Talk:Ontario Highway 401/Archive 1

Article for deletion

After splitting the Interchanges list into a separate listing, someone from Wisconsin suggested Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario) deleting the new article...so much for cutting down the size of this one..... Bacl-presby 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Interchanges

I feel that the list of interchanges deserves it own article.... There is an extensive amount of information in that portion of the article, more than enough for a quality article on a seperate page, do you agree? Greenboxed 17:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

See above Bacl-presby 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. What's with the entry for the final interchange in miles? My recollection is that they went straight from the number every interchange consecutively to using kilometres, in the 1970s. I don't recall ever seeing the interchanges numbered in miles. Nfitz 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Here goes....Separate link for 401 exits coming up; I can't edit exits without being goven the 31K bites notice!! Would splitting the exits between control cities help or hinder?? Bacl-presby 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

SIZE OF ARTICLE

the article is getting too long--any suggestions?? --Someone want to put the exits into a separate article?? 192.30.202.19 21:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Former Interchanges (attention 207.214.134...)

So, 65.207.214.134 has twice removed the former interchange numbers...As I've got a copy of the 1970 Official Road Map, I've got the listing of exits 1-128, as reqested(and there's the source!!) Enjoy! Bacl-presby 19:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That editor seems to have a problem not only with your exit numbers but with the whole exit list for some reason. --SPUI (T - C) 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a few discrepancies on the 1970 Ontario Highway Map and previously posted (and omitted) former exit numbers...might it be possible to list the current exit numbers first? I'm going to try to track down the 401 exit booklet, circa 1967. Bacl-presby 22:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the order of the columns, I think the current one fits best at the end, right next to the name. --SPUI (T - C) 22:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Given said discrepancies, it might be best to make a table here on the talk page to work them out, something like this: --SPUI (T - C) 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

current	1970 map	booklet

207.....did it again....I'll revert....again. Bacl-presby 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Could 207 please use this space to explain why the exit list gets "slashed and burned" before doing it again??

Bacl-presby 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Update to STOP!!

I've made a couple of changes to category order; "Interchanges from west to East" starts at the Interchange table.

I've also added the names of adjacent communities, such as Belle River, Ontario to Belle River Road, and probably the furthest away from the highway is Guelph, Ontario. Please don't get carried away!!

Bacl-presby 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

STOP!!

It is obvious that there is an excessive amount of editing, and re-editing of this article. I'm going to suggest we all take a "time out", and re-write the article, point by point, by discussing it first. Obviously, someone has a fixation about Highway 407, someone has told me I'm linking too many dates as per wiki standards, other folks want exits to show former towns that are now part of amalgamed municipalities....and the article has reached the byte limit suggested by wiki....

Is anyone else interested in doing this rather than slashing and burning?? .....so: The Article:

• 1) Contents
• 2) Transportation Corridor
• 3) Collector-Express Setup
• 4) Future expansion and upgrades
• 5) Interchanges from West to East
• 6) Traffic Cameras
• 7) Volume Information (dated 2003)
• 8) Lane Configuaration West to East
• 9) see also
• 10) External Links

• 11) Any more ideas??

early discussion

The 401 is 3 lanes(each direction) from Oshawa all the way to Port Hope and goes well past the 115. I drive this section regularly so I obviously know this. I dont know the street or highways names at the off ramps so maybe someone can change that cause I just Port Hope.

---

It is definitely the busiest in North America. Don't know about the world but it would certainly near the top of the list.

---

Busiest highway in the world? That is arguable, at best. I would say that the 401 is Canada's busiest highway, but I highly doubt it is the busiest in the world. I-5 and I-95 are much busier in terms of volume.

---

The section in Toronto is actually the second busiest in North America (after some LA freeway). It is also considered to be the most important trade corridor in North America. I don't have the facts in front of me so I'll leave that for someone else to edit.

---

A section of the 401 in Toronto near the 400 is indeed busier than any part of I-5 or I-95, and every other US Interstate. Claims to be the busiest in the world might be false, but certainly not with respect to North America. The 400 and 401 interchange is also believed to be the busiest interchange in North America, with 26 lanes of combined traffic. AADT is estimated to breach 500,000 in 2004 near the interchange, with some summer days peaking well over 600,000.

Besides being the busiest highway in North America by volume, it is also believed to have the busiest highway section by truck volume, and foreign trade value.

In a different section within Toronto, the 401 supposedly contains NA's busiest bridge, over Hogg's Hollow in Toronto (actually, 4 bridges for the 4 roadways).

---

Where did this AADT information come from? The 2002 data (which is the most recent stuff that has been released as far as i know) has the busiest section of the 401 at just over 400,000. I don't think the grown percentage puts it over 500,000 yet, though I am sure in the next four or five years it will hit it).

