Ontario Highways

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I'm actually more of the redundancy type than the widening type.

The number of times redundancy has been needed don't justify the cost of a completely new route. Unless a highway is closed for months, a day or few days of re-routing isn't enough of an economic cost to justify a redundant highway.

There are places where it would be useful (in remote areas and choke points, particularly), but not on the 401.

A major issue makes the news, costs businesses hours or days of wait, but in the grand scheme it's really not a big deal vs. the BILLIONS it would take to ensure there is always a quick way to get around the problem.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

The number of times redundancy has been needed don't justify the cost of a completely new route. Unless a highway is closed for months, a day or few days of re-routing isn't enough of an economic cost to justify a redundant highway.

There are places where it would be useful (in remote areas and choke points, particularly), but not on the 401.

A major issue makes the news, costs businesses hours or days of wait, but in the grand scheme it's really not a big deal vs. the BILLIONS it would take to ensure there is always a way around.

{7} from Peterborough to Havelock (if not Peterborough/Hastings Boundary) is already busy in its own right, with few passing opportunities. (I have seen instances where people use the left turn lane to pass, very not safe.) That part can see some improvement.

Markham Rd is highway 48

{447} will be exclusively east-west in the "heart" of east York Region though, whereas {48} is only east-west along Lake Simcoe.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

The number of times redundancy has been needed don't justify the cost of a completely new route. Unless a highway is closed for months, a day or few days of re-routing isn't enough of an economic cost to justify a redundant highway.

There are places where it would be useful (in remote areas and choke points, particularly), but not on the 401.

A major issue makes the news, costs businesses hours or days of wait, but in the grand scheme it's really not a big deal vs. the BILLIONS it would take to ensure there is always a quick way to get around the problem.

We learned that a few year ago with the Nipigon River Bridge.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

We learned that a few year ago with the Nipigon River Bridge.

The unfinished bridge.

A detour route should have been planned during construction. But as long as the current setup can handle a closure in one direction, all should be fine. If it can't, then a close detour is something the province MUST plan.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

The unfinished bridge.

A detour route should have been planned during construction. But as long as the current setup can handle a closure in one direction, all should be fine.

There is no reroute for traffic if that is closed. It is one of the only closures that has no other detour in Canada for it.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There is no reroute for traffic if that is closed. It is one of the only closures that has no other detour in Canada for it.

It's a twin span. If traffic can be routed onto the span that's ok, then it's not an issue. But if not, yes, a close detour needs to be planned.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There is no reroute for traffic if that is closed. It is one of the only closures that has no other detour in Canada for it.

Just hire a blasting crew and a bunch of people from Nipigon to build the bridge between /585\ and {11}. You must be rich enough to pull that off (if you can afford a lakefront house).

It's a twin span. If traffic can be routed onto the span that's ok, then it's not an issue. But if not, yes, a close detour needs to be planned.

It does seem that M.T.O. is no fan of such detour. One time, O.P.P. closed the WB lanes of the divided highway near Pass Lake due to a T-Bone and there was no detour.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

It's a twin span. If traffic can be routed onto the span that's ok, then it's not an issue. But if not, yes, a close detour needs to be planned.

They couldn't the last time. That is the point. Highway 585 should be extended to Highway 11.

[ScreamingViking]

Re: the Nipigon bridge, I really feel the politics of creating a "signature" bridge got in the way of the practicalities of the transportation needs.

Cable-stayed bridge? Sure, it's beautiful. But necessary? Nope.

IMO the best solution was a twin girder-supported bridge. Build the new one, rehab the original, and Bob's your uncle. Make prep for shifting traffic from one to the other at each end. Good to go.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

They couldn't the last time. That is the point. Highway 585 should be extended to Highway 11.

And the last time was during construction. How do you not understand that it was a unique situation??

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

And the last time was during construction. How do you not understand that it was a unique situation??

The bridge was finished.

What if they couldn't bring that end down for a month or longer? What if it had to wait till spring to be fixed to allow traffic over it? What then?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Re: the Nipigon bridge, I really feel the politics of creating a "signature" bridge got in the way of the practicalities of the transportation needs.

Cable-stayed bridge? Sure, it's beautiful. But necessary? Nope.

IMO the best solution was a twin girder-supported bridge. Build the new one, rehab the original, and Bob's your uncle. Make prep for shifting traffic from one to the other at each end. Good to go.

I agree that the bridge could have been more down to earth.
Unfortunately, rehabilitating the original bridge was impossible because the new bridge needed to go right where the old one was. Down the road, where they're twinning another 8.5 km, it'll be the same thing.
You need to ask people in road engineering why it happens.

