Highway 69 conversion

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I agree, but it's a hard sell in this day and age when sacrificing the life of seniors to keep the economy afloat is even considered. Anyway, I digress.

There's hope though. Think this way: Half a century ago, if someone were to suggest that Highway 69 be built as a 4-lane divided freeway from the get-go, everybody would have laughed at him/her. Now, every single km has been planned, if not completed. Unfortunately, the remainder through Parry Sound will take some time because Queen's Park's known for dragging its feet negotiating with FN's.

I would argue that any potential projects could be done as part of the stimulus package.

This entire highway could be done as one package.

[Dengler Avenue]

Yea I'm gonna give my own list in the Ontario Highway thread, then you guys can come and judge.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I would argue that any potential projects could be done as part of the stimulus package.

This entire highway could be done as one package.

The MTO has obtained consent from the FNs? I recall that being an issue with the final gap of 69 south of Parry Sound, hence the delayed opening in 2008.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by wave46

The MTO has obtained consent from the FNs? I recall that being an issue with the final gap of 69 south of Parry Sound, hence the delayed opening in 2008.

That’ll depend on how hard the 3 FN’s are being hit with the economic downturn, if at all. The more desperately they need money, the more eager they’ll be to sign the deals.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I sort of disagree with the 2nd part. I think a free-flowing interchange between freeways is simply a matter of good practice. For example, I find the interchange between 401 and Highbury Avenue in London aweful. Bref, 8 S to 401 W and 401 E to 8 N in Cambridge is even worse.
Anyway back to 17/69: At the very least, 69 north to 17 west shouldn’t be interrupted because I’m sure (lol I can be really wrong) lots of truck go to the industrial park at Fielding. As for 17 W to 69 S, at least we should allocate ROW for the free-flowing ramp.

As for the last part, I really think 110 m ROW in Canadian Shield is financially irresponsible outside of North Bay, Sudbury, SSM and Thunder Bay, where having a 6-lane freeway isn’t without basis.
@swimmer_spe, don’t you always complain that Queen’s Park shorted the North in terms of freeway extension? Tell them to stop going extravagant so they can no longer cite cost as a factor to not do it. Outside of those 4 cities, I already struggle to make a case even for 4 lanes, so 6 lanes are pure pipe dreams.

Oh yeah, free-flowing interchanges are good practice, especially on high volume interchanges. I suspect Highway 8 at the 401 has a few more vehicles than 17/69.

Have you driven 69 up to Sudbury? There are some massive rock cuts. If you go on Murdock River Rd. (old Highway 69 alignment) you can see the tons upon tons of fill that was used to grade the new highway from the base. There has to be 30 feet of fill from the old road level to the new one.

While I applaud the MTO's high design standards, I never thought that 69's problem so bad as needing a 400-series style freeway. I'd imagine a compromise solution (smaller right of way, more RIRO road access versus many kilometres of side roads, allowing higher grades and smaller turn radii, more economical interchanges, yada yada yada) would have produced most of the benefit (4 lanes = fewer redneck fools overtaking dangerously) at a more economical value.

Then the MTO could spend that money on other areas in the north. I've had this debate before - the quality versus quantity argument. The problem with the north is that it needs quantity too, so I'd make the trade of 'ultra-high standard freeway' versus 'more kilometres of improvement' anytime.

Anyway, I'll stop the broken record thing.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

That’ll depend on how hard the 3 FN’s are being hit with the economic downturn, if at all. The more desperately they need money, the more eager they’ll be to sign the deals.

The good thing is, here in Ontario, we have no need to worry about hereditary chiefs.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The good thing is, here in Ontario, we have no need to worry about hereditary chiefs.

Not yet anyway.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not yet anyway.

The mess in BC is due to unseeded territories existing. In Ontario, all land is subject to various treaties. This means that going back on them and trying what they did in BC would end up doing more harm than good. So, unless the FN want to loose everything and start from scratch where they might loose even more, they likely wouldn't do it.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by wave46

Oh yeah, free-flowing interchanges are good practice, especially on high volume interchanges. I suspect Highway 8 at the 401 has a few more vehicles than 17/69.

I think I can explain the difference between 69 and 11 now. Queen's Park looked at the truck traffic and went, "Okay, more trucks embark the 69 than the 11 from our area, so let's give Parry Sound East a half-baked 4-lane divided highway and Parry Sound West a full-fledged freeway."
Granted Highway 8 and Highway 401 have way more traffic, but it's usually passenger and only every now and then, trucks. One big no-no I've heard from a lot of SSP-ers is to have the truck stop and start again. You may know this if you've driven past 17/6 with a truck in front of you at a red light.

Have you driven 69 up to Sudbury? There are some massive rock cuts. If you go on Murdock River Rd. (old Highway 69 alignment) you can see the tons upon tons of fill that was used to grade the new highway from the base. There has to be 30 feet of fill from the old road level to the new one.