---

Added part about the COMPASS FTMS. It's relevant because it was the first of its kind in the world. - quanta, July 9/2004

Move

This should be moved back to Highway 401. The usage "Macdonald-Cartier Freeway" is outdated and there is evidence to support the fact that the MTO is trying to phase out this name. Additionally, Highway 401 is the common name for this highway. Hardly anyone (if anyone at all) refers to it as the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway. Darkcore 00:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ontario provincial highway 401 → Highway 401

• Highway 401 is (arguably) the busiest highway in North America, and the main trunk highway for an area containing almost a third of Canada's population. A link to a disambiguation page for US 401 and the secret route numbering for I-75 in GA can be added to the top of the main article, with the rest of the content being for Ontario's 401. Snickerdo 23:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree. SECProto 00:05, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

oppose - This would make it inconsistent with every other Ontario highway, and for no good reason. If this functionality is wanted, simply redirect Highway 401 to Ontario Provincial Highway 401. --SPUI 04:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object for the same reasons as SPUI. Why change the entire standard? The redirect from Highway 401 to Ontario Provincial Highway 401 as it currently is suffices. Whether or not some number cruncher says it "is {arguably) the busiest highway in North America" has no bearing on how the article should be named, and disambiguation proposed by Snickerdo is unreasonably preposterous. —ExplorerCDT 07:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surely the obvious, clearest arrangement is for "Highway 401" to be a dismbiguation page which links here and to every other Highway 401 article, great or small. Speaking as an Englishman, I believe Wikipedia shouldn't be Canada-centric any more than it should be America-centric. If anybody agrees with me, however, I should warn them that they will have to make all the necessary redirects within about a thirty-second time frame or comrade SPUI will deem that they have have shown they are not willing to make them at all. GrahamN 02:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not make all the necessary redirects first, before changing Highway 401 to a disambig page? That way, you could do the work at leisure, over weeks or months. David 11:34, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

AADT values, lane widths, moving article etc

There were some numbers released in 2004 that pegged the AADT at over 500,000, up considerably from the last time a count was made (around 2002 or so). The provincial government was planning to use that data in their court case against the owners of Highway 407. The busiest highway in the USA is not in LA, it's actually the Southwest Freeway in Houston, and it has only just broken 400,000 (interestinly enough, the Southwest Freeway is US 59, and not part of the Interstate network). The 401 is outright the busiest highway in North America, and can also be argued as having the most mainline lanes of any highway in North America. Of course, one can argue that freeways in LA have the most traffic per lane mile, but the 401 blows them away when it comes to total traffic volumes.

Also, since 'Highway 401' is the largest and busiest highway on the content to this number, should the main 'Highway 401' article point directly to the 401 content, with a link to a disambiguation page with the US 401 and GA 401 info? Not that I'm trying to make Toronto any more the centre of the universe than it already is, but do you think people type in Highway 401 to really find out about Georgia's secret route number for I-75? -- Snickerdo 23:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I95's total traffic has got to be among the highest in the world... it runs from Maine to Florida, through nearly every major and many minor cities on the US East Coast.--Rotten 07:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is simply not possible for the 401 to have a AADT value of 500,000 vehicles, traffic is not that high, and its not growing that quickly. It is theoretically possible for there to be days where there are 500,000 vehicles using the highway, but those days would be so few and far between, I hardly think its responsible to display traffic counts 20% higher then they actually are. -149.99.27.2 00:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not possible? Why does all my 2004 data indicate that daily traffic counts are above 500,000? 425,000 was from 1996, and we all know the growth that has occured (with JIT delivery, NAFTA, etc) since then. Snickerdo 18:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not possible to have AADT data for 2004. At the time when the argument started 2004 wasn't over. AADT stands for 'Annual Average Daily traffic volumes' How could they have released AADT data when the year wasn't over? 2002 data has Highway 401 at the 400 at 414,000, the1994 data puts the busies section of 401 between Keele and the 400 at 400,350. Did it grow 25,000 between 1994 and 1996, and then drop back to 414,000 in the next 6 years? I have a really hard time believing that. --24.103.242.178 05:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For comparison purposes, the Dan Ryan Expressway through Chicago is 313,600 at about 45th street. It is also 247,900 south of the Chicago Skyway and 213,900 north of Interstate 55. Where is the 500,000 number coming from? The entire length of the highway? As measured at one point by detectors? See IDOT maps. --Rob 20:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The last reliable data I could find for the US was for 2001, from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which ranked the US 59 as having a maximum AADT of 328,150...I-5 in Los Angeles was actually higher. Seeing as the statistic of 415,000 for the 401 in 2002 seems credible, the wide gulf seems to reinforce the 401's claim to being the busiest highway in North America. 65.93.214.212 05:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This article states several things incorrect concerning traffic volume information: 1) The heading, "Volume Information (2005)" cannot be corroborated by any easily accessible source; The latest publicly available data is for 2004. 2) The highest volume based on those 2004 tables available at the Ministry of Transportation Ontario website is 420,800 AADT between exits 357 and 359... nearly 200,000 lower than the quoted '2005' data. Also according to MTO, the highest SAWDT traffic in 2004 between the same exits was 496,500. SAWDT is the average daily summer traffic, not including weekends between July 1 and August 31. Since this is still an average, it means that it is possible that traffic exceeds 500,000 on some days, as some publications claim.

