[kamira51]

The 413 also has a "transitway" so I'd imagine the ROW would be similar to 407E (which would be catastrophic for the area)

The 410 north portion has a ROW of 70 metres for example, compared to the 400 extension with a ROW of 110m.

The 407E has a ~180m ROW to accomodate the future Transitway (!)

The Transitway proposals for these highways would be more appealing if it was for new railway corridors.

 

[ARG1]

The Transitway proposals for these highways would be more appealing if it was for new railway corridors.

The idea is that in the future all of these transitways could be converted to rail if the demand raises to the point where something like that would be justified, similar to what Ottawa did but hopefully with better and more sensible rolling stock.

This is actually a smart option because what it means is instead of having a rail line that follows a specific path, you can have multiple different services that enter and leave the transitway at various points and use whatever section they need. Say for instance you want to run a bus service from RHC to Waterloo. You can have a GO bus that follows the transitway all the way to the 407/401 interchange then leaves and goes for Kitchener. With rail, what you would have to do is get on a train to say Lisgar GO, then transfer onto a GO bus that continues onto Waterloo.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The 413 also has a "transitway" so I'd imagine the ROW would be similar to 407E (which would be catastrophic for the area)

to be fair the transitway corridors are generally left fairly naturalized and aren't regraded or anything prior to their construction so it's not particularly ecological damage to have that wider corridor.

Perhaps the solution is a narrower corridor of 70m+the 70m transitway corridor?

 

[DirectionNorth]

The idea is that in the future all of these transitways could be converted to rail if the demand raises to the point where something like that would be justified, similar to what Ottawa did but hopefully with better and more sensible rolling stock.

This is actually a smart option because what it means is instead of having a rail line that follows a specific path, you can have multiple different services that enter and leave the transitway at various points and use whatever section they need. Say for instance you want to run a bus service from RHC to Waterloo. You can have a GO bus that follows the transitway all the way to the 407/401 interchange then leaves and goes for Kitchener. With rail, what you would have to do is get on a train to say Lisgar GO, then transfer onto a GO bus that continues onto Waterloo.

My question is, why is there even a Transitway there? There's little development surrounding it (right now) and there's little E-W demand there, compared to N-S demand (I would think).

 

[kamira51]

My question is, why is there even a Transitway there? There's little development surrounding it (right now) and there's little E-W demand there, compared to N-S demand (I would think).

There's a very large e-w demand on the Caledon boarder.

 

[whydidimakethis]

My question is, why is there even a Transitway there? There's little development surrounding it (right now) and there's little E-W demand there, compared to N-S demand (I would think).

1) To serve future development
2) Probably to appease the transit advocates and environmentalists who would otherwise be against the highway.

I'm sure there are whole threads about just this

 

[DirectionNorth]

1) To serve future development

Aha! This highway is for sprawl!

2) Probably to appease the transit advocates and environmentalists who would otherwise be against the highway.

I'm sure there are whole threads about just this

I haven't seen any.

I understand that you're not a proponent of the highway (different from against the highway) but I feel that this is a sideways-way of stopping opposition. These transit lanes aren't serving many people yet (is Newmarket -> Brampton demand that huge?) and even if the highway goes through, I would rather that money be used for more frequency for VIVA, or more lanes for Zum, or so on.

There's a very large e-w demand on the Caledon boarder.

I can believe that for a section of the highway, but bus lanes on Mayfield would be closer to where the demand actually is, no?

 

[ARG1]

My question is, why is there even a Transitway there? There's little development surrounding it (right now) and there's little E-W demand there, compared to N-S demand (I would think).

It can serve well for orbital GO bus routes, maybe trips like Newmarket/Barrie to Kitchener or Milton, while also serving Bolton and Northern Brampton.

Aha! This highway is for sprawl!

Unfortunately that sprawl is planned and is going to happen with or without the 413, so our options are build the 413, sprawl happens, space gets used, or we don't build the 413, sprawl still happens, and we get our existing highways even more congested. Unfortunately its a case where Sprawl leads to Highways, not the other way around.

Saying we shouldn't build the 413 because sprawl is a moot point because its not causing it.

 

[Deadpool X]

Adding to our conversation about tighter highway corridors, I was driving north on the 410 Extension and noticed how narrow the corridor was constructed. It's actually quite nice how condensed they built it. MTO should really look into making that the standard design from now on, as I would assume it would make highway projects alot cheaper since it would need less land acqusitions and cheaper bridge work.

I would say to the contrary that narrower corridors increase the overall cost in the long term. If you acquire land good enough for a 6 lane highway then it's going to very expensive to buy land in future for expansion. Also, you will have to rebuild all the bridges and interchanges if you decide to expand the highway.

On the other hand, if you buy land for an 8 lane corridor, you can still build a 4 lane road while the bridges can be built to accommodate 8 lane corridor in the future. Buying extra land now and building bigger bridges today will be a lot cheaper than building them 30 years later. We have seen how construction costs escalate with time.

However, if we don't expect the highway to get widened ever (for example DVP), then of course, it can be as tight as possible with zero scope of expansion.

