Talk:Highways in Ontario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Ontario (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
WikiProject Canada Roads / Ontario (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics Ontario blank.svg Ontario  
Note icon
This article may or may not contain a map. Please check, then add "needs-map=" to this template accordingly.


Sorry that there ssems to be some heated discussion.... I'm interested to know what is the status of a template for Ontario Highways... Someone did one based on an early sign of Highway 11, but there are better ones (no offense!) in place for 401,402,405, and QEW (407-ETR has its own). Someone have time to develop a mass signage image, as someone recently did for Quebec?? Bacl-presby 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding Secondaries[edit]

I noticed the lack of articles on secondary highways. For the next while or so, I will be creating stubs on all red-linked secondary highways. Anyone is free to expand them, and I encourage them to do so. Pictures wouldn't hurt much either. Swiftoak 02:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Question: I know we seem to have decided on writing up historical detail on downloaded primary highways...are we doing downloaded secondary highways, too, or are we skipping those as too insignificant? Bearcat 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Former Highways[edit]

Would it be worthwhile to include "former" Ontario highways that were downloaded onto Regions? I know 27 is no longer mentioned, however locals/tourism offices still use the term "highway" when talking about places. (ie "Highway" 117 for Bracebridge, Ontario travel) Dunro

A few seem to be listed in the Defunct Highways section, although I also think it would be a good idea to list the downloaded highways. Jdeboer

and how about the highways--King's, Secondary, and Tertierty, that weren't Provincial Jurisdictions LONG before Mike Harris was Premier?

Well, a small part of Highway 27 still exists. In any event, we should probably have a list of all the defunct highways, but I would like to see it sorted by era. I think creating a new page "list of historical Ontario provincial highways" or "list of Ontario provincial highways by era" would be best. -- Flag of Canada.svg Earl Andrew - talk 22:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Highway 86 was never wholly downloaded - the part within the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo (Conestoga Parkway) was retained, but recently renamed Highway 85. In the defunct highway section, some highways, like 5 (which still exists between Highway 6 and 8) are still around. I'll edit what's below - I think this should replace the defunct highways page. --Spmarshall42

Highways completely downloaded under Harris (1995-2003)[edit]

  • Highway 2A
  • Highway 3B
  • Highway 7B (Peterborough)
  • Highway 7B (Carleton Place)
  • Highway 8A
  • Highway 11A
  • Highway 11B (Thunder Bay)
  • Highway 11B (North Bay)
  • Highway 14
  • Highway 17B (Ottawa)
  • Highway 17B (North Bay)
  • Highway 17B (Thunder Bay)
  • Highway 18
  • Highway 22
  • Highway 24A
  • Highway 25
  • Highway 29
  • Highway 30
  • Highway 31
  • Highway 32
  • Highway 35A
  • Highway 35B
  • Highway 36
  • Highway 36B
  • Highway 38
  • Highway 42
  • Highway 43
  • Highway 44
  • Highway 45
  • Highway 46
  • Highway 47
  • Highway 50
  • Highway 51
  • Highway 52
  • Highway 53
  • Highway 54
  • Highway 55
  • Highway 56
  • Highway 59
  • Highway 61B
  • Highway 70
  • Highway 73
  • Highway 74
  • Highway 76
  • Highway 78
  • Highway 79
  • Highway 80
  • Highway 81
  • Highway 83
  • Highway 84
  • Highway 86 (remaining stub renamed to Highway 85)
  • Highway 87
  • Highway 88
  • Highway 90
  • Highway 91
  • Highway 92
  • Highway 95
  • Highway 96
  • Highway 99
  • Highway 117
  • Highway 121 (remaining Haliburton-Paudash section renamed to 118 in 2003)
  • Highway 131
  • Highway 133
  • Highway 134 (renamed to Highway 28, not downloaded)
  • Highway 136
  • Highway 169

Naming format[edit]

Why are the individual highway pages named Highway # (Ontario) as opposed to Ontario provincial highway #? I suppose it's a matter of opinion which is better but I would have prefered the latter. NorthernThunder 02:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

They were previously named under the latter format; there was a later consensus to move them to the current one (which, FWIW, I wasn't a part of). Bearcat 05:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


