[gweed123]

Just an update on my earlier post about the toll highway, I figured I would make a quick map (really quick, like 20 mins quick) showing what I mean.

What I hope could happen is that the existing 407 ETR deal could be renegotiated, whereby the consortium would be given the billing contract (making it seamless across the entire highway), as well as a portion of the tolls from the rest of the highway in exchange for giving rate setting control of the existing section back to the government. The hope is that the amount would more or less balance out, and it would give the user a better experience.

Also, you'll notice the 407 from the 401 downwards towards the QEW isn't included. As has been mentioned on here before, what I'd like to see is a swap, whereby the consortium would be given control (but not be able to set the rates) of the new section of highway from the 401 into Guelph and Kitchener. The rate would be set by the government, but all tolls on that section would go to them. In exchange, the existing 407 section can be resigned as the 403, as was originally intended.

The tolls on the non-GTA sections would be pretty modest. I'm thinking somewhere in the range of $8-10 to drive from Carleton Place to the East Durham Link. The western section around the north side of London could be more comparable to GTA rates, because it would be used as a commuter highway in addition to inter-urban traffic.

Conversely, the GTA section could just avoid the existing 407 entirely, and take a more northerly route across York Region, before dipping down into Guelph and hooking up with the above-mentioned alignment.

 

[Haljackey]

It's a pipe dream to have a highway parallel the 401 and provide some relief. Many major US highways have parallel routes, and some even exist in Quebec.

-----

Living in London, it can be take up to half an hour to even access the 401 from the north end (which is growing WAY faster than the rest of the city for some reason). The original 402 route was to build it around the city and possibly even connect it with the 401/403 junction in Woodstock, but it was rejected because politicians treated London like a small town instead of the good-sized city it has now become. (Metro area just hit 500,000 but still doesn't have 'regional' status.)

What results is heavy traffic on the north/south arterials to access the 401, with only 2 of them being through roads and only one of those actually connecting with the 401 (Highbury Avenue which has a highway stub just north of the 401).

Some people just say screw it and travel north to Highway 7 and use it to access the 401 via Highway 8 in Kitchener.

 

[Mulder]

It stops when speed limits match the speeds that the highway was designed for. I don't see how lawsuits could possibly be an issue if they did that, as they've done on some of the roads in other provinces. This one, for example. Remember, speed limits are supposed to be the maximum. Someone suing the government because they broke the law and got in an accident because of it wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Besides, if the litigation-happy United States can have highways with speed limits of 80+ mph, then surely it wouldn't be an issue here.

Incorrect. There has been litigation in the past. It's also much easier for someone to lose control going 130 on a highway designed for 130, than going 100 on a highway designed for 130.
Highway's are also designed for ideal dry conditions. Not so much for rain, snow. There is "Driving according to the conditions" , but telling someone that it's ok to drive the design speed all the time and then blaming the driver because he was going the speed limit? There is a factor of safety in over designing roads and highways, it's not just "Let's design it for 130km/h for the future"

 

[Mulder]

Just an update on my earlier post about the toll highway, I figured I would make a quick map (really quick, like 20 mins quick) showing what I mean.

What I hope could happen is that the existing 407 ETR deal could be renegotiated, whereby the consortium would be given the billing contract (making it seamless across the entire highway), as well as a portion of the tolls from the rest of the highway in exchange for giving rate setting control of the existing section back to the government. The hope is that the amount would more or less balance out, and it would give the user a better experience.

Also, you'll notice the 407 from the 401 downwards towards the QEW isn't included. As has been mentioned on here before, what I'd like to see is a swap, whereby the consortium would be given control (but not be able to set the rates) of the new section of highway from the 401 into Guelph and Kitchener. The rate would be set by the government, but all tolls on that section would go to them. In exchange, the existing 407 section can be resigned as the 403, as was originally intended.

The tolls on the non-GTA sections would be pretty modest. I'm thinking somewhere in the range of $8-10 to drive from Carleton Place to the East Durham Link. The western section around the north side of London could be more comparable to GTA rates, because it would be used as a commuter highway in addition to inter-urban traffic.

