Highways in Canada

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by dmuzika

IMO, BC missed the boat by not designating the Coquihalla Hwy as TCH 1 (and subsiquently renumbering TCH 1 between Hope & Kamloops) when it was opened in the mid 1980s. Despite the change in highway numbering between West Vancouver and Kamloops, the freeway is a continous roadway where TCH 1 leaves the freeway at Hope (Exit 170) and Kamloops (Exit 362).

I agree the Coquihalla should be numbered as Highway 1 (TCH) the whole way through. The existing TCH through the Fraser Canyon could be numbered as Highway 7 as far as Cache Creek, where the east-west section to Kamloops becomes Highway 97 (only). Highway 5A through the southern interior could be renumbered as simply Highway 5.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

That is still probably generous, due to obstructionism by First Nations leaders...

Indeed, I can't see construction being complete by 2021 either. Following the current model, it has taken about 4 years of construction per 15 km of highway. Excluding the work that is going to start this September, there is ~60km left to twin between Nobel and Cranberry.

To make a completion date of 2021, 30km of new construction would have to be commenced by the end of 2016, with another 30km of construction to commence before the end of 2017. For several years, there would then need to be a continuous construction zone of nearly 75km. Seems unlikely to me.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Indeed, I can't see construction being complete by 2021 either. Following the current model, it has taken about 4 years of construction per 15 km of highway. Excluding the work that is going to start this September, there is ~60km left to twin between Nobel and Cranberry.

To make a completion date of 2021, 30km of new construction would have to be commenced by the end of 2016, with another 30km of construction to commence before the end of 2017. For several years, there would then need to be a continuous construction zone of nearly 75km. Seems unlikely to me.

For a while it looked like such a timeframe was reachable, but they are stuck now.

[1overcosc]

How badly needed is the remaining work on the 400 extension? From what I've heard, most of what used to be the more problematic sections have already been twinned, so the route now is already much better than it was 10 years ago.

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I agree the Coquihalla should be numbered as Highway 1 (TCH) the whole way through. The existing TCH through the Fraser Canyon could be numbered as Highway 7 as far as Cache Creek, where the east-west section to Kamloops becomes Highway 97 (only). Highway 5A through the southern interior could be renumbered as simply Highway 5.

I agree, the southwestern BC interior needs to have an overhaul on its highway numbering, here’s a few ideas I would propose:

1. Conservative Renumbering

Realign TCH 1 to the Coquihalla and get rid of 97C & 97D.

TCH 1 – follows the Coquihalla Highway between Kamloops & Hope
TCH 1A – current TCH 1 between Kamloops and Hope through the Fraser Canyon
BC 1B – BC 5A between Kamloops and Meritt
BC 5 (Yellowhead) – ends at Kamloops, as it is a National Highway north of Kamloops and Hwy 5A (former Hwy 5 pre-Coquihalla Hwy) is a local highway south of Kamloops.
BC 8 – current alignment, plus follows BC 97C between Meritt and Kelowna
BC 25 – BC 5A and BC 97C between Princeton, Meritt, and Cache Creek
BC 25A – BC 97D through Logan Lake

2. More In-depth Renumbering

I would break up Hwy 97 through BC so Hwy 97 goes through the Okanagan while Hwy 7 runs from Vancouver to northern BC.

Same as above; plus

TCH 1A – optional, or simply signed as a "Historical Trans-Canada Highway"
BC 1B – as above, but only used it TCH 1A is utilized, otherwise signed as BC 1A
BC 2 – BC 97 (Alaska Hwy) between Dawson Creek and the Yukon
BC 6 – BC 97 between Vernon and Kamloops; or Cache Creek if TCH 1A is not used
BC 7 – TCH 1 and BC 97 between Hope and Dawson Creek, the main north-south highway in BC now originates in Vancouver and goes through Prince George (optional cosign with TCH 1A between Hope & Cache Creek)
BC 97 - current alignment through Okanagan, BC 97A & 97B between Vernon and Salmon Arm

3. Renumber Everything!

The BC government is upgrading BC 97 between Cache Creek and Prince George to 4 lanes. This would only make sense if they did major upgrades on BC 99 between Whistler and Cache Creek to form a divided highway between Vancouver and Prince George.

Same as above; plus
BC 5 – BC 99 between the US border and Cache Creek (continuous numbering with I-5)
BC 7 – TCH 1 and BC 5 between Cache Creek and TCH 16 (could assume the Yellowhead designation)
BC 5A – BC 97 between Cache Creek and the current BC 97/99 Jct.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

How badly needed is the remaining work on the 400 extension? From what I've heard, most of what used to be the more problematic sections have already been twinned, so the route now is already much better than it was 10 years ago.

North of Britt and around Pointe au Baril, there is no alternate route, so those sections really need it ASAP. From Nobel to Britt (excluding Pointe au Baril area), they do have a lower-quality alternate route available (Shebeshekong Road and Highway 529) so they don't need it quite as badly.