In an attempt to keep with consistency, I am considering creating a series of King's Highway shield graphics for use on pages describing the primary Ontario provincial routes. However, since I'm American, I am unfamiliar with the copyright status of those shields and would like more information before undertaking something which I may be told later I'm not allowed to do. Preferably, I would like to make SVG shields, but I cannot if there is a copyright enforcement (in which case I'll have to fall back on lower-resolution PNGs). Any information on the matter would be appreciated. --WhosAsking 00:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A few treatments are possible. It could be declared fair use as a logo. You could also check the declarations made for road sign images such as Image:Florida A1A.svg or Image:Vermont 9.svg. There is at least one Ontario sign image, Image:The King's Highway 11 Ontario (Sign).png. Also note the history of Ontario sign designs in [1]. Have fun... Dl2000 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
On further search, the logo/PNG approach was taken for these examples in Alberta (Image:AB crowsnest.png) and Quebec (Image:A-5.png). Dl2000 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I was suspecting Crown copyright might be in effect. In fact, according to the Crown copyright article, Ontario seems particularly picky. No matter. I'll just use low-res PNGs. There are a number of sources available already, so I'll start talking to them. --WhosAsking 22:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Worse than I thought. Canadian crown copyright is considered too strict for Wikipedia. They don't want that kind of stuff here. The only other possibility is to employ the 50-year rule, but the shields have been revised, and I don't know if those revisions have their own 50-year clocks or are under the same rule as the original shields (in which case they should already be released--already past 50 years). --WhosAsking 23:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and try it using PNGs to play it safe. I think it's safe to use the 50-year rule, and there's a tag for that available. I've made a template for general King's Highway shields by hand-tracing available photographs and using some publicly-available fonts that are close enough to be usable. I've also made a blue M-C Freeway shield. QEW is another matter because of its distinctive serifed font. I'm trying to find a suitable free analogue. Once I find it, I'll probably start posting shields--preferably to the Commons but straight to Wikipedia if I must. Wish me luck. --WhosAsking 11:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start making shields for Kings Highways, Secondary Highways, and Tertiary Highways. I will make them in both .PNG and .SVG format (if raster is better, let me know). Now, i just need to know which fonts are used in all three, as i have the RoadGeek 2000 and 2005 Fonts (I'm also wondering if Blue Highways font or the british Motorways fonts are potentially useable...), and i want these signs to be as close and as accurate as possible. Does anyone know the size/font point, font width, and so on for the text and numbers on the shields? RingtailedFoxTalkStalk 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • GO FOR IT, does any of this above discussion relate to your project?

Bacl-presby 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Initial 1925 highways[edit]

(from the old versions of the histories on [2])

These are still called King's Highways[edit]

Or at least they were in 2003: "That part of the King's Highway known as No. 7/8 lying between a point at its intersection with the eastern limit of the roadway known as Waterloo Road No. 5 in the Township of Wilmot and a point at its intersection with the King's Highway known as No. 8 in the City of Kitchener.", "That part of the King's Highway known as No. 7187 lying between a point at its intersection with the King's Highway known as No. 401 and a point at its intersection with the King's Highway known as No. 8 (King Street) in the City of Kitchener.", etc. --SPUI (T - C) 17:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

These are NOT called "controlled-access highways"[edit]

Controlled-access highway designation

36. (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate any,
(a) highway; or
(b) proposed highway,

as a controlled-access highway and every highway so designated shall be deemed to be part of the King’s Highway and the provisions of this Act and the regulations that apply to the King’s Highway apply with necessary modifications to such controlled-access highway.

William Allen Simpson, please read that until you understand that controlled-access highway is not an alternate name for King's Highway. --SPUI (T - C) 05:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, they are "controlled-access highways"[edit]

I'm the one that bothered to find the statute, of which you were ignorant, and yet you try to lecture me on statutory construction? Let me know when you've argued a couple cases before the US Court of Appeals, or even a state Court of Appeals, and then I'll take you a little more seriously.

The parts that you left out were:


1. In this Act, ... "highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct, trestle or any other structure incidental thereto, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique") ...


Controlled-access highway designation

36. (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate any,
(a) highway; or
(b) proposed highway,
as a controlled-access highway and every highway so designated shall be deemed to be part of the King’s Highway and the provisions of this Act and the regulations that apply to the King’s Highway apply with necessary modifications to such controlled-access highway.


The other sections of the Act are entitled:


Secondary highways, designation

40. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate any highway as a secondary highway and thereupon Part I and all the other provisions of this Act and the regulations that apply to the King's Highway apply with necessary modifications to such secondary highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.50, s. 40.

