Highways In Canada II

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

You're taking my comments way too seriously. They were a snarky response to the ridiculous assertion that Guilbeault has never owned a car, and what kind of "grown-ass man" has never owned a car?

You don't have to own a car to know that highways between cities are important. And there's nothing wrong with never having owned a car. It shouldn't be a measure of masculinity.

I agree with this. If you can get through / enjoy life without needing a car, good on you!

The reverse is true too though. People who look down / act superior to those that have / use cars is annoying as well.

Cars are much more required if you have a family / work in a field that requires large supplies and or tools, or the need to commute to various work sites frequently.

People who only think about their own bubble needs miss the big picture. Another example of this are the anti-Skytrain expansion university professors in Vancouver. They think everything should be a local tram / LRT and everyone should live within a 20 minute tram commute to their job. But that’s the thinking of someone who has been living on a university campus their whole life and doesn’t understand how the real world works.

It’s the same for this “no more highway expansion” announcement. Some dude in a bubble that has no idea about the needs of others.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I agree with this. If you can get through / enjoy life without needing a car, good on you!

The reverse is true too though. People who look down / act superior to those that have / use cars is annoying as well.

Cars are much more required if you have a family / work in a field that requires large supplies and or tools, or the need to commute to various work sites frequently.

People who only think about their own bubble needs miss the big picture. Another example of this are the anti-Skytrain expansion university professors in Vancouver. They think everything should be a local tram / LRT and everyone should live within a 20 minute tram commute to their job. But that’s the thinking of someone who has been living on a university campus their whole life and doesn’t understand how the real world works.

It’s the same for this “no more highway expansion” announcement. Some dude in a bubble that has no idea about the needs of others.

Many Canadians travel to Europe.
One of these days, some of them should try to drive cross country to at least superficially understand the needs of each province (and territories).

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Many Canadians travel to Europe.
One of these days, some of them should try to drive cross country to at least superficially understand the needs of each province (and territories).

I've also traveled to Europe twice, I drove all over Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Fantastic highway systems! Especially Sweden considering its sparse population density.

[q12]

Higher Resolution:

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by q12

<image snipped>

Dang. Do you get a free helicopter when you move to BC?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

You're taking my comments way too seriously. They were a snarky response to the ridiculous assertion that Guilbeault has never owned a car, and what kind of "grown-ass man" has never owned a car?

You don't have to own a car to know that highways between cities are important. And there's nothing wrong with never having owned a car. It shouldn't be a measure of masculinity.

I've never technically owned a car either. I had custody of one for awhile after my step father passed away and my mother couldn't drive it. But I never took official ownership of it since I didn't really need it due to living close to work. I only got my license because a couple decades ago I realized there were large parts of the Maritimes I hadn't been to even though I had been to Ontario and Quebec. There's just no practical way to reach areas outside of the largest towns and cities without a car.

But I kind of regretted not keeping it after covid struck. The schedules for intercity services between larger towns and cities were cut back so much that even reaching them isn't that practical without a car now. Which would have been fine if car rental prices hadn't also sky-rocketed at the same time. And buying a car just for the occasional excursion wasn't practical since both new and used car prices also went up. But that wasn't really possible to predict before hand. Makes me kind of mad but that's life.

[ssiguy]

This "no new highways" crap is somewhat akin to expecting everyone to live in a 20 minute city especially ones out in the burbs.

These people don't take into account the cost of housing. No one likes commuting but just because your work in is one of these 20 minute towns doesn't mean you can afford to live there. Considering Trudeau & Co. have allowed the price of real estate and rentals to double under his tenure shows how out of touch these people are.

These 20 minute advocates also don't understand modern society. People physically & professionally move more than ever so you once 10 minute walk may soon become your 45 minute commute if you get a new job. Women are also in the workforce now more than ever so the idea that both will be able to get jobs in these areas is very naive. These communities might work well for politicians who are not affected by housing costs and academic who, generally, have no concept of the average person's needs beyond ear shot of their Ivory Towers.

Yes, 20 minute towns would be ideal but for the vast majority of Canadians, it is completely unattainable borderline laughable.

[ericmacm]

There is nothing wrong with the 15 or 20-minute city/communities concept. We should be striving to create more of these in our modern cities. No need to bash it.