Supposition: It might be possible however unlikely that the quoted 607,800 AADT is in some ways accurate: 1) It's not AADT, but simply the highest volume for one day in 2005. 2) Reading the online MTO 2004 report, the report states that it is performed annually. If so, that means that 2005 data is available; though I do not know if it is exclusive. -+-+- On the other hand, it is equally possible that someone was quoting the AADT traffic going through the 401/400 Interchange, which together in 2004 reached 598,900. Add in 1.5% growth for 2005 and you have 607,884. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.28.177 (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Municipalities

Why is the list of municipalities necessary, if the interchange list already lists the municipalities through which this highway passes? It seems to me to be completely unnecessary, and it makes the article look unwieldy. Darkcore 06:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Widening Information

I question where the information about 12-laning the 401 west to Guelph came from. I don't think thats even in the 30-year planning horizon, and I doubt that the MTO would ever want to build that type of freeway in such a rural environment. This is not too say that the 401 won't be widened to the west of the Toronto. -149.99.27.2 00:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's directly from my contacts at the MTO. A collector/distributor system from the Hanlon Parkway eastward has been on the books since the 1970s. Snickerdo 18:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A c/d system was on the books in the 1970s, it was functionally studied, thats it, they did lots of functional studies back in the 1970s, and yes, a lot of highways that had these functional designs also never saw construction, and in many cases likely never will. Of course I will admit there is a small chance of Highway 401 having a c/d from hwy 6south to hwy 6 north, from what i hear at the MTO that is not the preffered alternative, from what I understand a new alignment is being considered from the current end of the four lane on hwy 6south, around Puslinch and bypassing the 401 to the south, it would meet the 401 at the hanlon. The hwy 6north interchange would then be converted to a full interchange.

There is exactly 0 percent chance of the C/D system extended west from Mississauga to meet any type of c/d at guelph. --24.103.242.178 05:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it ends up being a C/D or just a 6-6 configuration is up to the MTO. The fact remains that they did a functional study, and this should be listed, unless you have data that says otherwise. Snickerdo 09:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The MTO has studied lots of improvments that will never come to fruition. For example, an interchange was once considered at Nagle Road, in Cobourg, back in the 1960s, does that mean its still proposed? You are talking about a functional (not even a detailed design study) that was done 30 years ago, and saying that, 'oh yeah a C/D system is goign to be extended to Guelph.' Its not going to happen! Suppose the MTO did all of a sudden decide they want to go through with the a C/D in the Guelph area it would still take 7-10 years before anything would actually be built. In the case of this article, I would advice you to say 'A C/D was at one time considered between the Highway 6 interchanges in Guelph, however, this was simply a functional study, and construction today is highly unlikely'.

Destruction by Terrorists would implode the Canadian economy?

An anonymous contributor added a passage:

...their US gateways in Niagara and Detroit are considered the most important strategic infrastructure in Canada by the US intelligence community. This status may make them the most likely terrorist targets in Canada. Effective crippling of this infrastructure could single-handedly implode the Canadian economy and likely push the US economy into recession.

I am skeptical? Another anonymous contributor removed this passage. And someone else reverted that removal. Like I said, I am skeptical. If the bridges were destroyed, surely some large ferries could be borrowed or chartered, until the bridges could be repaired or replaced? If no-one can provide an authoritative, neutral, source for this claim I think it should be erased. -- Geo Swan 11:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I am skeptical of that as well. I also question the necessity of having a section on terrorism for a highway. It is just that, a highway, not a future terrorist target. Whats next, a terrorist rating for every highway, bridge and major building that has an article here on this site. I think the terrorism part should be removed. --24.103.242.178 21:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be removed. The statement is speculative at best, and considering this is an encyclopedia, there is no place here for speculation. No one can accurately predict what will happen when infrastructure fails or is destroyed. Since no one has argued for keeping the questionable text, I will remove it. Darkcore 03:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Toronto Bypass

Was 401 ever officially known as the Toronto Bypass? Uncertain? Barry Zuckerkorn 18:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, when the segment from Highway 27 to Highway 2A was opened in the 1950s, it was referred to as "The Toronto Bypass". This appeared to be "an official nickname", as it appeared on maps of the era. --guru 20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"World's Busiest Highway"

Quite a few websites (such as Onthighways.com and The Kings' Highway) display AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic numbers....from Highway 427 to Highway 404, the freeway sees over 400,000 cars per day, and can easily swell to 3x this number in the summer time. (i've seen it bumper to bumper from Kitchener to Oshawa a couple times....what a headache!). Surely, this would easily beat out England's M5 motorway in Birmingham, the Santa Monica Freeway/I-10 in Los Angeles, and I-610 in Houston...