Tertiary roads, designation

41. (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate an existing road that is in whole or in part in territory without municipal organization as a tertiary road, and thereupon the provisions of this Act and the regulations that apply to the King's Highway, except sections 33 and 34, apply with necessary modifications to such tertiary road. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.50, s. 41 (1).


They are all King's Highway -- even tertiary (dirt) roads.

--William Allen Simpson 06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You have not proven that they are controlled-access highways, only that all controlled-access highways designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council are King's Highways. You're also wrong about tertiary roads being King's Highways; they are a separate class to which most of the same regulations apply. --SPUI (T - C) 06:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You're both right; only one of you is more right than the other. They are All King's Highways but the classes are of note - Controlled Access per section 36 are a subset of King's Highway; and 2-148 are just 'King's Highway' without any special designation (neither C.A nor 2ndary nor tertiary). Secondary Highways and Tertiary roads are a little strange; the Highway traffic act considers that Quote "King's Highway" includes the secondary highways and tertiary roads designated under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act ; ("route principale") Unquote (R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 1 (1)) While the puplic transportation act never actually specifies; only stating as you note that varying portions of the Act apply. Either way, some editing is required.[[Smiley|1}}Bridesmill 11:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to William Allen Simpson's comments about "Let me know when you've argued a couple cases before the US Court of Appeals, or even a state Court of Appeals, and then I'll take you a little more seriously...," this is an online encyclopedia editable by just about everyone; if you are a U.S. attorney (as you seem to infer), that has zilch to do with Canadian provincial statute. Nada. Nothing. So if your desire is to "win" in this matter, do so with facts and leave the courtroom snootery at home. Bumm13 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It always amazes me the anti-elite bias of some editors. Yes, even children can edit here. That doesn't make them "equal" in knowledge and experience. Wikipedia is not a democracy.

--William Allen Simpson 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes they can. Enjoy your stay at Wikipedia, Mr. Simpson Bumm13 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All the King's Highways[edit]

Interesting - so this is a list of King's Highways, unless the name has changed since 2003. I'm still not quite convinced of that though - that could just be a definition used for that specific law to make the language less cumbersome; if "King's Highway" always included those classes, why would they specifically define it as such? --SPUI (T - C) 12:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Note for instance [3]:
That part of the King’s Highway known as No. 69 in the Territorial District of Parry Sound lying between a point situate 400 metres measured northerly from its intersection with the northerly limit of the roadway known as Hammel Avenue in the Township of McDougall and a point situate 580 metres measured southerly from its intersection with the centre line of the Secondary Highway known as No. 644 in the Township of The Archipelago.
This clearly distinguishes between King's and Secondary Highways. --SPUI (T - C) 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's my point - the HTA Classifies them all as the same, the Transport Act doesn't specify; although by saying that quote the regulations that apply to the King's Highway apply with necessary modifications to such secondary highway unquote (similar wording for tertiary) certainly implies that 2ndary & tertiary are "not" King's highways, only that the same law applies. That would give us Provincial highways =(Kings Highways to include controlled access roads) + (secondary highways); but the act also differentiates and pointedly refers to tertiary as "roads" and not "highways". Bridesmill 12:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the HTA may be using a nonstandard definition to make the language less cumbersome; if "King's Highway" always includes those classes, why do they specifically define it as such? --SPUI (T - C) 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that a university-level political science course might improve your base of knowledge. The idea that the language in the HTA is non-standard (that the legislature somehow makes some of its laws more standard than others) is ludicrous.
In this case, an encyclopedia, we prefer "less cumbersome" language.
--William Allen Simpson 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I talked to several people on IRC who agreed with me and said they'd put something on this talk page saying so, but no one did. The problem is that no one cares enough to deal with an editor revert warring to insert incorrect information on an obscure subject. --SPUI (T - C) 17:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I could gather by reading these, it seems that there are some highways that are considered King's Highways, and other types of highways (secondary, tertiary) can be considered King's Highways at the discretion of the lieutenant governor, and the same regulations that apply to King's Highways can be applied to other types of highways, at the discretion of the lieutenant governor. Then again, I'm no Canadian highway expert. Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Reasonably close - for police purposes, if it's a road under provincial jurisdiction it gets treated as a King's Highway under the Highway Traffic Act essentially - there are more exceptions as the category of road goes down, but those are relatively inane. Basically, 1-499 are King's highways, except 400s are also controlled access 500-699 block is for secondary highways, higher numbers are for provincial tertiary roads. The 'discretion of the lt-gov' bit is a throwback; any piece of legislature, including establishing a new highway or changing its jurisdiction, requires the LtGov's signature as the last step of the legislative process - but though they have veto power, this has never been used in memory (exactly the same as the Queen's veto on legislation in the UK) Bit of a ramble but saves you reading Canadian Parliamentary Procedure & Law of Canada

