Provincial highway downloads (was: Re: Ontario Mega-amalgamations)
Colin R. Leech
In a previous message, ad...@interlog.com wrote:
>
>Another issue, as long as we're in downloading frenzy; the
>anachronistic-imperialistic label for Ontario's provincial highways, "King's
>Highways".
I'm sure they considered switching them all to "The Queen's Highway #xxx",
but I guess they weren't expecting her to outlive (out-reign) the lifespan
of a typical guide sign. :-)
>Interestingly, Hwy 407 is the first provincial highway to dispense
>of the familiar King's Highway shield in its signage, adopting what I call an
>"SAT test bubble" shape instead. A portent, perhaps...
Not really. You don't want people thinking that 407 is a typical highway,
because it isn't due to the electronic toll aspects. I'm not even sure
if it's officially considered a "provincial" highway, since it was built
and is operated by a private company. The Don Valley Parkway, gardiner
Expressway, Allen Road, and the (NCC) parkways around Ottawa don't use
the provincial crest either because they aren't owned by the Province.
>Perhaps Ontario's due for a complete "highwaying" overhaul, top to bottom,
Premier Harris is doing just that, as indicated by the title of this thread.
>and
>the "King's Highway" is over and done with before long? Might as well.
See above.
>It looks like Ontario might be ahead of many other places; the first
>"postmodern" highway system.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
>You know my view; I still don't like it; why
>must 400-series highways always supercede, rather than supplement, existing
>highways?
Because the provincial highway system is supposed to be the backbone of
intercity travel, whereas the older superceded highways (eg. 2, 11) serve
localized needs.
> True roadtripping shouldn't be relegated to mere marginalized
>eccentricity...
The roads are all still there.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Steve Riner
>The roads are all still there.
>
...an attitude that I wish could be adopted by those who would like to see
obsolete U.S.-numbered routes resurrected, even though they have long since
been superseded by interstates and relegated to local function.
Steve Riner
Columbia Heights MN
Minnesota Highways Page is at:
http://www.frontiercomm.net/~sriner/main_hwy.htm
ad...@interlog.com
Colin R. Leech wrote:
> >You know my view; I still don't like it; why
> >must 400-series highways always supercede, rather than supplement, existing
> >highways?
>
> Because the provincial highway system is supposed to be the backbone of
> intercity travel, whereas the older superceded highways (eg. 2, 11) serve
> localized needs.
When you travel, break the backbone. Don't be a "dreary dad".
> > True roadtripping shouldn't be relegated to mere marginalized
> >eccentricity...
>
> The roads are all still there.
My I ask some of my fellow Ontarians; if you happen to ever motor in an
out-of-Ontario place, do you use the numbers on maps as guidelines to where you
go? Or when the alternative is the Interstate, you automatically follow it, even
when you have the leisure to do otherwise? (Like, as I've suggested before, I-95
as opposed to US1 between New York and New Haven. Or maybe US301 as opposed to
I-95 through Virginia and the Carolinas; follow those dead motels and gas
stations...) Without the numbers, or adequate maps, it's all too easy to get
lost.
There's a sharp lack of highway poets, highway sensualists--the sensuality of 3/4+
century of highway history--here. "The roads are still all there". Feh.
+++
FOOTNOTE!
+++
One of the absurdest public relations stunts of the past quarter century was when
some publicity nabobs declared Yonge Street "the longest street in the world",
going from Toronto all the way to Rainy River--in fact, Yonge Street as such
fritters away in a swamp north of of Holland Landing, the rest of it goes by other
names or is highway. You might as well call Route 66 "Ogden Avenue", then. Now
that sections of Hwy 11--the original raison d'etre behind Yonge Street's "longest
streetdom"--are being downloaded, the fragility of the concept is clear. I feel
that if any authority wanted to salvage something of this "Yonge Street" concept,
they should place special Toronto-Rainy River signage to that effect--they should
have done so for Yonge Street's "bicentennial" a couple of years ago. Something
along the lines of the signs which allow one and all to trace old Route 66. It
might be great for tourism, and make lemonade out of the absurd lemon of the
so-called "longest street in the world"...Ontarians are so woefully
unsophisticated about road-trip tourism...they don't have to be...
(hint hint for incentive's sake: Hwy 11 aka "Yonge Street" goes thru North Bay,
Premier Mike Harris's hometown)
ad...@interlog.com
ad...@interlog.com wrote:
> My I ask some of my fellow Ontarians; if you happen to ever motor in an
> out-of-Ontario place, do you use the numbers on maps as guidelines to where you
> go? Or when the alternative is the Interstate, you automatically follow it, even
> when you have the leisure to do otherwise? (Like, as I've suggested before, I-95
> as opposed to US1 between New York and New Haven. Or maybe US301 as opposed to
> I-95 through Virginia and the Carolinas; follow those dead motels and gas
> stations...) Without the numbers, or adequate maps, it's all too easy to get
> lost.
My favourite subversive numbered-highway road-tripping experience; 9AM in mid-April
1993, following US301 south of Petersburg VA, still perversely numbered as such
although reduced to the absurdity of a virtual frontage road for I-95, thumbing my
nose at the suckers using I-95 as the radio plays the James Gang's "Funk #49"...
It wouldn't be the same if it wasn't numbered US301. You see, there's a PSYCHOLOGY to
highway numbering...
(Note: Scott Kozel may know the highway situation I'm talking about. And OH! the old
Jeff Davis Hwy south of the James River...it really felt like I crossed a frontier
into another world that the southbound traveller seldom sees...)
ad...@interlog.com
"Okay, you asked for it"
Because my server was down, I had to fetch posts from my alternate address to address a
few points...
To Adam Szymczak: second time you misconstrued what I was saying. In my POV, a guy can
be a "dreary dad" (or fall prey to the symptoms) without being a dad. I was using
metaphor there...
Re "Well the last time I looked Interstates have numbers;)"--cut the smug smileys. You
know by now how I feel about shunting everything down upon the Interstates, and you know
by now that we're at odds over Hwys 401 vs (ex-)2 (although you tried to wiggle out of
that one). (And as for your stated strategies like Windsor-Goderich--with the leisure,
instead of I-94, would you ever take the parallel MI-3/19/whatever "old route" out of
leisurely curiosity? I would, and so what if Gratiot Ave traffic is nasty, let alone the
neighbourhoods it traverses. MI-29 doesn't count, because it's a roundabout "scenic
route"--too obvious. Of course, if directness and speed's the need, I-94 is there...you
don't even need to say that...)
And unfortunately this is an endless battle between those who believe in the psychology of
the numbered highway versus those for whom its meaningless...also embodied by Steve
Riner's post deriding those who want "obsolete" routes resurrected. (I'd probably drive
you bananas as a Minnesota travelling companion, taking old US-61 to Duluth rather than
I-35--well, feh to you.)
