeways
> in the world, I think Ontario's interchange designs are okay overall,
> thank-you-very-much!

I know, maybe the guy took Brent and I's bitching about 6-ramp parclos to
heart, and thought that we don't like they because they don't work, not
because they're plain and generic :)  I love cloverstacks though.  But those
damn Hockey Stick (as the MTO calls them) interchanges have -got to go- !

> Anyone who thinks that the following Michigan interchange
> configuration is logical and worthy of such braggary is smoking the
> same cheap garbage that the original freeway designer in the 1960s
> must have been smoking!! To enter Southbound I-75 from the Ambassador
> Bridge, you have to travel North on a badly-signed side-street, avoid
> the on-ramp for I-75 North (which is a left hand exit, I might add!),
> do a U-turn across a bridge over I-75 via two left turns, follow
> another side street for some distance, and then enter I-75 via a
> horribly signed on-ramp. To crown the experience of the I-75 on-ramps,
> all of this nonsense is located in one of the most "charming" urban
> neighbourhoods in the US. Any thoughts? Or rebuttals?

Oh yeah no doubt about that.  The situation in Buffalo with the Peace Bridge
is similar, and Buffalo is, again, not all that great of a place to be
driving around looking for an onramp.  We should be thankful we live in
Canada, because I have yet to see 'slums' in Toronto like I have in some
parts of the southern United States.

> As far as I can remember, it is a mixture between an earth berm
> elevation and a concrete box style elevation. It is not elevated like
> the Gardiner with ugly concrete legs every 20 meters.

That's what I thought, similar to parts of the QEW through St. Catharines,
except where the QEW is only elecated for overpasses, the 417 stays
elevated.  Something they should have done with the QEW in St. Catharines to
begin with!

> I think some portions of the E.C. Rowe and the LINC that are
> depressed. There is a short bit of Hwy 86 (Conestaga Parkway) in
> Waterloo that is depressed, as well as a small bit on the short Hwy 8
> connector freeway through South Kitchener.

You know, for some reason I thought the E.C. Row was depressed (There's no E
on the end, hehe).  That's very interesting.

> > Ontario still does not know how
> > to build proper interchanges.

Ha!! Considering that Ontario is home to some of the busiest freeways
in the world, I think Ontario's interchange designs are okay overall,
thank-you-very-much!

> > Perhaps Ontario MTO and you fellow Canadian roadgeeks would do
yourselves a
> > favor and take an excursion down to Michigan to get educated on
how roads
> > are engineered.

I only have to offer one example in Michigan to blow this guy's
statement away as being totally unfounded!!! The Ambassador Bridge -
The on-ramps to I-75 South.

Anyone who thinks that the following Michigan interchange
configuration is logical and worthy of such braggary is smoking the
same cheap garbage that the original freeway designer in the 1960s
must have been smoking!! To enter Southbound I-75 from the Ambassador
Bridge, you have to travel North on a badly-signed side-street, avoid
the on-ramp for I-75 North (which is a left hand exit, I might add!),
do a U-turn across a bridge over I-75 via two left turns, follow
another side street for some distance, and then enter I-75 via a
horribly signed on-ramp. To crown the experience of the I-75 on-ramps,
all of this nonsense is located in one of the most "charming" urban
neighbourhoods in the US. Any thoughts? Or rebuttals?


Cameron

> Is the 417 an elevated-on-earth freeway through Ottawa?  I can never
>seem to remember if it is or not.

As far as I can remember, it is a mixture between an earth berm
elevation and a concrete box style elevation. It is not elevated like
the Gardiner with ugly concrete legs every 20 meters.

>are there any other depressed
>freeways in Ontario besides the 406?

I think some portions of the E.C. Rowe and the LINC that are
depressed. There is a short bit of Hwy 86 (Conestaga Parkway) in
Waterloo that is depressed, as well as a small bit on the short Hwy 8
connector freeway through South Kitchener.

