Talk:Ontario Highway 401/Archive 4

Busiest Highway in North America

The title of Busiest Highway in North America, which according to the same repeated stat of 425,000 AADT is misleading and I think should come with an explanation. The error is in measuring. Judging by the route of the Highway 401, it is the only route traversing Southern Ontario, connecting the US. Border and Quebec and passes through Toronto, the largest city in Canada. Combined with the fact that most Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. Canada border I imagine this is a throughly used route.

By contrast the three sources citing 425K vehicles the supposed nearest rival is the 405 in Los Angeles at 374K. This number Federal Highway Association however measures its AADT by urban area. AADT on Highway 401 is probably all encompassing and since it is not completely urbanized along its entire route and spans an entire province, it isn't a accurate comparison to AADT numbers put out by the FHA when they count only in urban areas.

While the 405's AADT is probably fairly accurate anyway you measure it since it is an urban along its entire route, the AADT for a freeway such as the 5 or the 10 is probably in excess of over a million by virtue of the number of major cites and distance covered. The 5 for example stretches from Mexico to Canada and passes through the metropolitan areas of San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle all the way up to Vancouver. The population of those metropolitan areas alone rival the population of Ontario.

Likewise the 10 stretches from the Pacific to the Atlantic and passes through Los Angeles, Phoenix, El Paso, San Antonio, Houston, New Orleans and Jacksonville, just to name a few. Again the populations served by the 10 rival Ontario or even Canada. This is nothing to say of I-95 which links most of the major cities along the Atlantic from Miami to and through Boston.

This isn't to argue that 18 lanes through Toronto isn't a lot. Just that the title of busiest freeway in North America probably isn't accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Mateo (talk • contribs) 06:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to second this because around 30% of the population of the United States lives in the megapolis of the United States which has a higher population than Canada and the highway that goes through this is I-95. Just the George Washington Bridge on I-95 alone by itself has almost the same amount of traffic that Highway 401 does yet this highway is suppose to be the busiest highway in North America? There is no way in hell that is possible. It's a busy highway for sure I've been on it but it does not compare to the ungodly volume of traffic I-95 has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.212.4 (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I also saw this statement on the main page and did not think it was accurate. Isn't the Garden State Parkway generally considered one of the busiest highways in North America? (According to the Wiki references it gets 1.6 million toll transactions a day. Or something close to that.) As previously mentioned the I-95 clearly gets a huge amount of traffic as well. "Busiest highway" seems clearly overstated to me. GrimmC (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Do any of you have any accurate reliable sources to contradict the multitude of sources from international industry leaders and the United States Federal Highway Authority itself? If you look, even they acknowledge it. AADT is a measure of traffic at ONE point along a freeway, not the number of cars that use the entire length of the freeway. The data for the 401 (which is in ref 1 or 2) is given for every section of the highway. It is true that in the rural portions (and even several kilometres out from the busiest point), the traffic levels are dramatically less than 425,000 vehicles per average day. The Hogg's Hollow Bridge in Toronto is also the busiest multi-structure bridge in the world, beating out the George Washington Bridge by a slim margin. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 11:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Highway 401 as a whole is not that busy which makes the statement busiest highway in North America not accurate since it’s busiest at only one point. It's the same as claiming New York City is the biggest city in the United States when it’s not even close to being the biggest city by square miles. It’s considered the largest city due to the amount of people living there even though there are much larger cities in the United States by square miles. The point I'm trying to make here is that you have one highway that receives maybe 1.5 million vehicles a day across the entire length of it and you have another that has tens of millions of vehicles drive on it every day. The 401 does not receive the massive amount of traffic volume that I-95 has across its entirety. That makes I-95 the busiest Highway in North America not Highway 401. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.212.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

You're confusing different statistics. Busiest isn't determined (by anyone) as the number of vehicles to use the full length of a freeway, as that is more or less a measure of the length of it. Busiest is determined by annual average daily traffic counts for a section of highway between two interchanges. At Weston Rd, Highway 401 is the busiest highway in North America, if not the world. Until several reliable sources can be pointed out here to contradict the very reliable government sources that currently contradict your statement, the current wording will remain in place. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that Highway 401 is the busiest highway in the world, but there is no official stat to back this up because many countries to not release their traffic counts (AADT). It certainly is, however, the busiest highway in North America with 437,000+ vehicles using it's busiest section as of 2007. Haljackey (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I found an article from The Guardian that compares some of the busiest roads on the planet. Highway 401, of course, takes the cake: [1] Haljackey (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Too many images?

Let's explore the amount of images this article has and see what we can do to cut/reduce the number for optimal viewing.

I'm going to list each image as important or not important, and provide additional info. This is my own opinion.

• 401 map- Important. Tells readers where the route is.

• Windsor split- Not Important. If an eastern terminus photo is shown, than one in the west would be valuable, but the highway doesn't end at a provincial or national boarder in the east. Replacing this with a better photo would be of benefit to the article, or perhaps a photo of the Ambassador Bridge?

• Hilly Section- Important. Something needs to be shown in the ~400km span between Windsor and Toronto. The hilly section shows a busy rural freeway (I read somewhere that between the 402 and 403 the 401 is the busiest rural freeway in the world) and tells the reader that this isn't some two-bit regular freeway outside of cities, but a vital connecting link. Replacement with a better quality photo is suggested.

• Snow- Important. It's been suggested that snapping a photo of Highway 401 in Toronto being cleared of snow by a formation of snowplows would be significant asset to the article. Until then, a general snow photo should be used.

• C-E System- Important. An image showing the broadness of the C-E system in it's entirety is needed. A better photo could be used, showing transfers as well, combing two photos into one.

• C-E Signs- Not Important. While useful, the picture's purpose is simple. This sign is green and this one is blue. This photo could be combined with another (such as a general C-E shot) and would help reduce the clutter this wide image brings.

• Traffic Camera- Not Important. Perhaps combining a shot of a CMS would be better. Examples: [2] [3] [4]. Alone the photo is very simplistic. This is a article about a highway, not CCTV.

• Eastern rural shot- Important. Shows that the highway does in fact have parts that are not as busy.

• East end- Not Important. As said earlier, you need to have both an east end shot and a west end shot or none at all. Alone the picture is very bland and doesn't show the transition too well.

• 401 construction map- Important. Shows when each part of the highway was built.

• Highway 2A- Not Important. This picture contributes to a minor part of the article. I think the text component of this section of the article does a good enough job, the picture isn't needed.

• Old 401 shot- Important. The 400/401 junction does a basic job, but I would much rather prefer having an historical photo of the road from the 1950's instead. In addition, this interchange air photo creates a redundancy because an interchange air photo is used for the widening section.

• Night shot- Important. Shows the high traffic volumes at night and the high mast lighting in use.

• 401 Plaque- Not Important. I think the text does a good enough job describing when it was completed. This is a good filler image, however.

• C-E widening- Important. This photo accompanies the text component of the widening quite well and contributes to the article as a whole showing the scale the widening did, turning a 4 lane rural road into a 12-14 lane monster. This interchange photo does an impressive job displaying it.

• Old C-E photo- Not Important. A C-E photo is already shown, same with a few historic images. This photo contributes little to the article as a whole.

• Carnage Alley- Important. This isn't your average fender-bender crash photo, it was the most significant incident in the highway's history and should be properly displayed to accompany the text.

• Highway of Heroes- Important. This photo shows that the 401 is more than a highway to Canadians.

• Evacuated Highway- Important. This is a featured picture, and shows a rare event on the highway: no traffic. Very high quality and adds a lot to the article.

• London Reconstruction- Important. Shows some 'recent history' and displays modern highway design standards in good detail. (For example, rumble strips can be seen close up and long on-ramp acceleration lanes are found to the right.)

• Future construction zone- Not Important. There are a lot of areas on the highway that could use some work. Although this photo has shows a worn driving surface, it doesn't do much else.

• Ongoing construction- Important. Shows how massive some construction projects are on the 401 and will do a good job contrasting to a 'complete' photo once work is done.

• Service centre- Not Important. Although the 401 has the majority of them and a lot of them are undergoing reconstruction, this photo is better suited towards other articles like the 400-series highways.

Anyways what do you think of my comments? Can we remove or replace some of these photos? Haljackey (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A good review of the photos, but I think it comes down to more than whether each one is important to the article as a whole. Some of the pictures work very well with sections that otherwise would have none. A good example is the service centre photo, or the highway of heroes. I'd also disagree on Highway 2A. This was the original (1942) section of the 401, and aside from throwing rocks in and sinking the median, they haven't changed it at all. I've wanted to get rid of the Windsor shot since A) its not the end, B) its an ugly picture, and C) its taken from a drivers perspective. The other one could be cleaned up and zoomed to show the Quebec sign more clearly, but I think it makes for a good shot. Hopefully we can get some pictures of the Windsor Essex Parkway once it goes into full construction in the spring to contrast it. Contrast is the other thing I considered for photos. That's why I like the 401/400 interchange and the Meadowvale shots. They show a place that is easily recognized by many drivers of the highway, yet has changed drasticly since. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that just about sums it up. While I disagree with you on the Meadowvale picture, it's no big deal. Thoughts on replacing the traffic camera pic with a CMS one? The vertical shot takes up a lot of room in the article and I think a CMS shot would be more interesting to the reader. Haljackey (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

MOS:ICON

Per MOS:ICON and {{infobox road}} junctions with multiple highways should have both shields on the left, not like the 403/410 and the 404/DVP junctions are in the infobox. --AdmrBoltz 21:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Map

Should the map be edited to show the extension in Windsor? Many maps show planned and u/c routes with a dotted line. Haljackey (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Might be a good idea along with an inset of the Windsor area, because from a southern Ontario-wide perspective, those 13km will be almost invisible in the infobox. I'm still in the midst of making an Ontario-wide map of the highway system, so if somebody wants to make something in the interim, there'd be no problem with that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Highway of Heroes Section

Recently I added a new photo to the Highway of Heroes section of the article and there seems to be some debate about it. There are now two photos for that section. Should that be reduced to one? If so, which one should be removed. I'm comfortable with two photos as they significantly compliment the text, showing the role the Highway of Heroes designation has on the highway's character. Haljackey (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The recently added image is (no offense) dull and uninspiring. The article seems to be already saturated with photos. Two images is a bit overkill for a small section on the H.O.H. One should suffice. UrbanNerd (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with UrbanNerd Absolutezero273 (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Woodstock to Kitchener section

As noted in Future/Southwestern Ontario, the widening of the highway to six lanes (from four) from Woodstock to Kitchener has been a priority for a while. This work has finally been completed as of late 2010. The two sentences that talk about this work being planned or in progress should be moved from "Future" to the "Since 2008" section and put in the past tense to indicate that the work has been completed. I tried to do this just now but have messed up the edits so now I'm off to the forums to find out how to undo my edits.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinoCan (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I persuaded DGG to undo my bad edits and restore the page to the way it was before. Unfortunately, as I read the various instructions for how to do the edits properly, many questions of style and technique keep arising and I'm afraid it is going to take me more time than I can spare to learn all the rules. For instance, I am not clear if the footnote to the contract that widened the 401 between Kitchener and Woodstock needs to be preserved now that work is completed. I also wonder if I need to provide some sort of proof that the work is finished, like a newspaper article stating that the widening is complete, or is it enough that I assert it having seen this with my own eyes? I'm far from clear on how to move or remove that footnote, whichever is appropriate, since the markup is quite complex. Is there any chance that someone with more familiarity with the styles and techniques could make the appropriate changes? I just want to make the article accurately reflect that this widening has been completed....

