Highways in Canada

[sonysnob]

Video of the recently twinned portion of Hwy 11/17 east of Thunder Bay, ON

• Video Link

[srperrycgy]

Great work on that one. Great song to accompany it too.

[ssiguy]

Nice highway, thanks for the vid.

[vid]

The mellow folk music coupled with "This is northwestern Ontario's only interchange" almost made me tear up.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Video of the recently twinned portion of Hwy 11/17 east of Thunder Bay, ON

• Video Link

nice drive and video. Well done.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Video of the recently twinned portion of Hwy 11/17 east of Thunder Bay, ON

What are average traffic volumes on that road? I get the sense that Ontario has much more realistic guidelines in terms of when highways should be twinned and extra lanes added. If that highway was in AB it never would have gotten twinned based on the number of vehicles I saw in that video. Just look at how long it took them to twin Highway 63 to Fort Mac--planning stupidity and penny pinching at it's finest.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

What are average traffic volumes on that road? I get the sense that Ontario has much more realistic guidelines in terms of when highways should be twinned and extra lanes added. If that highway was in AB it never would have gotten twinned based on the number of vehicles I saw in that video. Just look at how long it took them to twin Highway 63 to Fort Mac--planning stupidity and penny pinching at it's finest.

Ontario does tend to twin highways that don't have traffic volumes that would seem to justify it, in theory. Parts of Highways 69 and 11 come to mind.

I bring those up only because I have read previously that 10,000 AADT is a guideline for when rural highways should be widened to four lanes, and the regions those highways serve are relatively stagnant in terms of population growth (at least once you get north of Parry Sound or Huntsville). But who knows, they may spur new development, and it's not only about capacity; there is a safety advantage to having a limited access highway that has few or no at-grade intersections, as well as separate carriageways.

[Corndogger]

Totally agree about the safety issue and possibly spurring more development.

[Innsertnamehere]

I think that stretch is around 5,000 aadt. Only reason it got twinned is politics, almost all of MTOs roads in southern Ontario have AADTs in that range.

Typically if politics aren't involved MTO waits until highways are closer to 15,000 AADT before twinning them. Highway 12 in Beaverton comes to mind, it's AADT is 13-14,000 and MTO has plans to widen it, but no funding. The Morriston Bypass is replacing a 2 lane highway with an AADT approaching 30,000 from my understanding. The highway 7 twinning in Guelph and Waterloo is above 20,000 AADT. I think highway 7 to Carleton place was around 15-16,000 when they decided to twin it.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Ontario does tend to twin highways that don't have traffic volumes that would seem to justify it, in theory. Parts of Highways 69 and 11 come to mind.

I bring those up only because I have read previously that 10,000 AADT is a guideline for when rural highways should be widened to four lanes, and the regions those highways serve are relatively stagnant in terms of population growth (at least once you get north of Parry Sound or Huntsville). But who knows, they may spur new development, and it's not only about capacity; there is a safety advantage to having a limited access highway that has few or no at-grade intersections, as well as separate carriageways.

I'm still in favour of twinning the Trans-Canada in Northern Ontario, at least in places where there's no alternative route, because of safety and in the interest of national security.

If a propane truck rolls over on Hwy 12 near Beaverton, there are dozens of alternate routes drivers can take while the road is closed. And, besides, most long-distance trucks wouldn't be taking Highway 12, anyway - they'd be on the 400. Neither of those things would be the case in Northern Ontario. I heard that the temporary closure of the Nipigon River bridge in January delayed the shipment of about $100 million worth of goods.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I'm still in favour of twinning the Trans-Canada in Northern Ontario, at least in places where there's no alternative route, because of safety and in the interest of national security.

If a propane truck rolls over on Hwy 12 near Beaverton, there are dozens of alternate routes drivers can take while the road is closed. And, besides, most long-distance trucks wouldn't be taking Highway 12, anyway - they'd be on the 400. Neither of those things would be the case in Northern Ontario. I heard that the temporary closure of the Nipigon River bridge in January delayed the shipment of about $100 million worth of goods.

Agreed - the same rationale applied to Highway 63 in Alberta as well. The highways are too important from an economic and national unity perspective to be ignored.

I do also support twinning the TCH across northern Ontario, but there are definitely sections that should have highest priority. The first priority sections (i.e. to Kenora, Thunder Bay to Nipigon, around Sault Ste. Marie, Petawawa onwards) are so badly overdue actually.

One thing I do think, back to 12, is that the Trans-Canada Highway designation should be removed from 7 and 12 (the southern route) and moved to Highways 401 and 400 as the southern route. Although longer for transcontinental traffic, those routes are much closer to where people want to go, while (4)17 continues to serve as the mainline. IMO, 7 and 12 are routes of regional importance, while the 400 and 401 are routes of national (and, arguably, international) importance.

[vid]

The twinning of highway 11/17 east of Thunder Bay is something Michael Gravelle has been campaigning for since the early 1990s. Now that he is a long-serving minister in the government, it's happening.

