[Haljackey]

The City and MTO have had extensive discussions on a complete re-work of the Yonge/401 interchange.

Its a very expensive matter, and one the MTO wants the City to foot either all or the majority of the bill for, as the City has been aiming to make Yonge here less hostile to pedestrians/cyclists.

The budget is ~200M

That's good, It's certainly a odd config, especially with Hoggs Hollow and that freeway-like flyover from 401 EB to Yonge NB. A complete rework would give the 401 a chance to get 3 full collector lanes, and those odd turns and pedestrian-hostile areas around the interchange can be addressed too.

 

[Bojaxs]

Now that the province has reclaimed ownership of the highway, maybe Doug Ford will announce the tunneling of the Gardiner? Not sure what would be the point in tunneling the 401.

 

[jje1000]

Now that the province has reclaimed ownership of the highway, maybe Doug Ford will announce the tunneling of the Gardiner? Not sure what would be the point in tunneling the 401.

Ironically Ford is the type of individual who would propose such a concept. The moderate and radical urbanist discussions have moved away to either fixing the public realms under the Gardiner, or demolishing it in its entirety.

 

[Bojaxs]

Ironically Ford is the type of individual who would propose such a concept. The moderate and radical urbanist discussions have moved away to either fixing the public realms under the Gardiner, or demolishing it in its entirety.

Demolishing the Lakeshore E Blvd. ramp has been a complete disaster. The traffic is so bad now under the Gardiner as drivers, coming from the east, now need to go to either Jarvis or Spadina to get on the highway. Essentially increasing the amount of cars in the downtown core.

 

[lenaitch]

I'll disagree. Sheppard, as currently envisioned, builds out as Downsview Park/Sheppard West to McCowan (though I think may end up a bit further east); probably in the late 2030s at the earliest.

A GO line on the 401 would extend at least to Pearson in the west, and intersect GO KW, while heading to Pickering GO in the east, so it covers a larger catchment and more regional trips.

Even where 'duplicating' Sheppard, it would likely have 1/3 the number of stops, and much shorter trip times for those covering extended distances.

There is clearly a great deal of demand in a corridor that is North America's highest volume stretch of freeway at 16-20 lanes of traffic. If GO could, replace even 25% of that demand, the benefits would be enormous.

***

To be clear, I don't expect GO - 401 to happen, at least in the near term; I do expect Sheppard will go first. I just don't think its an inherently bad idea.

One problem with any co-alignment of road and rail that is not baked into the original engineering, in addition to the obvious loss of lanes, is the different grade and radii standards, particularly in a ROW as constrained as the 401 through Toronto. I don't know the hard numbers but I'm not sure rail could handle the current elevation change between, say Islington and Hwy 400 or Leslie - DVP.

Ya right now the best bang for your buck is to widen the bottle-necked stretches. 427 to 409 is top priority for sure, but there are also other weird lane drops in places like the WB collectors at Yonge where you only have 2 lanes to Hogg's Hollow bridge. I'm not saying a entirely new bridge is needed to fix that (although it would help with repair/maintenance if one bridge could be completely shut), but a rework of that interchange could see 3 collectors pushed through.
-You could also simply take out the Yonge to 401 WB ramp entirely and foce traffic to the loop ramp with a left turn. That would not be good for traffic on Yonge but it gets the 401 WB 3 through lanes on the collectors.

Crude imagery of what I mean

.

The Yonge Overpass would also need to be extended out a bit to fit the extra collector lane, or shoulder cannibalized. You could also reduce the radius of the loop and build a new parallel bridge, with merge room for the onramp between the Yonge overpass and Hogg's Hollow bridge.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

-----

Under Allen there are also only 2 EB collector lanes running through. If you cannibalized the shoulder you might be able to fit 3 tight lanes under the Allen to 401 EB express ramp, or that flyover would need a rebuild.

The section I am referring to.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

-----

Fixing these would give you a minimum of 3 collector and 3 express lanes throughout Toronto proper (along with adding them between 427 and 409).

Outside of Toronto limits, It's insanity that the lane drops between Salem and the 412 have not been fixed yet. You go from 5 each way down to 3 just before a major interchange... get those lost lanes extended a tiny bit so they become dedicated exit/entrance lanes for the (now toll free) 412. This is a stupid, easily fixable bottleneck that can snarl traffic for EB traffic for many KMs.
-I know the collector/express system is proposed to expanded to the 412, but this is would work in the interim.

Design changes such as narrow lanes, tighter radii or no shoulders have significant safety implications. It's bad enough in some areas now as it is.

 

[Northern Light]

One problem with any co-alignment of road and rail that is not baked into the original engineering, in addition to the obvious loss of lanes, is the different grade and radii standards, particularly in a ROW as constrained as the 401 through Toronto. I don't know the hard numbers but I'm not sure rail could handle the current elevation change between, say Islington and Hwy 400 or Leslie - DVP.

Some sections may need to make use of trenches and/or embankments to soften grade change. I'm not suggesting that there is no work involved, merely that since the land is publicly owned, and significant portions of ROW could be run on the surface, that there would be cost savings over a completely new corridor, tunneled or elevated; and that there is clearly demand there to serve.

 

[nfitz]

... whereas we have apparently grown by around 800k over the last year according to Doug’s speech ...

About 420,000 in the past year according to the most recent numbers from Stats Can.

800,000 over 1.75 years. I guess Ford rounds down.

 

[innsertnamehere]

To be fair, I think it’s a safe assumption to work with at this time. New York’s population is estimated to have declined by around 630k since 2020, whereas we have apparently grown by around 800k over the last year according to Doug’s speech, so we will very likely eclipse them by the end of the decade.