Highways are a totally different part of the infrastructure equation. While it is not a part of that kind of planning, it is still important to recognize their importance in creating reliable longer-distance connecting links for long commuters and logistics/commercial transport, which is what I think our federal government is forgetting here. Our cities should functionally be collections of 15-minute communities linked together with rapid transit and typical roads for short-distance travel, in addition to regional rail and highways for long-distance travel. Two parts of the same equation.

[ssiguy]

I didn't mean to bash them and I did say they are "ideal" but just because a planner says it's great doesn't mean it's realistic. This is particularly true in a place like Vancouver where living location completely relies on your income level.

If someone wants to live in a 20 minute city then great but for the vast majority of people, it's simply not optional. In Vancouver, it's not what people want but rather taking whatever they can get which is why Vancouver sprawls so much. You have to live at least 60km from downtown to get any SFH under $1 million and even if you can, it will still be a 60 year old dump that requires massive renovations. Even a small townhouse would be very hard to get under $900k.

[Djeffery]

I wonder how many of these conspiracists who think a 15 minute city is a jail drive 40 minutes to get groceries because freedom.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I wonder how many of these conspiracists who think a 15 minute city is a jail drive 40 minutes to get groceries because freedom.

This is an equally stupid strawman argument.

The 15 / 20 minute city is a good idea on paper and does work to some extent for some lifestyles and professions, but it is completely unobtainable for many other professions / industries / lifestyles, most of them not just because someone decides to be a dick.

Also, we are largely talking about the need of a good intercity highway network here, which outside of the Windsor to Quebec City corridor and parts of the Maritimes Canada largely doesn’t have and is still required even with 15 minute cities.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This is an equally stupid strawman argument.

The 15 / 20 minute city is a good idea on paper and does work to some extent for some lifestyles and professions, but it is completely unobtainable for many other professions / industries / lifestyles, most of them not just because someone decides to be a dick.

What do you mean "works for some lifestyles and some professions?" How does the existence of basic needs within a reasonable distance "not work" for some lifestyles or professions? What lifestyles and professions require basic needs to be far away and difficult to reach? I suppose an avid hunter or bird watcher might need to be surrounded by a large expanse of wilderness but other than that...

I think that's where some of the (often ridiculous) pushback comes from. People somehow think the existence of basic needs nearby means you have no choice but to use those particular things and can't travel further to access other options. In reality it just means not planning neighbourhoods where it's illegal or impractical to build basic needs and amenities. Places where there's little to nothing but houses within a 20, 30, 60 or whatever minute walk.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

What do you mean "works for some lifestyles and some professions?" How does the existence of basic needs within a reasonable distance "not work" for some lifestyles or professions? What lifestyles and professions require basic needs to be far away and difficult to reach? I suppose an avid hunter or bird watcher might need to be surrounded by a large expanse of wilderness but other than that...

I think that's where some of the (often ridiculous) pushback comes from. People somehow think the existence of basic needs nearby means you have no choice but to use those particular things and can't travel further to access other options. In reality it just means not planning neighbourhoods where it's illegal or impractical to build basic needs and amenities. Places where there's little to nothing but houses within a 20, 30, 60 or whatever minute walk.

Okay, I think you and I are arguing about two different things here. I've never, and I mean never NEVER heard anyone rejecting the idea of planning cities so basic shopping / services are within 15 / 20 minutes reach. That's obviously a good thing.

What I'm talking about is the 15 / 20 minute city idea where everyone can live and work within that radius, which is the version often used when arguing against the need for highways. That's the version that becomes unobtainable in the real world for many. Especially with households with more than one person living in them.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Okay, I think you and I are arguing about two different things here. I've never, and I mean never NEVER heard anyone rejecting the idea of planning cities so basic shopping / services are within 15 / 20 minutes reach. That's obviously a good thing.

What I'm talking about is the 15 / 20 minute city idea where everyone can live and work within that radius, which is the version often used when arguing against the need for highways. That's the version that becomes unobtainable in the real world for many. Especially with households with more than one person living in them.

Yes perhaps we are referring to different things. To be clear, can isn't the same thing as will or must. I agree that anyone claiming that 15 minute cities means there won't be people traveling across metro areas doesn't understand the idea any more than the conspiricists. There's no point in even having large metro areas with all of its options and opportunities if there aren't metropolitan scale amenities to enjoy. I would hope no one thinks that every 15 min walking radius would have a university where professors can work, a large hospital where elite medical specialists can work, or airport where traffic controllers and aviation mechanics etc. can work. But there should be some jobs in every area so that some people can live near their work. Giving options and thus reducing the huge, forced volume of travel is the point.

