Talk:400-series highways/Archive 1

Parclo A4
So what's a Parclo A4 and what's special about it? OwenBlacker 00:43, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * A Parclo A4 is a particular interchange configuration used on the 400-series highways (and on many others). "Parclo" is an abbreviation of "partial cloverleaf".  I'm not sure I can describe it, but  has a picture of some different configurations.  I think the A4 is similar to the middle image in the bottom group.  It uses much less area than a traditional cloverleaf, and also makes traffic flow more efficient. --Timc 19:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It was invernted by the ministry of transportation to replace cloverleafs, most of the 401 intersections in Toronto are them
 * Of course, Allen Road and the 401 have the most devestating interchange ever...


 * Anyways, problem with the pic at the top. On the page its an overhead of the 401, but clicking on it shows the signs -Fizscy46 05:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image of the network
I should have map of the 400-series highway network to post at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snickerdo (talk • contribs) 23:40, 5 December 2004 (UTC)

Separate Pages
Should the definite projects (Mid-Peninsula Highway, Bradford Bypass) have separate pages? The MPH especially, as there is a lot of information re: controversies and planning...

I don't see why not; feel free to make them and link them from the appropriate places. --SPUI (talk) 20:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4xx highways
Nine hits on Google for "4xx highways"; one for "4xx highway". Where exactly have you heard this usage, and can you cite it? Having grown up around many of these highways, I don't ever remember someone saying this nor do I remember ever reading this in a local newspaper, government document, etc. Darkcore 14:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is general usage for something like this (like I-x5 for the major north-south Interstates), and the Google matches confirm that it is sometimes used. --SPUI (talk) 15:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The Google matches were all message board commentary. It suggests that one, maybe two misinformed people use that terminology. That does not mean that we would cite that in an encyclopedia article. I should add that there are about as many Google hits for "Interstate XX" but at least there were some relatively official documents there citing its usage. There are no such documents citing "4XX highway" usage. Darkcore 15:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Eh, feel free to remove it. --SPUI (talk) 15:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Somebody refered to some 3-digit Interstates around San Francisco as I-x80 highways when describing a reason why I-238 exists in that area, therefore I kinda thought 4xx highways was an appropriate alternative name for 400-series highways since all of them have 4 as a prefix. --SuperDude 03:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

400-Series highway standards
Will somebody add more to the list of 400-Series highway standards? That list has been a dwarf since it was made. --SuperDude 05:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Unofficial" standards
Please refrain from including 'unofficial' standards, as they a) are subjective based on who you talk to b) are not real and c) have no place in a document of facts, such as an encyclopedia article.

Any further references to 'unofficial' items will be removed without further explaination.

--Snickerdo 7 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

What's with the conjecture and other crap being posted in the article?
Okay, really, this article is no place for conjecture and personal opinions that have no basis in fact. I am getting real sick and tired of the same bloody anonymous user always messing up articles with his own personal opinions. Garbage like 'Highway 11 is expected to become part of the 400-series network' and other crap like Cloverstacks being the 'cheapening out' of standards are basis, have absolutely no proof, and needsto stop. Again, every time I see stuff like this added to the article, it will be removed without any further warning. I love to see this article expanded, but I'm getting real sick and tired of false information and personal opinions being added as if they were true.

Have a great day, and happy wiki'ing!

-- Snickerdo 02:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

400-series Definition
This passage clearly explains why certain Ontario freeways are not part of the 400-series - "The non 400-series freeways listed here have significant open-access portions besides the freeway section". The shortened definition from "400-series network" does not.

Ontario's case is an anomaly among transport authorities. US states have different series of freeways mainly due to funding differences (between Interstate, US highways, and municipal). Ontario on the other hand, besides municipal freeways, have 2 series of provincially funded freeways, 400-series and non 400-series, even though there are no differences outside of numbering and both types would be renumbered as the same series if it was a US system.

Non 400-series Ontario freeways should not be mentioned only in a list of Ontario expressways, since that list includes everything from municipal freeways to provincial expressways with at-grade intersections.


 * Actually, you are totally incorrect, at least from a Canadian perspective. I recommend looking at the 100-series highways in Nova Scotia, the Autoroute system in Quebec (yes, there ARE at-grade autoroutes) and the 200-series highways in Alberta.  The information I include in my edit clearly explains why Ontario has, and will always have, non-400-series freeways.  In most Ontario cases, the lack of a 400-series number is due to lower design standards.  Only recently was the Conestoga Parkway upgraded to proper standards, the E.C. Row Expressway and Highburry Road were both municipal projects with MTO involvement, etc.


