Talk:400-series highways

Parclo A4

So what's a Parclo A4 and what's special about it? OwenBlacker 00:43, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

A Parclo A4 is a particular interchange configuration used on the 400-series highways (and on many others). "Parclo" is an abbreviation of "partial cloverleaf". I'm not sure I can describe it, but [1] has a picture of some different configurations. I think the A4 is similar to the middle image in the bottom group. It uses much less area than a traditional cloverleaf, and also makes traffic flow more efficient. --Timc 19:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It was invernted by the ministry of transportation to replace cloverleafs, most of the 401 intersections in Toronto are them

Of course, Allen Road and the 401 have the most devestating interchange ever...

Anyways, problem with the pic at the top. On the page its an overhead of the 401, but clicking on it shows the signs -Fizscy46 05:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image of the network

I should have map of the 400-series highway network to post at the top of the page.

References

The "future additions" section is a little tenuous, at best. Many of these proposals have either been cancelled or delayed, or have not even left the assessment stage, so it is a little presumptuous to include them in an encyclopedia article. Unless anyone objects, I will remove the section from the article. Darkcore 08:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First comment on a wikipedia page, not sure if this is right, but I try. I wanted to comment on the paragraph "Due to the fact that people living in Northern Ontario do not matter to the provincial government," This seems rather biased and questionable, true or not. 129.97.152.189 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 3:48, Oct 25, 2006 (EST)

You are correct, and that should be rewritten or edited out. CMacMillan 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Would changing the paragraph to read "Due to a lower density population, the provincial government currently has no plans to build any 400 series highways in the northernmost regions of Ontario." Be acceptble or should it be removed instead? 129.97.152.189 17:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The best idea for them would be to put them in a separate article. They should be shown somewhere as they are at least on the drawing board.

"On the drawing board" does not equate to noteworthy. Perhaps a link could be provided to a website that lists the possible projects. Darkcore 01:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of any websites with all of them listed like that - you'd have to go to individual websites for each of them. Highway 115 did not belong on that list as well, since the freeway portion is likely to be incorporated into Highway 407 once that is extended eastward, and the southern part is multiplexed with Highway 35 and there is no plan to upgrade that.

While I agree with removing 411 and 426 entirly, I object to the 407 connectors being removed as these are still in the works to be constructed, and will most certainly be part of the 400-series system. They deserve to be listed just as the MPC and Bradford Bypass is. Since these four projects will all be 400-series highways, they should be listed. 424 can remain off the list for now, but I would consider re-adding it if the MTO starts the environmental assessment that was promised to Brant and Haldimand Counties. Snickerdo 06:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

411 is actually an ongoing process (slowly improving); 426 was kinda questionable as it is not planned to be a freeway. The Windsor-Detroit new crossing also would be best mentioned as part of Highway 401, as it will likely be a 401 extension, not a new freeway.

There is no proof that the freeway upgrades to Highway 11 will result in a new number being applied. In fact, it will probably keep the existing number despite its freewayization, just like Highway 7 hasn't and won't received a 400-series number, despite long segments of constructed and planned freeway. The new Windsor-Detroit crossing will more than likely be a municipal/federal project seperate from the 401, and all indications point to it being known simply as Louzon Parkway. Snickerdo 22:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That would be unprecedented in Ontario re: a long freeway (240 km/149 miles once completed, most likely will be fourth longest freeway at that time behind 401, 400 and 417) keeping a standard number if it remains Highway 11. That is the one I really think warrants being on the list, as it has been an ongoing project for the last 10 years and will definitely be continued. Check out this page for everything I know. 424 should also remain a wait-and-see.

The highway 7 freeway plan, esentially running from Stratford to Vaughan, and then starting again at Peterborough with a long-term goal of Ottawa will not be getting a new number and will be remaining 7 (informally known as 'Freeway 7'). There is no doubt in my mind that Highway 11 will remain Highway 11, even as sections are upgraded to full freeway. Highway 11 and 7 have too much historical significance to be re-numbered. The designation 411 -may- be applied to a proposed freeway north of Barrie connecting Highway 400 to Highway 11, but this could just as easily be 427. Snickerdo 02:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Found an article on Highway 424 - http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=103828&catname=Local+News&classif=News+Alert - I think now that it should be returned to the future corridors list.

I agree, 424 should be added back to the list, as the EA is about to start and the designation is official. Snickerdo 02:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Separate Pages

Should the definite projects (Mid-Peninsula Highway, Bradford Bypass) have separate pages? The MPH especially, as there is a lot of information re: controversies and planning...

