Highways in Canada

[oiler-dude]

Drove Highway 16 from Edmonton --> Prince George again recently (do this many times a summer).

Lots of work has gone on in the last few years. Obviously twinned from Edmonton to Hinton, after which it's standard 2-lane highway.

They've added a lot of passing lanes, and have re-done large parts of the highway between the Tete-Jaune junction and Prince George. Never stressful driving there.

Wish they could do more about the sections from Hinton to to the junction though. You barely see a passing lane (due to geography mostly), which leads to some pretty unsafe passing practices by a lot of people who need to get somewhere 5 minutes quicker. Found myself stuck in a line of about 9 big-rigs who can't do much more than 70 through a lot of that. Patience is key.

Beautiful drive though.

[Chadillaccc]

I feel as if over the last couple years, the discussion about replacing the Gardner has kindof disappeared... is there any movement on what will eventually be done?

[toaster]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Drove along the 417 and A-30 Monday. The A-30 was actually surprisingly busy for a Monday at 9:30pm. Very smooth highway, the mini-tunnel was kind of neat.

417 widening to Kanata is well underway, grading is mostly complete, and some paving has started. I think it is adding an HOV lane, as well as a regular lane.

Also, does anyone know the status of the 417 extension? Is it funded?

Virtually no work has been done this summer on extending the 417 past Arnprior. Not sure what is going on, I think the long term plan is to go to North Bay, but that might have changed.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I feel as if over the last couple years, the discussion about replacing the Gardner has kindof disappeared... is there any movement on what will eventually be done?

They are sinking $500 million to rehabilitate it over the next decade, the harbour street Eastbound exit is being reconstructed to exit onto simcoe street, and the EA for possibly tearing down the portion east of Jarvis.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

In Hamilton the city is doing several pilot test with permeable paving. Think Ontario will ever use permeable paving on the highways?

It's paving that allows movement of stormwater through the surface.

Doubt it, it holds up extremely poor in freeze-thaw conditions. Water gets frozen in the paving and expands, causing cracks galore.

BC has a highway, the new SFPR with the quiet paving. Already a year in, and some wear spots showing up.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Drove along the 417 and A-30 Monday. The A-30 was actually surprisingly busy for a Monday at 9:30pm. Very smooth highway, the mini-tunnel was kind of neat.

417 widening to Kanata is well underway, grading is mostly complete, and some paving has started. I think it is adding an HOV lane, as well as a regular lane.

Also, does anyone know the status of the 417 extension? Is it funded?

No funding or desires for political reasons. It is a Liberal government in Queen's Park and Tea Party type conservatives are the dominant political group in the upper Ottawa Valley.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I feel as if over the last couple years, the discussion about replacing the Gardner has kindof disappeared... is there any movement on what will eventually be done?

When Rob Ford was voted in, he wanted to end the 'war on cars'. One of his objectives was to keep the Gardiner.

There is going to be a multi-year project starting soon to rehabilitate the elevated segment. Going to be hell for travelers and commuters but it needs to be done or torn down.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Doubt it, it holds up extremely poor in freeze-thaw conditions. Water gets frozen in the paving and expands, causing cracks galore.

BC has a highway, the new SFPR with the quiet paving. Already a year in, and some wear spots showing up.

Ontario uses a quiet pavement on some of its roads that isn't permeable. The 401 through Dorchester Swamp uses such pavement.

[sonysnob]

PIC #5 for the 407 East Extension occurred last evening. They have posted the display boards online here:

http://www.407eastphase1.ca/public-information-centre-july/

Despite ample opportunity to build cool interchanges at either the interchanges between the 407/WDL and 401/WDL, the project team has resisted. It seems there will be no more 410/401/403 style interchanges built in Ontario for the near future.

[sa230e]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

PIC #5 for the 407 East Extension occurred last evening. They have posted the display boards online here:

http://www.407eastphase1.ca/public-information-centre-july/

Despite ample opportunity to build cool interchanges at either the interchanges between the 407/WDL and 401/WDL, the project team has resisted. It seems there will be no more 410/401/403 style interchanges built in Ontario for the near future.

What could you build there that's cooler than a directional-T? There aren't really that many connections to be made. Neither the WDC or the 401 at that point are really "mega-highways" so I'm not surprised they're not building "mega-interchanges". Not sure what you had in mind.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by sa230e

What could you build there that's cooler than a directional-T? There aren't really that many connections to be made. Neither the WDC or the 401 at that point are really "mega-highways" so I'm not surprised they're not building "mega-interchanges". Not sure what you had in mind.