 * Besides, why are we listing non-400-series highways in an article about 400-series highways? They don't belong here!  The only thing we need is a quick blurb.  If you want an article about provincial freeways without 400-series numbers, create a different article.


 * -- Snickerdo 02:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Your edit does not clearly explain why Ontario has non 400-series provincial freeways. In fact, even any new non 400-series provincial freeway is built to 400-series standards. The Conestoga exceeds several rural and old 400-series freeways in that respect; even before its upgrades, it was better than old sections of 401 and QEW. The lack of a 400-series number is due to the Conestoga having significant open-access sections besides freeway sections; the Conestoga project upgraded parts of existing highways and left the rest of the highways untouched. This is sort of like the Trans-Canada highway which "borrowed" existing provincial highways in Ontario and Quebec and thus had to leave the provincial numbering intact.

The EC Rowe until the Harris Downloading of roads was officially designated Hwy 2. Hwy 2 of course being the pre-401 Windsor-London-Toronto-Kingston-Montreal route. The EC Rowe is NOT up to current 400 series standards and most pre 1990 400 series highways are not up to Interstate or EU standards. Note: EC Rowe has a 100km/h speed limit making it the only municipal road in Ontario with that speed limit.

Left lane off ramps
The 417 West bound has the off ramp to the 416 (south bound, obviously) in the left lane. This is inviolation of the listed "standards". Is this worth mentioning anywhere? (Here or in the 417 article?) I'm curious to know if this is the only example of this in the 400-series. Jeffr 23:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Are the standards official, or just conjectured? Doesn't part of 406 have at-grades? --SPUI (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Usually, good practice is to have have mainline traffic as the left (with the fastest drivers in the leftmost lane) and exits/entry slower traffic as the right. I would say that the Ont gov't adheres to the list of standards as rigidly as possible, unless there are other considerations such as land restructions.


 * There are some glaring violations of the right-hand exit/entry rule. On the 401 WB collector in Toronto, the exit to Allen Road is a left-hand exit. The reason was because the designers wanted give both 401 WB collector and express lanes an exit at Allen. This was designed in the late 1960s.
 * 417 WB onto 416 SB is an exception to the guideline which is fairly recent, but a significant amount of traffic does go in that direction. The Gardiner Expressway/Don Valley Parkway interchange is similar to this.
 * 403 WB at 407 (Mississauga) is another recent example, 403 traffic is the mainline but treated as the right-hand exit; this was because that part of 407 was intended to be a non-tolled 403 extension to Hamilton. However, the Ont gov't sold that section to 407 ETR operators after part of the interchange was already complete. A similar problem is at the Freeman Interchange (QEW-403-407) in Burlington.


 * And don't even get me started on the left-lane merge from Hwy 6 onto the 403 in Burlington. Ugh, I hate that one. (Sorry, had to vent that one.) --qviri 06:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge with List of Ontario expressways
Both of these appear to be lists of the same roads. If so, then then should be merged into one. Also, in the Catgeory:Lists of roads most of the entries provide geographic information in the article name. This article does not. Vegaswikian 18:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there are non 400-series highways expressways in Ontario. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't the data suppose to be generally found in only one place, especially when it is in a list? Vegaswikian 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that there is List of Ontario provincial highways which points back here and also lists these roads, allbeit not it a list format. Vegaswikian 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Because the 400-series are designed to be freeways for their full length, we should keep this page as is. Ontario expressways is too broad a category in general, since we have freeways being lumped with expressways and other lesser quality roads.  The 400-series is treated as a special class of roads and we should keep it that way.
 * Then maybe the article should be moved to Ontario 400-Series highways since it is not really a list but a detailed description of this system of highways, dropping Category:Lists of roads? There already are 2 other lists of Ontario roads, List of Ontario expressways and List of Ontario provincial highways, which is why this third list of highways really stands out when you see all of the lists with their overlap.  At a minimum it should be moved to List of Ontario 400-Series highways if you think that this is a list.  But I suspect that the first suggestion to treat it as an article rather than a list is going to be the right choice.  Vegaswikian 18:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believes that this entry started out as a list, but it evolved into an article. Plus, I do like the short summaries of each 400-series highway, that gives it more substance than a list.
 * So changing the name and dropping it from the list category makes sense? Vegaswikian 04:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the move. What's next, merge Interstate articles with US Highway/State Highway articles? Snickerdo 04:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm with you. Strongly disagree with any merging. The other expressways, while notable in their own name, are (generally) parts of longer conventional highways, or substandard (i.e. 35/115 multiplex, Conestoga). CrazyC83 00:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I originally created this because A) not all Ontario expressways are 400-series, and certainly B) not all Ontario expressways are provincial. If the 'list' name is the problem, I'm fine with changing it; but the distinction between the jurisdictions has been the concept all along. Radagast 04:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Have removed the merge tag - seems that it's not got consensus to merge the articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Military origins?
This is just speculation, but does the naming of the 400-series highways correspond at all with the names of the air squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force/Canadian Armed Forces? These were numbered from 400 to 449 by the Royal Air Force for European-based Canadian squadrons to avoid confusion with RAF squadrons (for example, 1 Squadron RCAF became 401 Squadron) during WWII, and most retain this designation today. Could the Ontario highways be named as a reminder of Canada's contribution to the air war of WWII?--MarshallStack 06:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really, since 400-series numbering started out sequentially, and then later it was changed to adding a "4" to an upgraded route or new bypass. In addition, plenty of numbers were skipped.