Cameron

>From: Brent Hooton <bjhtn@...>
>Reply-To: canroads@egroups.com
>To: canroads@egroups.com
>Subject: [canroads] So who all is here, anyways?
>Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:58:26 -0800 (PST)
>
>I'd be curious to know who's signed up for canroads...
>how big of an m.t.r. crossover there is.  (Roll
>call...)
>
>Brent
>

You can see the list of members at http://www.egroups.com/members/canroads.

J.P. Kirby
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

> Or New York, on NY-190I! :)  As I said, there's
> definitely a difference when you cross the border,
> particularly at the Niagara River (there's a "teaser"
> hint at the approach to the Queenston-Lewiston bridge
> on the 405, where the standards change, which leads me
> to believe that MTO had less of a hand in designing
> this segment).

Definitly!  Everything about the 405 is different, even the height of the
jersey barriers!  Seems that the Niagara Region has such diverse freeways.
The vintage QEW, the low-standard 405 and the 406 which is nothing at all
like anything else in Ontario - probably the only freeway in Ontario that
doesn't have a single 6-ramp parclo!  :)  In fact, I've been starting to
wonder if the 406 was the testbed for some new designer at the MTO who was
eventually fired or kicked out for using such radical and unproven ideas
such as the Single Point Urban Interchange :)

Oh, and while I'm here, I've got a few questions to ask...

Is the 417 an elevated-on-earth freeway through Ottawa?  I can never seem to
remember if it is or not.  And are there any other depressed freeways in
Ontario besides the 406?  Some interest in that has been sparked :)  I know
the planned-but-killed Richview Expressway in Toronto was to be depressed,
but I don't know of any other freeways in Ontario that actually exist that
are.

Take care.

I'd be curious to know who's signed up for canroads...
how big of an m.t.r. crossover there is.  (Roll
call...)

Brent

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

--- Snickerdo <snickerdo@...> wrote: > I received
this as a private email today from the
> guy who seems to hate
> Ontario roads and signage because we aren't clones
> of the United States.
> Anyone else have some comments on this, I'd love to
> see what you all think
> :)  I would love to know where he gets off saying
> Ontario doesn't build
> proper interchanges, considering we don't have a
> single full cloverleaf left
> that I can think of.  Despite what Brent and I may
> think about them, 6-ramp
> parclos -work well- :)

Yeah... a little *too* well...  I don't have any
problem with the operational characteristics of
parclos really; back in my youth when I was a growing
roadgeek, I even liked them a lot.  Back then I
concentrated mostly on local highways, though, and the
Mississauga QEW then featured only two parclos out of
6 total interchanges.  It's just when you see them so
darn much, the roadgeeking is so darn uninteresting!
Compare the QEW through Oakville with the QEW through
Burlington, where you have 3 "Line"s in a row, all
parclos (on a straight-as-an-arrow highway).

And there are a few cloverleafs left in Ontario -- at
least one on the 401 (401/4 west of London), at least
one on the 400 (400/88, I believe), and definitely at
least one on the QEW (how could you forget the Port
Credit cloverleaf at Hwy. 10?), even if most of them
have been converted to parclos and diamonds.

There is a definite change in standards when you cross
the border (either the ON/US border, or the ON/PQ
border).  Not so much the case with today's
construction, but if you look at construction done,
say, in the 1960's, you notice a difference in the
ramps in particular.  As well, someone mentioned
already the fact that there's very few variable-width
medians in Ontario; the carriageways are almost always
designed joined at the hip, whereas they're often
designed independantly of each other in the States.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "GA is Not On My Mind"
> <GAisNotOnMyMind@...>
> To: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:48 PM
> Subject: Re: I-75 Cincinnati-Toronto
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>

> > No, Americans regard Canadians as color-blind.

This statement has nothing to do with signage
standards!

> Signage is crap in
> > Ontario as it is, but other provinces tend to be
> better.

I could accept this opinion if GAisNotOnMyMind
provided examples of what signs were crap, but I don't
feel you can make a blanket statement such as that.
There are certain things that could definitely be
improved (e.g., size of shields, especially the 407
ones), but the new BGS design is quite good (with the
double arrows for the 2-lane exits).