User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 02:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a specific website that explicitely states that it is the busiest, or that shows, per list, that it is indeed the busiest, then cite it. But just remember wikipedia policy: WP:NOR.--Gephart 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The current reference in the first paragraph actually says it's "one of the busiest" yet the article here says busiest. AAK 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

http://experts.about.com/e/0/407_ETR.htm

"Highway 407 is regarded as a bypass of Highway 401, the main trunk route though Southern Ontario and the world's busiest highway with well over 500,000 average daily trips on a section between Highway 427 and Highway 404."

I am making the edit that it is the worlds busiest highway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor18 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 August 2006

This source is from a mirror site, similar to Answers.com. It is not a reliable source. Ufwuct 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's for you to judge the source's legitimacy. It's definitely more legitimate than your own word, and that site is very dissimilar to answers.com.Editor18 17:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He means that site is just a copy of an older version of this Wikipedia article. It can't be a source, because the article would be a citing itself. Adam Bishop 19:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a very, very dubious claim and totally unprovable. It's a busy highway: agreed. But there are a lot of busy highways out there. In order to be factual it is best to call it "among the busiest highways in the world" which gets your point across without making impossible-to-prove assertions.

I have therefore changed all references (I could find) from "the world's busiest highway" to "one of the world's busiest highways." If you are going to change it back, please provide a source other than some quote from the Toronto Sun or the minister of Transportation's musings (that it 'probably' is 'among' the busiest in the world, incidentally) from 5 years ago. Oh, and yeah, the source linked above is just a copy of an earlier Wikipedia page! Definitely not reliable.

Dmhaglund 13:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Direction

I've tentatively changed the highway's direction in the infobox from East/West to Northeast/Southwest. As someone who grew up by the 401, I understand that most of us think of it as east/west, but it travels about 300 km north/south as well, from Cornwall at just over 45 degN to Windsor at just over 42 degN. David 19:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of fantasy here

There's a lot of fantasy here stated as fact. "A long term plan is to extend the 12-lane express/collector system as far west as Guelph and Kitchener."; "The Ontario government is also planning to widen the Mississauga stretch from 6 lanes to 12 lanes from the 403-410 interchange to the Credit River, and 10 lanes to Mississauga Road "A plan is currently underway by the Ministry of Transportation to widen the highway to at least six lanes for its length from Windsor to the Quebec border." Either add references to delete non-factual information. Nfitz 23:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, can we get more info/explanation as to what a control city is in the article. Thanks Mucus 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mucus, "Control city" is the signage telling us "401 West Toronto" or "401 West Windsor" Bacl-presby 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nfitz, would it be easier to put the {{Future road}} template onto these flagrant ideas?? I've done so on other Ontario 400 routes! Bacl-presby 00:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia editors,

There used to be a section on the 401 page, about the worst bottlenecks on the highway. This was particularly important, as polititians were pointed to this, when they "refused" to see the facts (e.g. if the public can go view, they had better check their facts also)

In particular, the section about the 401 westbound at the 410 was critical, as it is the only section of the 401 express that is only 2 lanes wide, and thus causes extended traffic jams between 4 and 7pm every day.

72.138.3.93 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)steve (a non-registered user)

• Still seeing a lot of fantasy. The section about the widening to 6-lanes makes it sound like a new plan. MTO has been quite steadily upgrading the highway from 4 lanes to 6 lanes since the early 1990s, following an earlier burst of work in the 1970s. And while there seems to be a plan to do this all the way from Windsor to Kingston (or more notably from Windsor to London, and Port Hope to Kingston - or is there still a piece of 4-lane between Kitchener and London ...), I haven't heard any discussion of widening it from Kingston to Quebec - I can't imagine that we'll ever see it widened east of 416! Please provide references, or someone should delete a lot of this text. Nfitz 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sure 416 to Curry Hill might be fantasy as a 6-laner, except in perhaps Cornwall, but Kitchener-Woodstock is last 4 lane section to west of Toronto--now under construction--the warm weather until this past weekend saw work proceed, including the demolition of the Homer Simps--, doh, Watson Blvd overpass.

Bacl-presby 02:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"World's busiest"

On the subject of "world's busiest" ... I find this distinction to be a dubious one, depending on how we are measuring. For example I-95 which serves the entire East Coast of the US has got to dwarf the 401 in total car capacity. Are we talking about a stretch of road, a single point, or what? --Rotten 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, have you ever driven the 401? I agree, it's not the world's busiest, but with a peak at 420,000 AADT at the 400 and upto 18 lanes of capacity, it makes I-95 look like a rural road.