SFriendly.gifBridesmill 21:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned 7XXX routes and of course the QEW seem to also be King's Highways. Presumably some of the under-400 routes are officially designated controlled access. --SPUI (T - C) 22:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the HTA applies on 7000s; being transitional thye are Highways but I'm uncertain if they fall into the King's category - theyre not primary, controlled acces, or secondary, and that is the only place where the act calls them 'King's'. Agree on QEW - bit of a weird one, but it was the Freeway before Freeways - 399?? I don't think it ever had a number; then again, does the 1000 islands parkway, which is also controlled access at least in part. Not sure which portions of the original series are controlled access; might be worth listing. Only ones that pops into my head is portions of 7, 11 and 69 (that bit certainly differentiates the argument - you can argue one or the other, but proof of the pudding is in those examples, which are both controlled access and something else (that something being undifferentiated part one of the act King's Highways...)Bridesmill 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[4]: "That part of the King's Highway known as No. 7187 lying between a point at its intersection with the King's Highway known as No. 401 and a point at its intersection with the King's Highway known as No. 8 (King Street) in the City of Kitchener." --SPUI (T - C) 11:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the language is very plain. For "controlled-access highways," the wording reads "shall be deemed to be part of the King’s Highway." For the other "secondary" and "tertiary" roads, that language is not present - instead, it says "regulations that apply to the King's Highway." That seems to me to indicate that those secondary and tertiary roads are *not* part of the King's Highway, because if it was intended to include them in the King's Highway, the legislative language for those two categories would have read as the "controlled-access highways" section did. FCYTravis 07:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what's known as a "tortured reading" of the statute. There's nothing particularly special about King's Highways. It just means a road:
  • bigger than a cow path,
  • for vehicular travel,
  • that has been registered,
  • that is controlled and maintained by the province.
That's all in the definitions in Part I. It's just a archaic legal formalism, probably dating back beyond Telford and McAdam, as is the approval of the Lt. Governor. It is particularly telling that the other Acts, such as the HTA, use somewhat different phraseology. If this were language with strong legislative intent, arguably you'd find greater consistency.
The main thrust is that the roads themselves are no longer termed "King's Highways" at the MTO. They are "provincial highways". They are divided into 3 classes: "controlled-access", "secondary", and "tertiary". This article needs to reflect current reality.
--William Allen Simpson 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it "tortured" to read the plain language of the statute, which says that controlled access highways shall be deemed to be part of the King's Highway, and that the regulations which apply to the Kings Highway also apply to secondary and tertiary roads, clearly separating the two? Legislative intent seems to be clear - if the latter were part of the King's Highway, the same language would have been used as was used for controlled access highways. I think it is you who is making a "tortured reading" of the statute. FCYTravis 19:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I will admit I'm a late-comer to this discussion, after being tipped off to its existence this evening, but after reviewing the entire discussion page, I have to admit I am confused as to just what is being discussed!
For example, this whole thing about "controlled-access" being synonymous with "King's Highway" is ludicrous. One can have a "controlled-access King's Highway" and a King's Highway where there is uncontrolled access. A controlled-access highway is one where private access, e.g. driveways, business entrances, etc., are restricted or prohibited altogether. An uncontrolled access highway is one where driveways and other private access is fully allowed as normal. As just one (of many) examples, Hwy 7/8 from Stratford easterly to west of New Hamburg is an uncontrolled-access highway, with driveways, sideroads, etc. From west of New Hamburg to the Wilmot Centre Rd interchange at Baden, Hwy 7/8 is a controlled-access highway -- something that may be technically termed an "expressway" in other jurisdictions (NOT the colloquial term "expressway," as in the "Kennedy Expressway" in Chicago, which is technically a freeway, which is another discussion altogether.). From Wilmot Centre Rd easterly into Kitchener, Hwy 7/8 is a full freeway, which is another type of controlled-access highway (or limited-access in some jurisdictions). So, here we have one highway which is built to different standards at different portions of its route: uncontrolled-access, controlled-access and limited-access freeway. To sum up, "controlled-access" can refer to ANY kind of roadway, regardless of jurisdiction -- it's a functional classification, not a jurisdictional classification. There are controlled-access and limited-access municipal roads (Don Valley Pkwy, Gardiner Expwy, Queensway East in Ottawa, E.C. Row Expwy, Highbury Ave in London, Lincoln Alexander Pkwy, etc., etc.,) and thousands of kilometres of uncontrolled-access provincial highways.