Speaking of psychology, there's one behind my "dreary dad" label. For a while I've been
seeing the superhighways/interstates as "male" (direct, efficient, dull), the "old
highways" as "female" (indirect, sensuous, rapturously exciting). Massive denumbering
like Ontario is doing is a violation of that essential "female" principle--or else, by
reducing them to county/regional roads (even if numbered), it reduces that female
principle to subservient chattel.
Unfortunately, I'm hearing a lot of people who make me feel like Valerie Solanas (men
stink). There's a female principle out there--respect it, adore it, bathe in it. Use
Laura Nyro (the embodiment of femaleness, may she rest in peace) to massacre Garth Brooks
(the embodiment of contemporary Dreary Dad nation). Or have the two complement each
other--have a dual-gendered highway system, and celebrate the womanly existence in
counterpoint to the necessary male superhighways.
As the Spice Girls (call me delerious, but I like them better than Garth Brooks) might
say, some of these so-called highway afficionados need a little bit of Girl Power...
ad...@interlog.com
This whole psychedelic flame-war I've been inducing leads me to a question; what is a
highway-lover? It almost strikes me that some of the highway afficionados I've been running
into here (but NOT my prime flame-conversation target, Adam Szymczak) may or may not be the
sort who regret that urban highway construction was often stopped in its tracks in the 60s and
70s. Or the sort who might sniff at my flat-earthdom re highway numbering or other funny
details (say, the replacement/alteration of old bridge structures). Are these Roads Scholars
old-school pro-highway to a fault? Is there room for a more elliptical, creative form of
accomodative historicist highway love?
Sorry if that's a muddled question, but it seems like the drab conservative "hey, it's
progress, live with it" functionalism needs to be aired out of highway afficionadodom.
Colin R. Leech
Adam Szymczak (szym...@ican.net) wrote:
>
> Sometimes I take the most direct route - and does not necessarily mean
> taking the Interstate. For example, travelling from Toronto to Boston via
> Gananoque, I took I-81 to NY 12 to Utica (for lunch) to I-90.
I often use county roads which may be faster and/or more direct than the
main highways, with less traffic (and almost no chance of radar traps :-).
Common examples of recent years: between Waterloo and CFB Borden Ont. (not
really any faster than 401/400, but far less stressful and much more
scenic - it's really the short side of a triangle), and between Ottawa and
Kingston (can usually set your own pace, and it's great for staying
awake on those late Sunday night returns to Ottawa after highway hypnosis
has set in from travelling 401 for hours in the dark).
Paul Schlichtman
Well, now that I have gotten over the feeling that the Ontario highway
debate is someone else's province, let me put my thoughts to cyberspace.
1. ROMANCE. Somewhere in Robbin, MN, there has to be someone looking
at MN 11, facing east, who fels a little romance when they look at a
route that would lead them across northern MN, through International
Falls, then eventually to downtow Toronto. Route 11 means something,
and this little psychological/romantic connection is important.
2. PRAGMATICS. Having some easilly indentified routes is important to
the traveler who did not grow up in an area. Such as... oh... that's
Route 11, Route 11 also goes by the _____ store that I like in another
town, and it allows someone to build a scaffold of geographic reference
points in ones mind.
Route numbers are more than a system for highway engineers to identify
the location in which a pothole needs to be filled. They are
navigationa tools that go beyond the thought that someone would actually
follow that route number for any great distance. It is a linear
reference point. Starting on Yonge Street in Toronto, I might choose to
wander over to the 404, then return to 11 around Newmarket. Or I might
choose to wander to the east side of Lake Simcoe and connect back to
Route 11 north of Orillia. Or if there is an overturned truckload of
chickens on the 400 or the 404, it's nice to know that good old Routes
11 and 27 are still marked and available.
Not to mention, on a long interstate trip, when I start to get hungry, I
seek out the parallel route and drive along it to go through the
bypassed towns. Having the route numbers directs me through business
districts so (1) I don't get lost and (2) I have a reasonable chance of
finding something to eat that doesn't come from a fast food cookie
cutter.
Keep the old routes alive.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------
"Because you are children and you can understand it."
-- Mr. Dolphus Raymond in To Kill a Mockingbird.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlichtman
Harvard University Graduate School of Education
mailto:schlicpa*NOSPAM*@hugse1.harvard.edu
remove the *NOSPAM* filter in the address or remove the SPAM from the
net.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://gseweb.harvard.edu/TIEWeb/STUDENTS/DOCTORAL/schlicpa/schlicpa.html
...and why you will be lost if you come to Arlington:
http://gseweb.harvard.edu/TIEWeb/STUDENTS/DOCTORAL/schlicpa/signs.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ad...@interlog.com
Colin R. Leech wrote:
> Adam Szymczak (szym...@ican.net) wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes I take the most direct route - and does not necessarily mean
> > taking the Interstate. For example, travelling from Toronto to Boston via
> > Gananoque, I took I-81 to NY 12 to Utica (for lunch) to I-90.
>
> I often use county roads which may be faster and/or more direct than the
> main highways, with less traffic (and almost no chance of radar traps :-).
> Common examples of recent years: between Waterloo and CFB Borden Ont. (not
> really any faster than 401/400, but far less stressful and much more
> scenic - it's really the short side of a triangle), and between Ottawa and
> Kingston (can usually set your own pace, and it's great for staying
> awake on those late Sunday night returns to Ottawa after highway hypnosis
> has set in from travelling 401 for hours in the dark).
I'm puzzled by this post, for I don't know what you mean by "county
roads"--most of the corridors along that short side of the triangle strike me
as pretty highwayish, Highway 7 especially. They may be a bit more
county-roadish if you follow the farther-north route via Renfrew and Casino
Rama, but they still strike me as highways for the very large part--and in some
of that fuzzy-wuzzy zone, what truly passes for "county roads" can make for a
fairly precarious, windy, and inconsistently-paved drive. (Not that it's bad,
but...)
Unless there's been an invisible change in definition over the past
generation--what was once "highway" is now "road", and what was once
"superhighway" is now "highway". Sad.
Really, the statement you're making is fairly banal--only the worst 400-series
highway martyr would argue against the fact the at times, the "county roads"
are an equal or better alternative. (Especially Ottawa-to-Kingston, where it
truly is the short side of the triangle--look at the map.)
So, you still haven't convinced me that you've been conditioned to anything
other than the mediocre middle regarding highway/road travel, and the
psychology of the "red line". Of course, most people out there are mediocre
middle or worse, and have no sympathy to the idea that motoring could be a
rapturous experience. Boy, I hate "majority rules".
(Though in general, I find Canada's road-trip culture very underdeveloped
compared to the States. Perhaps on this side of the border, the vast distances
are a psychological burden, and travel becomes a tedious functional necessity.
Boy, Canadians can be boring.)
Gotta go to work now, so cutting the latest episode of my ponderings short...
ad...@interlog.com
ad...@interlog.com wrote:
> Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
> > Adam Szymczak (szym...@ican.net) wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes I take the most direct route - and does not necessarily mean
> > > taking the Interstate. For example, travelling from Toronto to Boston via
> > > Gananoque, I took I-81 to NY 12 to Utica (for lunch) to I-90.