Comparisons
This original numbering method has often been criticized for being arbitary compared to the US Interstate Highway's numbering scheme. Can anyone substantiate this? I've never heard it called 'arbitrary', and the only comparison to the US system comes from US tourists. Peter Grey 02:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed this very speculative sentence. --SPUI (talk) 06:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good. As someone from the US who has often driven the 400 highways (mostly 401 and 402), I don't see anything arbitrary about them. Yes, the US Interstate System even-odd/two-digit/three-digit numbering system are all supposed to mean something in terms of direction, spurs, loops etc, but I doubt that most of my fellow Americans know what those are. I don't even know what they all mean. In any case, the Ontario Government has the right to name their highways whatever they want.--MarshallStack 05:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ontario's numbering standards are arbitrary when compared to the American Interstate standard, but when compared to international standards they are acceptable. The Interstate Standards state that all cross country Interstate Numbers be divisible by 5. I-75, I-80, I-5, etc. They also state that north/south be odd numbered and east/west be even numbered. They also state that all three-digit Interstates be either a loop or a spur of a parent interstate. Spurs be odd numbered and loops be even numbered. Eg. I-375 is a spur of I-75 entering downtown Detroit. I-275 is a loop starting and ending at I-75 circling Metro Detroit. Ontario has nothing like this. rasblue 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Scarborough Highlands Expressway (aka Highway 448)
Is this highway actually planned by the government (Ontario or Toronto)? I can only find links to a proposed highway advocated by the CAA and James Alcock, which doesn't really meet the conditions for inclusion in Wikipedia. Mind matrix  16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Highway 7 expansion west of Ottawa
MTO recently announced* that Highway 7 from 417 to Carleton Place / Hwy 15 will be twinned in the next few years. I can't quite determine if this will bring the road up to 400 series standards or not (to do so would require the construction of a service road or at least the piecing together of existing non-connected parallel roads). It's possible that the road would not be controlled access but merely a divided multilane highway with a 90 km/h speed limit (parts of Hwy 17 west of Ottawa used to be (still are?) like this). Does anyone know anything more with any certainty? And if it will be a 400 series road then what will be its designation? 407? 407 East?

--D P J 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2006/06/16/c4808.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html

SmackBot protection??
Anyway to stop SmackBot from replacing with 30 px in titles?? Bacl-presby 01:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, put nobots in the article. Meanwhile I have fixed the headers. Rich Farmbrough, 08:44 8 February 2007 (GMT).

Bacl-presby 00:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rich, for taking the time and effort!

