Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 404/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 [1].

---

Ontario Highway 404

Nominator(s): Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the northern extension of the Don Valley Parkway, an existing Featured Article, above Highway 401, a second FA. After an extended break by myself, this article was just promoted to A-class by WP:HWY. I feel it is worthy of the star and figured you might agree! Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this article at the ACR and believe it meets the criteria. I also did a source review at ACR (spotchecks not done). - Evad37 [talk] 23:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I also reviewed this article at the ACR and feel it meets the FA criteria. I also conducted an image review at the ACR. Dough4872 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

• "mostly of the Parclo A4 configuration"

Jargon is bad, especially jargon that requires one to click through to understand the meaning. There's no reason not to call this "partial cloverleaf" or, most accurately and easiest to understand in this example, "half cloverleaf".

Half cloverleaf would be an inaccurate term. I've switched it to partial cloverleaf, which is correct terminology and not jargon. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Exit numbers on the freeway " ... "there are no exit numbers posted on the parkway"

This needs fixing.

Parkway = Don Valley Parkway. Made this more apparent. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• "form a separate carriageway with no access to Sheppard"

Worth mentioning that this is done with k-rails and the roadway is not separated.

Ontario Tall Walls nowadays, hasn't been a beam since the 90s. It is a single stretch of pavement, but I believe that detail is a little minute; the physical separation makes them, in all essence, separate carriageways. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• "To the west and north of Sheppard Avenue is Fairview Mall, which has its own connection with the southbound lanes"

No, the entrance is part of the southbound Sheppard cloverleaf.

It meant more that one doesn't have to get on to Sheppard to get on the 404, but I've mentioned this now. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• "The freeway passes west of Buttonville Airport and encounters an interchange with 16th Avenue"

Encounters? Perhaps just "and then..."?

But then it reads as if it passes by the interchange, rather than it being a connection. I just switched it to "and then interchanges with" - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• "The third contract called for a four lane extension from Davis Drive to Green Lane and the reconstruction of Green Lane into a four-laned arterial road between Leslie Street and Woodbine Avenue"

OK, here's my real problem. This section basically fails to relate the long history that the arrival of the 404 at Davis had on the area. Davis became completely snarled with traffic, as did Leslie. Green Lane became a major route in spite of it being one lane (and initially gravel!) and ending at the "infinite light". The elimination of the Bogartown Curve didn't help matters. As someone that had to drive this every day for about a year, the disaster that was eastern Newmarket traffic from 1989 to 2002 simply not being mentioned seems like a serious oversight. Instead, the article implies the opposite...

I actually never came across this when I was researching. It certainly wasn't as big a press issue as snarls created by the 407 ending at McCowan/Markham Rds (and now at Harmony Rd) from what I found. This I will look into, but give me a couple of days to dig it up and write it in. If sources directly connect traffic issues to resident concerns and to the 404, it certainly merits inclusion here. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I call this "the internet black hole". Its a topic that's too old to be well covered on the internet, but too new to be "history" worth writing about.

I agree, but I also make use of my Toronto library card to access Toronto Star and Globe and Mail papers from those years. Highways in general don't get much reliable coverage, but I can generally see the patterns for controversies when they show up in newspapers. Thing is, there still isn't much on this issue. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"This was completed on October 24, 1989. Since then, the route has been expanded in width and extended"

Which to me implies this was a continuous process.

Without having specific dates, how would you word that so as not to imply a continual construction project? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"...has undergone a periodic series of smaller extensions and widening in the years since." Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And then we come to the issue of the Bradford Bypass. Unlike the Davis snarl, the Bradford Bypass is new enough to trivially find many articles on, and the aftermath of its cancellation. The extensions of Green to the west are also not mentioned. All of this is to get the traffic out of the Newmarket area.

I don't believe the history of the Bradford Bypass or Newmarket traffic in general relates to this article. A Transport in Newmarket, Ontario article would be the best place for this information. It's still not even officially cancelled, just postponed indefinitely at this time. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't consider this to be FA quality with these issues of major import missing from the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that I've tried to contact the nominator since I suspect they may not have seen the objections above. --Rschen7754 04:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Maury Markowitz: I've addressed everything and just finished adding a significant paragraph on the Newmarket issues, though nothing made mention of the Bogarttown Curve in relation to it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bradford Bypass was designed in 1979 specifically to relieve traffic caused by the arrival of the 404 in Newmarket. It was a common topic in my home, because the route passed through a family friend's back yard. It became "the" official solution to the expected problems caused by the 404 in 1984, only to be cancelled by Davis.

