Highways in Canada

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

So another major accident has closed a major highway in Ontario for an extended period.



While the southbound direction now has one lane open, they don't expect he northbound direction will be open until around 10pm.

This section of highway has an AADT of 94,500 as of 2010. While we can't know if a tall-wall barrier would have prevented the cube van from being pushed into the on-coming lanes, the guardrail that was there was certainly not up to the task. It's frankly astonishing that such a busy section of highway is not built to better standards.

Another example of why relying so heavily on roads to get people around in our climate is so stupid. If we had fast and frequent rail service between cities of southern Ontario these huge pileups would be less frequent and disruptive. The GO line to Barrie is a start but it still has very limited and slow service.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

yup, now if they can get rid of the canal road at grade intersection.

It's not really an at grade intersection - you can only go one direction and you don't cross any highway lanes. It's definitely substandard though.

[Innsertnamehere]

Its absolutely an at grade intersection. RIRO sure, but at grade.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Its absolutely an at grade intersection. RIRO sure, but at grade.

Yes I know what it looks like. What I mean is that there's no at grade highway crossing. The interchange may not have ramps and needs to be updated, but Canal Road itself is completely grade separated. To me an at grade intersection is something like this.

[sa230e]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Its absolutely an at grade intersection. RIRO sure, but at grade.

It's not even a RIRO. A RIRO at least has a traffic island separating the acceleration and deceleration lane. Here there's nothing. Hard to believe that in 2014 such a thing still exists on an important 400 series freeway.

[sonysnob]

I think that the Canal Road interchange is supposed to be permanently closed when the 5th Line BWG interchange is completed in a couple or years. I couldn't find a recent news article on google though to back that up.

[eemy]

I don't see why they couldn't close it right this second. It doesn't seem like it is that much further to just use the Hwy 9 interchange (an extra 5km from what I can tell).

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I don't see why they couldn't close it right this second. It doesn't seem like it is that much further to just use the Hwy 9 interchange (an extra 5km from what I can tell).

Following an incident a number of years ago where a vehicle plunged into the canal killing all of its occupants, the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury made a formal request to the MTO for the advanced closure of the Canal Road interchange. In partnership with the county, and the town, the MTO held a public information centre to seek public input regarding the advanced closure. The overwhelming majority of comments received (>95%) were not in favour of the advanced closure of the interchange.

http://www.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/media/media/...Report%20-%20Final%20-%20Sept%202006.pdf

http://www.townofbwg.com/Shared%20Docume...struction/400%20and%205th%20-%20PIC2.pdf

[Dado]

Originally Posted by sa230e

It's not even a RIRO. A RIRO at least has a traffic island separating the acceleration and deceleration lane. Here there's nothing. Hard to believe that in 2014 such a thing still exists on an important 400 series freeway.

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Following an incident a number of years ago where a vehicle plunged into the canal killing all of its occupants, the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury made a formal request to the MTO for the advanced closure of the Canal Road interchange. In partnership with the county, and the town, the MTO held a public information centre to seek public input regarding the advanced closure. The overwhelming majority of comments received (>95%) were not in favour of the advanced closure of the interchange.

http://www.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/media/media/...Report%20-%20Final%20-%20Sept%202006.pdf

http://www.townofbwg.com/Shared%20Docume...struction/400%20and%205th%20-%20PIC2.pdf

Did the interchange actually have anything to do with the car plunging into the canal incident? Or have some officials just decided to link two things together that are unrelated other than by dint of proximity? My understanding of what has happened in Holland Marsh over the years is that cars have frequently gone into the canal while driving along the canal roads themselves. That's been one of the motivating factors behind much of the canal relocation work that has taken place and is taking place.

The interchange looks strange, but has it actually been linked to any incidents? If an exiting vehicle doesn't slow down enough to make the turn then they can always go on past since the lane continues on without interruption. It can't be any worse than the full cloverleaf still in place at Cty Rd 88 just to the north, which has weave lanes. At least as problematic is the fact that there is absolutely no warning signage or onroad markings advising anyone exiting at Canal Rd that they have to SLOW DOWN.

[sonysnob]

There was a really high profile drowning of a mother and son in 2006, which those PIC's seem to be in reaction too, however I think your point is correct.

http://www.canada.com/cityguides/toronto/story.html?id=02ddfdfe-5f39-43bd-aef2-244d7bb38b8d

The cloverleaf at Hwy 88 was converted to a diamond a couple of years ago, so it too has also been fixed. The old loop ramps on the east side of the interchange were extremely tight.

[Dado]

Guess I should have looked at the Streetview imagery as well as the overhead imagery... when Streetview went along Cty Rd 88 in Sept 2011 the conversion work was still underway but when they went over some of the interchange ramps in Aug 2012 the work was complete.

[eemy]

It seems to me that the issue they were trying to tackle at the PIC was the use of Canal Rd. by commuters from Bradford; closing the Canal Rd. exit would make it far less attractive for that purpose.

Scanning through the comments, it seemed like the MTO wasn't planning on building an interchange at Concession 5 as they deemed the Cty Rd 88 interchange sufficient for the volume of traffic. With that in mind, as long as they are going to make >95% of the people unhappy at some point in the future anyway (presumably because they are using Canal Rd. for part of their commute), why not just get it over with and make >95% of them unhappy now?