Mr. Simpson's assertion that there are three classes of provincial highway in Ontario, "controlled-access", "secondary", and "tertiary", is not correct, as one could theoretically have a controlled-access secondary highway, although I am at a loss to name any secondaries that exist at that level. The three types of Ontario provincial highways are primary highways (often called "King's Highways") numbered 3-148 (historically 169 and below) and the 400-series, secondary highways numbered 502-673 and tertiary highways in the 800s, although there are few of those today. On the other hand, control of access is something the MTO can pursue on any stretch of any highway as a safety and traffic control measure. Essentially all of the 400-series highways are freeways (limited-access), while there are some expressway stretches (controlled-access). The remainder of the system is mostly uncontrolled-access, with portions of controlled- and limited-access where necessary (e.g. portions of Hwy 11, Hwy 69, Hwy 17, Hwy 115, etc.).
The section of the article under the heading "Highway Classes" is essentially correct, although the term "Kings Highway" is a general term that, unfortunately, lacks a consistent and precise definition. While some would say it applies to the primary (3-148, 400s, QEW) system, others can just as easily maintain it is synonymous with any highway maintained by or under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation. This is due, in part, to the fact that in the early days of the provincial highway system -- where there was only one kind "highway" in the province which were all marked with the same type of route marker -- the route markers along these highways had the "King's Highway" legend on them. Over the decades, other types of highway came into being, specifically the secondary and tertiary system, which utilized different route marker styles to differentiate them from the higher-quality primary highways. However, the secondary and tertiary highways are still fully provincial highways and are a part of the larger system. Therefore, my opinion is that the best classification of the three main types of Ontario provincial highways is: Primary (King's) Highways, Secondary Highways, and Tertiary Highways. With the elimination of the "Kings Highway" legend from all Ontario route markers in the 1990s, however, only the word "Ontario" appears on each of the three types of markers, including the QEW's. Thus, many would consider the term "King's Highway" more of an antiquated term these days.
Sorry for the extended response, but it seems this discussion is a rather complex one! --CBessert 05:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Is this "Primary Highway" name used in any official context? I can't find it in either provincial laws or the MTO's site. Of course the MTO doesn't seem to use secondary or tertiary either, bot laws do. --SPUI (T - C) 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
"Primary Highway" is "less official", if you will, than Secondary and Tertiary, but as we've seen, the Secondary and Tertiary concepts are rarely mentioned in provincial laws, but the classifications have been firmly entrenched in the Ontario highway system for decades, from internal MTO classifications to the route markers posted alongside each of these routes. You can see some laws and some references on MTO's site call ANY provincial highway a "King's Highway", while others seem to limit it to the Primary system. If you are searching for both clear-cut and neatly laid-out legal designations and attendant definitions, I highly doubt there are any. The Highway Traffic Act is the closest one gets, but in that act the "Primary" routes are simply referred to as "highway," which is rooted in the history of the system, as I noted in another part of the discussion. Various people have used the word "Primary highway" to delimit those between 3 and 148 (historically 2-169) and the 400s/QEW and differentiate them from Secondaries and Tertiaries, as the latter two are also "highways". So, to limit the inevitable confusion, using "Primary Highway" to denote 3-148, 400s, and QEW is, in my opinion, the best solution available. Otherwise, you would start with "Highway" then have "Secondary Highway" which is also a "Highway", but a different class of one... you see where that takes you. -- 22:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow that was fast[edit]