Twice. The last time was last September (that spontaneous road trip) and the first time a month before MTO opened the 4-lane section around Alban. I did notice the height difference though. For instance, near Estaire, Highway 69 is ridiculously high above Estaire Road. When I was driving on the then 2-lane section near Alban, I also noticed that the new freeway would be high above the then-current one too.

While I applaud the MTO's high design standards, I never thought that 69's problem so bad as needing a 400-series style freeway. I'd imagine a compromise solution (smaller right of way, more RIRO road access versus many kilometres of side roads, allowing higher grades and smaller turn radii, more economical interchanges, yada yada yada) would have produced most of the benefit (4 lanes = fewer redneck fools overtaking dangerously) at a more economical value.

Then the MTO could spend that money on other areas in the north. I've had this debate before - the quality versus quantity argument. The problem with the north is that it needs quantity too, so I'd make the trade of 'ultra-high standard freeway' versus 'more kilometres of improvement' anytime.

Okay, we've talked about 4-lane undivided highways, but quality vs quantity is the first time I'm hearing from you. I do wish that there are more of those in Northern Ontario. It definitely won't completely eliminate the risk of head-on collisions, but it does take some of that away. Assuming that people usually drive on the right lane except for passing, there's enough space between oncoming traffic that one has to be intentional to crash head-on. You see? B.C. and Ontario are on the 2 opposite ends of the spectrum in this respect.
I do have a caveat about undivided 4 lanes though: While I'm not against it, IMO it should be done so that future upgrades to a freeway will be feasible. That said, places like Matawa should still be bypassed. Really, the only places where you can shoehorn undivided 4 lanes are the likes of Corbeil Corners and Rutherglen. In the case of 69, that will be the FN's and Point-au-Baril.

Anyway, I'll stop the broken record thing.

If you're tired again, let me know.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by wave46

An Ontario tall-wall would basically complete the separation of lanes for that section of Highway 69.

Honestly, I'm at the point of even thinking that a full on freeway-to-freeway interchange for 69 and 17 is kind of wasteful at this point.

Then again, the MTO has really gone gung-ho for over designing things on that highway given its volume. Beautiful overbuilt interchanges for podunk side roads, massive rock cuts when narrowing the freeway would have sufficed. No expense was spared.

I went to the PIC for the Highway 69 project through Richard Lake. I think it was back in 2015 or so?

At the PIC the initial design for the terminus of the 400 at Highway 17 was for a roundabout at the southern ramp terminal from Highway 17. That proved to be unpopular and based of feedback from the community they added the modified trumpet design they have now.

The rock cut through Crown Ridge is going to be 30m deep. I'm not exactly sure how deep some of the other cuts are on other northern highways, but I have to think, once constructed, this will be one of the most substantial rock cuts anywhere on the provincial highway network.

[Dengler Avenue]

At the PIC the initial design for the terminus of the 400 at Highway 17 was for a roundabout at the southern ramp terminal from Highway 17. That proved to be unpopular and based of feedback from the community they added the modified trumpet design they have now.

I see.
Still, why wide median instead of tall wall for 4-lane freeway in Canadian Shield though?

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by wave46

Oh yeah, free-flowing interchanges are good practice, especially on high volume interchanges. I suspect Highway 8 at the 401 has a few more vehicles than 17/69.

Have you driven 69 up to Sudbury? There are some massive rock cuts. If you go on Murdock River Rd. (old Highway 69 alignment) you can see the tons upon tons of fill that was used to grade the new highway from the base. There has to be 30 feet of fill from the old road level to the new one.

While I applaud the MTO's high design standards, I never thought that 69's problem so bad as needing a 400-series style freeway. I'd imagine a compromise solution (smaller right of way, more RIRO road access versus many kilometres of side roads, allowing higher grades and smaller turn radii, more economical interchanges, yada yada yada) would have produced most of the benefit (4 lanes = fewer redneck fools overtaking dangerously) at a more economical value.

Then the MTO could spend that money on other areas in the north. I've had this debate before - the quality versus quantity argument. The problem with the north is that it needs quantity too, so I'd make the trade of 'ultra-high standard freeway' versus 'more kilometres of improvement' anytime.

Anyway, I'll stop the broken record thing.

It's a difficult trade-off trying to compromise design standards to save money -- and from my observation at least -- northerners will sometimes point out that they feel short-changed by Queens Park because their highways aren't as well designed as those in the south.

I remember articles from the local community east of Sault Ste. Marie chastising the province following a tragic collision involving a school bus on a recently twinned section of Highway 17 through Highway 638. The local community was adamant that they had been victimized by the province because an interchange wasn't built between Highway 638 and Highway 17 which would have prevented the collision, despite low overall traffic volumes.