Actually I read there is a highway near Houston, not mentioned in this article but in a 1998 article, which had a capacity of over 500,000 AADT. Not to mention the fact that I95 runs up and down the East Coast of the US which is, last I check, quite a developed area. --Rotten 07:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We're talking a single point, not the total number of cars that have ever used the highway on a single given day measured from end-to-end. When taking an AADT at a specific point in Toronto, the 401 (as of now, if the 600,000+ AADT is correct) blows all American freeways out of the water when it comes to traffic volume. Prior to that, there was a three-way horse race between the 401, the Santa Monica Freeway and US 59 in Houston, who all hovered around the 400,000 range. US 59 in Houston never passed the 400,000 mark. 500,000 would have to be peak volume. Snickerdo 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite it, put it in. The statistic means nothing as it may mean that US highways traffic is merely divided up among several highways.--Rotten 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems some proud 401 driver or 401 fan is intent on asserting that highway's primacy as a very, very busy highway. I think this fact is just as well suited by calling it "one of the world's busiest highways" or "among the world's busiest highways," rather than the impossible-to-prove and frankly highly dubious claim that it is THE single most busy highway. As many other contributors have pointed out, I-95 serves the entire US Northeast, including DC, Phila, NYC, Boston, et al; moreover I strongly suspect there are monster highways in Asia (Japan, China, Indonesia) or Mexico City that dwarf the 401 in overall terms.

Can't we just agree to leave it at "one of the world's busiest highways?" Whose pride is being hurt here, exactly?

Dmhaglund 13:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest Volume Information?

Is there a source on the most recent volume information? If the AADT is over 600,000 vehicles as of 2006, this clearly vaults 401 into the top position in the world, versus being in a three-way horse race with the Santa Monica Freeway and US 59 in Houston. Snickerdo 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, what are we talking about? The entire length of I-95 has to dwarf any of those highways. Hell US route 1 has to dwarf any of those as well.--Rotten 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you do some research on how AADT is measured. It's at a single point on the highway, not the total number of cars that have used every point of the highway in a single day. Length has absolutely nothing at all to do with this. Snickerdo 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Constant reverting

Ok. how do you feel it violates your website's copyright? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a violation as far as I can see. Upgrade information is publically available, sourcing a website and using material from is (so long as it is not word-for-word) is perfectly acceptable. I do agree, this is becoming vandalism. Snickerdo 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• What is really going on here?? I'm going to revert back the information. If this contributor is constantly pulling the page (5 times by my count, unless there was another name used previously), I'm suggesting a block to this user.Bacl-presby 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The user is claiming that the information is original research, of which it is clearly not. This needs to be dealt with accordingly. Snickerdo 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This user claims his information is Copyright him, when he states he gets his information from the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario's website. I cited both his page AND the MTO as sources. he only wants his site (Onthighways.com) to be the only source of information for ontario highways, and since whining about it is ineffective, he goes to the next step of vandalising anything he sees as unfit. He neesd to get a grip. He even says he wants to ban me from his website. Good luck. I don't want to visit there. I'm just glad he took my name down from it. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You obviously do visit it, since the the textual part of the reverted section came from the website. I am making no attempt to stop you from writing an article on the construction along Highway 401, however, you cannot use the text that I have written and call it your own. While I cannot (and again, make no attempt) to copyright the facts that appear on my website, how facts are displayed and written are copyrightten and are not to be plagerized. Furthermore, since you have emailed me several times, and obviously copied and pasted (and then, yes, slightly altered) text from the website, it is rather obvious that you have in fact visited the website on at least a few occasions, Why you would chose to lie about this seems rather odd to me, and will probably never be explained. The article will be reverted again, and will continually be reverted until it is rewritten. Furthermore, the fact that others have reverted the article despite the plagiarized content really says something about the integrity of Wikipedia and its editors. Not copying text word for word is a very elementary researching rule, and I find it shocking that this behaviour would not only continue, but that others would applaud it. Shameful for supposed encyclopedia. --Sonysnob 19:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time for this to be taken to WP:Resolving disputes. -- Gridlock Joe 20:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not visit, as you've expressed your desire for me to not visit.

Regarding what you said on my userpage to User:snickerdo and the others...

That's good and all that you took the photographs. I have not uploaded a single photograph or directly cut-and-paste from your page. We also never said we were plagiarizing as we sourced and REWORDED your information, AS YOU ASKED US TO. i've come to believe you just don't want anything that seems similar to your website to be on wikipedia. If we were to play by your rules, then you would be expelled as well. You dismiss every argument that is not your own. So, basically...anything that seems similar to your website is plagiarism. To be honest, i don't even know what you want. You can claim copyright violation all you want, but it's not a copyright violation. you can point at a chicken and say it's a duck all you want, but that will never make it a duck. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think arbitration is the best way to go. I've decided to post this in WP:RFA. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Sonysnob has also been warned to stop reverting, yet he continues. I think it's time we start looking into the posbility of having his edits blocked from the page until this is resolved. Snickerdo 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The text does look rather similar:

In the late Fall of 2005, the Ministry of Transportation began an upgrade project of the current 4-lane section of Highway 401 from west of Oxford Road 3 to west of Waterloo Road 97 in the counties of Oxford and Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

vs.