   Ontario still
> does
> > not know how
> > to build proper interchanges.

The "still does" is the problem with this statement.
If anything, the problem with Ontario interchanges is
that they're now designed to be *too* good -- e.g.,
the parclos everywhere for uniformity, the
recently-built 407 stacks where you don't have to take
your foot off the gas on the ramps but that eat up
enormous amounts of land, etc.

> > Perhaps Ontario MTO and you fellow Canadian
> roadgeeks would do yourselves
> a
> > favor and take an excursion down to Michigan to
> get educated on how roads
> > are engineered.

Or New York, on NY-190I! :)  As I said, there's
definitely a difference when you cross the border,
particularly at the Niagara River (there's a "teaser"
hint at the approach to the Queenston-Lewiston bridge
on the 405, where the standards change, which leads me
to believe that MTO had less of a hand in designing
this segment).

Brent

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

> Remember, I am American.  While Ontario signage may be different than in
> the U.S. (lack of the word "EXIT" on exit tabs, but you can point to the
> whole bilingual dilemma for that I guess), it is certainly not bad from
> what I've seen.  Proper interchanges is what they don't build in New York
> City (like you have to go on city streets to get from I-495 to I-678,
> etc).  It's more like there are sets of different philosophies between
> different states and provinces.  I'm not a fan of the gravel shoulders
> used on the 400-series of Ontario expressways (what can I say, I am a New
> Yorker), but that it certainly does not make MTO any worse.  Once again, I
> stress difference in philosophy.

I know you are :)  I didn't mean anything mean by that, it's just the fact
that some Americans (I stress the word _some_) think that if something isn't
identical to something in the US then it must automaticly suck.  I find that
annoying, and that person fit perfectly into that sterotype.  Shame.

I've actually been thinking alot about the gravel shoulders, and the only
thing I can come up with as to why they're gravel on top (if you take a
closer look you'll see that they're still paved about two inches below the
road surface) is for drainage.  I don't exactly know how or why, but it
might allow the roads to dry off quicker or something like that.  I think
even the 407 (by far the best freeway I've ever seen) has gravel shoulders.

Remember, I am American.  While Ontario signage may be different than in
the U.S. (lack of the word "EXIT" on exit tabs, but you can point to the
whole bilingual dilemma for that I guess), it is certainly not bad from
what I've seen.  Proper interchanges is what they don't build in New York
City (like you have to go on city streets to get from I-495 to I-678,
etc).  It's more like there are sets of different philosophies between
different states and provinces.  I'm not a fan of the gravel shoulders
used on the 400-series of Ontario expressways (what can I say, I am a New
Yorker), but that it certainly does not make MTO any worse.  Once again, I
stress difference in philosophy.

=Douglas Kerr (dkerr1@...)=
http://members.xoom.com/dougtone
a.k.a. Dougtone- AOL IM . ICQ#- 947029

On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Snickerdo wrote:

> I received this as a private email today from the guy who seems to hate
> Ontario roads and signage because we aren't clones of the United States.
> Anyone else have some comments on this, I'd love to see what you all think
> :)  I would love to know where he gets off saying Ontario doesn't build
> proper interchanges, considering we don't have a single full cloverleaf left
> that I can think of.  Despite what Brent and I may think about them, 6-ramp
> parclos -work well- :)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "GA is Not On My Mind" <GAisNotOnMyMind@...>
> To: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:48 PM
> Subject: Re: I-75 Cincinnati-Toronto
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
> > Newsgroups: misc.transport.road
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:14 AM
> > Subject: Re: I-75 Cincinnati-Toronto
> >
> >
> > > > Hehe.  Personally, I prefer the European blue on white signage....
> > >
> > > As do I, but slightly darker like what is used on the 407 and the
> > collector
> > > lanes of the 400, 427 and 401.  I wouldn't mind seeing ALL of Ontario go
> > > blue, just to piss off Americans who will automaticly think our signage
> > > sucks because it isn't the same colour as the US signs :)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No, Americans regard Canadians as color-blind.  Signage is crap in
> > Ontario as it is, but other provinces tend to be better.  Ontario still
> does
> > not know how
> > to build proper interchanges.
> >
> > Perhaps Ontario MTO and you fellow Canadian roadgeeks would do yourselves
> a
> > favor and take an excursion down to Michigan to get educated on how roads
> > are engineered.
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> canroads-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

