Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph

[ijmorlan]

The Gardiner was just uploaded to the province, so yeah we did pay for its continued existence - and future generations will too as the price tag keeps growing and the benefits keep dwindling.

You know full well that the old lady without a driver's licence and the guy with the F350 are paying the same property taxes for maintaining roads and incurring quite different infrastructure maintenance costs on everyone.

And what’s hilarious is that many of the same people who vehemently proclaim their independence, self-sufficiency, and anti-socialism would have a heart attack if they thought they would be required to start paying each time they used the roads.

[bravado]

The Gardiner was just uploaded to the province, so yeah we did pay for its continued existence - and future generations will too as the price tag keeps growing and the benefits keep dwindling.

You know full well that the old lady without a driver's licence and the guy with the F350 are paying the same property taxes for maintaining roads and incurring quite different infrastructure maintenance costs on everyone.

And what’s hilarious is that many of the same people who vehemently proclaim their independence, self-sufficiency, and anti-socialism would have a heart attack if they thought they would be required to start paying each time they used the roads.

There’s nobody more aggrieved than the person who doesn’t even know they’re being subsidized - aka the average suburban voter.

[ac3r]

Ae someone who routinely uses the Gardiner, I can not imagine not having it.  It would be brutal without it.

At there's at least one other person here with sensibility.

Too many people here - or rather, armchair urbanists in general - really don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. They are vehemently opposed to personal automobiles for whatever reason and that's it.

Important cities/regions need high capacity highways into, through and out of core areas and without them you run into complex problems. Yeah, roads and train tracks etc are unsightly but necessary. It is not possible to have a major city with hundreds of thousands to millions of people without such infrastructure.

We can certainly improve, rebuilt or replace many of them but it would be impossible to function without.

[neonjoe]

Ae someone who routinely uses the Gardiner, I can not imagine not having it.  It would be brutal without it.

At there's at least one other person here with sensibility.

Too many people here - or rather, armchair urbanists in general - really don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. They are vehemently opposed to personal automobiles for whatever reason and that's it.

Important cities/regions need high capacity highways into, through and out of core areas and without them you run into complex problems. Yeah, roads and train tracks etc are unsightly but necessary. It is not possible to have a major city with hundreds of thousands to millions of people without such infrastructure.

We can certainly improve, rebuilt or replace many of them but it would be impossible to function without.

Toronto for its size is actually very highway light compared to other North American cities. At least the Gardiner was built in the industrial parts of the city rather than by cutting down neighbourhood.
Inter city highways are okay if they are built when demand is already there and they follow an existing demand corridor. It’s not going to encourage as much sprawl as a completely new build somewhere else. Our cities and the province have decent planning tools to prevent development as well. Often in smaller states a lot of the sprawl they see is in unincorporated areas with very little in the way of restrictions about what can be built.

[Bjays93]

At there's at least one other person here with sensibility.

Too many people here - or rather, armchair urbanists in general - really don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. They are vehemently opposed to personal automobiles for whatever reason and that's it.

Important cities/regions need high capacity highways into, through and out of core areas and without them you run into complex problems. Yeah, roads and train tracks etc are unsightly but necessary. It is not possible to have a major city with hundreds of thousands to millions of people without such infrastructure.

We can certainly improve, rebuilt or replace many of them but it would be impossible to function without.

Toronto for its size is actually very highway light compared to other North American cities. At least the Gardiner was built in the industrial parts of the city rather than by cutting down neighbourhood.
Inter city highways are okay if they are built when demand is already there and they follow an existing demand corridor. It’s not going to encourage as much sprawl as a completely new build somewhere else. Our cities and the province have decent planning tools to prevent development as well. Often in smaller states a lot of the sprawl they see is in unincorporated areas with very little in the way of restrictions about what can be built.

This precisely. Toronto effectively has 3 East/West Highways, and 4 North/South ones, we'll ignore the 412 and 418 for the sake of this conversation. For reference, Rochester, NY has a similar number of controlled access highways. I think that speaks for itself (not that we should be trying to emulate U.S. city design of course.

[danbrotherston]

At there's at least one other person here with sensibility.

Too many people here - or rather, armchair urbanists in general - really don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. They are vehemently opposed to personal automobiles for whatever reason and that's it.

Important cities/regions need high capacity highways into, through and out of core areas and without them you run into complex problems. Yeah, roads and train tracks etc are unsightly but necessary. It is not possible to have a major city with hundreds of thousands to millions of people without such infrastructure.

We can certainly improve, rebuilt or replace many of them but it would be impossible to function without.

Toronto for its size is actually very highway light compared to other North American cities. At least the Gardiner was built in the industrial parts of the city rather than by cutting down neighbourhood.
Inter city highways are okay if they are built when demand is already there and they follow an existing demand corridor. It’s not going to encourage as much sprawl as a completely new build somewhere else. Our cities and the province have decent planning tools to prevent development as well. Often in smaller states a lot of the sprawl they see is in unincorporated areas with very little in the way of restrictions about what can be built.

Toronto is highway light compared with US cities...but I'd rather compare with contemporary Canadian cities, of which there are few...it's probably comparable to, or worse than Montreal, and much MUCH worse than Vancouver.

