News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

I imagine it is easier to resurface asphalt on a bridge than the concrete if it begins to wear significantly. Bridges have much longer service life than the road surface.
It also acts a barrier over the concrete and rebar. Depending on the highway, Ontario is now using a rubber-based permeable asphalt top layer that lets water wick away to the lower layer.

I hadn't noticed that Quebec has concrete bridge decks. Concrete doesn't play well with salt and can get polished to the point that you can barely stand on it. some stretches of US Interstates are completely concrete. Some of most annoying m/c rides have been on those, with the mind and body numbing expansion joints. I could be wrong but the last stretch of concrete highway in Ontario is/was Hwy 49 between Picton and the mainland.
 
It also acts a barrier over the concrete and rebar. Depending on the highway, Ontario is now using a rubber-based permeable asphalt top layer that lets water wick away to the lower layer.

I hadn't noticed that Quebec has concrete bridge decks. Concrete doesn't play well with salt and can get polished to the point that you can barely stand on it. some stretches of US Interstates are completely concrete. Some of most annoying m/c rides have been on those, with the mind and body numbing expansion joints. I could be wrong but the last stretch of concrete highway in Ontario is/was Hwy 49 between Picton and the mainland.
I thought part of the 407 was concrete?
 
I thought part of the 407 was concrete?
Newer Ontario Highways typically use concrete surfaces - examples include the 404 North extension, part of the rebuilt 115 are concrete.

The 407 in particular is concrete from Highway 403 all the way to Markham Road (except for bridges, the bridges are paved with Asphalt typically).
 
Newer Ontario Highways typically use concrete surfaces - examples include the 404 North extension, part of the rebuilt 115 are concrete.

The 407 in particular is concrete from Highway 403 all the way to Markham Road (except for bridges, the bridges are paved with Asphalt typically).
I'll take your word for it; I haven't been on 407 in a long while and the 404 extension only once. I was on 115 not that long ago and don't recall the surface.
 
Newer Ontario Highways typically use concrete surfaces - examples include the 404 North extension, part of the rebuilt 115 are concrete.

The 407 in particular is concrete from Highway 403 all the way to Markham Road (except for bridges, the bridges are paved with Asphalt typically).
And it’s not at all concrete through Halton Region, and from Markham Road to the 115. Nor, I believe are the stubby extensions to the 401. That is a considerable distance.
 
GO can definitely help, particularly with tourism-based traffic, as we have seen. Niagara weekend trains have gone a long way to boost travel to Niagara in a way that doesn't effect the QEW.

It's much less useful at getting people from Welland to their job on the Hamilton Mountian, though, for example. And ultimately that is the vast majority of traffic on the corridor. It's why it's important to try to focus employment close to transit as much as possible.

Ultimately demand on the QEW is far too diverse in terms of destination-origin pairs for transit to replace a significant chunk of the traffic.

With border traffic levels at what they are, probably close to 20,000 of those daily cars aren't even originating or ending their trips in Canada, yet alone starting and ending in places served by GO.

The amount of trips on the QEW coming from Downtown Toronto (or within a few Kms of the Lakeshore West GO line) is a small fraction of total demand on the corridor.
RER-ification of LSW alongside full development of the BL[E]AST network would probably make Niagara-Hamilton commutes easier, creating a transfer culture as seen on the TTC. Of course that’s the goal for the whole region, and Niagara is a long ways off by comparison, even merely by geographic distance. So not really gonna focus on this aspect…

The real problem as you’ve said is most trips don’t originate near the QEW at all, and are often going for intercity trips. You’d need a rigorous intercity network or simply better access to the GTHA to seemingly alleviate the highway. The 401 almost seems easier to alleviate because it’s role for localized GTA travel is more easily definable than the QEW past Burlington to Niagara. The area is also further from the core of the region, so it is questionable how many QEW commuters are even heading that way.

I guess my takeaway is that any well-utilized LSW in Niagara would require very robust service patterns into SWO and Toronto for both intercity and interregional trips. You then need to justify non-Toronto oriented rail services, which do not exist anymore here. Not to mention the barrier that is sending frequent rail to Buffalo. Framed this way, it’s no wonder why we’d rather just widen the damn highway first…
 
Last edited:
I've always thought Hwy 413 is misunderstood for what appears to be its actual purpose. All of us know Hwy 401 is very busy, but many seem to forget that many Hwy 401 trips will pass through the GTA, let's say from Exit 320 (Hwy 25) to Exit 418 (Harmony Road) and not actually end in the GTA. The purpose of Hwy 413 I always thought was to get traffic, commercial traffic would be great for this, from points west in Southern Ontario, to points north. With the freeway supposed to be in the greenbelt, shouldn't that be a checkmate from development right there? That is we are not speaking of a sprawl creator, but rather a region bypass.

Think about it, look on Google Maps, and traffic around what I like to call the Molson Interchange (401/427) is almost always in a blood red zone in that stretch, ideally if we can move traffic that's bound for Hwy 400 N off this stretch of Hwy 401, this could free up space on Hwy 401.

The only problem is how there isn't a GTA East Freeway, or rather an extension of Hwy 413 to reach say Hwy 418. I realize such a road would probably be impossible to build now, but this would allow a complete fair bypass around the GTA for traffic heading to points east from points west.

In other words, this is similar to A-30 in the Montreal area, has there been any serious efforts of sprawl since they built that road, I don't think so. I used to often go with my parents to Newfoundland, and using A-30 was a great way to skip the hellish drive on A-40. Now before you tell me A-30 is tolled, remember that A-30 is a reasonable toll and there's but one toll barrier of a fixed price. Driving through Valleyfield, it is also quite easy to bypass this toll. Hwy 407 ETR as we know is tolled using an economic model to keep the traffic moving at all costs, and let's not get into all the unfair charges that 407 ETR puts into the calculation of a toll.
 