Numbering history
According to and  (two scans of the same 1953 annual report), 400, 401, and 402 were numbered in 1952 (see  for confirmation). At the time they were called: --NE2 14:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 400 Toronto-Barrie Road
 * 401 Windsor to Quebec Boundary Road (including the Toronto By-Pass)
 * 402 Sarnia-Point Edward Road

Other routes were numbered as follows: --NE2 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 403 ca. 1955
 * 404 ca. 1959
 * 405 ca. 1959
 * 406 ca. 1962

403
The 403's being extended to Barrie? wtf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.47.50 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What sort of vehicles are allowed and not allowed on the 400 series highways?
I ask because of 100cc to 500cc scooters - that seems to be in a grey area that is not described very well. Descriptions generally look like: "Scooters which are 50cc or less are not allowed" and "Scooters (no engine capacity specified) are not allowed"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.207.137 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

US-style measurments
Miles do not belong in this article, as they clutter it up and have no educational value. Canada has used metric measurments exclusivly since the early 70s. If an American really needs to know how long the highway is, they can convert the measurments themselves. --Snickerdo 07:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The same could be said about metric in the U.S. articles; except for a few, U.S. roads use only miles. --SPUI (talk) 07:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I could care less about US articles. This is an article about Canadian roads on an international website.  Imperial measurements do not belong here, and we're going to end up with nothing but a rev war over this until someone steps in and ends this once and for all.  --Snickerdo 07:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Imperial measurements are useful to some readers. Therefore they should be here. --SPUI (talk) 08:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Technically, the US does not uses "imperial" measurements, although the US "mile" is the same as the UK "mile". 216.179.123.103 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the problem with adding the alternative measurements in parenthesis? Does it hurt anyone? They make the article better IMHO. --cesarb 10:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the aim is to be helpful to readers, and if we believe this article is going to be read by U. S. readers, then we should retain measurements in miles. By the way, what's with "imperial measurements?" We're talking about "U. S. customary" units, aren't we? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If someone feels like adding the US customary units to the article, then by all means let them -- a sizable chunk of the potential audience for this article doesn't understand metric. --Carnildo 18:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, they're already there. Apparently some people want to remove them as colonialist POV or something... oops, I might be technically wrong in my metrology, see this article, but the difference between the various definitions of "mile" is way out in the fifth or sixth decimal and doesn't matter. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The standard should, for all road-related sites, be: Notice that nearly all US road pages use that format, and all road pages should.
 * Where normally signed in Metric, it should be Metric (Imperial).
 * Where normally signed in Imperial, it should be Imperial (Metric).

Fair enough. This should be made a standard on all road article, and the rest of the 400-series articles should be updated to reflect as such. --Snickerdo 08:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Many Canadian and/or road articles contain values in non-metric units only and need metric units to be added. I have done a few myself. If anyone else is inclined to do some, just go ahead and do it. Plenty of Wikipedia users will welcome such edits. Bobblewik (talk) 15:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not use both systems? After all, every engineer in the US and Canada (and most likely the world) must know both systems interchangeably.

rasblue 20:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2002/08/06/c0057.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html
 * In Greater Toronto Area on 2011-03-22 12:49:48, 404 Not Found
 * In Highway on 2011-03-29 05:23:37, 404 Not Found
 * In 400-series highways on 2011-06-19 07:33:47, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Terrible and biased article.
This is a terrible and biased article that reads as a government of ontario promotion. Far more citations are needed, as well as differing views on many of the sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.168.46 (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be rewriting it fairly soon. I've only had time to dig at the highway list so far though. And yes, most of the Ontario road content was written by someone with a romantic connection to the highways it seems, and comes off as reading like a promotional flyer for the highway. -  Floydian  τ ¢  21:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Bicycles
Another characteristics of 400-series highways is that bicycles are not allowed on them:

HTA Reg. 630 - Expressways "Bicycles are prohibited on expressway / freeway highways such as the 400 series, the QEW, Ottawa Queensway and on roads where "No Bicycle" signs are posted. Set fine: $85.00" http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling-guide/section5.0.shtml

Not sure if this is relevant enough or where to put it so I'm just mentioning it here.