But I do think there are good reasons to oppose urban commuter highways that carry significant volumes of passenger vehicles within metro areas. Particularly those going near or through city centres since such travel can be replaced by comprehensive transit services such as GO trains/buses. But there will always need to be commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles serving small towns and rural areas, etc. For example, if the GTA had the level of urban transit of say, Berlin, and southern Ont. had the intercity service of many parts of Europe, the 401 wouldn't need to be up to 18 lanes wide. But a cross town highway of some sort would still exist as an important road connection to and through the city. But it might just be 6 or 8 lanes wide. There are a few highways of that scale in the Berlin metro area despite the comparatively immense mass transit there. Yet there is nothing close to a 401 scale highway nor a Gardiner going through the city centre.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

For example, if the GTA had the level of urban transit of say, Berlin, and southern Ont. had the intercity service of many parts of Europe, the 401 wouldn't need to be up to 18 lanes wide. But a cross town highway of some sort would still exist as an important road connection to and through the city. But it might just be 6 or 8 lanes wide. There are a few highways of that scale in the Berlin metro area despite the comparatively immense mass transit there. Yet there is nothing close to a 401 scale highway nor a Gardiner going through the city centre.

Sort of. The 401 is one of the widest, busiest highways in the world in a city that is neither the largest nor even the most car-centric city by a long shot. It was planned this way in the 1960s when Toronto was barely larger than Pittsburgh. Why?

I think the 401 suffers from the classic Canadian infrastructure issue of being a "one size fits all" solution and single point of failure. It is supposed to act as both a bypass as well as a highway for local east-west traffic and, given where it was located, a lot of the city's travel needs were built around it. Until they built the 407 in the late 1990s, it was the only east-west highway across the region.

Had they built the 401 further south, and another bypass route further north very shortly afterward in the late 1950s/early 1960s, we probably wouldn't have the 14 lane express/collector behemoth we have today.

If Toronto were an American city, what we'd have is a 10 lane interstate Gardiner Expressway that cuts through downtown and exits out to the east along roughly the Scarborough expressway (along Lake Ontario) alignment, and another 10 lane 401-type highway a bit further north of where the 401 is today. There would also be a lot more freeways cutting straight down to the Gardiner, lessening the 401's need to serve as a portion for certain trips (for example, the 401 is very wide between the 403/410 and 427 because everyone coming from Brampton and the northern half of Mississauga and going downtown has to thread through this section of the 401). I'm not saying this is "better" - far from it - I'm just arguing that the 401 isn't as wide as it is simply because of the Toronto region's car orientation.

[Innsertnamehere]

The 401 is the size it is because it's a singular highway. Most cities have more fine-grained freeway networks which allow each individual highway to be smaller.

Toronto is also laid out differently than a City like Berlin, which benefits from not being a coastal city allowing traffic to spread out.

Berlin is also a fairly low income city outside of the hyper-developed former-west Germany portion. It doesn't have ton of highways as nobody in the city really owned cars 30 years ago under communist rule. Even today median incomes in the Berlin metro are pretty low. The city is actually still building urban freeways as well to accommodate rising auto ownership rates:



If you look at a typical European city which has been under capitalist economic systems for the entire 20th century, road networks and demands are generally pretty similar to Canada.

I mean, look at the Dortmund/Cologne/Dusseldorf metro area freeway network:



or central Holland:

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Sort of. The 401 is one of the widest, busiest highways in the world in a city that is neither the largest nor even the most car-centric city by a long shot. It was planned this way in the 1960s when Toronto was barely larger than Pittsburgh. Why?

I think the 401 suffers from the classic Canadian infrastructure issue of being a "one size fits all" solution and single point of failure. It is supposed to act as both a bypass as well as a highway for local east-west traffic and, given where it was located, a lot of the city's travel needs were built around it. Until they built the 407 in the late 1990s, it was the only east-west highway across the region.

Had they built the 401 further south, and another bypass route further north very shortly afterward in the late 1950s/early 1960s, we probably wouldn't have the 14 lane express/collector behemoth we have today.

