[Haljackey]

The 404 is kinda neat as I consider it to be Ontario's only 'commuter highway'.

Other 400-series highways serve a number of trips- be it pleasure, business, trucking and/or commuting. The 404 is mainly tied to a commuting purposes as it was (originally) just a way to get people from the Toronto suburbs and Newmarket to downtown for work.

As a result I'd expect HOV lanes would work better on this highway vs others since there are probably a lot of trips that could benefit from this.

As the 404 gets extended it will start to become more of a tourism highway, especially north of Newmarket.

 

[nfitz]

The section in question is north of Gravenhurst, north of where any 404 extension would tie in.

The alignment north of Gravenhurst seemed very good to me. I'd have thought they could have dealt with issues with some slip roads.

Which section are they thinking of rerouting? I was thinking more south of where 404 might one day rejoin - presumably (and I'm guessing here) somewhere around Severn Bridge. Or are you thinking further north - I don't think I've ever been past Trout Bridge.

A 404 running to North Bay makes a lot of sense. Having two freeways running north from Toronto and giving each of the two cities along Highway 17 north of it their own freeway link to it is a lot more sensical than having the corridors converge south of Barrie.

I think the 404 might even become the predominant route as it runs straight into downtown Toronto, avoids Barrie, and is more accessible from Aurora and Newmarket as well as the areas near Yonge/Bayview in Toronto where more of the wealthy cottage crowd lives.

I 100% agree. Last time I came back that way on a Sunday (summer 2019, pre-covid), I tried cutting down the 169 from Washago, and then the 48/12 across to the top of the 404. The congestion, etc., was so not worth it. Spent forever just trying to make a left turn somewhere (my gosh ... if you don't want to put a traffic light in where two major roads meet, what about a rounabout!). And another long delay at a railway crossing. And then much more traffic than I expected on 12 (48 was though ... which also surprised me).

I wonder what it's like in rush hour in the morning.

 

[gweed123]

The 404 is kinda neat as I consider it to be Ontario's only 'commuter highway'.

Other 400-series highways serve a number of trips- be it pleasure, business, trucking and/or commuting. The 404 is mainly tied to a commuting purposes as it was (originally) just a way to get people from the Toronto suburbs and Newmarket to downtown for work.

As a result I'd expect HOV lanes would work better on this highway vs others since there are probably a lot of trips that could benefit from this.

As the 404 gets extended it will start to become more of a tourism highway, especially north of Newmarket.

The 410 serves largely the same purpose, but I agree with the general idea. The dynamics of the 404 will definitely change as it gets extended northwards, as it becomes a more effective bypass of the 400.

 

[PinkLucy]

That’s exactly what we use it for, to avoid the 400 when heading up Halliburton way.

 

[Northern Light]

I meant the part further north in Aurora and Newmarket. Hillier and curvier, grassed median in rural sections, and passing by urban areas. Overall
better aesthetics:

View attachment 299734

Hope that helps you get over your snarkiness.

The snark wasn't intended as personal; but was aimed at an idea I find peculiar (highway as 'cool')

The photo doesn't really change my take any.

The non-highway in that photo has some scenic value; a value that would be greater without the highway.

I can't find it cool that a highway bisected some nice clumps of forest/wildlife habitat; that only makes me sad.

PS, I am a car owner; and I do drive on highways from time to time.

I simply find them utilitarian; and their impacts on their surrounding regrettable.

As such I prefer to see as few as possible, with as much mitigation as is practical.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Tell Feds to stop Ford’s highway fast-track​

From link.

The Ford government is trying to fast-track two new massive highways, the 413 GTA West and the Bradford Bypass Holland Marsh Highway without full environmental assessments.

These new highways would cost billions of dollars and have devastating impacts on forests, farms, wetlands, rivers and communities.

The federal minister of the environment has the ability to step in and do their own environmental assessment. If the Ontario government won’t protect our environment, join us in calling on the federal government to intervene.

Your email will go to Federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Jonathan Wilkinson, your MP and MPP and our Ontario Campaigner Katie Krelove.

 

[Haljackey]

The 410 serves largely the same purpose, but I agree with the general idea. The dynamics of the 404 will definitely change as it gets extended northwards, as it becomes a more effective bypass of the 400.