> >
> > I often use county roads which may be faster and/or more direct than the
> > main highways, with less traffic (and almost no chance of radar traps :-).
> > Common examples of recent years: between Waterloo and CFB Borden Ont. (not
> > really any faster than 401/400, but far less stressful and much more
> > scenic - it's really the short side of a triangle), and between Ottawa and
> > Kingston (can usually set your own pace, and it's great for staying
> > awake on those late Sunday night returns to Ottawa after highway hypnosis
> > has set in from travelling 401 for hours in the dark).
>
> I'm puzzled by this post, for I don't know what you mean by "county
> roads"--most of the corridors along that short side of the triangle strike me
> as pretty highwayish, Highway 7 especially. They may be a bit more
> county-roadish if you follow the farther-north route via Renfrew and Casino
> Rama, but they still strike me as highways for the very large part--and in some
> of that fuzzy-wuzzy zone, what truly passes for "county roads" can make for a
> fairly precarious, windy, and inconsistently-paved drive. (Not that it's bad,
> but...)
I must apologize for the above--in a quick quasi-dyslexic fit, I conflated Colin's
stated journeys into a big Ottawa-to-CFB-Borden trip. (For some reason, my mind
read "Waterloo" as "Ottawa".) Sorry.
Colin R. Leech
In a previous message, ad...@interlog.com wrote:
>Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
>> I often use county roads which may be faster and/or more direct than the
>> main highways, with less traffic (and almost no chance of radar traps :-).
>> Common examples of recent years: between Waterloo and CFB Borden Ont. (not
>> really any faster than 401/400, but far less stressful and much more
>> scenic - it's really the short side of a triangle), and between Ottawa and
>> Kingston (can usually set your own pace, and it's great for staying
>> awake on those late Sunday night returns to Ottawa after highway hypnosis
>> has set in from travelling 401 for hours in the dark).
>
>I'm puzzled by this post, for I don't know what you mean by "county
>roads"--most of the corridors along that short side of the triangle strike me
>as pretty highwayish, Highway 7 especially.
My route would look something like Waterloo Region Road 22 from Waterloo
through Conestogo to Elora, Wellington County 18/Dufferin County 3 from
Fergus to west of Orangeville, Dufferin County 1 from Orangeville through
the Hockley Valley to Airport Road or Highway 50 at Loretto and then north.
From Kingston to Ottawa I mostly use County Road 10, which runs from Division
St. in Kingston up through Westport and Perth, and becomes Richmond Road
from Franktown through Richmond into Ottawa (although I bypass Richmond
using Dwyer Hill and Fallowfield Roads).
As for "highwayish", my point is that most of these county roads signed
at 80 km/hr (50 mph) aren't all that much different in terms of quality
from the two lane rural provincial highways, most of which are also signed
at 80 km/hr. Most are slightly lower (r-o-w and pavement/shoulder widths
aren't quite as wide, curves are slightly sharper, sightlines and passing
opportunities a bit less, and more chance of stop signs where they meet
highways or other major county roads). Some county roads are significantly
worse than this, though. It's a matter of knowing which ones are the major,
well-designed ones. Of course, some of the country roads are downloaded
ex-provincial highways anyway. :-)
>Unless there's been an invisible change in definition over the past
>generation--what was once "highway" is now "road", and what was once
>"superhighway" is now "highway". Sad.
Consistent terminology is always an issue.
>Really, the statement you're making is fairly banal--only the worst 400-series
>highway martyr would argue against the fact the at times, the "county roads"
>are an equal or better alternative.
Depends on the corridor. If there's a roughly parallel 400-series highway,
I'll generally use it because I'm generally in a hurry. I did once drive
Highway 7 from Waterloo all the way to Ottawa (except using 7A where 7
takes that long strange detour northward through Lindsay), and it took
forever (being the Main Street of urban York Region doesn't help that aspect).
>(Especially Ottawa-to-Kingston, where it
>truly is the short side of the triangle--look at the map.)
Ottawa-Kingston has the same problem as Waterloo-Barrie: the 400-series
highways (I'm counting 416 here, since Highway 16 is excellent road even
though it isn't technically 416 yet for most of its length) is a
significantly longer distance to the point that it outweighs the higher
speeds. (Then again, sometimes it's easier to travel 110 km/hr on an 80
km/hr county road than on the 90 km/hr Highway 16).
As indicated above, i typically use County Road 10, which essentially parallels
the Highway 15 corridor which is the most direct "as the crow flies" route.
>(Though in general, I find Canada's road-trip culture very underdeveloped
>compared to the States. Perhaps on this side of the border, the vast distances
>are a psychological burden, and travel becomes a tedious functional necessity.
>Boy, Canadians can be boring.)
"Tedious functional necessity" is a pretty good description of much of
the travel that's made. I'll have to remember it. I'd just as soon not
drive, but often the limited train/bus frequency combined with getting
around on the destination end of the trip makes this impractical. :-(
ad...@interlog.com
Adam Szymczak wrote:
> On 03-Feb-98 08:23:30, adma (ad...@interlog.com) wrote:
> > Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
> >> I often use county roads which may be faster and/or more direct than the
> >> main highways, with less traffic (and almost no chance of radar traps :-).
> >> Common examples of recent years: between Waterloo and CFB Borden Ont. (not
> >> really any faster than 401/400, but far less stressful and much more scenic
> >> - it's really the short side of a triangle), and between Ottawa and
> >> Kingston (can usually set your own pace, and it's great for staying awake
> >> on those late Sunday night returns to Ottawa after highway hypnosis has set
> >> in from travelling 401 for hours in the dark).
>
> > I'm puzzled by this post, for I don't know what you mean by "county
> > roads"--most of the corridors along that short side of the triangle strike
> > me as pretty highwayish, Highway 7 especially. They may be a bit more
> > county-roadish if you follow the farther-north route via Renfrew and Casino
> > Rama, but they still strike me as highways for the very large part--and in
> > some of that fuzzy-wuzzy zone, what truly passes for "county roads" can make
> > for a fairly precarious, windy, and inconsistently-paved drive. (Not that
> > it's bad, but...)
>
> I don't understand how you would be puzzled by what is meant by "county
> roads". Hmmm, roads that are not under provincial jurisdiction, perhaps.
> Often called back roads.
>
> Besides, Colin was also referring to county roads in the Waterloo to CFB
> Borden corridor. Take a look at a detailed map and look at the roads
> between Waterloo and CFB Borden. Plenty of county roads, like Waterloo to
> Orangeville via Fergus, between Hwys 9 and 89 (Airport Road comes to mind),
> and tons of county roads all around CFB Borden.
I realized my confusion--blanking out on the Waterloo part, inserting Ottawa
instead--and subsequently made a post acknowledging it. (My posts are coming a
little slow, though, so we may have "crossed paths" on our servers.)