Asphalt bridge surfaces are easier to repair/replace unless you want to get to the actual structure- you gotta remove the asphalt first. It's a smoother ride and can expand/contract better with freeze/thaw cycles. Sure the whole bridge experiences that too but the surface is going to experience it the most. Concrete is more rigid.

I don't think there's any wrong answer, just 2 standards on doing things.
Appreciate the response, thanks
 
I've always thought Hwy 413 is misunderstood for what appears to be its actual purpose. All of us know Hwy 401 is very busy, but many seem to forget that many Hwy 401 trips will pass through the GTA, let's say from Exit 320 (Hwy 25) to Exit 418 (Harmony Road) and not actually end in the GTA. The purpose of Hwy 413 I always thought was to get traffic, commercial traffic would be great for this, from points west in Southern Ontario, to points north. With the freeway supposed to be in the greenbelt, shouldn't that be a checkmate from development right there? That is we are not speaking of a sprawl creator, but rather a region bypass.

Think about it, look on Google Maps, and traffic around what I like to call the Molson Interchange (401/427) is almost always in a blood red zone in that stretch, ideally if we can move traffic that's bound for Hwy 400 N off this stretch of Hwy 401, this could free up space on Hwy 401.

The only problem is how there isn't a GTA East Freeway, or rather an extension of Hwy 413 to reach say Hwy 418. I realize such a road would probably be impossible to build now, but this would allow a complete fair bypass around the GTA for traffic heading to points east from points west.

In other words, this is similar to A-30 in the Montreal area, has there been any serious efforts of sprawl since they built that road, I don't think so. I used to often go with my parents to Newfoundland, and using A-30 was a great way to skip the hellish drive on A-40. Now before you tell me A-30 is tolled, remember that A-30 is a reasonable toll and there's but one toll barrier of a fixed price. Driving through Valleyfield, it is also quite easy to bypass this toll. Hwy 407 ETR as we know is tolled using an economic model to keep the traffic moving at all costs, and let's not get into all the unfair charges that 407 ETR puts into the calculation of a toll.
Well the thing is, the 413 isn’t in the greenbelt. This is the lie that detractors have been trying to claim, but I find it’s pretty ineffective because it’s not true. It’s in the whitebelt; sure there are streams it runs over that are protected by the greenbelt, but that’s part and parcel for all new roads in the region. The real issue is the fact that because it isn’t in the greenbelt, this whitebelt land (set aside for future growth) will be quite lucrative and developed quickly- far moreso than it otherwise would be.

This wouldn’t be an issue if the intention wasn’t to stimulate development like this. But it is; the MTO was not dead set on the 413 before the PCs were elected, and it’s been a major platform promise since. The 413 is functionally needed, but not as urgently as this government wants us to believe.
 
Newer Ontario Highways typically use concrete surfaces - examples include the 404 North extension, part of the rebuilt 115 are concrete.

The 407 in particular is concrete from Highway 403 all the way to Markham Road (except for bridges, the bridges are paved with Asphalt typically).
402 from exit 15 -> 25 is concrete from when it was last rebuilt late 90's - early 2000's. This was the last section to be rebuilt - the standard must have changed [or contractor] because everything else was done in asphalt.
 
The 407 east, Ontario’s newest highway, is asphalt as well. Same with the highway 69 twinning stretches.

It depends on concrete and asphalt prices at the time of tender for whether MTO goes with concrete or asphalt from my understanding. Concrete lasts 2-3 times as long as asphalt paving, but is also much more expensive. If it’s more than 2-3 times the cost, MTO goes with asphalt.
 
If we ever built the mid-pen, it should be to replace at least part of the QEW, turning the rest into a road or boulevard- or at least downsizing it dramatically. It is a scar on what is supposed to be extremely valuable farmland, even moreso than what’s atop the escarpment.
Even if we somehow relieved the QEW with another highway, only chance the QEW would be downsized or removed any time in the future would be for a high-value, high-demand infill.
In the late 30s, construction of the Hamilton-Niagara QEW segment between Stoney Creek and Jordan (west of St. Catharines) required the acquisition of farmland totalling 1.4 square km. Even considering additional losses over time (widening, new interchanges, etc) still yields an insignificant land mass.
A few square kilometres of new farmland would certainly never warrant the cost of demolition/revitalization.
 
Even if we somehow relieved the QEW with another highway, only chance the QEW would be downsized or removed any time in the future would be for a high-value, high-demand infill.
In the late 30s, construction of the Hamilton-Niagara QEW segment between Stoney Creek and Jordan (west of St. Catharines) required the acquisition of farmland totalling 1.4 square km. Even considering additional losses over time (widening, new interchanges, etc) still yields an insignificant land mass.
A few square kilometres of new farmland would certainly never warrant the cost of demolition/revitalization.
Well this suggestion did come from a place where redevelopment would be the intention... returning it to farmland is a non-starter. Greenfield land nearby is scarce, and proximity to a better LSW in some far-off future could make it more viable. This would be more of a 'social works' fantasy scenario because there isn't much of a case otherwise... but it would change the vitality of the southern lakefront dramatically by reconnecting the communities straddling the QEW on each side. Of course, it would probably be easier to just cap the highway at pinpoint locations to do that. It is more realistic that demand for lakeside living could result in this someday rather than highway removal in any case.
 

Back
Top