Never even hit 3RR and the page is protected? Doesn't even seem like that bad a dispute...Bridesmill 21:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputes should never get close to 3RR. Also, both were out of reverts and so its best that it's left protected (especially when the reverts have such useless comments like "revert incorrect crap"). By the way, I protected the page in response to a request on WP:RFPP. BrokenSegue 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Controlled-access highway[edit]

Sadly, the page is frozen at the incorrect SPUI version, so my references are missing. You'll need to look at my previous version.

Are we all agreed with the irrefutable fact that the Act specifies the Part II class to be named "Controlled-access highway"? (by inspection)

--William Allen Simpson 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, part 2 specifies that if the province designates a controlled-access highway, it becomes a King's Highway. --SPUI (T - C) 14:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, "Part II" specifies that if the MTO designates an existing or proposed segment of the provincial highway system as being controlled-access, all of the restrictions and regulations that apply to an uncontrolled-access provincial highway will apply to this controlled-access highway, but with additional restrictions, most notably that private access is not allowed. (See my more lengthy comments below.) The MTO would only designate a segment of provincial highway (existing or proposed) as being controlled-access. -- CBessert 05:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the current version is the correct one; controlled acces=King's. and is a sub-set. Perhaps the somewhat quaint and not quite so legalese way of writing law in this country makes it a little confusing for some, but this is how it is interpreted and applied here.Bridesmill 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to add something here. The discussion of "Part II" above has been too narrowly focused. "Part II" is simply stating that any section of highway designated as "controlled-access" by the MTO is still a provincial highway and carries with it all of the regualations that a provincial highway carries, with the additional restrictions of being a controlled-access facility. "Part II" exists to reinforce that a controlled-access designation does not imply any loss of regulation or control over that of a "regular" (uncontrolled-access) facility. The portion: "the provisions of this Act and the regulations that apply to the King’s Highway apply with necessary modifications to such controlled-access highway" indicate the more restrictive nature ("with necessary modifications") of a controlled-access highway versus an uncontrolled-access highway.
Also, please don't confuse "Part II" as stating all controlled-access facilities automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the province when those facilities are designated as being controlled-access. There are many, many examples of controlled-access highways and freeways across the province which are not provincial highways. The Don Valley Pkwy, Gardiner Expwy, Queensway East (east of Hwy 417) and many more aren't provincial highways. "Part II" is simply stating that any existing highway or proposed highway on the provincial system that is designated as controlled-access is simply a more restrictive type of provincial highway.
The act of becoming a provincial highway and becoming a controlled-access highway are two completely separate actions. For example, the MTO would never designate a locally-maintained facility as limited-access, as that facilty does not fall under their jurisdiction. If a local road were to become a controlled-access provincial highway, it would first be assumed into the provincial highway system, then it would be designated as a controlled-access facility by the MTO, assuming it was not previously. If a locally-maintained controlled-access facility were assumed into the provincial system, the two actions would essentially be simultaneous, unless the MTO made the determination that the assumed facility would no longer retain its controlled-access status, thus being assumed as an uncontrolled-access provincial highway... assuming that would ever happen. Clear as mud? -- CBessert 05:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Once this is unprotected, it should be reverted to the version before William's initial edits to change "King's Highway" to "controlled-access highway", with these changes made. --SPUI (T - C) 18:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree; tertiary are roads, not highways; plus footnoting to the acts is IMHO eminently useful for several reasons. Deprecation of "Kings Highway and transition to "Provicial Highway" (de facto done, de jure in process) is also important to mention, as is nuance of difference in definition between HTA and Transport Act, and expansion of section on seconday highways. In other words, the article as it stands now is not in particularly bad shape.Bridesmill 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - that should be fixed. But I think it would be best to start from before his changes and work from there in case he removed anything useful. --SPUI (T - C) 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As for "provincial highway", is this used only for the King's Highways or for all classes? I note that the MTO doesn't seem to use "secondary highway" or "tertiry road" any more than they use "King's Highway". --SPUI (T - C) 19:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Not 100% on this. My sense is that prov.highway has de facto replaced former usage of King's Highway, in other words secondary and above; I would assume when they redo the act, it will say that the law for provincial highways applies to tertiary roads except yada yada but that's crystal-ball gazing. Where I live, it's either Highway or downloaded.Bridesmill 00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
While I doubt any of you are still here, it is interesting to note that Highway refers to every active transportation corridor in the province. King's highways are individually designated highways. Secondary and tertiary highways are NOT King's highways, but rather highways that are below King's Highways standards, or that have been downloaded from that status. All squares are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are squares.
A controlled-access highway is a road with grade-separated interchanges. Along these line, the many municipal expressways scattered through the province are considered controlled access highways (Which are known as freeways when they are dual carriageway and completely controlled-access), but not King's Highways. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