> > So, you still haven't convinced me that you've been conditioned to anything
> > other than the mediocre middle regarding highway/road travel, and the
> > psychology of the "red line". Of course, most people out there are mediocre
> > middle or worse, and have no sympathy to the idea that motoring could be a
> > rapturous experience. Boy, I hate "majority rules".
>
> Your statement puzzles me. Colin mentions that he uses county roads, yet
> you imply that he has been conditioned to highway/road travel and the
> "psychology of the 'red line'". Last time I looked county roads were not
> the "mediocre middle".
I was not referring to county roads as a mediocre middle; I was referring to an
attitude toward highway/road travel. But thank you for alerting me to my error
(easy in this spontaneous medium of written discourse). Rather than "and the
psychology of the red line", insert "or have any comprehension of the psychology
of the red line".
> What puzzles me further is that you state that what
> passes for county roads can make for a "fairly precarious, windy, and
> inconsistently-paved drive" but also state that that is not "bad, but...".
> What exactly are you implying? That county roads don't count when it comes
> to daytripping or as alternatives to 400-series highways.
I may write obliquely, but please read my posts as carefully as you spot my
errors. The phrase was born out of my misreading and misunderstanding. I did not
mean across the board--I was referring to my original concept of a Ottawa-to-CFB
Borden drive. Out in those wilderness areas of Eastern Ontario (which I meant by
"fuzzy-wuzzy zone"), there are large swaths where that IS the only alternative to
the highway. (And for that matter, in much of that zone, numbered county roads
are literally non-existent; thus my "what passes for". Waterloo-to-CFB Borden,
is, as you imply, a cornucopia of unprecarious, unwindy, practical blacktop
choice--the banal fact. To a lesser extent, so is Ottawa-Kingston. (Though, in
that last stretch to Kingston, there IS a vast difference between [ex?] Hwy 15 via
Seeley's Bay and County Road 11 via Jones Falls--for much of its length, the
latter is EXACTLY the sort of windy and precarious corridor I refer to.
Picturesque, fun to drive on, but...)
> I'll stand by my original statements - it is you that have been conditioned
> to look for the red line. The grey lines appear to be meaningless to you.
To restate and rerestate...
The grey lines are not meaningless at all--it is the counterbalance among line
colours and types that is all important. And the tragedy of the elimination of
the red lines. Remember my gendered analogy; the superhighways stern and male,
the old "red line" highways female and wild and free. The existing grey lines are
fine. But turning the red lines grey, the "highways" into "roads", is like
turning the wild and free woman into subservient chattel.
I don't know what kind of map reading or backseat travelling you did as a child
or subsequently, but it seems that Ontario's age-old system of highway numbering,
the patterns on the map, the dynamic sensation of a full network of highways, left
no significant impact on you. You didn't follow highway routings and new bypasses
and whatnot year after year. To you, such things as "Hwy 2" was meaningless--it
was the road you drove on, that's it. You didn't feel the psychology of the
classification, following the map as you travelled, getting a thrill out of the
signs and the significant junctures. You didn't feel it, and you're perplexed and
dismissive at those who do or did. It is merely the road you travel; the
classification was and is of no significance. You don't even feel the
"ex-highway", and have no use for it--in Ontario or elsewhere. And what's more,
you dismiss those who did with the dreary-dad "what's the big deal, the roads
still exist" excuse.
There was a history, a psychological comfort to that network of highways; don't
think it didn't rub off on others. Highways have been downloaded for years--Adam,
that wiggly County Road 46/8 from Windsor to Blenheim via Tilbury was once a
highway, downloaded as far back as the 60s--but the absurd scale of what's
happening under the present provincial government is calamitous, a short-sighted
desecration of years of highway history. To render Hwy 2 (the Road to Compostela
for the anti-401 bunch) dispensible because it's been superceded by the 401 is not
unlike the 60s dreary-dad mentality of rendering the old Toronto City Hall
dispensible because it was superceded by the New City Hall. (Or today, rendering
Viljo Revell's masterpiece dispensible because it's less functional or practical
than dreary Metro Hall.)
Do not dismiss highway preservationists as meaningless "to you" any more than
you'd dismiss architectural preservationists, whose cause was likewise once
dismissed as a clinging onto outmoded old crocks. (And I say this on the eve of a
decision on Toronto's Masonic Temple, and as somebody who posted a Globe & Mail
article on the Union Carbide Building in this NG. I'd like to ask you, Adam, re
Union Carbide ; a wonderful 1961 glass cage, "the Queen of Eglinton East",
threatened by replacement with condos; conversion is prohibitive/impractical in
the view of the developer, within the neighbourhood [due to its mouldering state
and a general public non-sympathy toward Int'l Style Modernism] it's largely seen
as an eyesore...would you feel the preservationists are wasting their time on this
case? I think you know how I feel regarding this issue, but I'd like to hear YOUR
opinion.)
Highway planners and users are, by and large, very anti-historical, whether it's
regarding old highway numbers or old highway engineering. Think of all the 30s
bridge structures that have been destroyed or--through new safety railings and the
like--shortsightedly desecrated (though one recent success story was the
sympathetic rehabilitation of the bridge in the Kingston-Danforth split in
Scarborough--one of the first highway-class grade separations in Ontario). Adam,
do you feel all aspects of that kind of highway history when you travel--do you
develop that kind of conoisseurship of old engineering as well as old highways, or
is it just a dispensible hazard to you? (The best thing for any Ontarians would
be to have retrospective nostalgia for the QEW traffic circles in Hamilton and
Niagara Falls--even if they weren't around or aware of them then.)
Whether with highways or with buildings, preservationists mustn't be dismissed as
mere sentimental anti-progress loop-de-doo dingbats. At their best, they're
exciting--the original culture jammers. They fiendishly open our eyes to the
world around us and make us see its worth. It is a subversive prick in the hide
of "dreary dad" progress. (I love using this here "dreary dad" mantra...) And if
your eyes and senses do not see, then...
Aw, geez, Adam. You KNOW I've surpassed you in scope several times around already
Though you've been pretty quiescent about some of my road-trippy antics--not to
mention other aspects of politics or taste or ideology--perhaps because you know
I'm a nutter? Hey, giddy, daffy non-sobriety blooms within this electronic
medium. Perhaps one might say I'm trying to instill an analogous excitement to my
densely-knit attitude toward highways--perhaps gleefully folding, spindling,
mutilating the "superhighway" in the term "information superhighway"?
Above all, this is ALT.PLANNING.URBAN (at least where I'm posting from, apologies
to misc.transport.road, though road planners should pay heed to urban zest), and
it is just that sort of irrational excitement that punctuates great urbanity (hey,
I'm from Jane Jacobs' current homeplace). There is, if you think about it, an
"urbanism" (or rurbanism) to the newsgroup realm. Unfortunately, too much of what
I find in here is as chilling as a Ludwig Hilberseimer urban fantasia...
I could go on forever in so many infinite tangents, and may think of a few more
for other posts. But the ball's in your court, Adam.