If Toronto were an American city, what we'd have is a 10 lane interstate Gardiner Expressway that cuts through downtown and exits out to the east along roughly the Scarborough expressway (along Lake Ontario) alignment, and another 10 lane 401-type highway a bit further north of where the 401 is today. There would also be a lot more freeways cutting straight down to the Gardiner, lessening the 401's need to serve as a portion for certain trips (for example, the 401 is very wide between the 403/410 and 427 because everyone coming from Brampton and the northern half of Mississauga and going downtown has to thread through this section of the 401). I'm not saying this is "better" - far from it - I'm just arguing that the 401 isn't as wide as it is simply because of the Toronto region's car orientation.

Indeed.

The collision between North American car culture of the mid-20th century and new urbanity philosophy of the late-20th and early 21st was most exemplified by Toronto. The contradictory impulses resulted in mega-freeways on greenland and relatively underdeveloped freeway networks in the city. Allen Road's partially failed gestation probably is most emblematic of the contradiction - the attempt at punching through city neighbourhoods was a failure while meeting the massive 401 on greenfield routing was successful.

Toronto also doesn't really lend itself to bypass well given the geography. No massive ring roads to divvy up the load around the city - it's through the city or to the north.

About the only city in Canada that embarked on a substantial city freeway system in its core was Montreal, mostly due to its substantial infrastructure construction prior to the 1970s and the prevailing view of that era with respect to urbanity.

Quebec City might be second, but it seems more as if the later-era city grew up around the massive freeway network constructed, not the other way around.

[GreaterMontréal]

Quebec is widening 3 of its highways, projects that will take multiple years to complete, A-50 , A-19 and A-55.

Also the A-15 will have a new bridge that connects Laval and Boisbriand. The project consists of constructing a new bridge with a length of just over a kilometer. It will include four lanes per direction, including one reserved for public transport, and shoulders on each side. A multi-purpose path will also be built to encourage active transportation.

They are also creating a new reserve lane on the A-15 on both side between the A-50 and the A-15/640 interchange.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Indeed.

The collision between North American car culture of the mid-20th century and new urbanity philosophy of the late-20th and early 21st was most exemplified by Toronto. The contradictory impulses resulted in mega-freeways on greenland and relatively underdeveloped freeway networks in the city. Allen Road's partially failed gestation probably is most emblematic of the contradiction - the attempt at punching through city neighbourhoods was a failure while meeting the massive 401 on greenfield routing was successful.

Toronto also doesn't really lend itself to bypass well given the geography. No massive ring roads to divvy up the load around the city - it's through the city or to the north.

About the only city in Canada that embarked on a substantial city freeway system in its core was Montreal, mostly due to its substantial infrastructure construction prior to the 1970s and the prevailing view of that era with respect to urbanity.

Quebec City might be second, but it seems more as if the later-era city grew up around the massive freeway network constructed, not the other way around.

The part of the Allen that was built actually did involve a bit of existing residential demolition, particularly south of Lawrence.

The Gardiner also wiped out a good chunk of Parkdale for the Jameson interchange, so Toronto wasn't fully "saved" from urban freeway demolitions. It just got off rather light.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The 401 is the size it is because it's a singular highway. Most cities have more fine-grained freeway networks which allow each individual highway to be smaller.

That's not true. Not only is it not a single east-west highway since the 407 also exists, but in much of Europe there isn't anywhere near the road network outside the highways to complement the highways that do exist. In NA we have numerous multi-lane, pedestrian unfriendly car sewers which are also reasonably fast car routes when not clogged by congestion when Europe typically has much slower, narrower local streets.

And you also can't compare highways in Europe with NA just by looking at a map. Yes they have some fully grade separated, limited access expressways like ours, but combined they would still be narrower than just the 401. For instance, on the maps you posted, the most comparable thing I saw to the 401 was the A12 in the Netherland which has a total of 12 lanes when including both the main highway and the collectors. And it's the only east-west expressway for over 25 km in either direction. So only 2/3 the width of just the 401 when the GTA also has the 407 around 8km away which is also 12(!!!) lanes.

But looking at the highways in the images you posted, most of them look like these from the Dortmund/Cologne/Dusseldorf image:





You could make 7-8 of such 4 lane highways per direction in the same general vicinity with the combined lane count of the 401 and 407 and you just don't see that.

Guys there's nothing wrong with comparing to Europe and acknowledging that highways are still necessary, but we've got to be honest about it. Our over the top car infrastructure is NOT comparable to them. We have to stop making excuses, stop drawing false equivilences, and simply acknowledge that.