After its cancellation, the problem of traffic in Newmarket became a serious concern - previously it was expected this would be a short term issue until the bypass opened. But then the 404 arrived with no Bypass. I recall trips across Davis from the 404 to Young that took 25 to 35 minutes, a trip that now takes maybe 10 minutes. Drivers began using Green Lane in spite of it being a gravel road with a single-lane bridge that ended short of the highway. It was at that point that the town first really started pushing for Green Lane as a solution. The rest is covered.

Moving on, the article now fails to mention the the Newmarket Bypass. There are mentions of the Green Lane extension and widening, but not the more recent connection west of Davis from Green Lane to Highway 9, or that it now forms a continuous route with its own name. I also added text that describes what Highway 9 "is", which was lacking. I also suggest sub-sectionizing more recent expansions out, as they were carried out separately. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Floydian and Maury Markowitz: there is now a broken reference in the article. But reading the dialogue above, I'm concerned that the disagreement based on personal opinion on what should be in the article rather than anything objective; Floydian, I assume that newspaper databases were consulted as part of research? --Rschen7754 13:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ref fixed. I did consult my historical newspaper database for the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail. While there are a few articles discussing the traffic issues, none of them go beyond saying there's a lot of traffic, and the Green Lane bypass is needed to relieve it. While the upgrades to Green Lane, from gravel road to 4 lane bypass, near the 404 warrant mention (as I have), and perhaps the upgrade to Highway 9 "from Highway 400 to Bathurst Street" (as I have), I have not found sources that document the anecdotal experience of Maury Markowitz, nor do I feel so much of it pertains to the 404 itself. Perhaps in the Bradford Bypass article, or the Highway 9 article, or as I mentioned, a transportation in Newmarket, Ontario article... maybe even a Newmarket Bypass article. After all, the greater issue of traffic in Newmarket goes back to its existence as a bedroom community, Yonge Street, Highway 400, etc. The 404 plays a part in this, but only one part of a bigger picture. Heck, the blame could go back as far as Augustus Jones and the roman grid of roads laid out in 1794! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That was my gut feeling as well, though I wanted to give Floydian a chance to respond; it seems like false correlation, and borderline original research. --Rschen7754 01:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: sorry to keep pinging you, but I wanted to see what your thoughts are since you're only on for a few minutes most days. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The link above clearly mentions that the Bradford Bypass was always intended to link the 404 to the 401, and that it was designed to do so long before the 404 arrived in Newmarket. The second link, well what exactly more do we need here? That it is now referred to as the Newmarket Bypass is established, and that it extends beyond Yonge is trivially demonstrable, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is certainly a noteworthy topic... so much so that I can use the sources I have to make Bradford Bypass a good article now with some work. However, I simply disagree as to the importance towards the 404 article... Bigger picture if ya know what I mean? It's an important topic, but I think the picture is bigger beyond the 404. I've mentioned what needs to be mentioned, in absence of that other completed article. However, I feel I've covered what is required for the 404 itself, with consideration to the fact that other articles are needed to fill the gap. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"The link above clearly mentions that the Bradford Bypass was always intended to link the 404 to the 401, and that it was designed to do so long before the 404 arrived in Newmarket" - yes, but why does that need to be mentioned in the 404 article? Plenty of other roads connect the 404 to various other roads, should they each have a paragraph explaining their purpose in the article?

"That it is now referred to as the Newmarket Bypass is established, and that it extends beyond Yonge is trivially demonstrable, no?" - ditto. If I was writing this article and I came across that source, I would not even mention it in this article, and move it to the appropriate folder on my hard drive. --Rschen7754 04:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bradford Bypass was designed specifically to address the traffic problems caused by 404 travellers who's ultimate destination was not Newmarket. It wasn't built, and that traffic was dumped into the town. How could you possibly suggest this isn't germane to this article? And that the Newmarket Bypass is being continually extended towards the 400 to provide this missing link between the 404 and 400 is not germane either? I'm sorry, but I disagree, and frankly I'm a bit baffled that you'd even suggest that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"The Bradford Bypass was designed specifically..." - where's your source?