Rhino (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The contract should state the completion date. However, a newspaper article (the K-W Record seems to print a lot of local road news) would certainly help. Looking through your edits, it seems you had it at first: you just cut that chunk from future and put at the end of history and adjust it so it reads properly in past tense. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I took another run at making the changes. I did them slightly differently but I think they fit the apparent vision for how this article should look. Please say so if I need to do something differently, otherwise I will assume the edits were satisfactory.

Rhino (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Evacuated Highway 401 Color.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Evacuated Highway 401 Color.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 1, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-07-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Highway 401, the busiest highway in North America, with only a single vehicle travelling on it due to its partial closure following the Toronto propane explosions in 2008. Highway 401 uses a collector-express system, which separates local and long distance traffic.Photo: Kenny Louie

Photo of 18 lanes

File:401by pearson.jpg

I see there was a discussion about the photos already in the article; is there any reason why this amazing photo isn't in there? It shows a stretch which is 18-lanes wide, and appears to be taken from a plane. Mlm42 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Different versions of this photo are all over the internet. An actual license can be attained before it can go in the article. Haljackey (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it should be removed from the commons, then? Mlm42 (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The source of it is unknown. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete access colour in junction table

I find this to be very distracting. Is there a strong attachment to this addition? I don't mind the concurrency termini with Highway 6, but the red is IMO a bad colour choice on the part of whomever picked it for WP:RJL. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I'm not finished

What was the completion date, exactly? I haven't been able to find one on the MoT site... Lyle Lovit ^{don't touch my hat} 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For which? Highway 401 or the Windsor Essex Parkway? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An image thought

I was carousing and came to a ponder over the discussions we've had around what the main image should be. I've thought about it, and I actually think that the propane explosion photo would be a really good possibility. It very clearly shows almost every major aspect of the highway (except traffic, which is shown in almost every other photo) in an eye catching way, and shows the roadway unimpeded by objects. Any thoughts? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that one works well. Other candidates I think are [5], [6], and [7] (which isn't even in the article). Haljackey (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Busiest Highway in the World

Regarding the 'busiest in the world' fiasco, can another assumption be made here as well? Clearly there isn't any variable source for this (if there are any at all), but the 401 has higher volumes than any other highway reported in any country's documents (the only one that comes close is the 405 freeway in LA, which is still under 400K AADT.) Haljackey (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not if we want it to pass at WP:FAC, unfortunately. Highway 20 (Israel) is one highway that is a potential contestant. Unfortunately other countries don't seem to always use AADT. Because of this there are several ways of looking at what is the "busiest" (though I personally believe AADT gives the best indications of maximums). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Image tweaking

C'mon now! This is already a "Good Article" and all this repeated fiddling with different images does not improve it one bit. Leave the 401 alone and help out at other Ontario highway articles. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It also looks like a postcard and not the property of the Flickr uploadr.

However, I think it may be appropriate to add a gallery to the bottom to highlight a few extra encyclopedic photos. This is one highway there is no shortage of images of, many of which deserve showcasing beyond commons. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a gallery. I for one think images help articles as they provide perspective and context. You know the old phrase 'a picture says 1000 words'.

I would help out other articles if I was knowledgeable about them. This article isn't getting any special treatment, just the fact that many people can relate to it and have experience and knowledge of the route. Haljackey (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Highway 401 C/E Widening Phase 2 and widening to Milton

Hey everyone, I've stumbled across documents about documents describing the next phases of the C/E widening in Mississauga. Some proposals want to see the system extended west of the 407: http://i44.tinypic.com/1zmlflf.jpg. Should we mention this in the article? I found some more info here: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/10054-401-Hurontario-Reconstruction-Starts-Sept-2009/page13. Haljackey (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That looks new. Last I heard there were only plans for 10 lanes (2 HOV) west of Mavis to Trafalgar (and eight lanes eventually to Highway 8). We can't use the Urban Toronto thread obviously, but those URS documents are certainly useful. Have to make sure this isn't just the technical assessment showing all the possibilities yet recommending the 10 lane alternative. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Highway/Route of Heroes

Should this have its own article? "Highway of Heroes" is the portion of Highway 401 between Glen Miller Road in Trenton and the Don Valley Parkway. The "Route of Heroes" continues the route south on the Don Valley Parkway to Bloor Street, west to Bay Street, then south to the Office of the Chief Coroner on Grenville Street. You wouldn't know from the Hwy 401 or DVP articles that there is a continuous dedicated route between the air base and the provincial coroner's office. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, which are merely sections of asphalt with markers. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Technically the Highway of Heroes designation was applied from the base at Trenton to the coroners office on Grenville, that was the whole purpose. Toronto then applied its own designation based on requests from over a decade before. Aside from its initial signage, the Route of Heroes has received no coverage at all that I know of. Personally I feel the section in this article covers it in good detail and that it's not a substantial enough topic to merit splitting out of the overall article - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good for me, you are the "Highwayman". So all bodies do not come to Toronto? That gives me a different perspective, because then it is not one unified route. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

They do all go to the office in Toronto (as far as I've read), and it could be considered one route with two names or one route, a section of which has two names... but people lined the bridges on the DVP long before it became the Route of Heroes. The way Joe Warmington and Ken Fisher (the latter is the guy that first stopped a fire truck on a bridge near Trenton) present the story - and they were pretty big in its eventual official naming and getting the idea spread around - is that since the soldiers are driven from Trenton to the coroners office in Toronto, the entire distance is the Highway of Heroes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Windsor–Essex Parkway

Highway 401 is currently known as the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway and Highway of Heroes. Should the name Windsor–Essex Parkway be added as well?

Examples follow:

Highway 401
Macdonald–Cartier Freeway Highway of Heroes Windsor–Essex Parkway
Route information
Maintained by Ministry of Transportation of Ontario
Location
Country	Canada
Province	Ontario
Highway system
Ontario provincial highways Current Former 400-series

Highway 401
Macdonald–Cartier Freeway (entire route) Highway of Heroes (Toronto to Trenton) Windsor–Essex Parkway (Windsor)
Route information
Maintained by Ministry of Transportation of Ontario
Location
Country	Canada
Province	Ontario
Highway system
Ontario provincial highways Current Former 400-series

All these names is getting confusing. Haljackey (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The US practice is to only list an alternate name in the infobox if the entire highway carries the name, or an overwhelming majority. The idea we follow is to avoid listing many names in the infobox. I say punt the names except M-C to the lead and leave them from the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, let me amend my comments. I'd move the HoH marker out of the infobox as well since by listing it in the infobox implies the whole highway is the HoH. It could be used, along with the M–C marker like I used the old auto trail markers in U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, and then the alternate names could be removed as desired. Imzadi 1979 → 20:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm so how about something like this? Have Highway 401 and the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway designations in bold (route) and have the others with normal font (alternate_name). Based on this should the Highway of Heroes shield be removed from the infobox? Haljackey (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't do that. I'd leave Highway 401 and M-C where there are, pull the others, and pull the HoH marker in the infobox. As for the prose in the lead, if HoH is a redirect to this article (and in some respects even if it isn't), it should be "upgraded" from italics and boldface. Imzadi 1979 → 00:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd support this, as long as the Highway of Heroes sign can be incorporated elsewhere in the article. Floydian spent a long time making that SVG file. Haljackey (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. I moved the HoH marker to the section of the article on the HoH, and bumped it to 140x200px so that the text on it is legible. In the process, I removed the second photo from that section. I did notice that the images are placed at the end of preceding subsections. This is allowable per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, but runs against Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Images explicitly states: "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not in the heading nor at the end of the previous section, otherwise screen readers would read the image (and its textual alternative) in a different section; as they would appear to viewers of the mobile site." That's something that will need to be fixed in case it comes up at FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 02:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! I wonder if they'll create another route marker for the Windsor-Essex Parkway section. They already have a logo that looks like this [8] that could be incorporated into a sign. Haljackey (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

widen entire 401?

