HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > SSP: Local London > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2011, 7:03 AM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 476
The sad part is London could have had all this paid 50% via the province, We had 4 ROUTES which would have served the city and London deferred and allowed Route E to be choose because of some weak kneed people couldn't raze a few houses...

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2011, 1:06 PM
manny_santos's Avatar
manny_santos manny_santos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,125
And even then, the route that was actually built was not Route E, it was a route much further west of then-city limits. Had that been built as shown, I would've had a freeway near where I grew up.
__________________
I enjoy chicken of the cave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2011, 2:43 PM
ForestryW's Avatar
ForestryW ForestryW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 307
What was wrong with routes C and D I wonder? Those couldn't have required razing any more houses than the current 402 alignment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2011, 2:49 PM
Wharn's Avatar
Wharn Wharn is offline
Torontonian Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South Ontar-i-o
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by van Hemessen View Post
What was wrong with routes C and D I wonder? Those couldn't have required razing any more houses than the current 402 alignment.
I believe the Labatt family owned some property that was in the way of the northern routes, so they lobbied the province to build the highway further south. The province may have thought nothing of it, since at the time Windermere Road was the urban development line- there was nothing much to the north of it, and thus nobody for the new highway to serve.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2011, 5:43 PM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 476
Route A was the preferred route by the province since it was the shortest distance of them all, thus cost the least as well Highbury extension was already built. However it pissed off the most amount of people since it would have required homes to be razed along Second St. and nearby areas. Personally the province should have ordered this to be the 402 Route, would have served areas IN London, and made Highbury extension useful.

Route B was acceptable to both the province & London, despite the fact it would have been in the extreme east of the city. City of London even voted for this to be the 402 Route, but construction wasn't started and the process stalled. Essentially what Wharn said is correct, north-end residence weren't happy since a highway would be running close by, as well high tension hydro lines would have run along the highway. Influential families like the Labatts lobbied for the route to be moved more north. Route A would have been better since Second St had/has hydro lines running along the corridor.

Route C was accepted by the city to placate these north-end residents. However the province was pissed since London was still leaving it open for debate, as well the route was getting much longer than anticipated by the province. The province told them either to pick Route A or B, otherwise it would be done to the Southwest of the city. A new council was elected the people on transportation committee were anti-402, thus they rejected any Route accept C or D, so the province told them off and that's why the 402 is where it is. Personally a route C north-end that connected to route A east-end would have been the best to chill the Labatts and be useful to commuters, but never was thought.

We got Airport Road/VMP as a consolation which was suppose to be paid by the province, but still 40 years later is just an overrated arterial road that doesn't serve the needs of most Londoners. At least Fontana seems to be moving in getting it to a freeway, but it was a huge area London missed out on. If they had done any of these proposed 402 Routes in city all we would have needed is a west-end expressway and the ring road would be complete!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2011, 9:35 PM
haljackey's Avatar
haljackey haljackey is offline
User Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 1,786
Route B would have been the best in my opinion.

400-series highways, by design, were meant to bypass centers of population. The 401 did that in London, and this 402 route would have as well at the time. You'd have nice growth along this corridor and a good way for people who want to travel from one end of the city to the other.

The current 402 route doesn't even bypass the city since it wasn't even in the city limits when it was built. In addition, it didn't even interchange with any city roads (Wonderland Road interchange wasn't built yet and Highway 4 serviced Lambeth).

Simply put, this was a huge loss for the city, arguably the biggest 'fail' our fair city ever made.



By the way, where did you find that picture?
__________________
My Twitter

My Simcity Stuff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 4:55 AM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 476
It was a master's thesis on the London 402 issue. I have the full PDF file with maps & thesis which I can gladly send, or if someone knows how make available online. Quite an in-depth thesis on the 402!

Here's a Map of all the proposed 402 Southwest routes...