KRUPCHYN, BLAIR Wm.
This is 'driving' me nuts! (Short rant ahead--BEWARE!)
Could somebody please tell me why you can't drive from one end of Ontario to the
other on Hwy. 2? How come we end up on Regional Road 2 (or some other silly, more
confusing number) for seemingly miniscule stretches. I have the perfect example of
this stupidity: Highway 20 from Stoney Creek to Niagara Falls. Within
Hamilton-Wentworth Region, the road is indeed Hwy. 20. Once you trip over the border
into Niagara Region, it becomes Reg. Rd. 20. Keep going east and once you come to
the end of the section that shares Hwy. 58, it becomes Hwy. 20 again! Don't blink
because once you enter the City of Niagara Falls (a mile or so away), it becomes
Reg. Rd. 51! THIS IS INSANE!!! Same goes for Highway 7 through Peel/York Regions. I
love the fact that in the Town of Markham, the road is Regional Road 7 but the
street name is "Highway 7".
NOTE TO MTO OFFICIAL: Please change this NOW! Can you and your senior bureaucrats
not see that this is at the least confusing and at most, IDIOTIC!
Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somebody ssssssstop me!
Blair :^)
Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
>
> In a previous message, ad...@interlog.com wrote:
> >Colin R. Leech wrote:
> >
> >> I often use county roads which may be faster and/or more direct than the
> >> main highways, with less traffic (and almost no chance of radar traps :-).
> >> Common examples of recent years: between Waterloo and CFB Borden Ont. (not
> >> really any faster than 401/400, but far less stressful and much more
> >> scenic - it's really the short side of a triangle), and between Ottawa and
> >> Kingston (can usually set your own pace, and it's great for staying
> >> awake on those late Sunday night returns to Ottawa after highway hypnosis
> >> has set in from travelling 401 for hours in the dark).
> >
> >I'm puzzled by this post, for I don't know what you mean by "county
> >roads"--most of the corridors along that short side of the triangle strike me
> >as pretty highwayish, Highway 7 especially.
>
James Bow
KRUPCHYN, BLAIR Wm. wrote:
>
> This is 'driving' me nuts! (Short rant ahead--BEWARE!)
>
> Could somebody please tell me why you can't drive from one end of
> Ontario to the other on Hwy. 2? How come we end up on Regional Road 2
> (or some other silly, more confusing number) for seemingly miniscule
> stretches. I have the perfect example of this stupidity: Highway 20
> from Stoney Creek to Niagara Falls. Within Hamilton-Wentworth Region,
> the road is indeed Hwy. 20. Once you trip over the border into Niagara
> Region, it becomes Reg. Rd. 20. Keep going east and once you come to
> the end of the section that shares Hwy. 58, it becomes Hwy. 20 again!
> Don't blink because once you enter the City of Niagara Falls (a mile
> or so away), it becomes Reg. Rd. 51! THIS IS INSANE!!! Same goes for
> Highway 7 through Peel/York Regions. I love the fact that in the Town
> of Markham, the road is Regional Road 7 but the street name is
> "Highway 7".
>
> NOTE TO MTO OFFICIAL: Please change this NOW! Can you and your senior
> bureaucrats not see that this is at the least confusing and at most,
> IDIOTIC!
>
> Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Somebody ssssssstop me!
>
> Blair :^)
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you may already be aware, because the
Province insists on downloading the responsibility of many of its former
highways, these highways are no longer highways. For whatever reason, it
can't ditch a highway whole, and must negotiate a download on a
municipality by municipality basis. Thus gaps appear.
But you've made a passionate and compelling argument that something must
be done to maintain a consistent signage of old highway routes. Even if
they have to name old Highway 2 something completely different, it
should be named that way throughout its entire route, to help those
driving on it stay on it.
Best,
James
--
James Bow - MIS Department || // // ,' /---\' Mortice Kern Systems
e-mail jb...@mks.com /||/// //\\' `\\\ Waterloo, Ontario
or jame...@golden.net______/ | // // \\ \___/ CANADA
or visit my web site at http://www.golden.net/~jamesbow/index.html
BAHN 3.40 simulations at http://www.golden.net/~jamesbow/bahn340.htm
Colin R. Leech
"KRUPCHYN, BLAIR Wm." (blair.k...@bellsygma.com) wrote:
>
> Could somebody please tell me why you can't drive from one end of Ontario to the
> other on Hwy. 2? How come we end up on Regional Road 2 (or some other silly, more
> confusing number) for seemingly miniscule stretches.
Some sections have been downloaded to the counties/regions, some haven't.
The reasons for this may be political capriciousness, or it may have to do
with the inability of the intended receiver to be responsible for it. For
example, Highway 17 within Ottawa-Carleton east of the 517 split (near St.
Laurent Blvd. in Ottawa) is now the responsibility of the RMOC, but I
don't think 17 has been downloaded yet to Prescott-Russell to the east.
P-R doesn't have the resources available that RMOC does for taking care of
such things.
It may also be that some of these have in fact been downloaded, but the
signage just hasn't been changed yet. Old Highway 17 (above) recently
acquired small dual guide signage along it (Regional Road 174 logo and
Highway 17 logo together on a small plaque), but the the entrance ramps at
cross streets haven't yet been re-signed, nor the large overhead sign on
417 at the split.
ad...@interlog.com
Adam Szymczak wrote:
> On 05-Feb-98 00:58:48, adma (ad...@interlog.com) wrote:
(snip all to the last part)
> > I could go on forever in so many infinite tangents, and may think of a few
> > more for other posts. But the ball's in your court, Adam.
>
> Just because I don't agree with you does not mean that I don't enjoy your
> posts. As you are entitled to your opinion and your reaction to other
> opinions and statement, so am I.
At least we're approaching near-closure here on a relatively sympathetic note.
Though I think I have a constructive all-in-a-ball manifesto coming, and I'll save
it for responding to another post in this thread (it'll save me from that feeling
of bombarding you and you alone).
Besides, I'm winded from that nasty, and thankfully check'n'balanced, Conklin
flame war...
ad...@interlog.com
Adam Szymczak wrote:
> I'm not familar with the Union Carbide Building - where exactly on Eglinton
> East is it? I believe that the demands of the preservationists have to be
> balanced by the demands of growth. If a use for the building can be found,
> then by all means it should be preserved. Simply preserving something for
> it's looks or style may be worthy and there are cases where that may be
> enough to preserve, but with most buildings there needs to be some type of
> use made of the preserved structure, otherwise you may as well throw up a
> fence around the building - afterall it can't be used.
>
> Please, don't take this to mean that I am anti-preservationist or
> anti-heritage. I truly believe heritage and preservation have a place in our
> society, but that they have to be balanced by the needs and wants of the
> public, developers, government, special interest groups, and by the amount
> of funds available. We can't preserve everything just for preservations
> sake.
I'll stand to one side and give a sober off-the-top-of-my-head synopsis for yours
and everyone's benefit.