The article states 'The MTO intends to widen all of the remaining four-lane sections to a minimum of six and place an Ontario Tall Wall along the entire length of the highway'. The Toronto Star reference doesn't seem to support this, and the National Post reference isn't available on-line. Does anyone have a copy of that article that supports that quote? I haven't heard of any plans to widen the eastern section of the highway, or put walls along the entire length of the highway - which would be an odd move in sections were there are wide separations between the two carriageways. Nfitz (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It was the National Post article that stated this, but they recently took it offline and their website is setup to not have the content of news articles archived by the wayback machine. A request for the article several weeks ago went unanswered. There are no current plans, and it certainly didn't give the impression that sections out east were even close to being on the future radar at this point in time, but it did state that it is an eventual idea. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's such a bizarre claim, that you'd better pull out the article. I'm sure it's available in a good library. And even then, better find another supporting claim, as it's likely an error. Nfitz (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh hang on - found it. There's a typo in the reference list, as it says the title was "6-lane" instead of "six-lane". There's a copy that was cut-and-paste to a blog back in July 2007 [9]. Given that it says it could be done by 2013, and the source is a few Transport ministers ago, who also said that the widening could show up in 2007 five-year plan (it didn't, nor has anything shown up about further widenings in ANY five-year plans), I think it's pushing it to say the Ministry intends to widen all the remaining four-lane sections. Most importantly, the article says nothing about high walls (othen a throw-away comment about the complexity of median barriers that doesn't indicate that they will be used everywhere or not.) - there is no reference to support that, despite what is written. Nfitz (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's out-dated. There's no indication that there are any such plans, if they ever were in the first place. And more to the point, it says nothing about building high-walls the entire length. Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I do recall the Ontario government stating that they want to six-lane the entire highway, but I'm not sure about adding the tall-wall. I do know that a tall wall will be added between Windsor and London once the whole thing is six-laned, and I would assume it would also be added in eastern Ontario as there is room in the median for an extra lane and a tall wall. If I stumble upon any sources, I'll be sure to let you know. Haljackey (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Nfitz, unless you can present a better source, the best you can hope to get is the tall wall bit clarified. The article from the NP is an opinion piece compiled from various sources, including the now deceased John Shragge and an OPP officer. It is not an official announcement that they are widening it, but rather a research piece about how it was designed for it and that it is a long term consideration. However, unlike your sourceless comments, it is a reliable source, period. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, Wikipedia uses opinion pieces for reference for fantasy road projects? How about you clean that up then ... and why would you build a high wall in sections where the two carriageways are so far apart that there are cliffs and water bodies between them!

Please go read WP:RS and WP:V. The National Post is a reliable source and John Shragge is a reliable source. Your observations of the geography surrounding the highway is not a reliable source. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Even if the National Post is a reliable source, the article is half-a-decade old, and indicates that it could be complete sometime next year. Clearly the information is no longer current, and can't be used to claim that the MTO, in the present tense, is planning to widen the entire 401 to six lanes. There's nothing about this in MTO's 5-year plans, and the article needs to be modified to reflect the current situation, not some out-of-date article that bases it's comments on two Transport mininisters ago, that suggests that this would show up in the 2007 5-year plan. The article itself expresses doubt from other sources that it would be built within a few years, suggesting it will likely take a few decades. The text in the Wiki article is highly optimistic, has no current sources, and gives a false picture. Nfitz (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• The source does not indicate that it would be done in a year (it indicated the project being discussed would wrap up in a year), and this article in no way imparts an optimistic tone in the wording. It just says it will happen at some undetermined point in the future. I'll wait out a third opinion on this, because right now you are using your own interpretation of the source and the credentials of the source to create a conclusion; this is synthesis and a tertiary source must be used. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Here's my opinion. I need specific reasons why the National Post would not be a reliable source. Absent that, it's reliable. Unless we have either 1) a newer source, preferably a secondary one, that contradicts it or 2) an explicit construction date that has passed without construction, then the content of the article is appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 17:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about the volumes table

Was there any rationale why the sections selected were chosen? I was thinking some more important junctions would be used (like Highway 402 to Wellington in London, Hurontario to Highway 410 in Mississauga, etc.). Is it because these are the highest volumes/changes for the cities indicated? Should something more be added to the table like changes to lane count over time? Looks kind of scrawny. Haljackey (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the lane count would be overkill and I couldn't find a source for that in 1988 or 1969 for each section necessarily. The section chosen are generally the highest in their cities, especially when east or west of a certain junction their is a sudden spike; sometimes it's arbitrary and I chose familiar highways. For London I just chose the parkways arbitrarily. Also have to choose sections that have been around since 1969 (410 to 10 doesn't work there). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I got it! I got it!

Whoo!

Finally, after years of trying, we now have this epic photo licenced for use!

But where do we put it and which photo gets replaced? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice! It's an impressive photo and will fit home just about anywhere in the article. Greater Toronto route discription, Collector-Express explanations, history, etc.

I would suggest replacing [10] with it if you're thinking we have too many images already. Haljackey (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Kingston Widening

I was looking for references to add to the lane table, but it turns out nothing is mentioned about the recent widening completed in Kingston. This content should be added to the route description and/or the 'since 2008' section so it can be referenced in the lane table. Haljackey (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it fully complete? I'm still seeing two (not three) westbound lanes from Montréal Street (619) to Sydenham Road (613), although the eastbound portion is done. --66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that the highway is now effectively fully open for six lane traffic, from Exit 619 (County Road 11 (Montreal Street) – Battersea) to just west of exit of Exit 610 (County Road 38 – Harrowsmith, Sharbot Lake). There are still construction pylons and the electronic construction signs still warn of the construction work. However, the final paving is done, the highway is painted, and they have opened up both sides fully as of this week. It's close enough to completion that it should be moved from the "Future" segment to Route Description - Eastern Ontario. If you need photos of the work done, I may be able to snap some on request. - The Legacy (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, back in February 2012, only the eastbound lanes were completed; the west side was although functionally completed (as in offramps and overall widening), it was unpainted, and they just now finished adding a final layer of ashphalt prior to painting and opening. The Legacy (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the local paper will run a story once it's done. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, after originally writing that, they closed down the right lane in the westbound direction. I'm not sure what work they're doing at the moment, but I've seen times where the entire highway is open. It's good to keep an eye on these changes as they happen, however. - The Legacy (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

...And there's my answer. Today, I just noticed them putting up overhead road signs marking the exits. So, I was right in that the asphalt is completely done; the construction markers are for their work to put up the road signs. Once that's done within the next month or so, I assume that widening will be fully complete. On a side note, does anyone know if they plan to widen between Montreal Street and Highway 15? There's a terrible bottleneck that occurs whenever Highway 401 is closed, and/or Highway 2 is closed. Three lanes would lessen the chance of a traffic accident from shutting down the entire freeway. The Legacy (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All construction signage has been removed, and all the upgrades are complete. I haven't seen any news articles, but I can say for certainty that it's done now. The Legacy (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This contract has also disappeared from the construction reports page, which means the contract is completed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Featured Picture Renomination - Ontario Highway 401 at Night

Original – Night lapse of Ontario Highway 401, the busiest highway in North America.

I have taken the liberty of renominating File:Highway 401 Night Lapse Busy.jpg for featured picture status because I believe it adds a lot to this article and the other articles it is displayed in. Having another featured picture of Highway 401 should also help aid in this article's Featured Article nomination. Haljackey (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, File:Highway 401.png would also be a good candidate for a Featured Picture. I have nominated it as well: [11] Haljackey (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the night lapse the same vantage as the empty highway? It's worth a shot I suppose. The recent png would never pass because of the haziness. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I withdrew the 18 lane photo, but still gunning for the night shot. Haljackey (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

When did it leave?

In Route description -> Eastern Ontario we have "The Canadian Shield returns through this heavily forested section" - but we're coming from Windsor, where have we seen Shield rocks so far? It's pretty much all ancient lake bed. Are there some more eastward outcrops of shield that cross the highway route somewhere from Trenton to Kingston? I can't think of any and nothing seems to be mentioned in the article before the "return". Franamax (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that when I originally wrote the Route description so long ago that I thought the rough terrain near Cobourg was a southern arm of the Canadian Shield. I was corrected on that, but this seems to be one of those sentences that provides a not-so-gentle reminder. Thanks for pointing it out :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

GreenLink?

GreenLink redirects here but there is no mention or explanation of the term in this article. --66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

GreenLink is the original name for the Windsor-Essex Parkway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved

Stop reverting. Until an agreed upon solution can be reached for the coordinates in the infobox, the stable and consistent version that remained for years prior to February 26th shall remain in place. The FAC was not promoted based on coordinates, but feel free to open a WP:FAR if you disagree. Start and end coordinates are redundant to the KML, which shows a line with a start and end point. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

An instruction to stop reverting from someone who has just reverted the article four times in 24-and-a-half hours is the epitome of hypocrisy. the coordinates were added by you to overcome objections to the FAC nomination. To then remove them - with a completely misleading edit summary - immediately after the FAC has been achieved is similarly the epitome of bad faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of other details, I don't feel they are necessary to the article, nor required by the discussion. The KML links serve the same purpose, and the line drawn on Google Maps from the KML file illustrates the entire length of roadway instead of isolating a single point. The WikiMiniAtlas also uses the KML data to draw the line on the map instead of isolating discrete points. In terms of the discussion at FAC, no support !votes were predicated on the presence of coordinates, and two objections that requested coordinates weren't struck once they were added. If an editor was going to support if coordinates were added, and then failed to actually change his/her !vote, that's still not enough, IMHO, to now require their inclusion in the article. I just don't see that discussion as an endorsement that they were required to promote the article. In short, my !vote is to leave them off in favor of the KML template. Imzadi 1979 → 22:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that this article has reached FA status, let's not turn it into an edit war. Good faith, people, and we'll all be fine. Haljackey (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes; lets return it to the version which achieved FAC status. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"FAC status", you mean return it to the version as originally nominated? The FA star does not freeze an article; if it did, the article would have been full protected the moment it was promoted and could never be edited again. Nope, just as consensus can change, so can this article. Imzadi 1979 → 23:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I also think that coordinates are not needed in the article to mark the termini, the KML file does the job. Dough4872 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a large number of use cases the KML does not support, not least the use of any mapping service bar google and bing, and the availability of the article through geo-interfaces such as wikipedia layers in g & b and in our own mobile site and apps. These are cogent reasons for retaining coordinates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

But the KML works fine for 401. Dough4872 02:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just reasons for Google, Bing, and those other mapping services to adapt to our new method, as the former did when they introduced the Wikipedia layer initially. I am not concerned with the workability of a for-profit business that has chosen to take advantage of the massive userbase of Wikipedia; they can handle that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's going to take wider deployment of KML (especially in the US) before Google notices. We have less than 1% of the road articles with KML right now; statistically... they're not gonna see it.