I received this as a private email today from the guy who seems to hate
Ontario roads and signage because we aren't clones of the United States.
Anyone else have some comments on this, I'd love to see what you all think
:)  I would love to know where he gets off saying Ontario doesn't build
proper interchanges, considering we don't have a single full cloverleaf left
that I can think of.  Despite what Brent and I may think about them, 6-ramp
parclos -work well- :)


----- Original Message -----
From: "GA is Not On My Mind" <GAisNotOnMyMind@...>
To: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: I-75 Cincinnati-Toronto


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
> Newsgroups: misc.transport.road
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: I-75 Cincinnati-Toronto
>
>
> > > Hehe.  Personally, I prefer the European blue on white signage....
> >
> > As do I, but slightly darker like what is used on the 407 and the
> collector
> > lanes of the 400, 427 and 401.  I wouldn't mind seeing ALL of Ontario go
> > blue, just to piss off Americans who will automaticly think our signage
> > sucks because it isn't the same colour as the US signs :)
> >
> >
>
> No, Americans regard Canadians as color-blind.  Signage is crap in
> Ontario as it is, but other provinces tend to be better.  Ontario still
does
> not know how
> to build proper interchanges.
>
> Perhaps Ontario MTO and you fellow Canadian roadgeeks would do yourselves
a
> favor and take an excursion down to Michigan to get educated on how roads
> are engineered.
>
>

--- Snickerdo <snickerdo@...> wrote:

> Toronto is the exception, there are some cities
> (like St. Catharines and
> Burlington) that would have residents begging on
> their hands and knees in
> front David Turnbull to built new or expand current
> freeways.  Toronto just
> seems to have this anti-car sentiment

Cars as a base for transportation don't work as well
in Toronto as they do in smaller cities (e.g.,
Hamilton, St. Catharines etc.)  I don't blame Toronto
residents for not wanting additional freeways (and
thus additional cars) in the city, particularly within
the old city of Toronto!  Any new roads here to
"alleviate" traffic would now instead just fill up.  I
don't think this is as big a problem in other areas
with smaller and less dense central areas; for
example, were Hamilton to build the East-West Freeway
today, I believe it would still function fairly well,
even for servicing downtown (although the downtown
interchange configuration planned in '63 might be in
trouble).

, they don't
> seem to understand that
> more then just people who live in Toronto work
> there, and not all of them
> are willing or can take GO.

It depends on your job.  If you work in an office all
day downtown, there should be no reason to have to
drive to work.

Brent

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

> GO?  TTC?  What are those?

GO Transit = Government of Ontario Transit, runs a fleet of shuttle busses
and heavy rail transit between Toronto and the suburbs.  Toronto doesn't pay
a dime for it, just the regions surrounding Toronto.
TTC = Toronto Transit Commission, runs the busses, street cars and subways
within the city of Toronto itself.  Toronto wants the suburbs to pay for
this too, even though they don't service the suburbs.  Their justification
is that people drive into Toronto, park there car somewhere near the 401 and
then take the TTC to work.  Gee, I thought that's what fares were for.

> Does Ontario have any kind of long term plan for its highway system
(besides
> downloading all of them)?

Yes, there are a few new freeways on the books.  The 412 in Durham, a
407-to-401 connector in Durham, another north/south freeway in York, a
Bradford freeway bypass connecting the 400 and 404, a Barrie freeway bypass.
There are also extensions planned such as the 400 to Sudbury, the 11
Expressway to North Bay, the 417 to Pembrooke, the 406 to Port Colborne,
finishing the 407, etc.  Those plans aren't bad, in fact they're quite good.
It's in Toronto itself and Southwestern Ontario that concerns me.