So, from a public relations perspective it can be a difficult game to play to sacrifice design for economics.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

The rock cut through Crown Ridge is going to be 30m deep. I'm not exactly sure how deep some of the other cuts are on other northern highways, but I have to think, once constructed, this will be one of the most substantial rock cuts anywhere on the provincial highway network.

Yeah, that's substantial work for <10km of already 4-lane (undivided) highway.

I've never thought it was a hugely congested stretch, but that's one man's opinion without data to back it up.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I see.
Still, why wide median instead of tall wall for 4-lane freeway in Canadian Shield though?

Tall wall median barriers aren't free. And there often isn't a local supply of concrete in remote locations -- and concrete costs more and may not be effective if it has to travel from far away.

A highway with a concrete median is also less safe than a highway with a depressed grass median. A concrete barrier is an obstruction within the clear-zone of a highway -- even if it's an obstruction that has been designed to be struck safely by a vehicle it's still better not to have an obstruction there at all.

Concrete median barriers can also increase the likelihood of animal strikes too, as some animals may have a more difficult time crossing the road right-of-way. This can be mitigated with wildlife fencing of course -- but wildlife fencing isn't free either.

So, my guess is the overall savings of building freeways on smaller footprints aren't significant enough to warrant the compromise in design standards.

Looking at Quebec, many of their recently constructed four lane freeways use grass medians as well, with only short segments of narrower footprint freeway when it makes sense to combine the carriageways for large viaducts.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by wave46

Yeah, that's substantial work for <10km of already 4-lane (undivided) highway.

I've never thought it was a hugely congested stretch, but that's one man's opinion without data to back it up.

That's the design -- I doubt it's going to go to construction anytime soon. The MTO has made it plainly clear that work to extend the 400 to Highway 17 isn't included in the current Parry Sound to Sudbury project.

The geometry of the current highway is pretty substandard to just be included in a freeway ad-hoc though.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

It's a difficult trade-off trying to compromise design standards to save money -- and from my observation at least -- northerners will sometimes point out that they feel short-changed by Queens Park because their highways aren't as well designed as those in the south.

I remember articles from the local community east of Sault Ste. Marie chastising the province following a tragic collision involving a school bus on a recently twinned section of Highway 17 through Highway 638. The local community was adamant that they had been victimized by the province because an interchange wasn't built between Highway 638 and Highway 17 which would have prevented the collision, despite low overall traffic volumes.

So, from a public relations perspective it can be a difficult game to play to sacrifice design for economics.

Indeed.

I also understand that the MTO has to apply design criteria universally and not make many exceptions, given its role. While something like the Highway 11 RIRO south of Bracebridge might have been an acceptable compromise back in the day, it would hardly pass muster now.

Sadly, the optics of politics don't consider the lives saved by that new section of highway near the Sault (a safe journey isn't really newsworthy), but moreso on the tragedies.

I'm more of the opinion that it's a worthy trade to compromise design in rural areas for the advantage of more quantity, but I completely admit I'm just one (non-expert) opinion.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by wave46

Indeed.

I also understand that the MTO has to apply design criteria universally and not make many exceptions, given its role. While something like the Highway 11 RIRO south of Bracebridge might have been an acceptable compromise back in the day, it would hardly pass muster now.

Sadly, the optics of politics don't consider the lives saved by that new section of highway near the Sault (a safe journey isn't really newsworthy), but moreso on the tragedies.

I'm more of the opinion that it's a worthy trade to compromise design in rural areas for the advantage of more quantity, but I completely admit I'm just one (non-expert) opinion.

That's the problem with media reporting on highway accidents.

Widening the 401 through Chatham-Kent wouldn't be warranted without the media attention.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

So, my guess is the overall savings of building freeways on smaller footprints aren't significant enough to warrant the compromise in design standards.

Looking at Quebec, many of their recently constructed four lane freeways use grass medians as well, with only short segments of narrower footprint freeway when it makes sense to combine the carriageways for large viaducts.

I'd be curious if necking down a freeway and using a barrier would be cost-effective for interchanges (minimizing the size of structure needed) or in areas where one might need excessive blasting of rock.

For open areas might as well use the cheap land and have the improved safety, certainly.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by wave46

I'd be curious if necking down a freeway and using a barrier would be cost-effective for interchanges (minimizing the size of structure needed) or in areas where one might need excessive blasting of rock.

For open areas might as well use the cheap land and have the improved safety, certainly.

I'm not sure -- it certainly could be.

One of the things that highway engineers have to do is balance cut and fills. When a cut through the rock is made, the walls can generally be done almost vertically. But when a fill is required, usually there needs to be a 3:1 slope for the fill. So, more rock is required for fills then would be generated through cuts, so it may not make as much sense to reduce the width of rock cuts as one might think.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The good thing is, here in Ontario, we have no need to worry about hereditary chiefs.

Well in remote Northwestern Ontario:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/o...ship-1.5189317