AADT in the section from Nobel to Britt is about 8,000, which isn't extremely high, but the lack of alternate routes is an issue. The sections under construction now (near the French River) are actually the least busiest parts (AADT about 6,000), but they don't have the First Nations issues to contend with.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by vid

What Northern Ontario needs isn't a full divided, controlled access highway. We simply need a safer one. The common perception is that that's a four-lane, divided highway with only interchanges.

Simply adding a median, eliminating poorly designed intersections and upgrading the busier intersections with interchanges would be enough. Some lights in key spots, some wildlife bridges, and a few more rest stations (since it's a long trip between some towns) and that would go a long way toward improving highway safety up here.

...and a consistent minimum of a few of feet of paved shoulder. There are way too many trucks carrying wide loads like factory-built houses or mining equipment and there's not that much wiggle room. Also, any fool like me who decides to do a self-powered cross-Canada journey whether by bicycle, wheelchair, rollerblades or whatever has no choice but to use the only road available.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

How badly needed is the remaining work on the 400 extension? From what I've heard, most of what used to be the more problematic sections have already been twinned, so the route now is already much better than it was 10 years ago.

The busiest portions of Hwy 69 have definitely already been upgraded. One of the things that is driving the Hwy 69 twinning is the condition of the existing highway. While much of Hwy 69 has been resurfaced in recent years, it is quickly deteriorating because of the age and deteriorated condition of the road bed. Virtually all of Hwy 69 is in need of full depth reconstruction, and highway twinning provides an avenue to complete the reconstruction.

Hwy 69's alignment is also fairly dated, and would not be up to modern standards given its important classification. While the horizontal alignment isn't bad, the vertical alignment is pretty disjointed. Much of Hwy 69 still retains its original 1950s design. Contrast this to say Hwy 17 between Arnprior and Renfrew. Between Arnprior and Renfrew, Hwy 17 was built as a staged freeway with freeway geometry. Despite both being two lane highways, Hwy 17 has a much higher capacity than Hwy 69 does.

[Innsertnamehere]

It really depends on funding, and given the delays with the native reserve, MTO may have the money to just issue both contracts in quick succession. The Native reserve negotiations have been occurring for a while now as well, I'm sure they will reach a conclusion soon.

[toaster]

Originally Posted by Mister F

A safe alternative to flying used to exist but we abandoned it - the rail lines. We're now putting billions into a less safe alternative when maintaining and upgrading the existing infrastructure would have been cheaper. Odd priorities we have.

Internationally, it's quite rare for a city of 160,000, being 380 km from the closest major city (or 290 km to a comparable city like Barrie), to have a freeway built to it.


For a little perspective, a comparable divided highway doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Northern Ontario isn't being shortchanged, it's getting multiple times more highway spending per capita than the south.

This is what is wrong with Southern Ontario thinking. "Well look, they get more funding per person than me here in Toronto." Northerners should be given similar per-capita spending to comparable, vast, and less populated areas. A better comparison would be to compare spending on Northern Ontario highway transportation to that of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

[Mister F]

^What's wrong with thinking like that exactly? Just putting things into perspective. Obviously spending is going to be higher per capita in remote areas. But how much higher should it be? Twinning highways is much cheaper in Manitoba and Saskatchewan by the way.

Maybe a better question is why the insistence on the same kind of roadways as in the south? Why not something simpler that would offer most of the same benefits? There are cheaper alternatives to the type of mega-highways we build in Ontario.

Originally Posted by vid

What Northern Ontario needs isn't a full divided, controlled access highway. We simply need a safer one. The common perception is that that's a four-lane, divided highway with only interchanges.

Simply adding a median, eliminating poorly designed intersections and upgrading the busier intersections with interchanges would be enough. Some lights in key spots, some wildlife bridges, and a few more rest stations (since it's a long trip between some towns) and that would go a long way toward improving highway safety up here.

Rail would be nice but only CP Rail connects Thunder Bay to the east now and they refuse to allow passenger service on their lines, so that's not an option to connect us to Ontario anymore. The CN line that connects us to Winnipeg goes through the US so passenger travel won't be easy. The only reason trains come here anymore is to export grain and import oil.

Scandinavia has been doing 2+1 highways for a long time. A model like that on the Trans-Canada in Northern Ontario would allow for more kilometres of highway to be upgraded for less money in a shorter time. I don't know why so few are built in Canada, it's a model that works really well.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I would argue our cross-country rail priorities are in the right place.

We have decided that our long-distance, inter-continental rail traffic will be directed to massive freight trains rather than passenger service. It makes a lot more sense environmentally, economically and from a safety perspective to remove 1,000 container trucks from the road than 1,000 cars.

It's difficult to optimize the rail network to serve both freight and passenger needs. In China, one of the purposes of building a huge HSR network was to add a parallel passenger network and relegate the old network for freight. But in so many different ways, we are not China!

There's only a handful of places - almost all of them in Ontario and Quebec - where I think that prioritizing freight over passenger rail was a mistake.