I also see no reason why we can't develop some sort of geohack for KML files that generates the links for various mapping sites. Unfortunately, Toolserver hates me, so I can't really deploy one. --Rschen7754 02:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"a large number of use cases the KML does not support" also including printed pages; and the provision of information to blind people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"you mean return it to the version as originally nominated" No, I mean the version as it was when FAC status was awarded. The version as nominated did not achieve FAC status until several issues were addressed; one being the lack of coordinates. I'm not suggesting that the article be frozen; merely suggesting a way of resolving the current dispute, and dealing with Floydian's shameful behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

FAC=Featured Article Candidate, and that status was "awarded" when Floydian nominated the article at that forum. So I repeat the question, when you say: "lets return it to the version which achieved FAC status", do you mean the version of the article that existed when it was nominated? Imzadi 1979 → 11:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, then, "FA status". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Why would anyone suddenly start messing with something peripheral in an article they have never dealt with in a meaningful before? I just don't get. Why don't you just leave it to the "road geeks" (and I mean that in the nicest way) to get on with their work. Debate this elesewhere! Oh my! Secondarywaltz (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:5P, and especially WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can read WP:POINT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT while we read those two? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on long enough and the wheels are just spinning with no traction. If you want this scrabble to continue, this is not the place to do so. Please find another hope to continue progressive discussions on this matter. Haljackey (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So................. Since the article has been unlocked I'm seeing revert after revert after revert. +202, -202,+202, -202, etc. Um, aren't we better than that? End this pathetic squabble or settle it elsewhere or else the article may become locked again. This is not productive. Haljackey (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above, about returning the article to the version which achieved FA status (other, undisputed, changes, notwithstanding). Recent reverts claim "no consensus"; but ether was clearly consensus for that version - or, if not, logic dictates that the FA should be rescinded as non-consensual. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And please see my comments that FA status was not predicated on coordinates. If you feel they were, you always have options at your disposal, however this discussion doesn't seem to be building consensus for re-inserting them Imzadi 1979 → 12:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw it the first time. This discussion doesn't seem to be building consensus for removing them; hence my suggestion to restore the article to as it was when FA status was granted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Look! I added the coordinates to garner the support Clemrutter (READ: Not Andy or Tagishsimon); that is the only reason I added them! They add redundant links to the article, when the KML links impart the same information in fewer pageloads/clicks, and I did not actually want to add them (hence over a month of prior resistance). Unfortunately the FAC passed without further input, support, or opposition from Clemrutter, and as shitty as it is, that means they weren't necessary. I have since reverted my change. Timing is everything.

NOW: if you can gain consensus to reinsert them, by all means. Unfortunately we are at a deadlock here, and so there's no consensus. Move on. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Look! You added coordinates to overcome opposition to the FAC; including Clem's which said in part "The article itself is totally lacking in coordinates" and "the text will fail 1.b. The task is thus how to introduce sufficient coordinates… so the text can be said to be comprehensive". Once you'd added them, you said "I've used your infobox. This is reasonable enough…", with an edit summary of "added ClemRutter's infobox with coords". As you note, there was no further opposition from Clem. FA status was then awarded with those coordinates included; then you tried to remove them. As I said above: the epitome of bad faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't care. There was no additional support either. In fact, when I raised the changes to their talk page they said that they would try to get to the FAC but were busy with life. They didn't. Ergo, no support rested on the coordinates. Again, I only added them to gain that particular support. Since I didn't in the end, I removed them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Once upon a time, Floydian, wikipedia was not all about you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nor is it now. Sorry that you can't gain consensus. If Clemrutter had returned and made any comment at the FAC, it would have changed this situation entirely. Now, we can argue until we are blue in the face and the cows come home, or accept the impasse and move on to contributing content instead of drama. Now, if you can come up with something more than "but they WERE in the article" (yes, briefly, but now they aren't), or false claims that the addition to the infobox had any impact on the outcome of the FAC, then maybe you'll have something to move forward on instead of in circles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I find it highly ironic that when I added the coordinates without discussion, despite the opposition to them from at least three editors (Imzadi, Dough, Rschen) and myself, that was fine and apparently dictated the consensus of the FAC outcome; yet, when I remove them, three editors (Andy, Simon more directly so) contest it as being against a consensus or against the spirit of the FAC outcome. Funny how that works. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This issue remains unresolved. Additional editors' comments would be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

FA granted: improvements still needed

I have opened this sections so I can can congratulate Floydian on steering this through to FA, and to open the discussion about improvements still needed. Can I start the ball rolling by mentioning the redlinks- has someone got these on their to do list. I assume that the missing highway articles are going to be written so it is correct to leave these redlinks in place.--ClemRutter (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The article appears to redlink any and every cross-street with an offramp, for instance 615 - Sir John A. MacDonald Boulevard. That road is an ordinary city street; it ends at the 401 and extends southward about 5km to the waterfront at Kingston Penitentiary without ever actually leaving the pre-1998 City of Kingston. It's four lanes, divided, but it's not the local main street by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps the redlinks should be checked for notability - if they're requests for articles on non-notable topics (like individual random local city streets, where a 401 offramp is the only reason to list them here) they should be unlinked; if there's some reason to create a stub of an article for them (for instance, as numbered Ontario highways in their own right like Ontario Highway 30) then create the relevant stub. Any circular redirect (like Windsor-Essex Parkway) should remain unlinked regardless of notability. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Redlinks aren't a problem, per se. If the links are to topics that can one can reasonably warrant articles, then they should remain.

• Robert Melville Smith is a former provincial politician. There was an article that existed until it was deleted under CSD G7 (author request) on March 8, 2010.
• Ontario Highway 25, Ontario Highway 29, Ontario Highway 30, Ontario Highway 32, Ontario Highway 42, Ontario Highway 45, Ontario Highway 74, Ontario Highway 76, Ontario Highway 97, Ontario Highway 133 are all former provincial highways that should receive articles, or redirects to their current county/regional road designations, in due course.
• White Oaks Road and Sir John A. Macdonald Boulevard are local roadways that I trust Floydian would not have linked if they weren't worthy of articles or redirects to related list articles.
• Kilmer van Nostrand is an investment company that specialized in construction in Canada, the US, and South America on projects such as subways and other major projects.
• Drumbo, Ontario, Bond Head, Durham Regional Municipality, Ontario are locations that are worthy of at least redirects.

The White Oaks Road link may be problematic because there was an American Civil War battle, the Battle of White Oaks Road, so in theory that American roadway might have greater claim to notability as a primary topic; that would only mean that if the Ontario roadway gets an article or redirect, it needs disambiguation first. As for the others, I can reasonably assume that articles on those topics are forthcoming at some later date. Imzadi 1979 → 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Highway 32 issue could be made to go away quite trivially: #REDIRECT → Leeds and Grenville County Road 32. The same is true for some (but not all) of the others. It's less than ideal as these pages seem just to be lists of numbered roads in a county with little substantive information, but better than nothing. Otherwise, former highways decertified are a bit of a grey area - if neither entry exists what is the threshold for notability? There is a series template listing every numbered Ontario highway so we may want at least a stub for each, but individual county roads? It may be a question of looking at each and seeing if there's some claim to notability beyond "used to be numbered provincially but now abandoned". 593: Lennox and Addington County Road 4 might actually be less notable than 599: Lennox and Addington County Road 6 (Wilton Road, Odessa) were it not for one small piece of the former having had the Ontario Highway 133 designation (only between 401 and 33, with even that status now gone). --66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, former provincial highways, even if replaced by a CR/RR designation now could still get articles that detail their histories as a provincial highway, even if the CR/RR designation is currently only covered in a table. The CR/RR lists could even be expanded over time using the US Roads project's "Rockland County Scenario", but that is neither here nor there with the purported issue in this article. Redlinks are not automatically bad, and so long as there is a reasonable chance of an article or redirect at that title, they should not be summarily removed just to make this article look "pretty". Your comments are treading on a more general discussion best had over at WT:ONRD about issues that are more general to all of Ontario's roads, not this article. Imzadi 1979 → 03:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the highways will have articles in due time. I'd rather not make a bunch of worthless placeholder stubs (WP:DEADLINE), opting instead to wait until each article can be researched and written properly. The county roads currently redirect to their county road lists.

For White Oaks Road, I don't have a very good idea (off the top of my head)... but unless there's already an article it wouldn't need disambiguation. In either case, it's a municipal road that I probably won't be touching. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

For some of the county road lists there is an incomplete set of redirects; some of that county's roads redirect to the main list, others red link. Perhaps the rest of these redirects should be created to turn a few links blue?

White Oaks Road? Looks non-notable, a London local street which runs south from the Highland Country Club for 11km, crossing just west of the 401/402 interchange, then ending on some equally non-notable country road. That puts it between White Oaks Mall (186: Wellington Road) and Wonderland Road. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The CR/RR links in this article are all blue. Refresh the page if they aren't for you. Imzadi 1979 → 04:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected White Oaks Road to the London roads list for now, although the American battle site is certainly more worthy of an article in the future. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So I believe on my original list, that leaves the former provincial highways, which are all worthy of getting articles in due course, the two locations, also worthy of receiving articles in due course, a notable former politician and a notable company. I'd say that redlinks aren't an issue in the article, unless you're one of those people who doesn't like any link that's red. Imzadi 1979 → 23:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the Civil War battle is Battle of White Oak Road so it might be just different enough to avoid a disambiguation. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Windsor Essex Parkway and new Border Crossing

Today a new crossing between Canada and the US was formally announced. Sources [12] [13]

I am also in the process of acquiring the rights for a photo showing construction of the Windsor-Essex Parkway.

Hopefully we can have these added to the article before it is featured on the main page. Is July 1 still a go for the featured date? Haljackey (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Rwanda tried for it, 50th year of their independence. 3 points to 8. I was thinking of either leaving it for the next major anniversary in 2014 or trying to time it out with the completion of the W-E Parkway if possible. One day I'd like to drive to Windsor, but by the time that day comes it will be finished and the bridge built (knowing my procrastination). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm good with having it featured any time, even if it's years away.