I don't see why not; feel free to make them and link them from the appropriate places. --SPUI (talk) 20:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

US-style measurments

Miles do not belong in this article, as they clutter it up and have no educational value. Canada has used metric measurments exclusivly since the early 70s. If an American really needs to know how long the highway is, they can convert the measurments themselves. --Snickerdo 07:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same could be said about metric in the U.S. articles; except for a few, U.S. roads use only miles. --SPUI (talk) 07:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I could care less about US articles. This is an article about Canadian roads on an international website. Imperial measurements do not belong here, and we're going to end up with nothing but a rev war over this until someone steps in and ends this once and for all. --Snickerdo 07:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Imperial measurements are useful to some readers. Therefore they should be here. --SPUI (talk) 08:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem with adding the alternative measurements in parenthesis? Does it hurt anyone? They make the article better IMHO. --cesarb 10:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the aim is to be helpful to readers, and if we believe this article is going to be read by U. S. readers, then we should retain measurements in miles. By the way, what's with "imperial measurements?" We're talking about "U. S. customary" units, aren't we? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If someone feels like adding the US customary units to the article, then by all means let them -- a sizable chunk of the potential audience for this article doesn't understand metric. --Carnildo 18:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh, they're already there. Apparently some people want to remove them as colonialist POV or something... oops, I might be technically wrong in my metrology, see this article, but the difference between the various definitions of "mile" is way out in the fifth or sixth decimal and doesn't matter. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The standard should, for all road-related sites, be:

• Where normally signed in Metric, it should be Metric (Imperial).
• Where normally signed in Imperial, it should be Imperial (Metric).

Notice that nearly all US road pages use that format, and all road pages should.

Fair enough. This should be made a standard on all road article, and the rest of the 400-series articles should be updated to reflect as such. --Snickerdo 08:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many Canadian and/or road articles contain values in non-metric units only and need metric units to be added. I have done a few myself. If anyone else is inclined to do some, just go ahead and do it. Plenty of Wikipedia users will welcome such edits. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not use both systems? After all, every engineer in the US and Canada (and most likely the world) must know both systems interchangeably.

rasblue 20:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

4xx highways

Nine hits on Google for "4xx highways"; one for "4xx highway". Where exactly have you heard this usage, and can you cite it? Having grown up around many of these highways, I don't ever remember someone saying this nor do I remember ever reading this in a local newspaper, government document, etc. Darkcore 14:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is general usage for something like this (like I-x5 for the major north-south Interstates), and the Google matches confirm that it is sometimes used. --SPUI (talk) 15:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Google matches were all message board commentary. It suggests that one, maybe two misinformed people use that terminology. That does not mean that we would cite that in an encyclopedia article. I should add that there are about as many Google hits for "Interstate XX" but at least there were some relatively official documents there citing its usage. There are no such documents citing "4XX highway" usage. Darkcore 15:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eh, feel free to remove it. --SPUI (talk) 15:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Somebody refered to some 3-digit Interstates around San Francisco as I-x80 highways when describing a reason why I-238 exists in that area, therefore I kinda thought 4xx highways was an appropriate alternative name for 400-series highways since all of them have 4 as a prefix. --SuperDude 03:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

400-Series highway standards

Will somebody add more to the list of 400-Series highway standards? That list has been a dwarf since it was made. --SuperDude 05:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons

This original numbering method has often been criticized for being arbitary compared to the US Interstate Highway's numbering scheme. Can anyone substantiate this? I've never heard it called 'arbitrary', and the only comparison to the US system comes from US tourists. Peter Grey 02:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed this very speculative sentence. --SPUI (talk) 06:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good. As someone from the US who has often driven the 400 highways (mostly 401 and 402), I don't see anything arbitrary about them. Yes, the US Interstate System even-odd/two-digit/three-digit numbering system are all supposed to mean something in terms of direction, spurs, loops etc, but I doubt that most of my fellow Americans know what those are. I don't even know what they all mean. In any case, the Ontario Government has the right to name their highways whatever they want.--MarshallStack 05:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ontario's numbering standards are arbitrary when compared to the American Interstate standard, but when compared to international standards they are acceptable. The Interstate Standards state that all cross country Interstate Numbers be divisible by 5. I-75, I-80, I-5, etc. They also state that north/south be odd numbered and east/west be even numbered. They also state that all three-digit Interstates be either a loop or a spur of a parent interstate. Spurs be odd numbered and loops be even numbered. Eg. I-375 is a spur of I-75 entering downtown Detroit. I-275 is a loop starting and ending at I-75 circling Metro Detroit. Ontario has nothing like this. rasblue 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Unofficial" standards

Please refrain from including 'unofficial' standards, as they a) are subjective based on who you talk to b) are not real and c) have no place in a document of facts, such as an encyclopedia article.