PS - Now if anyone wants to debate if we should build wider highways or not, that was not the point of discussion. The point was just about the cost.

 

[DirectionNorth]

It can serve well for orbital GO bus routes, maybe trips like Newmarket/Barrie to Kitchener or Milton, while also serving Bolton and Northern Brampton.

Unfortunately that sprawl is planned and is going to happen with or without the 413, so our options are build the 413, sprawl happens, space gets used, or we don't build the 413, sprawl still happens, and we get our existing highways even more congested. Unfortunately its a case where Sprawl leads to Highways, not the other way around.

Saying we shouldn't build the 413 because sprawl is a moot point because its not causing it.

But it makes it easier to continue building sprawl, and to justify it.

Saying that sprawl is going to happen, so we should keep building highways to serve it, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It will happen unless people start opposing it. At one point, the Spadina Expressway and the destruction of the streetcar network were planned, and was going to happen with or without certain other actions. Guess what happened. You have one guess.

I would say to the contrary that narrower corridors increase the overall cost in the long term. If you acquire land good enough for a 6 lane highway then it's going to very expensive to buy land in future for expansion. Also, you will have to rebuild all the bridges and interchanges if you decide to expand the highway.

On the other hand, if you buy land for an 8 lane corridor, you can still build a 4 lane road while the bridges can be built to accommodate 8 lane corridor in the future. Buying extra land now and building bigger bridges today will be a lot cheaper than building them 30 years later. We have seen how construction costs escalate with time.

But why would we need 8 lanes of traffic on a rural highway? At most, we need 6. Even then, the corridor is overly wide - that alignment is huge.

However, if we don't expect the highway to get widened ever (for example DVP), then of course, it can be as tight as possible with zero scope of expansion.

PS - Now if anyone wants to debate if we should build wider highways or not, that was not the point of discussion. The point was just about the cost.

OK, fair.

 

[Deadpool X]

But why would we need 8 lanes of traffic on a rural highway? At most, we need 6. Even then, the corridor is overly wide - that alignment is huge.

OK, fair.

If the 401 to 410/427/400 traffic continues to increase then we may need 8 lanes in rural area. For example I-5 is 8 lane for a long distance in the rural areas far away from any major city (check here).

Here, we are talking about a highway that is "inside" GTA, even if that particular stretch may be rural.

 

[whydidimakethis]

If the 401 to 410/427/400 traffic continues to increase then we may need 8 lanes in rural area. For example I-5 is 8 lane for a long distance in the rural areas far away from any major city (check here).

If we are going to build a new highway, which will definitely become clogged and need endless expansion, then is there really a point in building it at all? That's why I think if we built the 413 it should be tolled.

But it makes it easier to continue building sprawl, and to justify it.

Saying that sprawl is going to happen, so we should keep building highways to serve it, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It will happen unless people start opposing it. At one point, the Spadina Expressway and the destruction of the streetcar network were planned, and was going to happen with or without certain other actions. Guess what happened. You have one guess.

^

 

[Deadpool X]

If we are going to build a new highway, which will definitely become clogged and need endless expansion, then is there really a point in building it at all? That's why I think if we built the 413 it should be tolled.

^

It can be tolled and still need expansion. Case in point 407 which is tolled at an astronomical rate and 413 is going to be cheaper.

 

[Translude15]

If we are going to build a new highway, which will definitely become clogged and need endless expansion, then is there really a point in building it at all? That's why I think if we built the 413 it should be tolled.

^

That entire area from 401-407 interchange up through Bolton has been designated for development for years. Nashville Conservation area is a concern for sure but there should be ways to minimize any impact traversing that area. Ultimately, if the goal with this highway is to help move goods through areas already designated largely for industrial development, then it is a net gain for the region. If we're talking about farmland, the majority of owners in southern Caledon have already sold or will be selling off their land, especially as it becomes more apparent that the stretch from Georgetown to Bolton will be developed. The Escarpment itself also acts a a physical barrier to development so the idea that this project will lead to unfettered sprawl is a bit overblown IMO.

This government and other successors should really focus on enhancing the GTA's existing highway network by gradually buying out the lease agreements for the 407 starting in the west end. 407 through Halton should connect with the existing 403 through Mississauga thus creating a continuous 403 route from Woodstock to the 401 in Mississauga. I think de-privatizing that segment is absolutely vital moving forward to relieve congestion on the QEW which will only get worse in the coming decade. If the 413 is going to move forward, it would make sense to connect it directly to the N-S 407 and N-S 403 through Mississauga to create a direct link to the 401, 403 and QEW. How the government would go about repossessing the remaining ~100 km of 407 through the GTA remains to be seen but I think many voters would not be opposed to that sort of infrastructural pursuit through important highway corridors. The 407 is a key corridor that would help alleviate key E-W routes through the GTA.

 

[whydidimakethis]

especially as it becomes more apparent that the stretch from Georgetown to Bolton will be developed. The Escarpment itself also acts a a physical barrier to development so the idea that this project will lead to unfettered sprawl is a bit overblown IMO.

A better connection from Georgetown/Guelph to Bolton will need to be improved in the coming years if this happens.