During the late fall of 2005 construction started on a project to widen Highway 401 from 4- to 6-lanes from west of Oxford Road 3 to west of Waterloo Road 97 in the County of Oxford and Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

I suggest getting information from other sources, like newspaper articles and the MTO; anything that's only on his site can be removed as uncited if someone doubts its truth. --NE2 21:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced from the MTO and the person's website. THe person who owns the website onthighways.com simply does not want the material here. please do not revert edits that are legitimate, thank you. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add copyright violations, including minimally-rewritten text. Feel free to write about the project in your own words. --NE2 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure that the project began in 2005? [1] says that construction had started by November 2003. --NE2 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Text inserted into article:

In the late Fall of 2005, the Ministry of Transportation began an upgrade project of the current 4-lane section of Highway 401 from west of Oxford Road 3 to west of Waterloo Road 97 in the counties of Oxford and Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

This is currently part of the last 4-laned section between London and Toronto (stretching from Highway 403 Interchange in Woodstock, Ontario to Waterloo Road 97 in Kitchener, Ontario), but is being upgraded to 6 lanes plus an Ontario tall-wall barrier in the median. This is the first stage of upgrades of this final 4-lane section.

Aside from the addition of one lane per direction and a tall-wall barrier, two emergency onramp accesses to be used only during highway closures and other such incidents have been constructed. These emergency accesses are the first of their kind on an Ontario freeway, and have been constructed in the vicinity of both Oxford Road 3, and Trussler Road. [1]

Other emergency accesses have been built in Essex County where the road was recently widened from 4 to 6 lanes, but these are gravel, and all are alongside overpasses, for use by ambulances, firetrucks, and police cars in emergencies only.

Text on source site:

During the late fall of 2005 construction started on a project to widen Highway 401 from 4- to 6-lanes from west of Oxford Road 3 to west of Waterloo Road 97 in the County of Oxford and Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The project includes installation of a concrete tallwall barrier throughout the median of the contract, as well as the construction of two emergency accesses to be used only during highway closures and other such incidents. These emergency accesses are the first of their kind on an Ontario freeway, and have been constructed in the vicinity of both Oxford Road 3, and Trussler Road (see below for photos). The bulk of the construction was carried out during the summer of 2006; work should be completed during the summer of 2007.

I've highlighted the exact copies of wording. (Although there's still a plagiarism issue insofar as the structure of the section is identical to the source on a sentence-by-sentence basis, even if those are changed.)

Do not blindly reinsert material that a site owner has claimed to be a copyright violation; doing so is quite likely to get you banned. Kirill Lokshin 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh for the love of Anubis! How is that a copyright violation??? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're copying—not quoting—copyrighted text. Kirill Lokshin 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not copyrighted if it is from the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, a government ministry. those are Sonysnob's sources. Frankly, just by his name, he wants to stir up trouble. Apparently no amount of "rewording" will suffice for you three. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Canadian government materials most certainly are copyrighted; the MoT materials, for example, are Crown Copyright ("If credit is given and Crown copyright is acknowledged, the materials may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes. The materials may only be reproduced for commercial purposes under a licence from the Queen's Printer..."), not public domain.
2. In any case, I can't find any evidence that this text is originally from the MoT; do you have an earlier source for it? Kirill Lokshin 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It was from the Ministry of transportation's website. [2]. Wham, bam, thank ya ma'am! RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the text in question on the link you provided; did you mean something else? Kirill Lokshin 21:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

All I see is [3]: "Highway 401, Drumbo Road to Regional Road 97. No lane closures or restrictions." --NE2 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, let me reply to both: Krill - The article in question is from www.onthighways.com. I sourced it from the person's page on the upgrades through oxford county. The MTO page is where much of his sources come from, including this construction contract.

NE2 - I never said there were lane closures. It's *adding* one lane per direction. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You copied text from his website and did not reword it enough. That is a copyright violation. The copyright is in the presentation, not the facts. Present it differently enough and it will not be a copyright violation. --NE2 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, when he was asked by me and snickerdo on what parts he wanted changed, he ignored us. So, we reverted. If he wants to only say it's a copyright violation without saying exactly *what* is violating, then what can we do? I'm afraid i'm not a mind-reader. I wish i was, but i'm not. See, he didn't tell us what to re-word, and the group and myself thought it was reworded sufficiently. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I have an idea that may put an end to this, and that sonysnob will like. view my next edit when i'm finished, alright? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, you are free to write whatever you like about Highway 401, you just can't copy the presentation from someone else. I really can't figure out why that took so much trouble, it really shouldn't be a foreign concept to those who edit articles as frequently as some of the members. Thank you NE2 for helping to clear up this matter.