Union Carbide is the glassy skyscraper on the south side of Eglinton between Yonge
and Mount Pleasant (in Toronto, for those of you just entering this thread
now)...I agree with you in the generalities about balancing needs versus other
matters (and unfortunately, my tone to you was a touch antagonistic, due to that
darned highway-download hyperventilation). When the company moved out a few years
ago, the land to the rear (parking et al) was sold for townhouses, and the future
of the tower was in limbo. A subsequent condo-conversion proposal, which proposed
to build the ground floor out to the street level, was fought back by
preservationists in favour of something potentially more sympathetic (visions of
the B.C. Electric building conversion in Vancouver dance in the head). The owners
grudgingly agreed, and after several years of dithering as the building mouldered,
they decided--developers being the lot to place expedience over imagination--that
it didn't pay (especially as existing site conditions and regulatory quirks didn't
allow for the parking et al requirements of modern condo construction). So right
now, the developer's plan is for replacement rather than conversion, a matter
that's continued to be held up in City Council and by Heritage Toronto. As so
often happens with heritage preservation issues (especially when the style or
significance is still ill-understood--Modernism remains an acquired taste, and its
preservation a novelty--and regulation only enters the picture in mid-struggle),
earlier myopia led to the present snag.
To a degree, it's a matter of which side one you'd be on, were you forced into
taking a stand on the issue. And that is next week's tutorial lesson, folks, and
it's worth 5% of your grade. (Of course, don't think my marking system won't be
politically biased;-))
ad...@interlog.com
ad...@interlog.com wrote:
<snip Union Carbide Building synopsis>
Excuse me, those of you in misc.transport.road; I should have deleted your group from
this last post and I forgot. So my apologies for it having nothing to do with road
transit, and if you want to have your say on the issue, join in at
alt.planning.urban. And as for everyone who does want to participate and continue the
thread, kindly delete misc.transport.road from now on.
Thank you.
ad...@interlog.com
I think I might try a little responding after all (though things are kind of
hunkering down)...and for space's sake I'll delete my original quotes.
Adam Szymczak wrote:<stuff about youthful map reading>In fact, you do indeed sound
a lot like me--it just took us in vaguely different directions, I guess.
> That brings me to my next point. The "dreary-dad 'what's the big deal, the
> roads still exist' excuse". It's not an excuse. The roads do exist. You
> call yourself a roadtripper - I believe a more appropriate term is
> historical or heritage roadtripper. For you believe in the "psychology of
> the red line" - the "good old highways". I don't. To me the color of the
> line does not matter - it's someone else's definition being forced upon me.
> Depending on my mood, the nature of the trip, the length of the trip, and
> the destination, I'll take whatever roads I choose.
"Historical or heritage roadtripper"...you've got it (but don't dismiss it).
Actually, I do take a variety of roads as well, and even disregard the red lines
when I need to or feel like it, just as much as you do. The structure is there to
be used or ignored or regarded in any way you or I want, but it remains there,
powerfully there. (And--yes!--I take expressways.) Perhaps the difference is
that you feel the existing mapwise structural matrix is an imposition, I feel the
one being enacted is an "negative" imposition...in a way, my style is not only
historical/heritage, but aesthetic as well, and I feel the existing matrix is more
aesthetic, and encountering the King's Highway shield on the road has a reassuring
drama to it. The downward trapezoid signage (and the signage that announced its
arrival, or its expression on the map) of the county/regional roads never had that
drama--they always seemed local and marginal and apologetic, even when the driving
was smooth or the scenery real. Yes, I'm an aesthete, not a highway planner;-)
But those who design and plan and handle highways might do well by regarding
aesthetic needs. And the problem right now is not the matter of downloading per
se; it is the massive scale and slovenly execution of the process under the Harris
government, which amounts to nothing less than a "big dump". Besides, several
"outside" posts in this thread have proven the chaotic, careless, confusing
results of the "big dump"; discontinuous downloads or county/regional road
numbering, et al. There HAD to be a better way...perhaps they could have done the
equivalent of architectural "adaptive reuse", to download certain responsibilities
but create out of it a top-to-bottom revamped highway/road network (with the
advice of heritage road consultants) that'd come across as a celebratory
augmentation of the original, the highway system as a work of conceptual art.
Instead, it's a short-sighted demolition. (Besides, the philistinish Harris
minions are likely to regard those heritage-highway sorts as a dippy "special
interest group" at best.) (Though maybe I shouldn't raise ideology--some of the
more gruesome downloading started under Bob Rae's NDP. So it's low-ebb myopia
more than anything.)
<Your analogy using city hall's raises a very interesting and important
<point in this discussion: whose perspective of nostalgia are we discussing
> and examining? I never knew of a Hwy 401 that was 4-lanes and in the
> country THROUGH Toronto. I never knew of roundabouts on the QEW. I never
> knew a Toronto waterfront WITHOUT the Gardiner Expressway. Should the 401
> never have been expanded? Should have the QEW roundabouts been kept? All in
> the name of nostalgia - what appears to be your nostalgia?
It's been done;-) Actually, I don't remember a lot of that (except the QEW
roundabouts, slightly but dramatically). But one must admit that had much of the
original QEW existed more or less intact into the 90s, there'd be highway heritage
groups trying to ward off massive rebuilding efforts--perhaps it is merciful that
the essential rebuilding started early, before such "sentimental nostalgia" could
take hold. (Indeed, certain original QEW features, like the Henley Bridge in St.
Catharines, were rehabbed in recent years in a restoration spirit that might
likely have been absent a quarter century ago.) The idea of cherishable history
evolves through time, like it or not; in a way, highway heritage is at the same
kind of low ebb as Victorian architecture before the 60s--remember, before a group
of activists stood up, the old Toronto City Hall was regarded by many as an
outmoded, obsolete, depressing pile of sandstone. Or speaking once again of
highways, the Spadina Expressway was regarded as a fait acomplii before activists
prevented THAT. If the Spadina was built after all, we'd be likely to take it as
much for granted as the Gardiner or the Don Valley Parkway; but I'm glad it
wasn't. "Nostalgia" and preservation (architectural or environmental or
neighbourhood) can be a powerful weapon--who knows where we'd respectively be on
the Spadina and City Hall issues were we transposed back a generation.
For that matter, your "whose nostalgia" bit reminds me tangentially of another
problem--the fact that the subtle sublimity of "heritage roadtripping" is in
danger of being lost among the younger generations, younger than us, even. I like
to refer to the lost art of "Motoring", as opposed to mere Driving--something
which peaked from the 1930s through the 1950s, before Interstate saturation and
before either of us were born, even. The evolution of Interstate culture all but
killed motoring; in a way, I'm trying to enact a contemporized resurrection, which
takes constructive advantage of what exists, and the existing red-line matrix
assists that end. Aesthetic driving, indeed--and a sublime aesthetic of brutality
and transcendence upon a historical foundation. To ditch it all really knocks the
stuffing out of the motoring aesthetic--as far as I'm concerned, this ditching
process is enacted by clods (I'm not including you per se; especially given your
history of map love, you may be convertible;-)) for whom motoring is an annoyance
or a non-issue, or at best an insipid tethered travesty of "pretty" roads, the
equivalent of Robert Bateman prints, or of Andrew Wyeth without a touch of Andy
Warhol or Andres Serrano. Aesthetic driving--motoring--is beyond the "pretty".