The bridge was finished.

What if they couldn't bring that end down for a month or longer? What if it had to wait till spring to be fixed to allow traffic over it? What then?

Then TCH bottleneck would have received more attention.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The bridge was finished.

What if they couldn't bring that end down for a month or longer? What if it had to wait till spring to be fixed to allow traffic over it? What then?

No, it wasn't finished.

There are always what-ifs. You can't plan for all of them.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

No, it wasn't finished.

There are always what-ifs. You can't plan for all of them.

Bridges collapse. That is why nowhere else in the country is there only one route. You should have a plan for that eventuality. Cut a new 2 lane highway 15 km long and put a simple 2 lane bridge over the river at the dam. Problem solved.

The real problem is people in southern ON are making decisions for areas they do not understand.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Bridges collapse. That is why nowhere else in the country is there only one route. You should have a plan for that eventuality. Cut a new 2 lane highway 15 km long and put a simple 2 lane bridge over the river at the dam. Problem solved.

The real problem is people in southern ON are making decisions for areas they do not understand.

At the end of the day, it's the TCH. You have to get feds onboard with the segments in the middle of rocks and woods.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

At the end of the day, it's the TCH. You have to get feds onboard with the segments in the middle of rocks and woods.

It is still an Ontario highway.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Bridges collapse. That is why nowhere else in the country is there only one route. You should have a plan for that eventuality. Cut a new 2 lane highway 15 km long and put a simple 2 lane bridge over the river at the dam. Problem solved.

The real problem is people in southern ON are making decisions for areas they do not understand.

Transportation planners understand very well what the issues are. Blame the politicians.

This happened while the eastbound span was still being constructed. It was a unique situation. Why the engineering of the westbound span failed is a good question. But the bridge solution was meant to have redundancy.

Personally, I think a much simpler design for both new spans would have been adequate. It was adequate before. But someone with "legacy" in mind wanted more.

In the end things got fixed. Doesn't mean the provincial government shouldn't plan for some redundancy. But it won't be perfect. Best value is probably a "service road" upriver that crosses a modest bridge which can handle heavy trucks.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is still an Ontario highway.

Yes, but it's part of the Trans Canada Highway. The federal government bears some responsibility here.

Not just southern Ontario bureaucrats and politicos.

[haljackey]

To be honest the federal government needs to work with the provinces and upload the entire stretch of the Trans-Canada highway and call it that, and #1 on maps/shields. Secondary routes like Highway 16 are another story, they should remain as-is for now... one thing at a time.

-----

As for the Nipigon bridge, redundancy is needed. Building a new route north of Lake Nipigon would do this as well as open up new connections and opportunities for First Nations and the 'Ring of Fire' mineral deposits. It may also make Highway 11 more of a direct route between Western Canada and Southern Ontario vs 17 via Thunder Bay.

Something like this:

-Building that southern part connecting 11 to 17 Is not as needed but would allow better connections.

-----

Regarding 407E, I agree phase 1 was the only needed plan. The 407 itself could have curved diagonally to meet the 401 between Ajax and Whitby, eliminating the 412 and creating a more cohesive bypass for the 401.
-But, since this tolled you may as well keep extending it to a major road since most if not all the revenue will be paid back. Ending at 35/115 made sense, but would have been better ending at the actual 35/115 interchange rather than it's current junction a bit south.
-The 418 is never really a highway I've supported. Traffic bad in Oshawa? Ride the 35/115 up to the 407 and go from there. 418 wouldn't save you too much time compared to this. But alas since it's also tolled I'm ok with it existing.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Transportation planners understand very well what the issues are. Blame the politicians.

This happened while the eastbound span was still being constructed. It was a unique situation. Why the engineering of the westbound span failed is a good question. But the bridge solution was meant to have redundancy.

Personally, I think a much simpler design for both new spans would have been adequate. It was adequate before. But someone with "legacy" in mind wanted more.

In the end things got fixed. Doesn't mean the provincial government shouldn't plan for some redundancy. But it won't be perfect. Best value is probably a "service road" upriver that crosses a modest bridge which can handle heavy trucks.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2957484/d...ridge-failure/

" The bearing design did not comply with the requirements of the contract, the reports said. And the shoe plate, the bolted connection between shoe plate and girder, the bolted connection between shoe plate and bearing, and the bearing design all failed to meet the requirements of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code."

Construction of the bridge was finished, but done wrong.