[waterloowarrior]

This area will be totally transformed in the future

There is supposed to be a 400-404 Link just north of Bradford
http://www.downloads.ene.gov.on.ca/files/eaab/hwy400-404_bradford_NoC.pdf

It was put on hold by the government along with the 404 extension but York and Simcoe have been trying to get it back on the table. I'm sure it will be with the development moving forward.

the interchanges at Innisfil Beach Road, 88 and Line 5 will all be surrounded by industrial and office parks

https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=210&Itemid=15


here is the area near Bradford

http://www.geraniumcorporation.com/bradford-commercial.php



here are the plans to widen 400 from Innisfil to Hwy 11 to 8-10 lanes
http://www.barrie.ca/assets/engineering/dec2010/T05-HI-200404Hwy400MTODesignStudy.pdf

a large scale transportation study of Simcoe is also currently underway
http://www.simcoetransportationstrategy.ca/

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

It seems to me that the issue they were trying to tackle at the PIC was the use of Canal Rd. by commuters from Bradford; closing the Canal Rd. exit would make it far less attractive for that purpose.

Scanning through the comments, it seemed like the MTO wasn't planning on building an interchange at Concession 5 as they deemed the Cty Rd 88 interchange sufficient for the volume of traffic. With that in mind, as long as they are going to make >95% of the people unhappy at some point in the future anyway (presumably because they are using Canal Rd. for part of their commute), why not just get it over with and make >95% of them unhappy now?

The PIC made continual reference to the "advanced closure" of the Canal Road interchange. While I didn't notice a specific reference to an interchange at Concession 5, there obviously had to have been some sort of long term plan to close the Canal Road interchange even back in 2006.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

The PIC made continual reference to the "advanced closure" of the Canal Road interchange. While I didn't notice a specific reference to an interchange at Concession 5, there obviously had to have been some sort of long term plan to close the Canal Road interchange even back in 2006.

Well that's where it gets really strange.

Take a read on p. 10 (PDF 13) of the first document you posted, the one from 2006:

"-Build interchange at 5th Line"
Response:
"MTO – The 5th Line interchange is not included in the Ministry’s future plans for Hwy. 400. At this time it was found that a second interchange in the Bradford area is not required. A future need for an interchange would be a Town or County initiative to serve new development."

http://www.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/media/media/...Report%20-%20Final%20-%20Sept%202006.pdf

[Innsertnamehere]

All the 404 and bradford bypass will do is promote sprawl, which is the exact thing the province is trying to prevent. I don't see it happening.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

All the 404 and bradford bypass will do is promote sprawl, which is the exact thing the province is trying to prevent. I don't see it happening.

Judging by the development plans along the 400 through Bradford, it doesn't look like not building the Bradford By-pass is really quenching development.

[middeljohn]

The intersection itself is not at grade, those are just the ramps. Really really shitty ramps though that I can't believe are still on a 400 series highway.

[milomilo]

I find it fairly astonishing that one of the wealthiest countries in the world has such completely, obviously substandard intersections on major highways. All along the TCH east of Calgary there are numerous similar at grade crossings for every minor highway. It's dangerous and I'm surprised there aren't more accidents.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I find it fairly astonishing that one of the wealthiest countries in the world has such completely, obviously substandard intersections on major highways. All along the TCH east of Calgary there are numerous similar at grade crossings for every minor highway. It's dangerous and I'm surprised there aren't more accidents.

Once the carriageways are separated by enough space that a vehicle can cross each carriageway separately, a lot of the risk involved in an at-grade intersection is removed since drivers only have to consider traffic coming from one direction at a time. Moreover, by only needing to consider one direction at a time, there's going to be a much higher number of crossing opportunities, leading to less impatience and risk-taking. That's probably why it's so "surprising" that there aren't more accidents.

The risks associated with turning movements can be reduced by adding deceleration/acceleration lanes.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by CanadianCentaur

Last Christmas, my relatives and I took the Coq, then Hwy 97C to Kelowna and went north from there to Silver Star. We used my brother's 2005 Honda CRV SUV to get there - it does well, esp. with all-season tires in bad winter weather. The weather was quite wet in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, but this quickly turned to heavy wet snow by the time we went past Hope. The snow stopped as we got closer to Merritt (it was snow-free there, actually), but Hwy 97C was treacherously icy, and we couldn't go any faster than 60-70 km/h. In fact, my sister in law counted at least 9 vehicles in the ditches. That's right, 9. And quite a few had been flipped over on the side.

The rest of the way from Westbank to Vernon was way better, except for whiteout conditions near the ski resort. The return trip was also far better, with next to no ice on the Hwy 97C connector and no rain/snow all the way back to Vancouver.

Glad you made it fine, but if I was going to do that drive often in the winter, I'd want no less than some hardcore studded winter tires.

As far as I know, most of the mountain highways in BC have signs requiring tires with the snowflake symbol on them in the winter months. So technically doing the drive in all-seasons was probably illegal, and if you were in an accident, I would assume you'd be at fault purely for having the wrong tires.

edit: apparently carrying chains is acceptable too, but those are pretty well useless in anything but very deep snow.
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/popular-topics/faq.htm#winter_tires