<Yes, roads have been downloaded for decades. That is not news to me. But
> let me pose a question to you: how do you feel about all the various
> bypasses and new roads that were built to replace existing provincial
> highways? For example, Hwy 3 between Maidstone and Ruthven, Hwy 24 between
> Hwy 53 and Scotland, Hwy 6 from the 401 to Guelph, and so on? Do these
> highways count as part of your red-line psychology?
Those were healthily incremental and I'll let them pass. But the "big dump" of
today, in its scale and short-sighted stupidity, is a different matter.
> I don't ever recall calling highway preservationists meaningless - that is
> putting words into my mouth. In fact, there is a place for it, just like
> architectural preservation or heritage preservation. I see nothing wrong in
> private groups placing Hwy 2 Heritage signs along all of Hwy 2.
Token gesture; in preservation terms, that bow to heritage is more like "facadism"
(which Toronto's Masonic Temple is threatened by, incidentally) than genuine
adaptive reuse.
> I do have a
> problem with the province funding a highway that is primarily used for
> local, regional or county traffic or as feeder routes into urban areas -
> let the local municipalities deal with it.
>
> Between Brantford and Ancaster, one of the missing links in the 403 is
> finally complete and open, replacing the dangerous 4-lane Hwy 2/53. The
> majority of traffic now uses the 403. I ask you, should the province
> continue funding and maintaining Hwy 2/53, which is only about 1 or 2 km
> south of the 403, and carries very little traffic now (to the joy of all
> the residents, while to the dismay of local businesses)? IMO, no.
That's perhaps where we differ in concern--as you can tell, I place aesthetic
above a zealous-to-a-fault concern over the tax dollar, and quite frankly, I don't
care who funds what, as long as some reasonable psychological integrity of the
existing system is not decimated in the process. As I've said, downloading should
not necessarily mean numbered highway elimination; as you said, if there was open
demand these highways would be "kept"; as I say, open demand is something that can
be created over time, and sometimes, as the mantra goes, "we don't know what we
got till it's gone" (oh geez, I really didn't want to use that line). The ideal
is to second-guess future sentiment--let's do it now, so future generations might
cherish it. Thus, my idea of a creative "adapive reuse" rehabilitation of the
highway system, quirks and all. Just because you call it a highway, don't think
you're inviting 401-scale traffic snarls. And while that "danger stretch" of 2/53
may be four lanes and nobody's idea of a "scenic" highway--in fact, the new 403
segment is more classically "scenic" (and I purposely drove it within a few days
of its opening)--I still say "IMO, yes", using the analogy of many a case in the
States where US highway still parallels Interstate. When the highway is alive (as
in those US cases), it carries a welcome gravitas. Even if I knew 403 was
"prettier", if I was going cross-Ontario for the first time, I'd still take that
stretch of 2/53 instead. It deserves to remain a highway in classification if not
in old-fashioned terms of "responsibility carried". The sublime motoring
aesthetic works that way...
> Seeing as I'm not a century or so old ;) my recollections of the QEW
> include orchards, the old style bridges (with the curved archway, made of
> solid concrete, with the crest in the middle, and the Low Height warning
> sign in the right lane), the lack of light posts (and traffic). Does this
> sound like a highway history that a "dispensible hazard" to you? You seem
> to see things in black or white or in your case red and non-red ;) when in
> reality many things and many people are not.
All right, all right. Of course the increase in traffic volumes and change in
safety standards creates its own potential "dispensible hazards"; it's in the
nature of auto transport. I still reserve the right to look with reverence at the
attractively funky old-time QEW relics; a lovely grade separation stranded beneath
the Garden City Skyway, the Martindale Road overpass (a veritable gateway to the
Henley Bridge), another old overpass (Bowen Road?) close to Fort Erie...I wouldn't
mind if those stayed, or maybe if someone would resurrect the old wooden lampposts
at the Thorold Stone Road cloverleaf (which were removed about a decade ago). Too
bad, though, that most of the remaining bridges on the "original"
Scarborough-to-Oshawa stretch of the 401 have been defaced by crude new railings
(can't they do a better job?)--but long live the Scarborough approach road (a
bulletlike straightaway, Toronto's answer to Berlin's Avus, and that wonderfully
arcing late 40s Highland Creek overpass, still pretty much unmolested). It may
not all be destined to stay, but--for future's sake--the issue deserves at least a
BIT of creative thought on the part of highway planners. (And then there's that
remaining 30s railing on a bridge on Hwy 7 out in that Marmora-Madoc-Kaladar
stretch; unless you've already done so, dear Mr. Transport Ministry, please don't
put in some Jersey barrier-type thing...)
Don't anybody think there aren't people who get erotic buzzes out of these
hazardous old structures (indeed, the Globe & Mail published an editorial
lamenting the loss of old "transparent" bridge railings in favour of those solid
view-blocking Jersey barriers--two years in a row, the second time by popular
demand!).
> Yes, I have heard of Toronto before ;) Lived there from ages 0-5, 18-22,
> 23-26. In between those years, I didn't live no more than 90 minute drive
> from TO, so I visited plenty of times, each year. In fact, my wife and I
> would like to head back to T.O. once I am done my Master's - and we want to
> live in the REAL City of Toronto, not the New City of Toronto. Perhaps that
> will give you some additional insight into my psyche - instead of reading in
> between the lines.
Okay okay, again. I never saw myself engaging in Torontocentric snobbery against
you--in a way, my invoking a "Jane Jacobs" model of newsgroup "urbanism" was cast
across a much wider net.
> Just because I don't agree with you does not mean that I don't enjoy your
> posts. As you are entitled to your opinion and your reaction to other
> opinions and statement, so am I.
And once again, with feeling...downloading responsibility is not an evil in
itself, it is the quality of execution. And as you and I (and a good number of
card-carrying Tories) know, the Achilles heel of the Harris Tories is that all too
often they're positively slovenly, heavy-handed executants of the downloading
task. Though it might take a politician of Vaclav Havel or Jerry Brown quality
(strange pair of examples, there, they just came off the top of my head) to pull
off my kind of crypto-aestheticized high conceptualizing...
(Speaking of Jerry Brown, when did California lose most of its US highways?
Perhaps I should take that back...)
P.S. One thing to smile at--however much I insist upon perpetuating it, this
string takes up much less bandwidth than those tedious bicycle-lane discussions.