Prioritizing freight on existing rail lines doesn't mean that passenger transportation has to be entirely road based. Put it this way: we're spending $2 billion on the 400 between Parry Sound and Sudbury. For the same price we could build a whole new rail line (conventional, not high speed). Or we could twin one of the existing freight lines, which would probably be cheaper because of how much narrower a railway is compared to a freeway.

Based on quite a few posts on this thread, the primary justification for twinning highways to cities like Sudbury or Chicoutimi or Fort Mac is for safety. But if safety is so important, it seems odd to simply expand such an inherently unsafe infrastructure type. Even the safest road is far more dangerous than flying or taking the train.

Cities similar to the above worldwide are usually served by passenger rail, rarely expressways.

[SignalHillHiker]

2+1 works well. We have a welfare version of that on much of the TCH (it's only divided in the vicinity of large communities):



There are some disadvantages, though. People tailgate much too closely waiting for the next passing lane, and in some parts of the province (Terra Nova National Park, for example), they could be waiting for a long time.

Even slower-moving vehicles try to pass large trucks (which can't do much better than 40-50 km/hr up the hills), so they often block the passing lane for its entire length just chugging along a bit faster than what they're passing.

The centre passing lane is the one that has to yield when it ends so faster-moving traffic has to brake sharply if the end comes around a corner.

The centre passing lane is often a suicide lane with broken-yellow-line access for opposing traffic to use if the coast is clear. That's terrifying at the best of times, especially with the general flow of traffic upward of 120 km/hr, and the number of people who thoughtlessly confuse it with a broken white line and just pull out without checking is insignificant overall but enough that we've all experienced it.

It's more convenient than being stuck behind something for hours on end, though.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

It really depends on funding, and given the delays with the native reserve, MTO may have the money to just issue both contracts in quick succession. The Native reserve negotiations have been occurring for a while now as well, I'm sure they will reach a conclusion soon.

I don't think funding is the issue.

Along Hwy 69, within construction zones, the weekday speed limit is typically reduced to 70km/h, passing lanes are often permanently closed, and traffic is forced to stop for alternating flows and for blasting. Imagine driving for an hour under these conditions. It would be pretty frustrating, and could be a recipe for an increase in the number (and potentially the severity) of collisions.

Also, as of right now, there are two general contractors doing work on Hwy 69 with a finite amount of staff and equipment to do build the road. Certainly, other contractors are available to build roads, but probably aren't local, and may not have the technical knowledge to build highways through solid rock. Building a highway through the shield where there is no topsoil is a very different exercise to grading a highway through topsoil.

[Marty_Mcfly]

I agree, Sig. The 2+1 style highway between Whitborne and Goobies (plus I guess almost the rest of the province) is awful. It's my least favorite part of the drive back home (and that includes the long, lonely, Route 210). I only pass if it's absolutely necessary, or if I know that the passing lane doesn't end for a few kms. By the time you speed up enough in the other lane to overtake, since for some reason half the traffic loves to speed up when the passing lane starts, it's usually time to merge back in to traffic without actually having overtaken the traffic.

[eemy]

Slow people speeding up in passing lanes is yet another one of my driving pet peeves. I don't know if it's a self-righteous view that they're going an appropriate speed and therefore no one should be passing them, or if they're just oblivious and speed up because there's more room on the road, but either way it's infuriating and shows a complete disregard of what other drivers are doing on the road.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

I agree, Sig. The 2+1 style highway between Whitborne and Goobies (plus I guess almost the rest of the province) is awful. It's my least favorite part of the drive back home (and that includes the long, lonely, Route 210). I only pass if it's absolutely necessary, or if I know that the passing lane doesn't end for a few kms. By the time you speed up enough in the other lane to overtake, since for some reason half the traffic loves to speed up when the passing lane starts, it's usually time to merge back in to traffic without actually having overtaken the traffic.

Loving the name "Goobies"!

[manny_santos]

Some two-lane highways in Ontario have 2+1 sections, though without any barrier as the middle lane is sometimes used for passing in either direction. Highway 15 between Kingston and Carleton Place has a few of these, though I'd say more of these passing lanes are needed, especially southbound.

[Innsertnamehere]

Most ontario highways have passing lanes. They are not however 2+1s, which are highways with a median in the middle and a constant passing lane, alternating directions.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Most ontario highways have passing lanes. They are not however 2+1s, which are highways with a median in the middle and a constant passing lane, alternating directions.

Passing lanes are almost nonexistent in Western Ontario. I can think of one near Lucan.

[SignalHillHiker]

That's what we have too... BUT the page describing those highways that was linked gives examples of the Irish signs indicating the passing lanes end entirely. So it could still count.

And, really, lots of areas are 3-lanes wide. Far more than just passing lanes. But there's lots of two-lane stretches too.

Just going by memory, though, I think the actual amount of three-lane wide highway is significantly greater than the amount of two-lane wide highway. Terra Nova National Park is really the only big stretch that comes to mind that's only two lanes. And there's a very long, straight, flat portion that's two lanes somewhere in the middle of the island.

But, whatever. It's still not here what you mean.