Last edited by Pimpmasterdac; Jun 23, 2011 at 5:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 6:10 AM
haljackey's Avatar
haljackey haljackey is offline
User Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 1,786
Made a new interchange in SimCity 4 that could be built at the 401/VMP junction:



Inspired by this design:


The 401 would be the route at the bottom so it doesn't have to split up directions of travel.

That or a previously discussed clover-stack are good ideas for a free-flowing junction at VMP-401. The planned conversion to a parclo for a northern extension is stupid and delays converting the VMP to a freeway for decades.
__________________
My Twitter

My Simcity Stuff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 7:46 PM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 476


That looks like a great interchange for 401/VMP! Makes the connections free-flowing and requires only 2 separate bridges for its construction. Maybe an idea for its construction so we take a step forward and not one back.

Clover-stack requires like 8 bridges/tunnels to be constructed raising the costs substantially and is very space consuming.

I would seriously ask or submit that idea haljackey to the study going on for the VMP southern extension http://london.ca/d.aspx?s=/Transport...h_Extension_Ea
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 10:25 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,095
I like that too, although I don't think the MTO enjoys constructing left-side exits from a road to the next. Good design though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 12:18 AM
sonysnob sonysnob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 461
The old Telegraph interchange from I-94 in Detroit looked similar to that. It was replaced as a SPUI last decade.



I agree though, cool looking interchange.
__________________
AsphaltPlanet.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 4:01 AM
haljackey's Avatar
haljackey haljackey is offline
User Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac View Post


That looks like a great interchange for 401/VMP! Makes the connections free-flowing and requires only 2 separate bridges for its construction. Maybe an idea for its construction so we take a step forward and not one back.

Clover-stack requires like 8 bridges/tunnels to be constructed raising the costs substantially and is very space consuming.

I would seriously ask or submit that idea haljackey to the study going on for the VMP southern extension http://london.ca/d.aspx?s=/Transport...h_Extension_Ea
Not the clover-stack we were thinking of earlier in this thread. It was only two levels. Pic below.



Submit this to the planning staff? You know, maybe I will. It won't hurt anything, that's for sure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
I like that too, although I don't think the MTO enjoys constructing left-side exits from a road to the next. Good design though.
True, but the VMP would be the one with left-exits in this design, outside of MTO's jurisdiction since they downloaded Highway 100 to the city. The underpassing route (401) has exits and entrances all on the right, and does not split up directions of travel on the freeway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sonysnob View Post
The old Telegraph interchange from I-94 in Detroit looked similar to that. It was replaced as a SPUI last decade.

I agree though, cool looking interchange.
Thanks! Does the interchange that replaced it have a cool blue-coloured bridge? If so I remember it during my last travels in Detroit on the way to the airport.


----

Also did a video drive of the interchange if anyone's interested. View it here: http://youtu.be/svzScwnDchU
__________________
My Twitter

My Simcity Stuff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 12:47 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by haljackey View Post
Submit this to the planning staff? You know, maybe I will. It won't hurt anything, that's for sure.
I think you should, worst case they do nothing with it...best case it smartens them up to not waste the money on something we do not need.

What you have done is the best solution for that interchange.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 7:12 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by haljackey View Post

True, but the VMP would be the one with left-exits in this design, outside of MTO's jurisdiction since they downloaded Highway 100 to the city. The underpassing route (401) has exits and entrances all on the right, and does not split up directions of travel on the freeway.
True, but all overpasses, ramps and connecting roads leading to the overpass are MTO jurisdiction. Wonderland Road bridge over 402 is not the jurisdiction of the City of London, nor are the VMP ramps or overpasses.

Although, I think you sorta mentioned that in your post, I was just clarifying. Definitely send that proposal to the MTO though - and see what they think.