The 410 serves a lot more trucking as Brampton has a lot of manufacturing and warehousing. It's also used more by travelers to get to places like Collingwood via Highway 10.

Also the 404 almost directly dumps you into downtown by following one road (if you consider DVP/404 one highway). To get downtown from the 410, you'll need to interchange with the 401, then the 427, then the Gardiner.

It's also interesting comparing Toronto to cities in the US with similar populations. They have lots of commuter highways that feed you downtown like Chicago and Houston. That encourages sprawl and bedroom communities which is very evident when you look at the sheer size of their metropolitan areas.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The 410 serves a lot more trucking as Brampton has a lot of manufacturing and warehousing. It's also used more by travelers to get to places like Collingwood via Highway 10.

Also the 404 almost directly dumps you into downtown by following one road (if you consider DVP/404 one highway). To get downtown from the 410, you'll need to interchange with the 401, then the 427, then the Gardiner.

It's also interesting comparing Toronto to cities in the US with similar populations. They have lots of commuter highways that feed you downtown like Chicago and Houston. That encourages sprawl and bedroom communities which is very evident when you look at the sheer size of their metropolitan areas.

The qew/gardiner then could also be seen as a commuter highway as it also dumps you right downtown. However the qew also serves to connect with the US via niagara falls (as well as tourism for the nf region). Where a lot of truck traffic travels the 401 via windsor/London.

Regarding us cities of comparble sizes (specifically chicago) I think you will find a far better developed commuter/regional and inter city rail network. I recall reading a few years ago that some people were living Milwaukee and commuting by rail to jobs in Chicago. The approximate equivalent to that in Toronto would be Peterborough in the east and London in the west

 

[afransen]

The qew/gardiner then could also be seen as a commuter highway as it also dumps you right downtown. However the qew also serves to connect with the US via niagara falls (as well as tourism for the nf region). Where a lot of truck traffic travels the 401 via windsor/London.

Regarding us cities of comparble sizes (specifically chicago) I think you will find a far better developed commuter/regional and inter city rail network. I recall reading a few years ago that some people were living Milwaukee and commuting by rail to jobs in Chicago. The approximate equivalent to that in Toronto would be Peterborough in the east and London in the west

Gardiner is pretty heavily used to serve the core of the city with deliveries and services. Without it you would have high truck traffic on arterials.

 

[afransen]

Heavily used is not that accurate. Yes, truck traffic predominately uses the Gardiner, but it is only 3.5-6% of all vehicle traffic on the Gardiner. Roughly 400-500 trucks per hour at peak. About 150-200 use Lakeshore Boulevard. That amount of traffic can be accommodated on arterials. It's what cities outside of North America are able to manage (see Paris and London and their lack of highways through the core of the city).

See page 30 of the document below

https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm/connect/waterfront/658d8637-455c-40e0-8064-67c8da4bdc7f/Appendix+P+-+Goods+Movement+Study+Report+2015-05-01_0.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=658d8637-455c-40e0-8064-67c8da4bdc7f

Does it include service vehicles (white van man)?

 

[Transportfan]

The non-highway in that photo has some scenic value; a value that would be greater without the highway

I'm obviously referring to one highway versus another.

 

[lenaitch]

The alignment north of Gravenhurst seemed very good to me. I'd have thought they could have dealt with issues with some slip roads.

Which section are they thinking of rerouting? I was thinking more south of where 404 might one day rejoin - presumably (and I'm guessing here) somewhere around Severn Bridge. Or are you thinking further north - I don't think I've ever been past Trout Bridge.

I 100% agree. Last time I came back that way on a Sunday (summer 2019, pre-covid), I tried cutting down the 169 from Washago, and then the 48/12 across to the top of the 404. The congestion, etc., was so not worth it. Spent forever just trying to make a left turn somewhere (my gosh ... if you don't want to put a traffic light in where two major roads meet, what about a rounabout!). And another long delay at a railway crossing. And then much more traffic than I expected on 12 (48 was though ... which also surprised me).

I wonder what it's like in rush hour in the morning.

If you are thinking of the 169/12 junction, I believe they are planning a roundabout there (or a signalized intersection but I'm pretty sure it's the former).