I gave up becuase i don't know what you guys wanted from me and snickerdo. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 01:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Give me the text, I'll re-word it in such a way that it can't be considered a copyright violation. I've already been through this with the 406 and QEW article, although the gentleman claiming copyvio was much more civil and easy to work with. Precedence was already set on the 406 article - copying and pasting text from another site is a no-no, but summarizing information that is available from the MTO is quite alright. This information should be included, albeit sourced. The information contained in the 401 article is not identical, and therefore is worthy of a source, but is hardly a copyright violation! In fact, if you want to get technical, this website is doing nothing but taking information from the MTO (be it at an info session or what not) and summarizing it - exactly what we are attempting on wikipedia. If the argument here is that information from another website cannot be used on wikipedia even if it is summarized and sourced, I would argue that this entire site is nothing but one huge copyright violation waiting to explode.

Also, the differences between the two texts looks sufficient. If it is a question of the text being the same, rearrange the verbs for petes sake. Are the people who are now reverting the page involved in the mediation process, or has Sonysnobs suddenly come down with a nasty case of Sockpuppet syndrome? Where is the mediation tag with this discussion? What prior involvement did Kirill Lokshin and NE2 have in this situation? If they are involved in the mediation process, why have they not identified themselves as mediators or as an admin and contacted all parties involved? This smells very fishy to me. (text made bold for emphasis) If they are just somehow crawling out of a crack, I must comment on the classlessness of such an act. If they are involved as mediators or admin, they have handled this situation in an extremely poor but not identifying themselves as such. Overall, this is a horrible case of bad faith. Kirill Loshin, if you are indeed an admin, why didn't you introduce yourself as such during the discussion to keep us all in the loop? More of us are involved then just RingtailedFox.

And for Christ's sake, would people PLEASE sign their comments?

Snickerdo 02:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Moi, a sockpuppet? ;-)

(I wasn't aware that people were expected to identify themselves by status now; if you're curious, you could just check my userpage. Are you expecting mediators, incidentally? I wasn't aware that there had been a request for mediation made here; that certainly wasn't noted in the arbitration filing, in any case.) Kirill Lokshin 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha yeah well, when you come home from work to sudden find two people who weren't involved in this before taking the position of someone who's cause revert after revert without cooling down, yeah, assumptions are made. Still, it would have been nice to know what was going on and who you were, especially when you came out of nowhere. While you are by no means required to, it would have been a nice courtesy, and would have prevented most of my rant. I assumed a mediation request had been made, as this situation seems quite fitting. I'm sure a common ground can be found. We've also been through this before with other Ontario road websites claiming common knowledge as their own, though no one in the past as as thick-headed about it as Sonysnob. I don't understand why a minor re-wording and a cite is not sufficient in this situation. It's not as if sonysnob's work is original research. Snickerdo 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I had RFAR watchlisted and saw a highway case get added. That's where I came from. And Kirill is an arbitrator. --NE2 06:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation and Arbitration

That's not true at all. I've told you, NE2, and Sonysnob three times. Here, on your user page, and in one of my edits on Highway 401's article. You also saw it on the Arbitration page. Perhaps you don't want to get involved due to a possible conflict of interest. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 04:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's get a few things straight:

• I have absolutely no idea what your references to a conflict of interest are about; I don't believe I've ever encountered anyone involved here, or edited any article related to this topic.
• Editors can't simultaneously be engaged in Mediation and Arbitration; you're going to have to choose one or the other. (Frankly, I would suggest that there's no real dispute here, once we all get on the same wavelength as far as copyrights are concerned.)
• If you persist in reinserting the copyvio material into the article, I will block you. Kirill Lokshin 04:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Snickerdo:

Here is the supposed copyright violation:

Text inserted into article:

In the late Fall of 2005, the Ministry of Transportation began an upgrade project of the current 4-lane section of Highway 401 from west of Oxford Road 3 to west of Waterloo Road 97 in the counties of Oxford and Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

This is currently part of the last 4-laned section between London and Toronto (stretching from Highway 403 Interchange in Woodstock, Ontario to Waterloo Road 97 in Kitchener, Ontario), but is being upgraded to 6 lanes plus an Ontario tall-wall barrier in the median. This is the first stage of upgrades of this final 4-lane section.

Aside from the addition of one lane per direction and a tall-wall barrier, two emergency onramp accesses to be used only during highway closures and other such incidents have been constructed. These emergency accesses are the first of their kind on an Ontario freeway, and have been constructed in the vicinity of both Oxford Road 3, and Trussler Road. [1]

Other emergency accesses have been built in Essex County where the road was recently widened from 4 to 6 lanes, but these are gravel, and all are alongside overpasses, for use by ambulances, firetrucks, and police cars in emergencies only.

Text on source site (Onthighways.com):

During the late fall of 2005 construction started on a project to widen Highway 401 from 4- to 6-lanes from west of Oxford Road 3 to west of Waterloo Road 97 in the County of Oxford and Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The project includes installation of a concrete tallwall barrier throughout the median of the contract, as well as the construction of two emergency accesses to be used only during highway closures and other such incidents. These emergency accesses are the first of their kind on an Ontario freeway, and have been constructed in the vicinity of both Oxford Road 3, and Trussler Road (see below for photos). The bulk of the construction was carried out during the summer of 2006; work should be completed during the summer of 2007.