Any further references to 'unofficial' items will be removed without further explaination.

--Snickerdo 7 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

What's with the conjecture and other crap being posted in the article?

Okay, really, this article is no place for conjecture and personal opinions that have no basis in fact. I am getting real sick and tired of the same bloody anonymous user always messing up articles with his own personal opinions. Garbage like 'Highway 11 is expected to become part of the 400-series network' and other crap like Cloverstacks being the 'cheapening out' of standards are basis, have absolutely no proof, and needsto stop. Again, every time I see stuff like this added to the article, it will be removed without any further warning. I love to see this article expanded, but I'm getting real sick and tired of false information and personal opinions being added as if they were true.

Have a great day, and happy wiki'ing!

-- Snickerdo 02:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

400-series Definition

This passage clearly explains why certain Ontario freeways are not part of the 400-series - "The non 400-series freeways listed here have significant open-access portions besides the freeway section". The shortened definition from "400-series network" does not.

Ontario's case is an anomaly among transport authorities. US states have different series of freeways mainly due to funding differences (between Interstate, US highways, and municipal). Ontario on the other hand, besides municipal freeways, have 2 series of provincially funded freeways, 400-series and non 400-series, even though there are no differences outside of numbering and both types would be renumbered as the same series if it was a US system.

Non 400-series Ontario freeways should not be mentioned only in a list of Ontario expressways, since that list includes everything from municipal freeways to provincial expressways with at-grade intersections.

Actually, you are totally incorrect, at least from a Canadian perspective. I recommend looking at the 100-series highways in Nova Scotia, the Autoroute system in Quebec (yes, there ARE at-grade autoroutes) and the 200-series highways in Alberta. The information I include in my edit clearly explains why Ontario has, and will always have, non-400-series freeways. In most Ontario cases, the lack of a 400-series number is due to lower design standards. Only recently was the Conestoga Parkway upgraded to proper standards, the E.C. Row Expressway and Highburry Road were both municipal projects with MTO involvement, etc.

Besides, why are we listing non-400-series highways in an article about 400-series highways? They don't belong here! The only thing we need is a quick blurb. If you want an article about provincial freeways without 400-series numbers, create a different article.

-- Snickerdo 02:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Your edit does not clearly explain why Ontario has non 400-series provincial freeways. In fact, even any new non 400-series provincial freeway is built to 400-series standards. The Conestoga exceeds several rural and old 400-series freeways in that respect; even before its upgrades, it was better than old sections of 401 and QEW. The lack of a 400-series number is due to the Conestoga having significant open-access sections besides freeway sections; the Conestoga project upgraded parts of existing highways and left the rest of the highways untouched. This is sort of like the Trans-Canada highway which "borrowed" existing provincial highways in Ontario and Quebec and thus had to leave the provincial numbering intact.

The EC Rowe until the Harris Downloading of roads was officially designated Hwy 2. Hwy 2 of course being the pre-401 Windsor-London-Toronto-Kingston-Montreal route. The EC Rowe is NOT up to current 400 series standards and most pre 1990 400 series highways are not up to Interstate or EU standards. Note: EC Rowe has a 100km/h speed limit making it the only municipal road in Ontario with that speed limit.

Left lane off ramps

The 417 West bound has the off ramp to the 416 (south bound, obviously) in the left lane. This is inviolation of the listed "standards". Is this worth mentioning anywhere? (Here or in the 417 article?) I'm curious to know if this is the only example of this in the 400-series. Jeffr 23:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Are the standards official, or just conjectured? Doesn't part of 406 have at-grades? --SPUI (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Usually, good practice is to have have mainline traffic as the left (with the fastest drivers in the leftmost lane) and exits/entry slower traffic as the right. I would say that the Ont gov't adheres to the list of standards as rigidly as possible, unless there are other considerations such as land restructions.

There are some glaring violations of the right-hand exit/entry rule. On the 401 WB collector in Toronto, the exit to Allen Road is a left-hand exit. The reason was because the designers wanted give both 401 WB collector and express lanes an exit at Allen. This was designed in the late 1960s.

417 WB onto 416 SB is an exception to the guideline which is fairly recent, but a significant amount of traffic does go in that direction. The Gardiner Expressway/Don Valley Parkway interchange is similar to this.

403 WB at 407 (Mississauga) is another recent example, 403 traffic is the mainline but treated as the right-hand exit; this was because that part of 407 was intended to be a non-tolled 403 extension to Hamilton. However, the Ont gov't sold that section to 407 ETR operators after part of the interchange was already complete. A similar problem is at the Freeman Interchange (QEW-403-407) in Burlington.