Mike McManus
[entire post snipped]
Mentioning Union Carbide reminds me of one of my earliest road-geek (or in this case
rail-geek? although I haven't been a rail-geek since) experiences. At approximately
the age of two, I astounded my mother and aunt by reading the "Union Carbide" logo off
a rail car on a bridge across an expressway in the Cincinnati area. Of course, their
television ads helped me learn the proper pronunciation of the name. ;-)
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Mike McManus _/ home: mmcm...@frontiernet.net _/
_/ Rochester, NY _/ work: mcm...@kodak.com _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Paul Schlichtman
> Unfortunately, as I'm sure you may already be aware, because the
> Province insists on downloading the responsibility of many of its former
> highways, these highways are no longer highways. For whatever reason, it
> can't ditch a highway whole, and must negotiate a download on a
> municipality by municipality basis. Thus gaps appear.
>
> But you've made a passionate and compelling argument that something must
> be done to maintain a consistent signage of old highway routes. Even if
> they have to name old Highway 2 something completely different, it
> should be named that way throughout its entire route, to help those
> driving on it stay on it.
>
> Best,
> James
> --
> James Bow - MIS Department || // // ,' /---\' Mortice Kern Systems
> e-mail jb...@mks.com /||/// //\\' `\\\ Waterloo, Ontario
> or jame...@golden.net______/ | // // \\ \___/ CANADA
> or visit my web site at http://www.golden.net/~jamesbow/index.html
> BAHN 3.40 simulations at http://www.golden.net/~jamesbow/bahn340.htm
In New England we have many stretches of "stqate highways" that are
maintained by cities and towns, and the state provides aid and incentives
for this to happen when highways become city streets. Drivers around MA
and VT are familiar with signs that say "State Highway Maintenance Begins
(Ends on the flip side) Here."
For example, in Arlington most of the state highways are town owned and
maintained.One stretch of MA 2A, the last stretch of this road still in
state maintenance, is under negotiation for transfer to the town... if the
state repairs drainage and installs curbing prior to the takeover.
These roads are still signed as state routes... so why can't Ontario do
this?
ad...@interlog.com
James Bow wrote:
> KRUPCHYN, BLAIR Wm. wrote:
> >
> > This is 'driving' me nuts! (Short rant ahead--BEWARE!)
> >
> > Could somebody please tell me why you can't drive from one end of
> > Ontario to the other on Hwy. 2? How come we end up on Regional Road 2
> > (or some other silly, more confusing number) for seemingly miniscule
> > stretches. I have the perfect example of this stupidity: Highway 20
> > from Stoney Creek to Niagara Falls. Within Hamilton-Wentworth Region,
> > the road is indeed Hwy. 20. Once you trip over the border into Niagara
> > Region, it becomes Reg. Rd. 20. Keep going east and once you come to
> > the end of the section that shares Hwy. 58, it becomes Hwy. 20 again!
> > Don't blink because once you enter the City of Niagara Falls (a mile
> > or so away), it becomes Reg. Rd. 51! THIS IS INSANE!!! Same goes for
> > Highway 7 through Peel/York Regions. I love the fact that in the Town
> > of Markham, the road is Regional Road 7 but the street name is
> > "Highway 7".
> >
> > NOTE TO MTO OFFICIAL: Please change this NOW! Can you and your senior
> > bureaucrats not see that this is at the least confusing and at most,
> > IDIOTIC!
> >
> > Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Somebody ssssssstop me!
> >
> > Blair :^)
>
> Unfortunately, as I'm sure you may already be aware, because the
> Province insists on downloading the responsibility of many of its former
> highways, these highways are no longer highways. For whatever reason, it
> can't ditch a highway whole, and must negotiate a download on a
> municipality by municipality basis. Thus gaps appear.
>
> But you've made a passionate and compelling argument that something must
> be done to maintain a consistent signage of old highway routes. Even if
> they have to name old Highway 2 something completely different, it
> should be named that way throughout its entire route, to help those
> driving on it stay on it.
So, folks, the above string lays bare the executional ineptititude of
Ontario's "big dump" highway downloading. I've said it over and again; with
advice from experts and lobby groups, and a bit of creative thought,
SOMETHING better could have been done...
ad...@interlog.com
Paul Schlichtman wrote:
> > Unfortunately, as I'm sure you may already be aware, because the
> > Province insists on downloading the responsibility of many of its former
> > highways, these highways are no longer highways. For whatever reason, it
> > can't ditch a highway whole, and must negotiate a download on a
> > municipality by municipality basis. Thus gaps appear.
> >
> > But you've made a passionate and compelling argument that something must
> > be done to maintain a consistent signage of old highway routes. Even if
> > they have to name old Highway 2 something completely different, it
> > should be named that way throughout its entire route, to help those
> > driving on it stay on it.
> >
> > Best,
> > James
> > --
> > James Bow - MIS Department || // // ,' /---\' Mortice Kern Systems
> > e-mail jb...@mks.com /||/// //\\' `\\\ Waterloo, Ontario
> > or jame...@golden.net______/ | // // \\ \___/ CANADA
> > or visit my web site at http://www.golden.net/~jamesbow/index.html
> > BAHN 3.40 simulations at http://www.golden.net/~jamesbow/bahn340.htm
>
> In New England we have many stretches of "stqate highways" that are
> maintained by cities and towns, and the state provides aid and incentives
> for this to happen when highways become city streets. Drivers around MA
> and VT are familiar with signs that say "State Highway Maintenance Begins
> (Ends on the flip side) Here."
>
> For example, in Arlington most of the state highways are town owned and
> maintained.One stretch of MA 2A, the last stretch of this road still in
> state maintenance, is under negotiation for transfer to the town... if the
> state repairs drainage and installs curbing prior to the takeover.
>
> These roads are still signed as state routes... so why can't Ontario do
> this?
Your example is instructive (although admittedly, unlike Ontario, New England has no numbered
county/regional network). It almost speaks for that subconscious psychological need for a "system", a
need that develops over time and informs our need to structure the context we exist in, no matter what
road we take...well, I'm an armchair psychologist at best, but perhaps some study may be made of this
matter...any highway psychologists and semioticians out there?
How do the various United States regard their numbered highway systems, anyway? It almost strikes me
that they hold something or another dear; despite the many bypasses built and routes superceded (even in
New England), one still by and large gets the idea of well fleshed-out network, and a network with a
history, quirks and enigmas and all (and frequently it's the quirks and enigmas that make it
interesting). Perhaps that is why a special variety of "heritage roadtripping", imbued with the ghosts
of Burma-Shave and Mail Pouch, has surreptitiously blossomed in the USA. A highway sign is a special
thing, after all...
As the millennium ends, the essential anchor of a well-balanced highway (not merely superhighway) matrix
assumes greater importance. Which makes the tragedy of Ontario's "big dump" all the clearer. And it's
interesting that Paul Schlichtman--an American--has made the most well-spoken arguments in favour of "old
routes" in this NG (I saw your previous post on an alternate server, but my main server was down, so it
never got through, unfortunately). Perhaps Ontarians should learn from those Americans...