> AAARRGGGH.  Yes they are making a big mistake.  I thought there was some
> discussion of an underground.  Is that totally dead, especially
considering
> that if Toronto got the 2008 Olympics they would be under pressure to
> improve their freeways?

This should have been the sole reason for Ontario to keep the Gardiner on
the provincial books.  Now that has Toronto has control of it they can do
whatever they damn well please.

> Hmmm...I have heard a lot of complaints about how the provinces cannot
> depend on the federal government for road funding.  Has this changed or
are
> the complaints overdone?

Overdone.  In most cases the provinces aren't willing to pay for half of the
project themselves.

> Ontario--The "California" of Canada--as far as roads go.

Only place in Canada that even comes close to the US is Quebec, and soon
Alberta will.  Ontario seems to have a lot of freeways running between
cities, but not in or around them.  Oposite of the USA, which seems to have
zillions within cities and not as many running between them.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
To: <canroads@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [canroads] Saskatchewan Highways


> > Too bad.  Because I think that the freeways that Toronto, Hamilton, and
> the
> > others have are cool and add to Toronto's character.  I especially like
> the
> > Express/Collector setup on the 401 and think that this should be the
model
> > for freeway widenings in the US.  What forethought to reserve such a
wide
> > ROW.
>
> Toronto is the exception, there are some cities (like St. Catharines and
> Burlington) that would have residents begging on their hands and knees in
> front David Turnbull to built new or expand current freeways.  Toronto
just
> seems to have this anti-car sentiment, they don't seem to understand that
> more then just people who live in Toronto work there, and not all of them
> are willing or can take GO.  Toronto is now even trying to force GTA
cities
> to pay for the TTC!  No way, they can pay for it themselves.

GO?  TTC?  What are those?


>
> > I thought Superbuild was supposed to take care of all of this but
progress
> > is slow.
>
> Well, better then what we had under the NDP, but nowhere near as good as
the
> west and Nova Scotia.  I think governments on the municipal level should
> take matters into their own hands.  What would stop the Regional
Government
> here in Niagara to finish the 406 and 420?  I'm sure the Provincial
> Government would -love- to see them say we'll pay for half of it or
> something like that.  If it's so vital to Niagara why aren't -we- willing
to
> pay for it ourselves?  Considering how bad the two-lane section of the 406
> is, I'm sure many people with me would agree.

Does Ontario have any kind of long term plan for its highway system (besides
downloading all of them)?


>
> > BTW, any news on the Gardener (I think) ON-2?  Tear down, underground,
> etc.
> > etc.?  Any talk of new freeways there?  Its too bad that it took ETR
> > although personally I see it as better than nothing.
>
> The Gardiner was downloaded to Toronto (as was a small section of the QEW
> east of the 427) and is now 100% maintained by the city of Toronto, they
can
> do whatever they want with it now.  And they did, the leg of the Gardiner
> east of the DVP is being torn down, and even though many of us roadgeeks
> will kick and scream like a baby when this happens, probably the entire
> elevated section will be coming down and replaced with a widened Lakeshore
> Blvd in the next little while.  Toronto is digging their own grave, but I
> guess that's a good thing for us cities on the outside :)

AAARRGGGH.  Yes they are making a big mistake.  I thought there was some
discussion of an underground.  Is that totally dead, especially considering
that if Toronto got the 2008 Olympics they would be under pressure to
improve their freeways?


>
> > I still think that Canada needs to have federal involvement so as to
build
> a
> > comprehensive national system instead of each province just piecemealing
> it.
>
> There already is federal involvment, something along the lines of 50/50 on
> major routes.  Some of the major routes that aren't part of the TCH but
are
> still on the federal books include the 401, 400 and QEW in Ontario and 101
> in Nova Scotia.  The Federal government even offered to twin Highway 101
in
> Nova Scotia, as long as they put up half the cash for it.