Railway delays are relatively sporadic and would be big bucks to separate. Unfortunately, Hwy 12 crosses the CN Bala sub three times in short succession. The most northerly one (near 169/12) would be complicated by that intersection; the one in Brechin is right in town. The most southernly one would be relatively simple to do. On summer weekends, Hwy 12 gets a lot of vacation traffic fed in from Hwy 7. It always surprises me that regular 'weekend warriors' haven't scoped out alternatives. When I used to drive for the airport shuttle, we wouldn't touch Hwy 400 on summer weekends. There are all sorts of paved alternatives.

 

[nfitz]

If you are thinking of the 169/12 junction, I believe they are planning a roundabout there (or a signalized intersection but I'm pretty sure it's the former).

Quite possibly. I don't drive that way frequently, and normally have enough sense than to avoid coming back on Sunday evenings.

Not sure I'd be good at cottaging.

 

[lenaitch]

Quite possibly. I don't drive that way frequently, and normally have enough sense than to avoid coming back on Sunday evenings.

Not sure I'd be good at cottaging.

I found this. I'm pretty sure it wasn't there in 2019, haven't been that way since before the plague and when I go to Haliburton I use a different route so don't know where it stands.

Roundabout coming to busy intersection

'Devil is in the details,' mayor says of roundabout at Hwy. 12 and County Rd. 169

www.orilliamatters.com

I'm with you on cottaging. We used to go to my wife's family cottage. To me they're just another place to work on, and don't get me started on shared ownership with siblings.

 

[Northern Light]

I found this. I'm pretty sure it wasn't there in 2019, haven't been that way since before the plague and when I go to Haliburton I use a different route so don't know where it stands.

Roundabout coming to busy intersection

'Devil is in the details,' mayor says of roundabout at Hwy. 12 and County Rd. 169

www.orilliamatters.com

I'm with you on cottaging. We used to go to my wife's family cottage. To me they're just another place to work on, and don't get me started on shared ownership with siblings.

I think cottaging is a fine idea........( i don't own one)............if.......you keep 2 criteria in mind.

The first is that the commute is imaginable in one fashion or another...........such that one can spend a reasonable amount of time up at one to justify the effort and expense.

In Ontario, and I suspect most of Canada, workers enjoy relatively little vacation time ( 2 weeks is the minimum everywhere but Sask, where its 3); the average across age groups is probably 3'ish............

That's not a lot of time to spent at a cottage..........and as such, its otherwise a weekend retreat which requires that the Friday/Sunday commutes to same not be entirely abysmal; which they tend to be in the GTA.

****

The second, is cost-control on the cottage. Maintaining a second property, particularly one that you will, at best, get 2 months of use out of in a full year (I'm talking total days, not seasons) simply doesn't justify the features of a second home.

When I was younger, cottages were near ubiquitous; but they also tended to lack indoor plumbing..........

My uncles had nice cottages beside one another {40M apart) on a shared lot about 100M of Lake frontage, when I was little.

Everyone in the extended family on mom's side came up semi-regularly unless they had their own cottage.

Which many did.

But....there was no heat, no a/c, and if you needed to go............there was an outhouse.

They were nice cottages, in so far as you could smell the pine and cedar of which they were made, stained natural on the inside........

Painted white outside, set back 30m from the Lake, with docks and fire pits.

They did have electricity, but no cable (or internet needless to say.......)

They were cheap to buy, cheap to maintain.....the only running water was a kitchen sink.................fed from the local lake; .......between the 2 of them, they had ATVs, Snowmobiles and a speed boat, plus fishing gear........

It was a nice experience on the whole............give or take the outhouse.......

But I digress.........the enjoyment of being out in nature was there at a relatively low cost, with a commute of 90 minutes or so.

****

Where commutes routinely exceed 2 hours..........for many, by a factor of 2x or greater..........and where cottage really means second house, with all the attendant expenses and far greater insurance and property tax.......

The wisdom of that for most has probably expired.

But perhaps the solution isn't the end of cottaging............but the end of second homes (or all-season, climate-controlled luxury)..............and the beginning of more reasonable levels of paid vacation......4 weeks + like most of the developed world..........such that people can enjoy a nice retreat, if that suits them.