As for inter-city highways. They aren't inherently bad...no, but they aren't built in a vacuum...they are usually built instead of building effective transit...or competing with transit....

As for sprawl...the last 50 years of 90% suburban development along highway corridors in Canada would like to have a conversation with you. The fact is, comparing us with the US will usually make Canada look good...but we should probably aim higher than the single worst western nation on Earth.

[coriander]

Toronto for its size is actually very highway light compared to other North American cities. At least the Gardiner was built in the industrial parts of the city rather than by cutting down neighbourhood.
Inter city highways are okay if they are built when demand is already there and they follow an existing demand corridor. It’s not going to encourage as much sprawl as a completely new build somewhere else. Our cities and the province have decent planning tools to prevent development as well. Often in smaller states a lot of the sprawl they see is in unincorporated areas with very little in the way of restrictions about what can be built.

Toronto is highway light compared with US cities...but I'd rather compare with contemporary Canadian cities, of which there are few...it's probably comparable to, or worse than Montreal, and much MUCH worse than Vancouver.

As for inter-city highways. They aren't inherently bad...no, but they aren't built in a vacuum...they are usually built instead of building effective transit...or competing with transit....

As for sprawl...the last 50 years of 90% suburban development along highway corridors in Canada would like to have a conversation with you. The fact is, comparing us with the US will usually make Canada look good...but we should probably aim higher than the single worst western nation on Earth.

While we definitely ought to look to better examples than the United States, one of the most common themes in discussions of urban motorways in English-language spaces relates to the destruction of existing urban areas to make way for them. This is ubiquitous in American cities where street grids bend into the gravity wells of enormous city-centre interchanges, something conspicuously absent in Toronto. There are definitely a lot of highways. But they were built in greenfield, or in ravines and valleys, or in uninhabited industrial lands. So despite there being a pretty huge number of highways, they don't have the same historical legacy. They certainly did encourage bad development patterns in the 905, though. Sometimes I wonder what Mississauga might have grown like if Metro kept its planning authority over it.

[KevinL]

Another delay extends horizon for a new Highway 7 from Kitchener to Guelph; replacement of the Frederick Street bridge won’t conclude until 2027, province now says

The new highway requires the replacement of the Frederick Street bridge that spans the Highway 7/85 expressway in Kitchener. Ontario first advertised for contractors in 2021, but never awarded the job.

Ontario revived the project in 2023 with a public notice that anticipated demolition and replacement of the bridge in 2024.

The province now says bridge replacement won’t start until 2025 and won’t conclude until 2027.

[ZEBuilder]

Another delay extends horizon for a new Highway 7 from Kitchener to Guelph; replacement of the Frederick Street bridge won’t conclude until 2027, province now says

The new highway requires the replacement of the Frederick Street bridge that spans the Highway 7/85 expressway in Kitchener. Ontario first advertised for contractors in 2021, but never awarded the job.

Ontario revived the project in 2023 with a public notice that anticipated demolition and replacement of the bridge in 2024.

The province now says bridge replacement won’t start until 2025 and won’t conclude until 2027.

A lot of this comes down to the utilities that have to be moved for the new bridge, Bell and Rogers both had utility ducts on the bridge, Rogers utilized their existing ducts elsewhere, Bell tunneled under the highway at the Edna/Bruce St ramps which happened this summer. You also have a sanitary force main (500mm) that needs to be relocated, the city has it scheduled to start in September, the contract has been awarded but I haven't been over there recently to see if construction is actually happening. The project includes full reconstruction (new force main to replace the existing in the bridge footprint, new local sanitary, and new watermain). 

Certainly the city could have gotten this done earlier but unless someone here works for the city no one will really know why.

[SammyOES]

Lol, that title is completely wrong since there is no timeline for the highway. This isn’t a delay since it’s a single freaking bridge involved with the highway. And many other necessary bridges (including ones over the grand river) aren’t even close to being started.

It’s so ridiculous that politicians and media treat this as a real project. Like how could a delay to 2027 possibly delay the horizon of a highway that has literally no funding, no plans, no active work happening, etc. etc. etc.

Even if someone told Ford this highway had to be built to stop the car-hating bikers from taking away his convenience store beer and Tim Horton’s breakfast sandwich - he couldn’t get this highway built by 2027 from the current state of things.

[timc]

Yeah, Highway 7 is the Lucy-holding-the-football of construction projects. Every election we think she's not going to pull the ball away, but you know what happens.

[Spokes]

Timeline = never

[tomh009]

Timeline = never

I think the Spanish term "mañana" is the most appropriate here!

[SammyOES]

Yeah, Highway 7 is the Lucy-holding-the-football of construction projects. Every election we think she's not going to pull the ball away, but you know what happens.

They only got me once. When Ford was elected I thought there’s no way he stops the already slow progress that’s happening given it won’t cost much per year and he’s a Conservative that loves cars. But whoops, I was tricked.

I wonder what it would cost to build a bike trail or hiking path along the route since they already own the land. Don’t even need to pave it or anything.

I guarantee the quickest way to get the highway built is for bikes and hikers to start using the path.

[Spokes]

Timeline = never

I think the Spanish term "mañana" is the most appropriate here!

mañanamañana, always mañana