Anyways, I've had success acquiring some pics of the Windsor-Essex parkway. [14] [15] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Windsor_Essex_Parkway_Construction_3.JPG. I think the third one shows the most detail so I'll throw that in the article now. Haljackey (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Glen Miller Road

I was wondering if a {{sic}} may be appropriate for the Glen here. Assuming the naming of the road is supposed to be after Glenn Miller. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

But it was not named after him. The community is situated in a glen and is believed to have been named after Alexander Miller, a mill builder who retired there. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, have to wonder if he was actually Alexander the miller. The mysteries of the histories. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonderland Road Interchange Update

Story from the Local London News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dKfWBe7oIg Haljackey (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Construction is supposed to begin next spring though, no? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I recall prep work is to begin in February and construction in late March when the ground thaws. However I can't for the life of me remember where I heard this information... must have been video or radio as I usually save webpages like those. Haljackey (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

More info surfaced today: http://www.ledc.com/index.php/ledc/show_NEWS/1550 Haljackey (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

MC-Freeway SVG Shield

It's done. [16]. How is such a thing added to the infobox? I want to replace the PNG image but don't see a spot for it. Haljackey (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. All that stuff is handled by the infobox road template (see the subtemplates for Canada at Template:Infobox_road/doc/country)

Awesome! Thanks for doing that... didn't want to screw up the infobox/template since I'm not very knowledgeable with those. Haljackey (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hurontario Construction Pics

Visited the site yesterday. Uploaded a bunch to the commons under the 401 category: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ontario_Highway_401 Haljackey (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

History Section Could Be More Complete

The history section doesn't describe the completion of 401, which happened between Gananoque and Brockville in 1968 (other than a photo of a plaque). There is an interesting side note to this. During the year of Expo 67 there was a huge increase in the number of vehicles traveling between southern Ontario and Montreal. Because 401 wasn't complete, all this traffic was funneled into the 2-lane Highway 2S a.k.a. Thousand Islands Parkway between Gananoque and Long Beach (just west of Brockville). Traffic was so bad, it was reported that people living on the parkway would have to wait for hours just to cross the road. There were several terrible accidents and during that summer the parkway was considered a notorious 'killer highway'. This is chronicled in the Brockville Recorder and Times and probably other Ontario newspapers of the day.

There is another somewhat interesting side note that perhaps someone can track down. I was told that in the 1960s around the time of completion of 401, the magazine Popular Mechanics had a highway expert travel the road and write an article about it. This expert said that 401 had an inferior, outdated design with poorly designed curves, grades, sightlines, traffic separation, shoulders and interchanges. Undoubtedly this is because the road took so long to complete that by the late 1960s builders were still working from plans that were considered "state of the art" back in the 1930s to 1950s when vehicles were slow and traffic was very light. The inferiority of 401 is still very evident in the parts of the road that have not been significantly upgraded since originally completely, such as the entire stretch from Kingston to the Quebec border. Possibly this article in P.M. was a "split run" special added only to the Canadian edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.5.32 (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Thousand Islands Parkway (2S) was originally four lanes. The extra lanes are now pedestrian and cycle paths. Unfortunately, it was inexplicably a gravel road back then... but the bridges to carry both pairs of lanes are still there. K7L (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Some problems

I noticed a few layout problems in the route description today:

• At higher resolutions there is a significant amount of white space above the Basketweave image.
• There is no subheading for the traffic data and/or lane count data.
• The text which provides context to the traffic data is located some distance away from the data itself.

• Now somewhat rectified with introductory prose, but the remainder of the information sits at the top of the RD.

Also

• (tangentially related) Consideration for renaming the Basketweave image should be made per Commons:File renaming criterion 2.

-- Nbound (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Updated - 11:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed and requested a file renaming. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Whitespace issues rectified. It is likely to still effect UHD resolutions, but monitors capable of these are not common -- Nbound (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and I doubt there's much that can be done until we have a method of adjusting the article based on browser window size - any compromise for wider monitors is likely to affect smaller monitors or mobile users. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's what im saying, many people have HD (1920x1080) capable monitors these day, but there is little point going higher as far as resolution concerns. -- Nbound (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Further going through the article's images:

• There are two images with no PD-US statement
• File:401-DVP interchange.png probably doesnt meet NFCC - The exact event is not discussed in prose. Probably will require waiting until 2015 (date mentioned on desc, page)
• Shields need to attribute appropriate creator (ie. DOT or govt) - Similarly they should be licensed to explain why the copy on WP/Commons is free. It is also unlikely these are too simple for copyright due to the intricate crown.
• Plaque is likely copyrighted unless PD due to age.

-- Nbound (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Which two (there's a lot of images to go through)

• File:Highway_400_at_401.png and File:401_pre-widening_at_Keele,_March_21,_1958.jpg - pertinent because its unlikely either was PD in the US on the URAA date, and neither also date the first publication (which would be used to calculate copyright term), unfortunately this is an issue with some archived imagery. -- Nbound (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Several independent editors (including the reviewers at FAC) felt it sufficiently passed. The article discusses the subject of the image a few paragraphs below (the paragraph beginning, "In Toronto, engineers and surveyors were examining..."). Perhaps swapping positions with the 18-lane aerial image would make the connection more apparent?

• Ah, yup, that might be a good move :) -- Nbound (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• The shield design used today (which originated in the 1930s but was revamped) was introduced in 1955, so in Canada at least, the design is PD. It has been uncontested so far so I'm not inclined to relicence several hundred shield images just yet.

• If the design isnt PD in the US it doesnt actually matter whether its PD in Canada or not. Similarly the recent HoH shield will likely need to be NFCC'd in any case. This would restrict its usage somewhat (likely to where it is directly discussed only) unless theres a simpler alternate marker that can be used for other uses like RJLs, etc. -- Nbound (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• (...and tangentially related) We recently had to ship our shielding off commons (around 600 shields), as they were found to be possibly PD-US only! Tools like The Commonist can help. Both AU and the US have also recently had to re-licence many multiple shields to explain why the copy is PD - (in the US case its usually due to MUTCD provisions, in ours its usually due to simplicity) -- Nbound (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I believe this qualifies under freedom of panorama as it is a monument and not simply a sign or poster. YMMV.

• Quite possibly, Ive asked for comment at Commons - commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Carlb-hwy401-lastkm-682.jpg -- Nbound (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Infringing alt-text requires removal or significant change -- Nbound (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna IAR regarding the infringing alt text. If the picture itself is not infringing, I'd dare any court in the world to take up the case that the text for visually-impaired readers IS infringing. Accessibility is one of the concepts in Fair Use. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Main Page Feature

Simple question: I am wondering when this article will be featured on the main page. Does anyone know? Haljackey (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Was there a Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests?? -- Moxy (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There are two ways a Featured Article makes the Main Page. The first is a request at TFA/R as Moxy mentions. Usually those are for a specific date, like an anniversary, but some are just for any open slot coming up. The second method is for the TFA delegate to just pick the article when he is scheduling to fill in the slots in and around the requested articles. Otherwise, there is no specific schedule. The oldest FAs I nominated in 2008 have yet to appear on the Main Page, for example. Imzadi 1979 → 20:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Floydian has made attempts to have this featured, but unfortunately neither have panned out. --Rschen7754 20:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it was scheduled without my awareness once, which I promptly put a stop to. When it became featured, there were no notable anniversaries on the horizon. There are now, however, two ideal anniversaries upcoming in the next year:

November 10, 2014 - 50th of the final segment opening near the Quebec border, completing the highway from Windsor to Quebec with at least two lanes

January 11, 2015 - 50th anniversary of the highway being named the Macdonald Cartier Freeway (and the 200th birthday of the first namesake)

WP:HWY/TFA has road-specific requests listed to help avoid conflicts from having two road TFAs. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit unsure about the "Windsor to Quebec with at least two lanes" reference. The Thousand Islands Parkway was originally laid out as four lanes... of gravel. The move to pave two and convert the other two to walking/bicycle paths was made after the 1000 Islands Bypass was moved onto the current 1968 alignment. Any bridges in that road are twinned, two with space for two lanes each. K7L (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Every source I've found says that while the gravel was laid for the other carriageway, culverts and bridges were never built until after '68 and it was only ever opened as a two lane road. In addition, many of the segments between Windsor/London and east of Kingston were opened two lanes at a time. It wasn't until 1968 that there were four lanes the whole distance. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

King's highway?

I'm not certain if this has been brought up before (I don't see it here), but, is the 401 not Queen's Highway 401, given that the present Canadian monarch is female? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that any Ontario numbered highway explicitly claims to belong (by name or title) to Queen Elizabeth II. The text "THE KING'S HIGHWAY" appeared on signage for the main Ontario numbered highways (2-169) long after E2R accepted the throne, but was eventually quietly dropped entirely - without changing "King" to "Queen". K7L (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The King's Highway moniker was applied in 1930, well before the Queen's era. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

To the system, yes; to the 401 specifically, no. The 401 numbering was assigned in 1952, the same year E2R took office. Not sure which happened first. K7L (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding, and I'm sure Floydian will confirm, is that the system, and therefore components like Highway 401, weren't changed from King's to Queen's when the monarch changed in 1952. I remember trips to Sault Ste. Marie in the 1980s and 1990s, and the signage there was for "King's Highway 17". Imzadi 1979 → 03:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You could always read the Highway Traffic Act, Ontario. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of when designations were applied, the system is the King's Highway network. I can't offer a reason why it was never changed, but such is the case. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a legal authority in the HTA or in the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act which allows for roads to be designated part of the King's Highway. The term has legal meaning and doesn't refer to any particular monarch, and in fact the MTO has been going back to using "provincial highway system" instead since about 1990, which is why the "KING'S HIGHWAY" text doesn't appear on newer signs. The only highway named for a specific royal is the Queen Elizabeth Way (not named for E2R but for her mother) which is a King's Highway as well. (Sourced from our Highways in Ontario article) Ivanvector (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The Queensway (Ottawa) might qualify, but only west of the County Road 174 split as the rest is no longer provincial highway. K7L (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Aha! I shouldn't have said "only highway named for a royal" above, that's obviously ridiculous. Pretty well all of our roads are named after some British dude, one's bound to be a highway. Ivanvector (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinions or the wording used on signs, the law gives their name as the King's Highway System. A reliable source (not the wording on the highway shields) is needed to change anything. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Reliable sources are required. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. There's a discussion about this at the Ontario Highways article, with reliable sources. Ivanvector (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Official name

The article says that the highway's "official name" is Macdonald-Cartier Freeway, in a way that suggests that "King's Highway 401" is not an official name. Aren't they both official names? Ivanvector (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"King's Highway 401" is a highway designation, giving it a number as part of a larger highway system. "Macdonald–Cartier Freeway" is a name, and not all highways are named. Some highways have multiple names; Interstate 75 in Michigan has six, for example. Imzadi 1979 → 22:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture

I thought someone might object to a pop culture section in this article. But since an IP added one anyway, I was happy to get my Bud the Spud nod into the edit history. Ivanvector (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think its a good fact, but I think it's too trivial to warrant mention considering how much information I've had to forego mentioning in order to keep the article from running on and on. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Length of 401: 817.9 or 828km?