Two sentences can easily be re-worded, and it's not as if the content of the website in question is original research. Why is this becoming as big of a situation as it is? RingtailedFox is obviously frustrated with what is going on and probably getting a little over his head. The constant revert edits and the general lack of civility from sonysnob (or snobsony, I'm too lazy to look at history) has gotten all of us on edge. Snickerdo 05:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a big deal because the actual copyright holder has come over to complain, and you're revert-warring with him; that's not really a good idea.

As for the substance of the concern: as I've told RingtailedFox, I have no problems with you reworking the material, provided that it's thorough; there should be nothing recognizable left of the original text (and that includes things like sentence structure, ideally) in the text that you add to the article. Kirill Lokshin 05:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't touched the pages since the admins have been involved. Having said that, I only found out now that I know this user beyond Wikipedia, and feel horrible for the whole mess that has gone on. As I know this user, I feel it's best that I just back off over this whole situation, possibly getting involved if he wants to come to a common ground as to how we can present the upgrades in Oxford County without making him feel that we've violated the copyright to his website. I feel it would do further harm for me to be involved. Snickerdo 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just want to once again thank those who represented the copyright violation. Also, I am curious, I would like to report both Snickerdo and RingtaledFox on such insulting behaviour. For such a simple problem they have created a lot of headaches and I find the whole situation rather appauling. Once again, thank you to those who helped!!. --Sonysnob 15:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Insulting? Please, you could have been a bit more civil in this situation rather than causing a revert war and could have chosen better words to explain your situation. You aren't totally without fault in this situation, Scott, and I am outright offended by the above comment. Snickerdo 17:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I explained the situation a number of times, in a number of different ways, and it should have been clearly understood. However, the fact that I explained it was a copyright violation should have been sufficient in stopping the revert war. Keep in mind that there was in fact a copyright violation, and no I accept no responsibility in this situation. Regardless, it comes down to this, the text was improperly used, and it shouldn't have been, I called attention to the fact that it was improperly used, and removed it. That should have been sufficient, and it wasn't. I will be, rightfully, seeking all actions about the rather malicious and inappropriate behaviour that has gone on here. That is all I have to say on the matter. --Sonysnob 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't explain the situation at all once. You never identified who you were and never once told us why you removed the content other than stupid little quips in the edit lines that could have just as easily been some sockpuppet on a vendetta to annoy users. All you did was revert pages and put nothing but 'Copyvio' in the reasoning. I don't care what went on between you and RingtailedFox at a personal level, as it didn't involve me or the others who held a similar position. You never once contacted me personally or put anything on the :talk page here to explain your actions beyond just continuing yours and Ringtails' discussions, and I wasn't the only one who thought you were some fly in the wind causing trouble like so many others have caused in the past. Your claims that I have somehow done something wrong are outright offensive, if not bordering on libel, and I will take every action necessary to defend myself from your irrational and baseless allegations against me personally. Maybe you should be a little more mature and explain why you're doing what you're doing, rather than somehow assuming we can read your mind to know what's going on and reverting page after page and going against Wikipedia's revert war policy. Simply identifying yourself and your reasoning would have stopped this situation before it started and instead produced a fruitful discussion. You, sir, are just as much to blame for this mess, not me. I have done absolutely nothing wrong in this whole situation, I have merely posted my position. I immediately stopped editing the page all together when an admin got involved, as that was the right thing to do. Unless you have something something constructive to say besides pointing the finger at everyone but yourself and acting like a child, I bid you good day.

And, frankly, regardless of the situation, your website is hardly your own original research. It is one of at least a handful of sites with identical content I can think of, not the least of which is Chris Bessert's site. You have a nice website, but it's certainly not the end-all for highway information in the Province of Ontario. For the sake of everyone, quit the holier-than-thou attitude and cut the crap. Snickerdo 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I won't take sides on this, but both of you, let's try to be a little more civil here shall we. Saying things like quit the holier-than-thou attitude and cut the crap and identifying someones edit summaries as stupid little quips violates Wikipedia's policy on civility. As does not assuming good faith by calling someone's behaviour malicious and inappropriate. Please assume that people who work on this project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Both of you should know better. Thanks. Yankees76 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Facts and figures section removed

I removed this section. It had nothing to do with facts and figures, and was pure unencyclopedia trivia. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Carnage Alley

I don't recall the portion of the 401 between Windsor and Chatham being called Carnage Alley until the mid 1990s. Also the lack of paved shoulders was a contributing factor in many crashes (most crashes involved or started as a single vehicle incident). And can we call them vehicle crashes not accidents? Mousky67 15:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Highway of Heroes

Since it is official, I've already made a redirect link, though I don't think it will be worth to have an individual article.--JForget 16:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)