Highways in Canada - Page 127

sonysnob · #**2521** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 1:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by middeljohn

Lots of construction going through Sherwood Park to finish off the Henday. I'll get some pics soon!

Awesome. I'd love to see some pictures of some of the construction around Edmonton.

srperrycgy · #**2522** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 2:36 PM**

AB 201 Stoney Trail (Calgary Ring Road):

• Video Link

It was a beautiful Sunday afternoon and I decided to take the new camcorder for a spin.

feepa · #**2523** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 3:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Awesome. I'd love to see some pictures of some of the construction around Edmonton.

There's quite an extensive photo gallery of the Anthony Henday Drive Final section here: http://www.northeastanthonyhenday.com/gallery/main.php

If you want to see more construction photos in Edmonton, check out the Edmonton construction thread http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=648

harls · #**2524** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 4:53 PM**

Ottawa has an impressive freeway, but no stacks like Edmonton or Calgary. The major intersections (174 and 417, 417 and 416) are not really huge by any means. If the 416 was ever extended to Quebec, maybe there would be more crazy fly-over roads.. but I can't see that happening.

SignalHillHiker · #**2525** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 6:20 PM**

Karwood Drive in the suburban town of Paradise is getting a major upgrade next summer. Due to traffic volumes, it will be widened to four lanes and its major intersections will be replaced with roundabouts.

Acajack · #**2526** Posted **Apr 29, 2014, 3:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harls

Ottawa has an impressive freeway, but no stacks like Edmonton or Calgary. The major intersections (174 and 417, 417 and 416) are not really huge by any means. If the 416 was ever extended to Quebec, maybe there would be more crazy fly-over roads.. but I can't see that happening.

One of my uncles, who is a bit of a roadgeek, says this is the most impressive interchange set-up (size-wise anyway) in Canada's capital region:

http://goo.gl/maps/8zz5X

The first time he came here he said: "Geez murphy! Gatineau looks bigger than Ottawa when you arrive in it on the highway!"

MolsonExport · #**2527** Posted **Apr 29, 2014, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harls

If the 416 was ever extended to Quebec, maybe there would be more crazy fly-over roads.. but I can't see that happening.

Maybe, maybe not. After all, consider the 850,000 people of Ottawa wanting to drive to Quebec in order to avoid having to patronize the wretched "Beer Store". I fucking hate the Beer Store.

1overcosc · #**2528** Posted **Apr 29, 2014, 11:44 PM**

Ontario in general is not a fan of fancy interchanges. We prefer to cheap out and put a shitload of raised earth everywhere instead.

Even the GTA with all its megahighways doesn't really have a lot of impressive interchanges (although obviously there's some).

1overcosc · #**2529** Posted **Apr 29, 2014, 11:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Maybe, maybe not. After all, consider the 850,000 people of Ottawa wanting to drive to Quebec in order to avoid having to patronize the wretched "Beer Store". I fucking hate the Beer Store.

There's a saying that Ottawans only ever go to Gatineau for sex, suds, ski, and sands. Corny as it sounds, there's some truth to it. There's a large disconnect, culturally, socially, economically, and politically, between the two cities in the capital region.

Innsertnamehere · #**2530** Posted **Apr 29, 2014, 11:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Ontario in general is not a fan of fancy interchanges. We prefer to cheap out and put a shitload of raised earth everywhere instead.

Even the GTA with all its megahighways doesn't really have a lot of impressive interchanges (although obviously there's some).

the 407 would like to say otherwise. Most of Toronto's "free" interchanges are older, and therefor not as impressive. the 400 / 407 interchange is a 4 level stack, if that isn't impressive I don't know what is.

1overcosc · #**2531** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 12:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

the 407 would like to say otherwise. Most of Toronto's "free" interchanges are older, and therefor not as impressive. the 400 / 407 interchange is a 4 level stack, if that isn't impressive I don't know what is.

It's extremely impressive, don't get me wrong. What I meant was that fancy interchanges (ie. stacks/flyovers) are less common in the GTA than its massive freeway network would lead most to believe. I think it's a good thing. As much as fanboys love seeing multi-level stack flyovers, they're expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and once it comes time to replace them the costs are huge. Raised earth is much more economical and much more practical, even if it doesn't look as sexy.

sa230e · #**2532** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 12:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

the 407 would like to say otherwise. Most of Toronto's "free" interchanges are older, and therefor not as impressive. the 400 / 407 interchange is a 4 level stack, if that isn't impressive I don't know what is.

Yeah but it's probably the least impressive a four level diamond stack can possibly be. You don't get that soaring feeling because the ramps are raised on earth and it doesn't have that towering feeling because the bottom level is below grade.

1overcosc has a point. MTO likes to build functional, utilitarian freeway to freeway interchages wherever possible. They seem to prefer using more land over adding more height which makes for interchanges that look more interesting from the air than from the ground.