I cross into QC often so am familiar with the road markers leading me to question its length when I saw 817.9 reported. The last marker is 828km and there is a short stretch after that before the border. Also, at the end of the article the last table (entitled Exit List)shows 828km.

So, which is correct?

65.95.70.144 (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Werner Lichtenberger

The markers are correct, but the measurement leaves about 10km for a freeway alignment in Windsor that was never built. The extension to the USA border crossing that is under construction now is on a slightly different alignment IIRC. Ivanvector (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, am now well prepared for the trick question :-)..Werner Lichtenberger (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Highway guys will have a fun task replacing all 8000 mileposts along the route for about 1.5 km of difference. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there'd be 818 of them, plus all of the off-ramp signage. Québec might post distances in "0,1km" increments but Ontario's are one each 1km. And no, it's not necessarily a joke, New Brunswick Route 2 lopped off about 50km when it changed the routing between Fredericton and Moncton soon after the turn of the millennium, and that did change the off-ramp numbers. K7L (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Consolation that only Eastbound will need updating, unless the ON/QC border moves....Werner Lichtenberger (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That'd be nice, but going westbound the markers (which are mounted in the median in eastbound/westbound pairs) count down from 8xx.x (haven't been to Quebec in 12 years). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

U r right, was confused by the 0km marker just west of border. Must be for Hwy 40... Oh well, where would the economy be without "make-work" projects, some real nice ones around from the 30's kept the shovels & the pencils busy....Werner Lichtenberger (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I presume you mean 20? 20=401, 40=417. K7L (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In the US a lot of freeways are dual-numbered from both ends, and there are still a few states that use sequential interchange numbers. In Ontario (maybe the rest of Canada?) the freeways are numbered from one end only. The 401 is an oddity in that it is numbered from a fictional point some distance west of the actual terminus. I'm guessing that won't change - there is only so much room between the current end and the US border that any non-ridiculous alignment is probably only different from decades-old plans by a few hundred metres. Ivanvector (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Quebec Autoroute 50 is just as weird, it's numbered from somewhere near Pembroke, Ontario even though there's currently not a chance in Hull of it being extended that far. It's not just NYS with the sequential numbers, NS uses them. K7L (talk)

"One of" the Busiest Highways in the World? Or "THE" Busiest Highway in the World?

Citing this article from the Guardian, I've altered the language in the opening paragraph, and claimed the title of "busiest highway in the world" for Highway 401. Because of the featured nature of this article and the boldness of my change, I thought it appropriate to expand on my reasons in discussion.

First, regarding reliable sources:

• The two sources cited for the statement that Hwy 401 is "one of" the busiest highways in the world do not suggest that there are equally-busy (or busier) highways in the world. Rather, both read as if the authors didn't need to do the confirmatory research for the purposes of their respective publications, and hedged their bets accordingly. In other words, they are not inconsistent with the claim that Highway 401 is the busiest highway in the world.
• The Guardian infographic, titled "busiest roads in the world", demonstrates an international scope (including European and American highways), and shows Highway 401 as being significantly busier than its nearest competitor. Barring the discovery of any other reliable source suggesting the existence of a busier (or "possibly busier") highway, I submit that this article is sufficient evidence supporting the claim that Highway 401 is the busiest highway in the world.

(To be clear, the next two points are not given as official support, but merely as additional, informal confirmation for the purposes of this discussion:)

• A highway nearly as busy as Highway 401 would hardly be difficult to find (it would be one of the busiest highways in the world, after all), which is reason enough to believe that, in this case, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Given existing evidence to support this claim, and in the absence of any contradictory evidence whatsoever, I submit that the burden has been met: Anyone claiming that Highway 401 does not deserve the title "busiest highway in the world" should proffer contrary evidence supporting such a claim.
• Emphasizing the above, I've looked extensively, and I cannot find a single highway anywhere in the world that comes anywhere close to the 500,000 avg-cars-at-peak cited for Hwy 401. (The Guardian graphic seems very illustrative of how much busier Hwy 401 is compared to its nearest competitors.)

Is there any evidence of another highway in the world with comparable volume of traffic? Failing that, is there evidence of an extremely busy highway for which adequate statistics do not exist, that might be busier than Hwy 401? I've found none, and as I've said, it's hard to hide a highway that big.

Eunomiac (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume that if a busier highway were to exist, it would be in China. Any other nation would receive press coverage (well... 'cept North Korea, but they're an AADT of 2). No data is available to my knowledge for the AADT of highways in China. To the point, I agree with your stance. Actually having a reliable source make the absolute claim certainly provides enough leverage for it to be stated. Anybody who disputes it can simply provide evidence and no harm, no foul. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

My only question was whether to remove the citation to the "busiest highway in North America" source. I like that source as a complementary piece of evidence, so I've currently left up there right after the Guardian source (citations 4 and 5 at the time of this writing). However, citing to "busiest hwy in North America" after saying "busiest highway in the world" seems a little contradictory, and the only other way I could think of to maintain that source would have been to write something like "the busiest highway in North America(cite) and the world (cite)", which is redundant.Eunomiac (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support. The Guardian is a reputable source despite the lack of a real article (it is just an infographic). This would also make a good 'Did You Know?' submission on the front page. Haljackey (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you plan on expanding the article to five times it's current size hehehe? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is original research. The Guardian infographic explicitly makes no claims as to the supremacy of the highway's busyness. It simply says "some of the busiest". Wikipedia is not supposed to engage in such original research. It is rather upsetting that this supposed "fact" which seems to have been invented in this section is now being trumpeted to the world. 69.6.104.76 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's original research. "One of the busiest in the world" is indisputable, based on the references, but "THE busiest is a stretch." Anyway, if you're going to claim it's "THE busiest in the world" in the lede, please change the "ONE of the busiest" claims under Route description for consistency. Phlar (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Sun calls it the busiest highway in the world in this recent article: here. An Automotive website also claims it: here I am not weighing in on either "one of the" or "the" busiest just yet.)--NotWillyWonka (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to tell whether or not they are basing it on our claim. However, until someone can point out another highway with a higher AADT, there is no busier highway that has been identified anywhere. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I doubt any news organization would use Wikipedia as a source for facts.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If we have the stats but we don't have a reliable source explicitly stating that the 401 is definitely the busiest, is including it WP:SYNTH? Or is this a case of calling the sky blue? Ivanvector (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think SYNTH applies here. That policy section would apply if we had "according to X, the 401 has Y traffic count, and according to A, highway B has C count and therefore the 401 is the busiest/is busier" if X and A used different traffic survey methods in widely different years. Not all synthesis of sources is bad. If it were, we could only use a single source to write an article. Even setting aside that absurdity, we can combine sources into single sentences properly. For example, M-185 (Michigan highway) is on Mackinac Island, a location that bans cars. Several newspapers have reported that it is the only car-free state highway in the U.S. The Toronto Star also reported at one time that it was the only state highway never to have a car accident. It is not improper synthesis for me report that factoid in the first half of a sentence, and then append "but it has had one since in <year>" and cite it to the Mackinac Island Town Crier's report of a minor car accident on that highway. That's mere juxtaposition of related facts.

We can't say that the 401 is the busiest in the world without a source to back it; that much is clear. If The Guardian's infographic says it is listing the top 10 busiest, and the 401 has the highest listed traffic count, then it's not OR to say the 401 is the busiest. If the infographic says it only listing "some of the busiest", then we can't use it the same way because we shouldn't assume they didn't omit some highway that's busier. (It would be stupid of them to make a list of "some of the busiest" highways in the world, and leave off the busiest, but it could happen.) However, we do have a source in the Toronto Sun making the claim of "the busiest". We can couch our restatement of that in "According to the Toronto Sun, Highway 401 is the busiest in the world".[1] If you're really worried they based it on our article without attribution, e-mail the newspaper or the reporter and ask for what source they used. Until then, assume good faith and give them the benefit of the doubt. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good analysis. I thought that was effectively what we were doing, comparing lists of busy freeways which were compiled at different times or with different methodology, but apparently I was thinking of something else. I can't see the Guardian source for some technological reason but I agree with your rationale. As for the auto magazine source, it does seem to have copied this article at least partly and probably shouldn't be relied on. The Toronto Sun has a bit of a habit of letting its columnists hyperbolize so I would be wary. But also I think Floydian is right - it is sourced adequately enough, and if someone has better info they are free to revert it. Ivanvector (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is evidence of a busier highway: see Highway 20 (Israel), "on an average day almost 600,000 vehicles enter the freeway." @Floydian noted the Highway 20 article in an archived discussion from 2011. Why are we rehashing this without first checking the archives? Phlar (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but AADT and "vehicles entering a freeway" are very different measures. AADT measures the average number of vehicles that pass a certain point on the highway each day, using measurements throughout a year. The second measurement likely passes 1.5 million on the 401 just through Toronto alone. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Phlar (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Speed Limits