External Link Update[edit]

When the page is unprotected, please note that the external link should be updated to PKT 23:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


It seems that this is the correct hierarchy:

  • Provincial Highway (voie publique provinciale): any highway under Ontario's jurisdiction [5] - there is a bit of use of Provincial Highway No. X ([6])
    • King's Highway (route primaire principale): 1-499, QEW, 7000 and up
    • Secondary Highway (route secondaire): 500-799
    • Tertiary Road (route tertiaire): 800 and up
      • Resource Road: selected Tertiary Roads for which some regulations do not apply
  • Industrial Road: privately owned
  • Federal Road: federally owned
  • Reserve Road: owned by the reserve
  • "road in territory without municipal organization": owned by the federal government, a local roads board, a roads commissioner or a private owner

Any comments? --SPUI (T - C) 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not perfect, for reasons covered in earlier discussions. Here are my thoughts:
1. The term "King's Highway" is also used for any provincial highway in some official texts, while in others it is understood to only mean the Primary highways (3-148,400s,QEW). Others I have spoken with over the years would not lump the 400 Series under the "King's Highway" heading, even though they use the traditional "King's Highway" marker from years past. The "King's Highway" moniker is so imprecise that to try and shoehorn it into a very precise definition is impossible.
2. I've always undertstood the tertiary system to be "Tertiary Highways", just like "Secondary Highways", etc. I'm sure the term "Tertiary Road" is also used, but lacking truly official "terms," I'd opt to keep it "Tertiary Highways."
3. I would refrain from lumping non-provincial highways into a list or article discussing provincial highways. These incldue the privately-owned roads (Resource, Industrial, Reserve) and those under the jurisdiction of lower units of government (regional, county, municipal, etc.). If this were an article or list of routes in Ontario, that's different, but there are so many other types of roadway facilities in the province that simply limiting the scope of the article to those under the jurisdiction of the province would seem to be the best course of action.
4. "Road in territory without municipal organization" may also be provincially-maintained as well. This is why many minor Secondary and Tertiary Highways in Northern Ontario remain on the system and were not downloaded in the late-90s, while highways that were ten times longer or carried hundreds of times the traffic volume were downloaded in the southern part of the province.
A better classification of the provincial system, IMHO, would be Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, Other [Provincial] Highways (which would include un-numbered routes, 7000-Series highways, etc.). -- CBessert 22:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The main source for the names is the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, which uses "Tertiary Road". This seems to jive with other laws.[7][8] Unfortunately I can't find anything that uses "Primary Highway".[9] There is clear usage of King's Highway for 400-series[10] and for 7000-series.[11] However there is also usage of King's Highway for Secondary Highways, though possibly in error.[12] --SPUI (T - C) 02:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Not an error, rather the imprecise meaning of the term "King's Highways" today, eighty years after it was first used. I still maintain you're searching for the easy and explicit answer in a sea of vague meanings. There is no legal definition of "King's Highway," rather there are varying definitions depending on which laws you read, which MTO documents you consult and which person's opinion you get. You and others here have pointed out that the term "King's Highway" is used conflictingly even within the MTO's documentation, so I still maintain trying to squeeze a definite answer from an indefinte term is ineffective. -- 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: In the Ottawa area, there are a bunch of what are known as "NCC Parkways". Would they fall under the federal road category? -Daniel Blanchette 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Not really, some roads, like Ottawa River Parkway and Aviation Parkway are at good standards, and others, listed extensivly in Ottawa Roads, are better to remain there; there is a wikiOttawa Project, and such a question might be better asked there

Bacl-presby 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

km/h to mph conversion[edit]

This is minor, but still, an encyclopedia should get this stuff right...

The article should state that 100 km/h is 62.1 mph.

The article states that 100 km/h is equal to 65 mph. This is not correct. Here's the conversion according to Google. They put 100 km/h at 62.1 mph, which is a fair way away from 65 mph. This conversion is also inconsistent with other articles on Ontario highways. Such as the 400-series highways which puts 100 km/h at 62.5 mph (which is closer, based on 1 mile = 1.6 km which is the conversion I've always used, but not surprisingly that's not totally accurate).

User:Yesteraeon 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As no one objected, I made the changes. I rounded to the nearest mph. Yesteraeon 02:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)