The other problem is this design would likely require the removal of the existing VMP overpass over Highway 401, there isn't enough room to fit all the lanes and have the ramp connect on an angle like seen above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 3:14 PM
Wharn's Avatar
Wharn Wharn is offline
Torontonian Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South Ontar-i-o
Posts: 954
Even though it may be MTO jurisdiction, I don't think there's any problem with submitting it to the municipal planning committee as well as the MTO. It may teach them that parclos are not the end-all-be-all of interchanges. Actually, instead of just sending this design in and hoping for the best, I would encourage you to get your physical foot in the door and see if you can make some sort of pitch to the planning authorities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 3:12 PM
haljackey's Avatar
haljackey haljackey is offline
User Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 1,786
Well I actually know some people in the planning department, so I'll see what I can do. I'll also compose an email to the transportation department because why not?

Convincing the MTO is another thing. Still, worth a shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
The other problem is this design would likely require the removal of the existing VMP overpass over Highway 401, there isn't enough room to fit all the lanes and have the ramp connect on an angle like seen above.
Actually the existing overpass could remain as it's two-way one lane ramps. A bridge directly parallel to it could carry the mainline VMP. So technically, there could be 3 bridges, one four lane bridge for one direction, two two lane ones for the other.

The size of this junction could be a tight squeeze between the Old Victoria Westchester Bourne overpasses. To make things more complicated, Westchester has an interchange of it's own about 1km away from the VMP, which is already 'too close' by MTO standards. Perhaps they could convert this one to a folded diamond (would require a new bridge but the existing one is old) or a partial access half diamond or just get rid of the interchange entirely.

Same thing goes for the VMP itself. A future interchange at Bradley ave may be too close, but a folded diamond could work here as well.
__________________
My Twitter

My Simcity Stuff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 12:13 AM
Pimpmasterdac's Avatar
Pimpmasterdac Pimpmasterdac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 476


The southern extension of the VMP still hasn't had an environmental assessment approved for it. Public hearings & design proposals for the new interchange need to be shown. Qualifying the need for a free flowing interchange is the important thing that the city/MTO would have to backtrack on with their proposed Parclo.

Honestly the whole southern extension at this time is idiotic. City of London & London Liberal MPPs are jumping on the money being given away by the province to do this, plus the Wonderland/401 interchange. While Wonderland currently doesn't have an interchange and is needed, VMP would be much better to build interchanges further north.

If only the money could be re-directed it would benefit the inhabited part of London, not some desolate lands south of the 401!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2012, 11:09 PM
manny_santos's Avatar
manny_santos manny_santos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,125
I think what's inevitable is a southerly extension of the VMP to Wilton Grove Road, even if an extension into Elgin County is decades off. Still, I don't see it as a high priority, as Wilton Grove Road in that area can easily be accessed from Highbury or Highway 74.

I'd rather see Wonderland get extended south into the north end of St. Thomas, at least as far as Highway 3.
__________________
I enjoy chicken of the cave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2012, 2:09 AM
sonysnob sonysnob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForestryW View Post
Had a lecture last night by a transportation planner discussing the environmental assessment process in Ontario. Someone asked if the Conestoga Parkway (KW's "ring-road") would have been permitted if it was proposed today. He said absolutely not, or at least it would be virtually impossible.
Sorry to respond to an old post. But I don't agree with this at all. The Conestoga Parkway does not go through any environmentally sensitive areas, so why wouldn't it go through now? Hamilton just built a new freeway, similar to the Conestoga, and other freeway projects are still going on.

On what grounds wouldn't it be permitted?
__________________
AsphaltPlanet.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2012, 3:08 AM
manny_santos's Avatar
manny_santos manny_santos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonysnob View Post
Sorry to respond to an old post. But I don't agree with this at all. The Conestoga Parkway does not go through any environmentally sensitive areas, so why wouldn't it go through now? Hamilton just built a new freeway, similar to the Conestoga, and other freeway projects are still going on.

On what grounds wouldn't it be permitted?
Perhaps today the lands would be developed, and it would be like trying to build the Spadina Expressway.

That's the only reason I can think of.
__________________
I enjoy chicken of the cave
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > SSP: Local London > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:26 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.