And don't even get me started on the left-lane merge from Hwy 6 onto the 403 in Burlington. Ugh, I hate that one. (Sorry, had to vent that one.) --qviri 06:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge with List of Ontario expressways

Both of these appear to be lists of the same roads. If so, then then should be merged into one. Also, in the Catgeory:Lists of roads most of the entries provide geographic information in the article name. This article does not. Vegaswikian 18:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, there are non 400-series highways expressways in Ontario. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the data suppose to be generally found in only one place, especially when it is in a list? Vegaswikian 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I also noticed that there is List of Ontario provincial highways which points back here and also lists these roads, allbeit not it a list format. Vegaswikian 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the 400-series are designed to be freeways for their full length, we should keep this page as is. Ontario expressways is too broad a category in general, since we have freeways being lumped with expressways and other lesser quality roads. The 400-series is treated as a special class of roads and we should keep it that way.

Then maybe the article should be moved to Ontario 400-Series highways since it is not really a list but a detailed description of this system of highways, dropping Category:Lists of roads? There already are 2 other lists of Ontario roads, List of Ontario expressways and List of Ontario provincial highways, which is why this third list of highways really stands out when you see all of the lists with their overlap. At a minimum it should be moved to List of Ontario 400-Series highways if you think that this is a list. But I suspect that the first suggestion to treat it as an article rather than a list is going to be the right choice. Vegaswikian 18:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I believes that this entry started out as a list, but it evolved into an article. Plus, I do like the short summaries of each 400-series highway, that gives it more substance than a list.

So changing the name and dropping it from the list category makes sense? Vegaswikian 04:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. What's next, merge Interstate articles with US Highway/State Highway articles? Snickerdo 04:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you. Strongly disagree with any merging. The other expressways, while notable in their own name, are (generally) parts of longer conventional highways, or substandard (i.e. 35/115 multiplex, Conestoga). CrazyC83 00:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I originally created this because A) not all Ontario expressways are 400-series, and certainly B) not all Ontario expressways are provincial. If the 'list' name is the problem, I'm fine with changing it; but the distinction between the jurisdictions has been the concept all along. Radagast 04:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Have removed the merge tag - seems that it's not got consensus to merge the articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Military origins?

This is just speculation, but does the naming of the 400-series highways correspond at all with the names of the air squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force/Canadian Armed Forces? These were numbered from 400 to 449 by the Royal Air Force for European-based Canadian squadrons to avoid confusion with RAF squadrons (for example, 1 Squadron RCAF became 401 Squadron) during WWII, and most retain this designation today. Could the Ontario highways be named as a reminder of Canada's contribution to the air war of WWII?--MarshallStack 06:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really, since 400-series numbering started out sequentially, and then later it was changed to adding a "4" to an upgraded route or new bypass. In addition, plenty of numbers were skipped.

Scarborough Highlands Expressway (aka Highway 448)

Is this highway actually planned by the government (Ontario or Toronto)? I can only find links to a proposed highway advocated by the CAA and James Alcock, which doesn't really meet the conditions for inclusion in Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Highway 7 expansion west of Ottawa

MTO recently announced* that Highway 7 from 417 to Carleton Place / Hwy 15 will be twinned in the next few years. I can't quite determine if this will bring the road up to 400 series standards or not (to do so would require the construction of a service road or at least the piecing together of existing non-connected parallel roads). It's possible that the road would not be controlled access but merely a divided multilane highway with a 90 km/h speed limit (parts of Hwy 17 west of Ottawa used to be (still are?) like this). Does anyone know anything more with any certainty? And if it will be a 400 series road then what will be its designation? 407? 407 East?

• http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2006/06/16/c4808.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html

--D P J 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot protection??

Anyway to stop SmackBot from replacing with 30 px in titles?? Bacl-presby 01:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, put {{nobots}} in the article. Meanwhile I have fixed the headers. Rich Farmbrough, 08:44 8 February 2007 (GMT).

• Thank you Rich, for taking the time and effort!

Bacl-presby 00:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbering history

According to [2] and [3] (two scans of the same 1953 annual report), 400, 401, and 402 were numbered in 1952 (see [4] for confirmation). At the time they were called:

• 400 Toronto-Barrie Road
• 401 Windsor to Quebec Boundary Road (including the Toronto By-Pass)
• 402 Sarnia-Point Edward Road

--NE2 14:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Other routes were numbered as follows:

• 403 ca. 1955
• 404 ca. 1959 [5]
• 405 ca. 1959
• 406 ca. 1962

--NE2 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

403

The 403's being extended to Barrie? wtf?