"And that the Newmarket Bypass..." So you expect the history of every route that was ever extended to meet the 404 to be included too? Also, you haven't answered my points above. --Rschen7754 13:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Plus the Bradford Bypass has an article to discuss this. The 404 article shouldn't cover a bunch of information about traffic in Newmarket or another freeway that is proposed. At this point I'm going to ask the coordinators to consider this oppose carefully, as there is a disagreement as to what the scope of this article should be. And, now that I double check, the link you provided does not say any of that. It merely states that the idea of a highway connecting the 400 and 404 first popped up in 1979 (actually earlier with the one time Highway 89 extension over the Holland Marsh). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If you really believe this is out of the scope of this article Floydian, you'll have to explain why you made exactly such an edit to the 407 article, in the lede no less. I really don't understand your hesitancy to expand this section, because if you don't, I will. I just got off the phone with an extremely helpful person at the Newmarket Library and she's sending me a list of materials from the 70s and 80s covering this topic, mostly from The Era. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The 407 article covers the extension, which the north-south links are part of. It wasn't until a few months ago that those links became Highway 412 and 418. If you can find relevant info, go for it (though like I said, it seems more in place in a transportation in Newmarket article or the Bradford Bypass article). I've made mention of the Newmarket bypass in this article, including covering its history lightly, I'm not sure how much coverage of other roads you feel belongs in the article on this road. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well here are some of the fruits of that labor... the article currently starts mentioning some initial planning in 1959, and then basically jumps forward to design work in 1973. The plan was contentious through this period. The alignment was in what was then the wilderness of gravel roads far from the small strip of towns along Highway 11. Aurora was worried that the 404 would lead industry to ignore their town, and when the plans began to solidify in the late 1960s, it was suggested that a second alignment be built to the west, closer to town. This led to serious consideration of a major expansion of Bathurst because they felt any further west would cause drivers to skip it and use 11. This quickly led to nimby issues, with some ridculing it as duplicating the purpose of the 404, and became an election issue in 1971. The issue came up again in 1973, and continues to appear in the paper over the next decade. This alignment, by the way, is the current Newmarket Bypass. The Bypass comes up, not under that name, in 1977. At that time it was part of a proposed Highway 89 extension that would cross Cook's Bay and connect to the 404 where it turned eastward - right where it ends today. 89 runs by my parent's house, it was the topic of much discussion as it would make our commutes to Toronto much easier. Unfortunately that's as much as I can get online from The Era, which doesn't have the 1980s online, the rest will require me to go to Newmarket and copy out the microfiche. The Toronto Star also turned up a few useful hits. The earliest I can find is this plan which basically suggests the Bypass was the first planned extension (after Green lane), that is, that the Bypass was considered part of the 404. This refers to the new routing further south at Queensville, specifically as a link from the 404 to the 400. And why did they do this? Because they were afraid that Davis would suffer major traffic delays as a result of the 404's arrival and it was only a year later that they suggested extending to Green Lane as a fix to that problem, while going further north to the east would mean that drivers going further north would no longer go through Newmarket to get to the 400. Sadly, it took years and years before it finally opened all the way, removing 20,000 cars off Davis. Ahh, and the librarian just got back to me with a list from the print index with lots of articles on the argument over the 404's arrival in Newmarket. The articles are on the "traffic mayhem" in Feb 1992, and "traffic snarls" the next month. The articles call on the government to fulfill their promise to build the 400/404 link to fix the problems caused by the 404 in Newmarket. I'll see if I can order reprints. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, much of that is fairly typical of any freeway project. Some towns want it here, other there. Some fear it'll take business away (see 400 @ Nobel), other fear it'll dump too much traffic in. Some question safety, others question the need. Invariably, the government takes longer than promised (often making an election issue out of it) to complete the route, and people along the route complain that it should have been done already.

Much of the rest is still mostly applicable to the Bradford Bypass, which was never the planned northern end of the 404 (back in the late 50s the 404 was originally planned to go around Lake Simcoe via Beaverton and end at 11 near Severn). I think you're making an issue that has personal connections to you appear much larger than it is. You should make a Newmarket Bypass article with all these sources really, and then I can summary style that information in the 404 article and link to it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we can short circuit this by considering this. The changes are: added para in lede about all expansions, collected all the stuff about Newmarket from the three sections into one. Added single para about Bathurst Route. Added a single statement about why Newmarket is a bottleneck while other offramps weren't. Adding single para describing the Bypass. Added new ref on completion date of Newmarket Bypass. Added information and ref on the northern extension. Still need to re-find the ref that states the current end is likely to be the end for all time (saw it in several places, can no longer find it). Need a ref on "The MTO proposed". Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. COpy it over and I'll make adjustments as necessary. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a compromise solution may be the right way to go to resolve the dispute (and I hope the delegates can leave this open so this can be resolved). I was hoping to take a more thorough look at what has been proposed, or actually review the article in its entirety myself, but unfortunately that time has not materialized and will not for a while. --Rschen7754 17:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: --Rschen7754 17:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.