Conversely, the GTA section could just avoid the existing 407 entirely, and take a more northerly route across York Region, before dipping down into Guelph and hooking up with the above-mentioned alignment.

I hate to bust your bubble, There will never be a freeway portion of Highway 7 between Peterborough and Carlton Place. The terrain would likely make it the most expensive freeway ever built.
You may see something eventually similar to Highway 17 between Petawawa and Mattawa, with lots of clearzone rock cutting and passing lanes. Traffic counts on the 401 between 35/115 and 416 are no where near capacity.

You'd have to see a population of Ontario of at least 30 million for this to be considered.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I think it is more of a pipe dream for him (and me) than anything, but you are correct. The 401 is only around 30,000 AADT, and is getting widened to 6 lanes. it will take a long time for that additional lane to be absorbed and then run over capacity.

 

[MisterF]

^Theres precedent for freeways through the Canadian Shield. The 400 and 11 extensions go through rougher terrain.

Incorrect. There has been litigation in the past. It's also much easier for someone to lose control going 130 on a highway designed for 130, than going 100 on a highway designed for 130.
Highway's are also designed for ideal dry conditions. Not so much for rain, snow. There is "Driving according to the conditions" , but telling someone that it's ok to drive the design speed all the time and then blaming the driver because he was going the speed limit? There is a factor of safety in over designing roads and highways, it's not just "Let's design it for 130km/h for the future"

What litigation? Links please.

What makes Ontario different from other jurisdictions around the world and even here in Canada that allows them to have higher speed limits without the litigation problems you're talking about?

 

[BurlOak]

Incorrect. There has been litigation in the past. It's also much easier for someone to lose control going 130 on a highway designed for 130, than going 100 on a highway designed for 130.
Highway's are also designed for ideal dry conditions. Not so much for rain, snow. There is "Driving according to the conditions" , but telling someone that it's ok to drive the design speed all the time and then blaming the driver because he was going the speed limit? There is a factor of safety in over designing roads and highways, it's not just "Let's design it for 130km/h for the future"

According to the Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Roads;

"In adopting values for the coefficient of friction for minimum stopping sight distance, conditions approaching the worst are assumed, and the values adopted are consistent with the tires in poor condition operating on a pavement in poor condition with a wet surface."

The design speed already includes all the safety factors to handle poor weather conditions and poor tire quality. This is a consistant factor of safety determined by the highway engineer. The reduction from the design speed to the posted speed is determined by politicians, and police. It is arbitrary and its purpose seems to be to collect revenues.

 

[innsertnamehere]

considering they will rarely pull you over below 120km/h, I don't see it for revenue, unless they only want to earn from the 10km/h from the 120 general travel speed to the 130km/h design speed. They love to nab people for doing 10 over on traditional highways for doing 90km/h though. (10km/h over the limit)

I see the artificially low limit more as an indicator of politics than anything, it is the government falling to a few specific lobbying groups and trying to act all responsible and caring. (groups like MADD would likely be strongly opposed to a higher speed limit and would probably be more than happy to adopt 80km/h on all freeways if asked)

 

[Mulder]

^Theres precedent for freeways through the Canadian Shield. The 400 and 11 extensions go through rougher terrain.



What litigation? Links please.

What makes Ontario different from other jurisdictions around the world and even here in Canada that allows them to have higher speed limits without the litigation problems you're talking about?

Well by this logic, we shouldn't be over designing buildings and structures as well. Why design a bridge for a load that will never be reached? Why add a factor of safety in designing roof loads! It doesn't make sense!

I'm not going to dig up my ethics and design standards book for you. Figure it out.

 

[Mulder]

According to the Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Roads;

"In adopting values for the coefficient of friction for minimum stopping sight distance, conditions approaching the worst are assumed, and the values adopted are consistent with the tires in poor condition operating on a pavement in poor condition with a wet surface."

The design speed already includes all the safety factors to handle poor weather conditions and poor tire quality. This is a consistant factor of safety determined by the highway engineer. The reduction from the design speed to the posted speed is determined by politicians, and police. It is arbitrary and its purpose seems to be to collect revenues.