I have reverted a reversion that removed: "Prior to 1976 the speed limit was 113 km/h (70 mph)" on the grounds that the information was incomplete. There should perhaps be an entire paragraph on speed limits on the 401 throughout its history, however the reduction from 70 mph (to 60 mph, which was subsequently "metrified" to 100km/h) is the most significant change in the 401's history. Therefore I have reinstated this fact. If someone wishes to provide greater detail on various speed limit changes and the reasons, that might be interesting to some readers. In the meantime, the information on the 1976 speed reduction (which presumably was a response to the U.S. reduction to 55 mph after the 1973 oil crisis) is relevant and important information in this article. Tetsuo (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I consider speed limits to normally be a trivial detail in a highway article. As for a reduction of speed limits being "the most significant change in the 401's history", no it isn't. You should not have re-insert the information before discussing it. I will remove it again, and caution that the original bold edit should not be re-inserted until there is a consensus for its inclusion. At the moment, you have two editors (myself and the one who original removed it) who disagree with the addition. Imzadi 1979 → 05:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, there should be no information in the lead that's not present in the body of the article. Your addition violated this guideline by inserting speed limit information into the lead along. As complying with that guideline is a pre-requisited for Featured Article status (as well as Good Article status), and this is a Featured Article, if we add this sort of information, it needs to be done properly so this article retains its star. Imzadi 1979 → 05:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean that the change in speed limit was the most important change in the 401's history; I meant that the change from 70 to 60 mph was the numerically greatest change in the speed limit. By comparison, the change from 60 mph to 62 mph was a matter of trivial rounding associated with the implementation of the metric system. I don't have a problem with the information also being further in the article and appreciate your concern in that regard. I would welcome any suggestions on the best place for that -- i.e. a dedicated section/paragraph or within an existing section.Tetsuo (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't even think either change is that significant though. Imzadi 1979 → 06:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The possibility of raising the speed limit has been a significant issue in the province in recent years, a topic the premier and minister of transportation have weighed in on. So the history may be of interest to many readers. It's not as divisive an issue as 55 mph was in the USA, but if you were to compile news stories on the 401 over the past couple of years, the speed limit would probably be number two or three, after congestion and maybe truck traffic.Tetsuo (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be an issue then with the entire highway system, not just this highway. It's an issue that should then go into the article on the system. Here, it's trivia. Imzadi 1979 → 06:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at other highway articles and see what is usual. Personally, I think the list of fast food outlets in the rest stops is trivial, but I wouldn't consider deleting it without seeking some consensus first.Tetsuo (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I am not the one responsible for the mention of speed limits being in the lead but not further in the article. The sentence, "The posted speed limit is 100 km/h (62 mph) throughout its length" was in the lead long before I came along. (Since 7 April 2010, in fact.) So I think your concern about losing Featured Article status is unfounded and not justification for reverting my edit without a consensus. I was merely elaborating to provide a historical context for the current speed limit. Perhaps there once was something further in the article about speed limits and it was accidentally deleted?Tetsuo (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also BTW, the fact or factoid that the highway is "patrolled by the Ontario Provincial Police" is in the lead but not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and it is probable that all 400-series highways in Ontario are patrolled by the Ontario Provincial Police.Tetsuo (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Those two details could go in the history. As for the speed limit change, these were largely in part due to the conversion from imperial to metric in 1977, but it isn't really important. They are mentioned in the article as there is no parameter for them in the infobox, which is where I believe they'd be more fitting. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The arbitrary speed limit reduction has nothing to do with the metric system. The speed was lowered from 70mph to 60mph as a fuel-conservation attempt (the 1970's were infamous for oil and energy shortages, mostly of political origin) and then crept back up to 62 miles per hour (100 km/h) later with metrication. While it may have been short-lived, the last non-metric speed posted was sixty, not seventy. K7L (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I originally removed the section in the lede because of K7L's point. The phrasing implied that the speed limit had always been 70mph, and was suddenly reduced to 100km/h in 1976, but there is no discussion of the history or the rationale anywhere in this article. There is some history in the speed limits in Canada article. K7L's edit just now restored the problem. Since the 401 has always followed the speed limits on other 400-series highways, a discussion of the history of the speed limits should be in that article, not this one, and definitely not in the lede. Ivanvector (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, wherever it is, the template should be {{convert|70|mph}}, not the other way around. 113km/h is not equal to 70mph. Ivanvector (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; I've removed it. Another point to be made is to look at the trimming of the article during the Good Article assessment, where many details were removed that deserve far more prominence than a trivial mention of speed limit changes. The speed limit is only mentioned for informative purposes to travellers, alongside the OPP statement. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

1999 Manning Road crash

I've started working on a draft article covering the massive pile-up in 1999 in Essex County, which is notable for being considered the worst pile-up in Canadian history (or one of the worst), and for influencing improvements to that part of the highway in the following years (as noted in this article). The content is based largely on sources found in this article, plus some others that I've found. I think that it can be expanded considerably. This is inspired by pages we have on other major road collisions such as 1991 M4 motorway crash and 2009 Taconic State Parkway crash, and it is already listed at List of traffic collisions#1999. If you would like to comment or contribute, please see 1999 Highway 401 crash. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to add a fair-use rationale for the aerial image. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know it was non-free. I don't actually know what I'm doing with fair use, but since the use is essentially the same as the use in this article, I've basically just copied the same rationale. Would you mind taking a look? Ivanvector (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A few quick comments on what I say, but you'll need to pick a date format and stick with it. I assume your preference is to use DD Month YYYY formatting, which is fine, but you didn't alter the citations you copied over to match.

You probably should pipe the link to "Ontario Highway 401" to read as just "Highway 401" since the province name isn't part of the highway's actual name, but rather it is used as a form of natural disambiguation. Also, the alphabetical and numerical portions of a highway name should be joined with a non-breaking space ( ) not a regular space so that they can't be separated on consecutive lines by a line break; remember that readers can view articles on smart phones or widescreen monitors so we can never predict where a line might break in the flow of the text.

"87 vehicles were involved in the pile-up ..." It's acceptable, but still poor form, to begin a sentence with numerals. Simply recasting as "There were 87 vehicles involved in the pile-up ..." fixes that nicely and avoids the debate over spelling out the number as words ("Eighty-seven").

The claim behind "The crash is considered the worst road accident in Canadian history" needs to be repeated someplace in the body of the article, with a citation. Such an extraordinary claim may need to be cited in the lead as well.

"a 32 kilometre (20 mile) stretch" uses the measurement as an adjective, so it should be "a 32-kilometre (20 mi) stretch" by way of {{convert|32|km|mi|adj-on}}.

"morning of Friday, 3 September 1999": days of the week are dropped per the MOS.

"8:00am" should really be "8:00 a.m."

You should also pick whether the headlines/titles of newspaper articles will be rendered in Sentence case (only the first word plus proper nouns are capitalized) or Title Case (First word, last word, all nouns/verbs/pronouns/adjectives and any prepositions over 5 letters). In either case, subtitles (which are usually separated from the main title by a colon) start with another capitalized word.

Anyway, getting in the habit of some of these practices early in an article's development makes it easier to polish it for a future GAN or FAC nomination because you've kept the picky details like these consistent from the start. (Feel free to copy these comments over to the talk page of the draft if you like since they don't really apply to this article.) Imzadi 1979 → 22:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I had considered many of these points but was short on time. Still am, so I will implement these suggestions later, or anyone is free to if they would like. Ivanvector (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The day of the week may be relevant at some point in the article, as traffic was certainly heavier due to the Labour Day long weekend... But that would be for a more descriptive part of the situation rather than directly attached to the date itself. Not completely sure if fair-use images are acceptable in draft space (I'm defaulting to no), so for the time being you may wish to hide the image using HTML commenting < !-- and --> without the space before the exclamation point). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone for the feedback. I see that some of the suggestions have been implemented already and I am working on the others this morning. Regarding a couple of Imzadi1979's points:

1. my understanding is that extraordinary claims only need to be cited where they appear when they deal with BLPs, or are verifiably controversial (i.e. the controversy is covered in reliable sources). I don't think this claim qualifies for either one. I am going to change it to "one of the worst" since more sources refer to it that way, which I think solves the problem anyway.
2. my preference is for headlines to be rendered in sentence case but I also think that I should follow the usage in the source. Is this contrary to MOS?

Many thanks again. If you would like to comment on the draft's talk instead of here so that this thread doesn't get out of hand, I'm of course watching that page also. Ivanvector (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: changes in case for consistency are a standard action in publishing and citation. I have a paper of mine that is being published in a journal and a textbook this year. If the journal uses APA style, I'd be expected to reformat my paper to comply with that scheme, which uses sentence case for headlines/article titles. If the textbook uses Chicago style, I'd be expected to reformat my paper to comply with that manual, which uses title case. Our MOS values intra-article consistency in allowing the editors of an article to choose a specific style of citations for use in that article. Our MOS has various instructions that we should alter punctuation and capitalization in a number of situations to match the our MOS and the style of formatting in an article. Just as APA would tell you to change the case style of a journal article when it's being cited in your paper, you can do the same in your Wikipedia article because you're not altering the meaning, just the formatting, of the headline. Imzadi 1979 → 16:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary topic discussion

Please note there is a discussion regarding the primary topic usage of Highway 401 underway. Please add your comments at Talk:Highway 401. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed tag

One clause is tagged for citation: "[Thousand Islands Parkway is] one of the original sections of the highway designated in 1952".[17] If, as indicated by the article, Thousand Islands Parkway was called Highway 2S, then this clause might be equivalent to the statement "In July 1952 ... Highway 2S were designated Controlled-Access Highway No 401", which is sourced to "Shragge pp. 93–94." DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Some IP added a bunch of CN tags a week ago. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Image sandwiching

Per WP:IMGLOC: "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other"

On my computer (1920x1080 resolution, Chrome on OS X Yosemite) I see a lot of sandwiching. Comments? sst✈^(discuss) 17:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wider screens invariably result in more image sandwiching, but consequently don't compress text to ridiculously small line lengths. Is it interfering with the article layout/readability on your screen, and are any particular image(s) to blame? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Update?

I don't recall exactly where, but I saw somewhere that there was an extension to ON 401. User:Floydian, is this up to date? --Rschen7754 18:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That must be referring to the extension in Windsor, the Herb Gray Parkway. The article says the extension was completed last month but the new international bridge has not been approved on the Michigan side, and hasn't started construction. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternate names and exit list formatting

My additions of alternate names to the highway were deleted on the premise that they don't apply to the entire highway. Alternate names apply to parts of a road, not just all of it, as other road articles attest to.