Hmmm...I have heard a lot of complaints about how the provinces cannot
depend on the federal government for road funding.  Has this changed or are
the complaints overdone?

>
> > I am really impressed with the Atlantic Provinces.
>
> As am I, and I'm disgusted with my own province.

Ontario--The "California" of Canada--as far as roads go.


>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> canroads-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

> Too bad.  Because I think that the freeways that Toronto, Hamilton, and
the
> others have are cool and add to Toronto's character.  I especially like
the
> Express/Collector setup on the 401 and think that this should be the model
> for freeway widenings in the US.  What forethought to reserve such a wide
> ROW.

Toronto is the exception, there are some cities (like St. Catharines and
Burlington) that would have residents begging on their hands and knees in
front David Turnbull to built new or expand current freeways.  Toronto just
seems to have this anti-car sentiment, they don't seem to understand that
more then just people who live in Toronto work there, and not all of them
are willing or can take GO.  Toronto is now even trying to force GTA cities
to pay for the TTC!  No way, they can pay for it themselves.

> I thought Superbuild was supposed to take care of all of this but progress
> is slow.

Well, better then what we had under the NDP, but nowhere near as good as the
west and Nova Scotia.  I think governments on the municipal level should
take matters into their own hands.  What would stop the Regional Government
here in Niagara to finish the 406 and 420?  I'm sure the Provincial
Government would -love- to see them say we'll pay for half of it or
something like that.  If it's so vital to Niagara why aren't -we- willing to
pay for it ourselves?  Considering how bad the two-lane section of the 406
is, I'm sure many people with me would agree.

> BTW, any news on the Gardener (I think) ON-2?  Tear down, underground,
etc.
> etc.?  Any talk of new freeways there?  Its too bad that it took ETR
> although personally I see it as better than nothing.

The Gardiner was downloaded to Toronto (as was a small section of the QEW
east of the 427) and is now 100% maintained by the city of Toronto, they can
do whatever they want with it now.  And they did, the leg of the Gardiner
east of the DVP is being torn down, and even though many of us roadgeeks
will kick and scream like a baby when this happens, probably the entire
elevated section will be coming down and replaced with a widened Lakeshore
Blvd in the next little while.  Toronto is digging their own grave, but I
guess that's a good thing for us cities on the outside :)

> I still think that Canada needs to have federal involvement so as to build
a
> comprehensive national system instead of each province just piecemealing
it.

There already is federal involvment, something along the lines of 50/50 on
major routes.  Some of the major routes that aren't part of the TCH but are
still on the federal books include the 401, 400 and QEW in Ontario and 101
in Nova Scotia.  The Federal government even offered to twin Highway 101 in
Nova Scotia, as long as they put up half the cash for it.

> I am really impressed with the Atlantic Provinces.

As am I, and I'm disgusted with my own province.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
To: <canroads@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: [canroads] Saskatchewan Highways


> > Does that mean Manitoba has finished its whole portion, including the
very
> > eastern portion just before the Ontario border?  If so, wow!  These
> > provinces work fast.  Any improvements scheduled for CAN-16
(Yellowhead).
> > And what about the annoying 2-lane to 2-lane intersection between SK-11
> and
> > SK-2 that ruins an otherwise wonderful 4-lane divided highway for SK-11?
>
> Very tiny section of two lanes left before the Ontario border, that should
> be very easy to fix up.  I don't know much about the plans for SK 2 and SK
> 11l
>
> And yes, they work VERY fast.  Ontario could lean a thing or two from
them.
> In 10 years Ontario is going to have a decaying freeway network with
> privately-owned and too damn expensive ETRs weaving in and out of them,
all
> centred around a city with 2.5 million people that has NO urban freeways
> (they'll all be torn down by crazy city councilors), while Alberta,
Manatoba
> and yes, even Saskatchewan will have extensive freeway networks that span
> the provinces.  Hell, even New Brunswick will, and Nova Scotia as of right
> now is giving us a run for our money.