Stopping sight distance is 1 of many factors in Highway design, and, in my experience, the least used/checked.
This is because of 2 reasons
1) rarely are new freeways are built, therefor all sight distance are either to standard, or because no alignment change is being done, nothing will be done
2) In the case of an alignment change, it's usually to adjust a horizontal or vertical curve. Which automatically made the stopping sight distance better.

 

[vz64]

I agree with the sentiments voiced re low HOV enforcement on 404--I have never seen anybody pulled on that stretch despite taking 404 quite often. Appr 6 years ago I have been using 403 HOV lane for commuting (sharing a ride with my wife) and almost every single day there was a police patrol cruiser (often hidden) checking HOV compliance. I do not know why they don't patrol 404 as often. One possibility is that the HOV on 404 has a high compliance rate and does not require any additional enforcement. Maybe HOV is just reaching its capacity there? Those single drivers you are noticing from time to time might not be driving alone after all... I often take our 4 yr old and he is almost invisible in his booster seat from outside. I recall one very upset driver started to flash high beam at me, then he left the HOV, took the adjacent left lane, drove next to me, and started yelling some profanities! After I pointed to our son in his child booster, he was very surprised and apologetic, to the point of almost hitting a vehicle in front of him .

 

[gweed123]

It's a pipe dream to have a highway parallel the 401 and provide some relief. Many major US highways have parallel routes, and some even exist in Quebec.

-----

Living in London, it can be take up to half an hour to even access the 401 from the north end (which is growing WAY faster than the rest of the city for some reason). The original 402 route was to build it around the city and possibly even connect it with the 401/403 junction in Woodstock, but it was rejected because politicians treated London like a small town instead of the good-sized city it has now become. (Metro area just hit 500,000 but still doesn't have 'regional' status.)

What results is heavy traffic on the north/south arterials to access the 401, with only 2 of them being through roads and only one of those actually connecting with the 401 (Highbury Avenue which has a highway stub just north of the 401).

Some people just say screw it and travel north to Highway 7 and use it to access the 401 via Highway 8 in Kitchener.

I figured that a toll road would be the easiest way to get the 402 to Kitchener section built, because it is definitely needed, and a toll road would get some revenue back for the Province.

I hate to bust your bubble, There will never be a freeway portion of Highway 7 between Peterborough and Carlton Place. The terrain would likely make it the most expensive freeway ever built.
You may see something eventually similar to Highway 17 between Petawawa and Mattawa, with lots of clearzone rock cutting and passing lanes. Traffic counts on the 401 between 35/115 and 416 are no where near capacity.

You'd have to see a population of Ontario of at least 30 million for this to be considered.

I figured that for part of that section they could do like what Quebec did with Highway 50 between Mirabel and Gatineau. Have the ends be 4 lanes where demand justifies it, and then have it by a Super 2, in this case between Perth and east of Peterborough. Select areas can be upgraded to 4 lanes where terrain or demand justifies it. All interchanges would be put in, with just the 2nd carriageway not built yet.

As for the terrain, there are some sections along the Highway 7 corridor where just south of there it isn't Shield, but gently rolling hills. There are definitely some sections where they're going to need to cut through Shield, but hopefully the alignment can mitigate some of that. PS: That stretch of Highway 50 I mentioned earlier cuts through some terrain that makes the Canadian Shield that 7 cuts through look like the Prairies.

I'm not saying this highway should be a top priority for the Province, but with the fact that it would be tolled, the government could at least get some of the construction costs back.

 

[Mulder]

As for the terrain, there are some sections along the Highway 7 corridor where just south of there it isn't Shield, but gently rolling hills. There are definitely some sections where they're going to need to cut through Shield, but hopefully the alignment can mitigate some of that. PS: That stretch of Highway 50 I mentioned earlier cuts through some terrain that makes the Canadian Shield that 7 cuts through look like the Prairies.

I'm not saying this highway should be a top priority for the Province, but with the fact that it would be tolled, the government could at least get some of the construction costs back.

With a low ball construction cost of 6 billion. It could be paid in 37 years. Assuming 22 cents a km, and a AADT of 10,000.

 

[innsertnamehere]

at 22 cents a km it would be $50 to go from Peterborough to Carleton place, a bit too high to have 10,000 AADT.

 

[dunkalunk]

Can we build HSR instead?