It’s better to work with the assumption of growth in the future anyway regardless of what happens with the federal government. Ontario assumed that we would experience a population plateau in the early 2010s, planned accordingly, and laid the foundation for many of the problems we are experiencing today.

I really hope to see an increasing amount of this growth and investment directed away from the GTA in the future. The mid-sized cities are gaining momentum and will need more road and transit investment so they can continue their trajectories.

on the contrary, the infrastructure deficits in the GTA are staggering compared to the mid-sized metros in Ontario. London and especially Kitchener have very functional transit systems with little in the way in congestion. The GTA comparatively has insane infrastructure deficits.

 

[innsertnamehere]

About 420,000 in the past year according to the most recent numbers from Stats Can.

800,000 over 1.75 years. I guess Ford rounds down.

Ontario grew by 518,000 from Q4 2022 to Q4 2023 according to the latest estimate. Between Q3 and Q4 2023 however, Ontario grew by 193,000, an annualized rate of 772,000.

The growth hasn't been linear and the latest quarter has a growth rate equal to 800,000 a year.

 

[Northern Light]

About 420,000 in the past year according to the most recent numbers from Stats Can.

800,000 over 1.75 years. I guess Ford rounds down.

This would be the same once proud agency that admitted recently that it had 'missed' or lost track of 1,000,000 people temporarily in the country (TFWs, Foreign Students etc.)

I'm afraid their numbers come with a material asterisk at the moment.

 

[Northern Light]

on the contrary, the infrastructure deficits in the GTA are staggering compared to the mid-sized metros in Ontario. London and especially Kitchener have very functional transit systems with little in the way in congestion. The GTA comparatively has insane infrastructure deficits.

I agree with the above, but I have to say I wasn't reading @ericmacm 's comment as 'don't catch up on the GTA deficit' but rather, purposefully direct more of the growth to those mid-sized cities; and of course, build the supporting infra, in a rather more timely manner than has been the case here.

 

[ericmacm]

I agree with the above, but I have to say I wasn't reading @ericmacm 's comment as 'don't catch up on the GTA deficit' but rather, purposefully direct more of the growth to those mid-sized cities; and of course, build the supporting infra, in a rather more timely manner than has been the case here.

That’s exactly what I meant. The GTA’s infrastructure deficit is obviously a massive issue that needs fixing, but I think part of the solution is to continue to invest in the smaller metros at an increasing rate so they can catch up and be more competitive with the GTA as living options, so less people feel that the GTA is their only option. I believe that if we reduce (but not eliminate) the GTA’s share of population growth, all pressures and deficits impacting the GTA would be much less urgent. Way easier said than done obviously.

I’ve always been under the impression that we would have a healthier situation provincially if we had a couple more cities the size of Ottawa, Edmonton, or Calgary in Ontario. I think we are definitely headed in this direction with Hamilton, KWCG, Windsor, and London (it is especially visible with the new battery plants) and think it’s time for the province to really step on the gas with investing in these places.

 

[Northern Light]

That’s exactly what I meant. The GTA’s infrastructure deficit is obviously a massive issue that needs fixing, but I think part of the solution is to continue to invest in the smaller metros at an increasing rate so they can catch up and be more competitive with the GTA as living options, so less people feel that the GTA is their only option. I believe that if we reduce (but not eliminate) the GTA’s share of population growth, all pressures and deficits impacting the GTA would be much less urgent. Way easier said than done obviously.

I’ve always been under the impression that we would have a healthier situation provincially if we had a couple more cities the size of Ottawa, Edmonton, or Calgary in Ontario. I think we are definitely headed in this direction with Hamilton, KWCG, Windsor, and London (it is especially visible with the new battery plants) and think it’s time for the province to really step on the gas with investing in these places.

Broadly, I can support what you're saying, but with the proviso that there are finite dollars to go around, and the catch-up needed in the GTA, if you could stop all growth tomorrow (not happening) remains large.

Growth in other cities, beyond the organic; is a function of direction of immigration flows to specific places, something we've been reticent to do, and yes, certainly, investing in certain 'hub city' features.

But people writ large won't move to London or K-W in greater numbers simply because we add a medical school, enlarge the airport, and add a smattering of popular destinations, or expand the range of medical services on offer at the local hospital. Though all these can certainly contribute to growth and a city's appeal

I would support many of these types of investments, but I do think its important to make the right argument for them, and it probably isn't a huge shift in either immigration or inner/inter provincial migration, at least in isolation.

We also have to be careful to give weight to other considerations. For example, both London and K-W are reliant on Rivers and/or Ground Water for their water supply and its not clear to me that the rivers/aquifers will support those Cities doubling in size.

 

[Coolibop]

Would the construction of a tolled 401 tunnel not violate the 407ETR agreement? I thought there was something in there about a non-compete clause within X km of their highway. I could very well be mistaken though, or that the 401 is technically outside of that perimeter.

I believe the agreement stated no competing within 1.5km of the 407 but, the contract was uploaded as an image making it difficult to search.

 

[Haljackey]

on the contrary, the infrastructure deficits in the GTA are staggering compared to the mid-sized metros in Ontario. London and especially Kitchener have very functional transit systems with little in the way in congestion. The GTA comparatively has insane infrastructure deficits.

Oh don't worry London's catching up to you. The multi-year budget has no new funding for LTC. The funding increase just is enough to maintain the status quo due to inflation and higher operational costs.

London's half-assed BRT is separate from the LTC funding however, and is encountering huge cost overuns sucking money from elsewhere. Once it's done it needs to be funded properly to be utilized as it was designed which may prove problematic.

This + no freeways or RT + little other transportation infrastructure investment + being Ontario's fastest growing large city is going to choke the city in congestion, and sooner than later.

...but Douggie is going to 6 lane the 401 to Tilbury so we got that going for us... it's apparently what the voters ('the people') want as a top priority for sure .