And to be fair there are probably good reasons for that:

They seem to value driveability. I find American flyover ramps are generally steeper and tighter than Ontario ramps. MTO seems to like make freeway driving comfortable (soft curves, generously long accel and decel lanes, etc...)
I imagine raised earth ramps cost less to maintain than flyover ramps that sit on piers. MTO seems to like to minimize these to only cases where they're needed (i.e. grade crossings)
The MTO seems to build major long-distance freeways bypassing cities. Major interstates were generally built right through them. Copious ROW is a luxury you don't have when building on expropriated land.

I think it's a good strategy for everybody involved except roadgeeks.

ScreamingViking · #**2533** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 1:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Moncton to St. John's.

• Video Link

Thank you - this was beautiful. I recognized parts of it from driving in Nova Scotia (though it was summer at the time), but the Newfoundland portion was great to see. I love that terrain.

milomilo · #**2534** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 1:49 AM**

Using earth rather than concrete ramps isn't in any way cheaping out - that would imply that the end result is worse, which it isn't. It also doesn't affect what type of intersection something is, a stack is a stack.

The economies of scale of mass building freeways in places like Houston might even have meant it was cheaper to throw up prefab pieces than bring in thousands of truck loads of earth.

middeljohn · #**2535** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 3:05 AM**

Went to Calgary last night and left this morning. Downtown is so oversized for its population it's awesome! Calgary has a much bigger freeway network than I realized. I was on the Deerfoot at rush hour (8:30 am) and itwas pretty smooth flowing except for the two offramps that go downtown.

haljackey · #**2536** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 1:03 PM**

If you're comparing the towering concrete stacks of the US to the raised-earth interchanges in Canada, consider the feasibility as well.

The US has a lot more experienced contractors as they have a lot more people/highways. This competition for contracts means costs are lower, and the quality and practicality would be generally higher.

Also, the US is a lot more car-centric and the US and Interstate highway systems are federally funded (or at least partially). This means more funding can be dedicated to a few large projects while still having enough in the kitty to cover general maintenance.

In Canada, road maintenance gobbles up a large chunk of the budget so there isn't as much left for expansion and there are less contractors. Thus, projects are scaled-back (at least compared to the US) and we look for ways to save money, especially for future maintenance. Using the earth to our advantage works well, and since this is a vast country we don't really need to worry much about size limitations and whatnot (there are exceptions).
-Using earth also lets us dump snow over the edge, whereas it will fall below to other levels of traffic with flyovers. Deicing ramps could be used, but they are crazy expensive and a last resort.

I for one like the way Canada builds interchanges, with the exception of behemoth messes like the Turcot Interchange in Montreal. We use the terrain to our advantage and look for ways to reduce maintenance, which is good for motorists too because construction times are reduced.

niwell · #**2537** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 1:40 PM**

I'd hazard a guess that even with everything else being equal, the maintenance of elevated structures in a place like Houston would be significantly less than in Toronto or Montreal. Winter and road salt aren't kind to highways.

sonysnob · #**2538** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 2:43 PM**

There are a number of reasons why we don't built Texas-esque style interchanges in Canada.

As others have mentioned, the largest reason is probably winter maintenance. Structures require a lot more preventive maintenance in northern climates than they do southern. Not only does this maintenance carry significant monetary costs, but it also has significant traffic impacts. Look at the delays that have been caused just from the single lane closure of the ramp from the eastbound 401 to the northbound 427.

For Houston in particular, Houston is quite flat, so it is impractical to bring large quantities of earth in for fill, as there is simply not a lot of land that they can borrow from. Trucking earth is an expensive proposition. You can see this in Ontario as well, the grade separations along the 417 between Ottawa and Cassleman tend to be elongated in order to minimize the amount of fill that was brought in for the bridge approaches.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.349373,-7...3m4!1e1!3m2!1sW8v81HYu8mTr88jxMMsg3w!2e0

The final reason is drivability. In places where the ground doesn't freeze you can build sharper curves with greater super-elevation than you can anywhere in Canada. In Texas, for example, curves can be super-elevated upwards of 8%, where as here we generally limit ourselves to using less than 6. Furthermore there is also the reality, that bridge decks will freeze before other sections of road, which is further incentive not to build long bridges with sharp curves.

One thing that should be noted, is that despite their massive appearance, interchanges in Texas often have a much smaller footprint than their Canadian counterparts:

High 5 interchange in Dallas:

400 and 407, same scale:

Boris2k7 · #**2539** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by middeljohn

Went to Calgary last night and left this morning. Downtown is so oversized for its population it's awesome! Calgary has a much bigger freeway network than I realized. I was on the Deerfoot at rush hour (8:30 am) and itwas pretty smooth flowing except for the two offramps that go downtown.

Aha, and already with "the Deerfoot!" You, sir, are one of us now.

middeljohn · #**2540** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Aha, and already with "the Deerfoot!" You, sir, are one of us now.

That's how it works though isn't it? Same as "the 401" or "the Red Hill" as opposed to "highway 401" and "Red Hill Valley Parkway". Only one that sounds weird to me is when people say "get on the Whitemud". To me it sounds a lot better to drop "the" and say "get on Whitemud".