jlam (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A thought
I'd like to suggest that the entire Network section be collapsed down to a table, along the lines of Pure Michigan Byway. If that were done, I'd support promotion, pending the necessary reviews, at WP:FLC. This topic seems suited to the model of List of Interstate Highways in Michigan as a subarticle of Michigan State Trunkline Highway System in the relationship to Highways in Ontario.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done a basic conversion. There is still a bunch to be filled in, but is it along the lines of what you were thinking (I basically merged the styles from Pure Michigan Byway and List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes. -  Floydian  τ ¢  01:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * it looks good, I might suggest you look at using routelist row if that would help simplify things. That template suite has the capability to list names. I couldn't use it for Pure Michigan Byway only because it doesn't have the option to handle the types/classification of byway. (I did clone the output of the templates with that addition.)  Imzadi 1979  →   02:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Templated table
Here's the table lightly revised to follow the same format that USRD has started to use successfully for FLs. A few notes:  Imzadi 1979  →   23:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The only markers (shields) visible are for the subject of each row, placing the visual emphasis there.
 * 2) The table sorts by full dates but only displays the year for consistency. Each date can be individually cited as well.
 * 3) The table also properly handles row headers per MOS:DTT without any additional effort. Should the MOS guidance change in the future, we can update the templates and many articles will reap the new benefits right away.
 * I'd like to implement this, but I feel it makes the shields almost unreadable (since they are much taller than wide), except the 407 crest, which is massive! The other minor issue is the display of Queen Elizabeth Way as QEW. Minor stuff but would undoubtedly raise issues. -  Floydian  τ ¢  16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There are some major errors in the chart, not to mention major inconsistencies. The terminuses were inconsistent. Some where towards, some near, some in. The major errors include; I believe the edits I have done make the article more clear and improve the article. If dashes are a problem please change, but the former version was a bit sloppy, unclear, and not very encyclopedic. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.166.158 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Highway 401 terminus - A-20 towards Montreal, QC. It ends towards numerous cities towns. The wording towards is too arbitrary. It ends in Rivière-Beaudette,
 * Highway 402 names interstate, border name, bridge name and town name. Inconsistent with other highway US crossings.
 * Highway 405 does not name bridge and uses near.
 * Highway 409 names airport but not city. (Mississauga)
 * Highway 412 terminus names Toronto but it does not enter City of Toronto, it also doesn't name town of northern terminus
 * Highway 416 terminus states Highway 401 towards Kingston. It also ends at hwy 16 to go east. And why Kingston of all cities? The terminus is Cardinal.
 * HIghway 417 also states towards Montreal. towards is too arbitrary
 * HIghway 418 again terminus names Toronto but it does not enter City of Toronto, it also doesn't name town of northern terminus
 * HIghway 420 does not name town/city at either terminus.
 * Let's let have a chance to weigh in before overhauling things. For the moment, until discussion reaches some sort of consensus for a change, let's leave things as they were when promoted as a Featured List and follow the tenets of WP:BRD (you were Bold, but then Reverted, so the next step is to Discussion, not restore the proposed change).  Imzadi 1979   →   01:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, sounds good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.166.158 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Although I definitely appreciate consistency (and have sought to implement it on all Ontario highway articles since I first started in 2010), there is one issue I have with the changes you made. A hyphen/dash is used to represent "to", and not "in". This is why I generally don't use it, as most 400 highways end in a significant location. Many, however, do not. Others still end in a significant place, but continue further on to other significant places (the border crossings and western end of the 417 spring to mind). I will use the points you've raised to make corrections, as these inconsistencies arose from copying the termini from each article's infobox. -  Floydian  τ ¢  21:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When can we expect said changes. I can go article to article and fix them if you'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.166.158 (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I made some small edits to help the charts consistency. 174.91.166.158 (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * stop changing the template! the correct name for it is reflist-talk, which is short for "reference list on a talk page". Every time you edit this section and change it to realist-talk, you break it!
 * As for your edits, I'm reverting. Let make them on his schedule. We have no deadline around here.  Imzadi 1979   →   00:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Template is incorrect
The articles template is flat out incorrect which is embarrassing on a featured article. I am fixing the article to read correct information, if you have a better fix than please feel free. But reverting an correction to an error with the excuse that someone else owns the article is completely unacceptable and can get you banned from editing if reported. I will report you if you continue to bully editors. 174.91.166.158 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The table matches the linked articles' infoboxes. This list summarizes them, so you can't just declare this wrong without also discussing changing them. I don't see anything in here that's incorrect. I do see someone changing lots of things all at once and claiming it's a "small change" in the edit summary. Discuss specifics first, then we can move toward changing things.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * do we have some ETA on this? I do agree that it would be nice to get this resolved sooner rather than later.  Imzadi 1979  →  14:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just made some fixes. I've kept "towards" for the 401 and 417, as Montreal is the control city for those two at their eastern end. -  Floydian  τ ¢  00:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)