Also, my formatting in the exit list for the Halton and Peel exits was changed back (although the 'jcon' format shields weren't actually visible for them, they are for the Essex County exits) when I placed county road shields followed by road names. Do you really need to see "Regional Road XX" when the number is already shown in the shield? It looks neater and less cluttered that way. Transportfan (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Listing the alternate names at the top of the infobox like that, and including additional markers implies that those names and markers apply to the whole road. Unless they do, they should not appear there. Imzadi 1979 → 06:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If you read other Ontario highway articles, such as Ontario Highway 400 it does show shields and alternate names that don't apply to the whole highway at the top of the infobox. There's no rule that says they need to. Transportfan70 (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How many of those are featured articles? --Rschen7754 08:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And as for the others, if they're following a different practice, shouldn't they be updated to conform to the best practice that this FA is following? Imzadi 1979 → 08:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I never knew not placing shields or names not applying to the entire highway at the top of the infobox was a criteria actually. Transportfan70 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, @Transportfan and Transportfan70: why are you using two accounts to participate in this discussion? --Rschen7754 15:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a fluke. I forgot to type the '70' in my username, but for some reason it still signed me in. I didn't notice at first but couldn't figure out why my user page was empty and my account didn't technically exist. Transportfan70 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

And the account just happened to have the same password!? --Rschen7754 06:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. Seriously. I don't know what's going on. Glitch? You can delete the Transportfan (without the '70' after it) account. Transportfan70 (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it seems that you likely created the account in 2008, see your contributions. You need to either openly declare that the two accounts are both you, or stick to one account only. We also cannot delete accounts. --Rschen7754 15:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Gallery

Given the high number of encyclopedic photos, the current congestion (guess it just goes hand in hand with the 401) of photos, the spectrum of locations along a 830km freeway worthy of showcasing, and a perennial swapping of images, I'd like to propose the use of a gallery to include a few of the many images that cannot fit into the article. Taking from a concept used on portals, perhaps a random rotation/selection per reload would be best, allowing a showcase of our numerous images. Comments/thoughts? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

History of Ontario Highway 401

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Support splits - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split into new articles entitled List of exits for Ontario Highway 401 and History of Ontario Highway 401. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose splits—as premature. WP:SIZERULE goes off readable prose size, which for this article is "42 kB (6678 words)". This article isn't yet at the size where the rule suggests splitting. Imzadi 1979 → 20:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose splits - although I don't think it would be a terrible idea to create the list of exits and list of service stations as separate pages, then transclude them onto this page, just for ease of editing on slower connections. As for the content, the way the article is laid out it wouldn't really make sense to split out the history without also splitting out the future section, and then there's practically nothing left. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose This baffles me to no end. It is just barely the longest FA road article (Interstate 8 comes in at 40512 B (6795 words)). It somehow passed WP:FAC in this state. It's not even the longest FA by road length (which would imply a longer exit table and thus more reason to split). And there is longstanding precedent against this sort of thing (from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Roads: Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not as a separate article, except for some highly notable ones (e.g. the Springfield Interchange near Washington, D.C.).) So I see very little reason to do this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Rschen7754 00:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as above, though I like Ivanvector's first idea on transcluding long junction tables from a subpage. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

what do you mean by "somehow barely passed in this state", Rschen7754?

Well, if memory serves me right, it was contentious for another reason But what I mean is that FAC signed off on it, and any issues with the structure of the article should have been caught then. --Rschen7754 04:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ontario Highway 401. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ohscanada.com/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000156610&type=Print%20Archives
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/446842601.html?dids=446842601%3A446842601&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS%3AFT&type=current&date=Aug%2031%2C%201999&author=WENDY%20MCCANN%2C%20THE%20CANADIAN%20PRESS&pub=The%20Spectator&edition=&startpage=C.3&desc=KILLER%20HIGHWAY%20%27PLEASANT%27%20TO%20DRIVE
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/trip/construction_reports-central.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091230141818/http://www.vintagekingshighways.com/401/401.html to http://www.vintagekingshighways.com/401/401.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ontario Highway 401. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714091212/http://www.midlandfreepress.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=919985 to http://www.midlandfreepress.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=919985
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/topo/map?layers=nodata_ntdb_50k%20north_arrow%20other_features%20roads%20hydrography%20boundary%20builtup%20vegetation%20populated_places%20railway%20power_network%20manmade_features%20designated_areas%20water_features%20water_saturated_soils%20relief%20contours%20toponymy%20contour&scale=300000.000000&mapxy=1388087.1145965795%20-369619.86823442107&map_layer&
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/topo/map?layers=nodata_ntdb_50k%20north_arrow%20other_features%20roads%20hydrography%20boundary%20builtup%20vegetation%20populated_places%20railway%20power_network%20manmade_features%20designated_areas%20water_features%20water_saturated_soils%20relief%20contours%20toponymy%20contour&scale=300000.000000&mapxy=1388087.1145965795%20-369619.86823442107&map_layer&91northarrow%93_class%910%93_style%910%93=ANGLE%20-15.446039104962495&mapsize=750%20666&urlappend=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004221103/http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/trafficvolumes.shtml to http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/trafficvolumes.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ontarioroadmaps.ca/Maps/Oil_Companies/Supertest/1958/Eastern_ON.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706184238/http://www.lea.ca/services/pdf/1540-fst.pdf to http://www.lea.ca/services/pdf/1540-fst.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629145613/http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/16147--hwy-401-will-be-renamed-highway-of-heroes-to-honour-soldiers to http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/16147--hwy-401-will-be-renamed-highway-of-heroes-to-honour-soldiers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080825122342/http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=8ef01ab5-9b21-4027-868b-efa6ea63fdc4 to http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=8ef01ab5-9b21-4027-868b-efa6ea63fdc4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522040812/http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/3985--highway-401-reopens-following-propane-facility-blast to http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/3985--highway-401-reopens-following-propane-facility-blast
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230073136/http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=9ec7a01e-af9f-4e0c-936d-c09f6cf0ef4a&k=49700 to http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=9ec7a01e-af9f-4e0c-936d-c09f6cf0ef4a&k=49700
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706170209/http://www.brocknews.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1778%3Aontario-finalizes-plans-for-highway-service-centres&catid=44%3Alocal-news&Itemid=162 to http://www.brocknews.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1778%3Aontario-finalizes-plans-for-highway-service-centres&catid=44%3Alocal-news&Itemid=162
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614154344/http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=946226 to http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=946226

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Ontario Highway 401. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701004433/http://www.liveinlambton.ca/newcomers/AboutLambton/Sarnia-Lambton/locationsarnia/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.liveinlambton.ca/newcomers/AboutLambton/Sarnia-Lambton/locationsarnia/Pages/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120518104253/http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/planning/Planning-Policy/Pages/Land-Use-History.aspx to http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/planning/Planning-Policy/Pages/Land-Use-History.aspx
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130128212629/http://trb.metapress.com/content/f70232883451r344/ to http://trb.metapress.com/content/f70232883451r344/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324191134/http://www.ontruck.org/imispublic/Operations2/AM/ContentManagerNet/ContentDisplay.aspx?Section=Operations2&ContentID=9083&Print=1 to http://www.ontruck.org/imispublic/Operations2/AM/ContentManagerNet/ContentDisplay.aspx?Section=Operations2&ContentID=9083&Print=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplayGenContent.aspx?e=3532
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplayGenContent.aspx?e=3611
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108073953/http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=c2d4a7a3-97cf-42ca-a11a-3dac8bed7d2c to http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=c2d4a7a3-97cf-42ca-a11a-3dac8bed7d2c
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611124110/http://www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/editorial/story.html?id=81cc9ee0-8f37-405e-aadf-d01c1cf7723b to http://www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/editorial/story.html?id=81cc9ee0-8f37-405e-aadf-d01c1cf7723b
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805002056/http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/highway-construction/southern-highway-2008/partE.shtml to http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/highway-construction/southern-highway-2008/partE.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chathamthisweek.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1927687
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110621233100/http://www.london.ca/Planning_and_Development/PDFs/Area_Plans/SWAP-Transportation-May5-10.pdf to http://www.london.ca/Planning_and_Development/PDFs/Area_Plans/SWAP-Transportation-May5-10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217194029/http://london.ca/Transportation/PDFs/VMP-PIC_PLANS.pdf to http://www.london.ca/Transportation/PDFs/VMP-PIC_PLANS.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217194124/http://london.ca/Transportation/PDFs/Revised_Final_PIC_Boards.pdf to http://www.london.ca/Transportation/PDFs/Revised_Final_PIC_Boards.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110621232951/http://www.london.ca/Transportation/PDFs/LondonExecSumApril5.pdf to http://www.london.ca/Transportation/PDFs/LondonExecSumApril5.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302151751/http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/highway-construction/southern-highway-2010/projects-beyond-2014.shtml to http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/highway-construction/southern-highway-2010/projects-beyond-2014.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029202807/http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/hov/summary2007.htm to http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/hov/summary2007.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628091802/http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/highway-construction/southern-highway-2008/partS.shtml to http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/highway-construction/southern-highway-2008/partS.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707064614/http://www.407eastea.com/downloads/2009/Aug/appendix/Appendix%20D%20for%20posting/Page%209.pdf to http://www.407eastea.com/downloads/2009/Aug/appendix/Appendix%20D%20for%20posting/Page%209.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ontario Highway 401. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/auto/article159893.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201022809/http://www.windsorstar.com/Gray+moved+tribute+name+parkway+honour/7623498/story.html to http://www.windsorstar.com/Gray+moved+tribute+name+parkway+honour/7623498/story.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.highway401brocktocourtice.ca/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130905210234/http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/service-centres/questions-and-answers.shtml to http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/service-centres/questions-and-answers.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ontario Highway 401. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5664230-highway-401-widening-work-starts-monday-in-cambridge/%5B/url
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707064443/http://www.407eastea.com/downloads/2009/Aug/appendix/Appendix%20D%20for%20posting/Page%207.pdf to http://www.407eastea.com/downloads/2009/Aug/appendix/Appendix%20D%20for%20posting/Page%207.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ontario Highway 401. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426085741/http://kingstonhistoricalsociety.ca/chronology.html to http://kingstonhistoricalsociety.ca/chronology.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171109022903/http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/2007/08/23/highway-of-heroes-lets-make-it-official to http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/2007/08/23/highway-of-heroes-lets-make-it-official
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160825191712/http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/2016/08/23/hwy-401-construction-project-on-schedule to http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/2016/08/23/hwy-401-construction-project-on-schedule

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)