Some parts of the stretch that will be twinned have AADTs below 3,000. The main reason people want it is safety. If it were a two lane divided highway (one lane in each direction with a wide median) I think people would be just as satisfied. They simply want each direction of traffic on its own road. I'm not really sure why that isn't done more often.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

One thing I do think, back to 12, is that the Trans-Canada Highway designation should be removed from 7 and 12 (the southern route) and moved to Highways 401 and 400 as the southern route. Although longer for transcontinental traffic, those routes are much closer to where people want to go, while (4)17 continues to serve as the mainline. IMO, 7 and 12 are routes of regional importance, while the 400 and 401 are routes of national (and, arguably, international) importance.

It's not a bad idea. I've known a few people - in Toronto - that have assumed that the Trans-Canada Highway goes through Toronto and are mystified to hear it doesn't come that far south. Toronto and Halifax are the only provincial capitals that the Trans-Canada Highway does not pass through, and I think it should go to both cities.

The routing via Highways 12 and 7 is a strange one. It does connect to Ottawa, but I'd rather see a routing that connects Toronto to Ottawa and Toronto to Northern Ontario. A couple possible routings I'd be in favour of would be either 400-401-416 to Ottawa, or 400-401-15-7 to Ottawa (both passing through Kingston).

[ssiguy]

I use to far prefer the old style road maps.

Google maps and even today's paper ones really have 2 different markings for roads...........one for freeway and one for other highways. Older maps had it divided into 3 marking.......freeways, 4 lanes non-freeway, and regular 2 lane road.

When you look at a google map there is no difference between 2 and 4 lane roads. I know there has been a lot of work done on improving the roads especially on the TCH in both Ontario thru the North and BC between Kamloops and Alberta but you can't tell it from modern maps.

Is there anywhere you can get an online or google map that shows you 4 lane roads? It's kind of ridiculous having to go to streetview.

[craner]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

It's not a bad idea. I've known a few people - in Toronto - that have assumed that the Trans-Canada Highway goes through Toronto and are mystified to hear it doesn't come that far south. Toronto and Halifax are the only provincial capitals that the Trans-Canada Highway does not pass through, and I think it should go to both cities.

The routing via Highways 12 and 7 is a strange one. It does connect to Ottawa, but I'd rather see a routing that connects Toronto to Ottawa and Toronto to Northern Ontario. A couple possible routings I'd be in favour of would be either 400-401-416 to Ottawa, or 400-401-15-7 to Ottawa (both passing through Kingston).

IMO the TCH should be a highway "system" rather than a single designated route. Similar to the Interstate system in the US, but on a smaller scale of course. The #1 & #16 in wetern Canada is a start but I think all major (200K+) cities in the country should be connected by 4 lane divided highways given a TCH designation. I believe there are at least 2 different TCH routes through Ontario but from what I'm hearing neither of them service Toronto. This seems rddiculous.

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

It's not a bad idea. I've known a few people - in Toronto - that have assumed that the Trans-Canada Highway goes through Toronto and are mystified to hear it doesn't come that far south. Toronto and Halifax are the only provincial capitals that the Trans-Canada Highway does not pass through, and I think it should go to both cities.

Why should the Trans Canada Highway serve Halifax? It can be reached just fine via the NS102 freeway from Truro about100 km north of Halifax.

The Trans Canada in Nova Scotia is TCH104 between Fort Lawrence (Amherst) and Port Hastings......and TCH105 from Port Hastings to the North Sydney Marine Atlantic Ferry Terminal. TCH106 runs from Mt William (New Glasgow) to the Caribou Ferry Terminal.

The Trans Canada is four lane divided from the New Brunswick border to Sutherlands River + the Antigonish By-pass. The Cobequid Pass section of TCH104 is tolled.

[1overcosc]

One easy step Ontario could take to help create a sense of unity and consistency with the TCH would be to renumber Highway 417 & Highway 17 to Highway 1. Ontario doesn't currently have a Highway 1, so it works.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by craner

IMO the TCH should be a highway "system" rather than a single designated route. Similar to the Interstate system in the US, but on a smaller scale of course. The #1 & #16 in wetern Canada is a start but I think all major (200K+) cities in the country should be connected by 4 lane divided highways given a TCH designation. I believe there are at least 2 different TCH routes through Ontario but from what I'm hearing neither of them service Toronto. This seems rddiculous.

That's a good point: the TCH isn't a "system" because it's just one road (with some spurs, even if they're thousands of km long) and the naming/numbering is not consistent. In Ontario and Quebec, the TCH is just a shield, not an actual numbered route, and it is very rarely signed at that.

Canada is the only country I know that doesn't have a national highway system. From a transportation POV, this isn't a huge deal, but it says a lot about what kind of country Canada is. A national highway system suggests that a country is a unified whole.

[SignalHillHiker]

It'd be nice to get a branch (with federal funding) along Quebec's North Shore. We could tunnel under the Strait of Belle Isle and have easy access to Central Canada (the route from St. John's to Montreal would be 100 km longer this way, but would eliminate the ferry - which kills the better part of a day including loading/unloading times).

A single name would be good too. Ayreonaut always made fun of us for calling it "the T-C-H". I forget what it's called in Alberta, but it's not that.

[MolsonExport]

traffic volumes would probably NEVER justify such a fixed link across extremely sparsely populated areas.