I was expecting at least one interesting three level interchange. The 401/WDL interchange is being designed in the same vein as the 416/417 interchange, where the opposing ramps from the 416 (in this case the WDL) cross each other well before they cross the 417 (in this case the 401). This minimizes structure length, but uses up a fair amount of land.

The WDL/407 interchange is a true three level interchange, but because the ramp from 407 West to WDL South is going to be below grade, you'll never get a sense of the interchange while driving beneath it.

[haljackey]

They look fine to me. Most toll roads use trumpet interchanges for 3-point junctions, so these are an improvement over that.

[sa230e]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

I was expecting at least one interesting three level interchange. The 401/WDL interchange is being designed in the same vein as the 416/417 interchange, where the opposing ramps from the 416 (in this case the WDL) cross each other well before they cross the 417 (in this case the 401). This minimizes structure length, but uses up a fair amount of land.

The WDL/407 interchange is a true three level interchange, but because the ramp from 407 West to WDL South is going to be below grade, you'll never get a sense of the interchange while driving beneath it.

Ah. I didn't see that from the diagrams. These designs are tentative, right?

The MTO seems to like building "out" rather than "up" when building interchanges. Seems like they do anything to avoid building flyovers unless absolutely necessary and when they do, flyovers are only used to cross roads on lower levels and the rest of the ramp is built on raised earth. I'm guessing it's for economical reasons (costs less to build and maintain) but I agree it makes the drive less interesting.

Speaking of economical constraints, I would think the cast-in-place concrete flyover ramps the MTO builds would be more expensive than the steel beam designs used in the US and some other Canadian provinces. Why exactly does the MTO like them so much? Certainly it seems more expensive to put up scaffolding two, three even four levels high, put the forms on it, construct a huge rebar mesh, and pump concrete into it than it would to just pour the piers and lift the beams onto them with a crane. Plus you would think concrete would be more vulnerable to expansion and contraction with temperature and it would also be harder to maintain. Plus steel beams don't crumble like the Turcot interchange. The only advantages I can think of is that Ontario flyovers seem to be smoother and less steep than American ones.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by sa230e

Ah. I didn't see that from the diagrams. These designs are tentative, right?

No, the designs presented are more or less final. Small details will likely change for the completion of the "for construction" drawing set. But the interchange configurations are more or less set in stone.

Originally Posted by sa230e

The MTO seems to like building "out" rather than "up" when building interchanges. Seems like they do anything to avoid building flyovers unless absolutely necessary and when they do, flyovers are only used to cross roads on lower levels and the rest of the ramp is built on raised earth. I'm guessing it's for economical reasons (costs less to build and maintain) but I agree it makes the drive less interesting.

Agreed. And there is nothing functionally wrong with what they have designed. I was just hoping for something more elaborate. The introduction of fixed automated spray technology for longer flyovers has the opportunity to make the use of high-speed flyovers more popular in northern climates.

Originally Posted by sa230e

Speaking of economical constraints, I would think the cast-in-place concrete flyover ramps the MTO builds would be more expensive than the steel beam designs used in the US and some other Canadian provinces. Why exactly does the MTO like them so much? Certainly it seems more expensive to put up scaffolding two, three even four levels high, put the forms on it, construct a huge rebar mesh, and pump concrete into it than it would to just pour the piers and lift the beams onto them with a crane. Plus you would think concrete would be more vulnerable to expansion and contraction with temperature and it would also be harder to maintain. Plus steel beams don't crumble like the Turcot interchange. The only advantages I can think of is that Ontario flyovers seem to be smoother and less steep than American ones.

This project will be somewhat of a departure by MTO, as all of the flyovers will consist of pre-cast concrete or steel beam bridges, and not of cast in place structures as we typically build. One of the reasons I think the spans will be so short is that pre-cast beams tend to require shorter spans than their cast in place counterparts.

Originally Posted by haljackey

They look fine to me. Most toll roads use trumpet interchanges for 3-point junctions, so these are an improvement over that.

Technically, as is illustrated in the following document, trupets are considered substandard for freeway to freeway connections in Ontario. So, it shouldn't be too surprising they are building directional interchanges.

http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/26291/la_id/1.htm
(see page 45-46).

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Technically, as is illustrated in the following document, trupets are considered substandard for freeway to freeway connections in Ontario. So, it shouldn't be too surprising they are building directional interchanges.

http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/26291/la_id/1.htm
(see page 45-46).

I'd say any freeway-freeway interchange with loop ramps is substandard.

Since we're talking about the 407, I think it's crazy how small the loop diameter is on some of the main 407-ETR interchanges. I recall all the 400-series ones were supposed to be stacks, but they were re-designed at the eleventh hour to save money. Hope this doesn't happen to 407 East.

