Talk:Ontario Highway 403/Archive 1

External links section
I added external links and references last night due to similarities on OntHighways.com. This page looks fairly similar to what is on that website, so i think the 'references' part should be left up. Just my two cents.--24.103.242.178 03:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The only similarity that I really see is that the information is basically the same with respect to the interchanges, which would obviously make sense. I looked up that information myself by looking at maps and by my relative familiarity with the highway, so I wouldn't go as far as to say that the OntHighways.com site was used as a reference. A reference is given when a source has unique information that could not otherwise be obtained from another source (i.e., obscure data or original research). A list of interchanges does not fall under this criteria. Darkcore 04:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, it certainly doesn't, however, if you were using the OntHighways page for the source then it would deserve a reference. Since you are not, it doesn't.  I am sure you would agree that the page layout is quite similar, and you could see how a mistake could be made.  Sorry --24.103.242.178 04:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Woodstock with Mississauga
The wording in the heading "connects Woodstock with Mississauga" is kind of misleading. It almost implies that the highway that the highway was built to connect these two municipalities. Maybe a wording change to "the 403 connects to the 401 at Mississauga and Woodstock Ontario" would be clearer ? Maybe merge the sentence following the "connects Woodstock with Mississauga" about the connection to the 401 together. Po&#39; buster (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Change it to "travels from Woodstock to Mississauga, passing through Hamilton between the two." You only need to change the allusion to the connecting of two cities by this highway. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  21:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Chedoke Expressway
What is the origin of this name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.168.16 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know for certain, but the Chedoke Creek flows out alongside the original section of the 403 between King Street and Princess Point. It's name most likely came from that creek. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  13:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Refs and order

 * Freeman Bypass constructed ~1958 alongside skyway


 * Construction begins from south of Highway 6 (at onramps to York) east to Freeman


 * Widening south from 401 in Mississauga.


 * Ancaster section opened August 15, 1997

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ontario Highway 403
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ontario Highway 403's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "2010 mapart": From Ontario Highway 405:  From Ontario Highway 2A: MapArt 2010 From Ontario Highway 410:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible Extension of Highway 403?
I haven't found any official documents but there's been a lot of talk extending Highway 403 west from it's terminus at Highway 401 to Highway 402 west of London. Such a route would form the northern connection of London's proposed ring road network (Highway 401/402 make up the south, the Veterans Memorial Parkway the east, and a proposed Westel Bourne freeway in the west). See this image for it's proposed route. Might be worth looking into. Haljackey (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There was talk a few years back when London unveiled the 2008(?) transp. plan, which included the ring network. The recent proposal scraps the top part of the ring. From what I can tell, if it is to happen, it is a looooooooong way off (2031+). However, the twinning of 7/8 to Stratford could very well be extended to London, acting as the northern chunk of the ring.
 * But, it seems to be limited to transportation geek forums at this point in time. I'll send a letter to the MTO asking if there are any plans. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Collector-Express
There's no way you can consider the one stretch of highway between the 401 and the 403's first exit a collector-express system. How can you "collect" on a stretch of highway that doesn't even go past one exit ? You cannot "collect" on this highway. Highway 403 only has separate lanes to go to separate destinations around the Highway 401-410/Eglington interchanges. That's it. It is not a collector-express system. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Highway 403 has collector-express characteristics from Eastgate PKWY to hwy 410/401. Haljackey (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even the MTO refers it as a C/E system: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/trip/traffic_report-peel.shtml#Event6823 Haljackey (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The eastbound exit to the Eastgate Parkway is a simple exit. The westbound exit to the Eastgate Parkway is a dual exit with Eglinton. To cal this a collector-express system is near criminal. How can one "collect" on this stretch ? You either exit or don't. The only reason there is even a crossover back onto the 403 in this stretch is for the 410 traffic to continue on the 403. I assume there are future plans to continue these lanes to further exits which would then constitute a collector-express system, but at this point one exit is not sufficient to call these a "collector-express" by definition. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The exits to Eglinton Ave and Eastgate Pkwy are two completely separate exits (although they are very close to each other). The 403 is considered C/E by the provincial government.  The definition of C/E in the Local-express lanes article has been satisfied.  More details over at Talk:Local-express_lanes Backguy (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * While not a long distance collector-express system as we've become accustomed to on Highway 401, the section of Highway 403 from Cawthra to Highway 401 divides through traffic from local traffic, which is the general definition of a local-express setup. Highway 400 features this north of Highway 407, and the Gardiner Expressway east of Highway 427. How many "exits" are enough to call a section of roadway local-express? Would the section of Highway 401 between Highway 427 and Highway 403/410, with an access at Dixie and partial access at Renforth not be the same qualification? Do we have any refs to either effect? Like Haljackey, I've always seen the MTO traffic conditions refer to Highway 403 Express and Highway 403 collectors and nothing that disputes that notion.
 * That said, we should try to find a concrete definition so that all the other minor examples (eg. Conestoga, DVP/401/404) can be addressed with some consistency. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Longwoods Road
The section on the construction of the first section east of the Freeman Interchange currently reads, "Highway 403 between Longwoods Road (Highway 2) and the QEW was opened to traffic on December 1, 1963 at a length of 9.0 km." This reads strangely to me, since there is a section of Longwood Road in Hamilton but as far as I know it has never been signed as highway 2, however Longwoods Road west of London is signed highway 2 (or was, rather). That's much more than 9km away, so the section is definitely not referring to that road. According to TheKingsHighway.ca, "The first phase of Highway 403 was completed and opened to traffic from the Queen Elizabeth Way at Freeman to the Desjardins Canal Bridge in Hamilton on December 4, 1963." I was about to rewrite this replacing "Longwoods Road" with "York Boulevard", but I thought I should post it here instead to get opinions, since I don't have access to the source given in the article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Back then York Boulevard was known as Longwoods Road, at least according to the source I used. Not sure when the name was changed. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Redundant imagery
Pick one please. The other gets removed or pushed into a gallery. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 14:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

STOP reverting numerous edits, STOP introducing template errors
this is getting ridiculous. If you have specific issue you want to add to featured articles that are being reverted, you need to bring it up on talk pages. You cannot be adding a link to the WSP homepage as a reference for a specific project, you need to correctly reference ANY addition to a featured article. The onus is on you, not others. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Some issues like the flyover ramp at 403-407 in Oakville, you're just being too anal about it. FobTown (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Floydian is correct. The burden is on you to provide sourcing for any edits you're making. As this article is an FA, we strive to keep the quality high so that the article can continue to bear its gold star. Floydian is also correct that the homepage of that company's website does not contain the information being cited to it. We need to follow the FA criteria, and make sure that "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". That source doesn't meet the rule because it's not verifiable against the source (it's not in the proffered source), and because corporate websites aren't quite "high-quality reliable sources" as we'd use that term on Wikipedia.Having said all that, please remember WP:BRD. When you're Bold, but your edit is Reverted, the next step is to Discuss, which is what is going on here.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 --Rschen7754 20:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

do you get it now? Bold, revert, discuss. Please adopt this moving forward. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 22:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)