Too bad.  Because I think that the freeways that Toronto, Hamilton, and the
others have are cool and add to Toronto's character.  I especially like the
Express/Collector setup on the 401 and think that this should be the model
for freeway widenings in the US.  What forethought to reserve such a wide
ROW.

I thought Superbuild was supposed to take care of all of this but progress
is slow.

BTW, any news on the Gardener (I think) ON-2?  Tear down, underground, etc.
etc.?  Any talk of new freeways there?  Its too bad that it took ETR
although personally I see it as better than nothing.

I still think that Canada needs to have federal involvement so as to build a
comprehensive national system instead of each province just piecemealing it.

I am really impressed with the Atlantic Provinces.



>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> canroads-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

> Does that mean Manitoba has finished its whole portion, including the very
> eastern portion just before the Ontario border?  If so, wow!  These
> provinces work fast.  Any improvements scheduled for CAN-16 (Yellowhead).
> And what about the annoying 2-lane to 2-lane intersection between SK-11
and
> SK-2 that ruins an otherwise wonderful 4-lane divided highway for SK-11?

Very tiny section of two lanes left before the Ontario border, that should
be very easy to fix up.  I don't know much about the plans for SK 2 and SK
11l

And yes, they work VERY fast.  Ontario could lean a thing or two from them.
In 10 years Ontario is going to have a decaying freeway network with
privately-owned and too damn expensive ETRs weaving in and out of them, all
centred around a city with 2.5 million people that has NO urban freeways
(they'll all be torn down by crazy city councilors), while Alberta, Manatoba
and yes, even Saskatchewan will have extensive freeway networks that span
the provinces.  Hell, even New Brunswick will, and Nova Scotia as of right
now is giving us a run for our money.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Snickerdo" <snickerdo@...>
To: <canroads@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: [canroads] Saskatchewan Highways


> > OK, The first official post.  One province that we have left out
> > lately at MTR is Saskatchewan.  Any news on the highways/ring roads
> > in Regina or Saskatoon?  On the CAN-1 or CAN-16 twinning?
>
> Ah... Saskatchewan.  Yes, there's news.  TCH 1 (CAN-1, TCH 1, same thing)
is
> being twinned the entire route.  Most of it is finished except for a
section
> east of Saskatoon and west of Moose Jaw.  Once it's finished the TCH will
be
> four lanes divided all the way from Banff, AB to the Ontario border.  If
BC
> twins the section from Kamloops to the AB border and AB twins the small
> section from Banff to the BC border then the TransCanada will be divided
> from Vancouver all the way to Ontario.
>
> And of course, we all know who -won't- have a fully twinned section of the
> TCH :)

Does that mean Manitoba has finished its whole portion, including the very
eastern portion just before the Ontario border?  If so, wow!  These
provinces work fast.  Any improvements scheduled for CAN-16 (Yellowhead).
And what about the annoying 2-lane to 2-lane intersection between SK-11 and
SK-2 that ruins an otherwise wonderful 4-lane divided highway for SK-11?


>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> canroads-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

> OK, The first official post.  One province that we have left out
> lately at MTR is Saskatchewan.  Any news on the highways/ring roads
> in Regina or Saskatoon?  On the CAN-1 or CAN-16 twinning?

Ah... Saskatchewan.  Yes, there's news.  TCH 1 (CAN-1, TCH 1, same thing) is
being twinned the entire route.  Most of it is finished except for a section
east of Saskatoon and west of Moose Jaw.  Once it's finished the TCH will be
four lanes divided all the way from Banff, AB to the Ontario border.  If BC
twins the section from Kamloops to the AB border and AB twins the small
section from Banff to the BC border then the TransCanada will be divided
from Vancouver all the way to Ontario.

And of course, we all know who -won't- have a fully twinned section of the
TCH :)

OK, The first official post.  One province that we have left out
lately at MTR is Saskatchewan.  Any news on the highways/ring roads
in Regina or Saskatoon?  On the CAN-1 or CAN-16 twinning?