[sa230e]

Originally Posted by haljackey

I'd say any freeway-freeway interchange with loop ramps is substandard.

Since we're talking about the 407, I think it's crazy how small the loop diameter is on some of the main 407-ETR interchanges. I recall all the 400-series ones were supposed to be stacks, but they were re-designed at the eleventh hour to save money. Hope this doesn't happen to 407 East.

From the PDF above and what sonysnob said they already seem to be designed to save money.

How do those loop ramps on the 407 cloverstacks stand-up? Do they handle the traffic alright? Are full directional ramps badly needed there? I don't go to Toronto much and when I do, I don't use the 407 so I don't know.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by sa230e

From the PDF above and what sonysnob said they already seem to be designed to save money.

How do those loop ramps on the 407 cloverstacks stand-up? Do they handle the traffic alright? Are full directional ramps badly needed there? I don't go to Toronto much and when I do, I don't use the 407 so I don't know.

From my experiences I'd say the loops at the 404 and 410 interchanges are alright. The loops probably have higher accident rates than a flyover would, however.

In my opinion, however, the loop ramps at the 427/407 interchange are a problem. As was stated within the document I referenced above, the loops are extremely tight, with a design speed of about 36km/h. Because the 427 currently ends at Hwy 7, neither of the loops seem to carry that much traffic. (They serve the westbound -> northbound and southbound to westbound movements). Once the 427 is extended, and particularly once the 427 is tied into GTA west freeway, traffic on the loops will grow considerably.

I am not sure the decision making process that went into building these loops. The structures that carry the 427 over the 407 are fairly narrow, and don't seem to be designed wide enough for a permanent speed change lane. The structures lack a right side shoulder, and I am not even sure if the lane width for the speed change lanes is as wide as is should be.

I do know, the structures that carry the 427 over the 407 were built well in advance of the rest of the 407, though to be honest, I am not exactly sure what the significance of pre-building these structures has to the final design of the highway.

From looking at the interchange, I am not sure if the MTO could fit a southbound -> eastbound flyover underneath the current westbound -> southbound structure should they want to replace the southbound loop ramp. Replacing the loop rams would also conflict with the Highway 7 interchange and overpass which is located a short distance to the north of the 407. Interestingly, the westbound -> southbound flyover structure was also built several years before the rest of the highway. In fact, the westbound -> southbound flyover between the 407 and 427 was finished before the southbound -> eastbound 427 to 409 flyover replaced the traffic lights on the 427.

The design and construction of the 407 is probably the most interesting events in the history of Ontario's highway network. Another interesting interchange is the 403/407 interchange in Mississauga. Some of the grading is still visible for the ramps that formerly served the Trafalgar Road connector. Also, the long westbound 403 flyover was built with an extraordinarily narrow deck for a two lane ramp. Obviously a huge problem now that it will forever carry the westbound mainline lanes of the 403. It will be damn near impossible to rehabilitate that ramp when the time comes.

... sorry if that made anybody's head explode. I could talk about the 407 all day.

[sa230e]

Fine by me. I'm a roadgeek.

Looking at the 427/407 interchange I get the impression that they were building a full stack and the decision to go with cloverstacks occurred right in the middle of construction. It looks like half a stack with two very hastily placed loop ramps. I can't imagine they would have actually designed it like that from the outset. They must not have intended there to be loops which is why the loops are so tight. I think they had to shoehorn them in there.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by sa230e

Fine by me. I'm a roadgeek.

Looking at the 427/407 interchange I get the impression that they were building a full stack and the decision to go with cloverstacks occurred right in the middle of construction. It looks like half a stack with two very hastily placed loop ramps. I can't imagine they would have actually designed it like that from the outset.

Agreed. The only thing that doesn't support this theory is that there is a structure that carries both lanes of the 427 over-top of the loop from eastbound 407-> northbound 427. In general, MTO doesn't build structures as throw-a-way infrastructure. I found a date stamp on google street view for this ramp which looks to read 1988 which is consistent with the rest of the interchange. (Keep in mind, the 407 didn't open to traffic for another 9 years after 1988).

http://goo.gl/maps/BGyAq
The image quality isn't great, but it looks like a 1998 to me.

[sa230e]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Agreed. The only thing that doesn't support this theory is that there is a structure that carries both lanes of the 427 over-top of the loop from eastbound 407-> northbound 427. In general, MTO doesn't build structures as throw-a-way infrastructure. I found a date stamp on google street view for this ramp which looks to read 1988 which is consistent with the rest of the interchange. (Keep in mind, the 407 didn't open to traffic for another 9 years after 1988).

http://goo.gl/maps/BGyAq
The image quality isn't great, but it looks like a 1998 to me.

1968. That's a 6 for sure.