Highways in Canada

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by craneSpotter

What are volumes like through there?

BC #1 from the Alberta border to west of Revelstoke has pretty low traffic volumes. Only 3 to 4,000 vehicles daily during Jan/Feb to approx. 12 to 15,000 daily during the peak summer months. The absolute peak would be ~18k a day before and after the August long weekend. The current highway has a capacity for ~20-24,000 vehicles a day (based on other studies done on two/three-lane highways by the MoTI in BC), but could use some more passing lanes.

The only way to get it twinned within the next 30 years would be to TOLL it, which I would totally support! Maybe $30 each way for cars and $40 for RVs. User pay is a win/win! They could just set up TOLL booths before Golden.

Well, for starters, all truck traffic west goes through there.

https://www.ontario.ca/data/traffic-volume

Downloading the file to Excel;

Highway 11 averages 5000+ in some places. It can get as low as about 1500 around Geraldton.
Highway 17 averages around 3500+ Almost 10,000 around Sudbury.

Once twinning of highway 69 to Sudbury is complete, it will be renumbered to Highway 400.
Highway 17 near Ottawa is being twinned going west. There are other parts of 17 that are twinned near Sudbury, Sault St Marie, and Thunder Bay. North Bay has plans to turn it's current bypass into a full freeway in the future.

In general, Highway 17 or 11 will never be tolled. Having said that, I doubt it will be twinned within 30 years. 50 years is more likely.

I wonder, of the main east west highways, where will the last 2 lane gap be. Although Ontario has more now, It is slightly cheaper than BC to build per km.

[Innsertnamehere]

Twinning 11 and and 17 would add several thousand kilometres of freeway. Not gunna happen any time soon.

Instead you are likely to slowly see programs roll out to slowly upgrade the system in key points. 417 to Petawawa, Thunder Bay Expressway, North Bay Expressway, etc.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Twinning 11 and and 17 would add several thousand kilometres of freeway. Not gunna happen any time soon.

Instead you are likely to slowly see programs roll out to slowly upgrade the system in key points. 417 to Petawawa, Thunder Bay Expressway, North Bay Expressway, etc.

Agreed.

I am figuring that what they will do is continue west from the current end of the 417.

I am thinking they will extend the other current 4 laned parts around Thunder Bay, Sault St Marie, Sudbury and North Bay as well.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Agreed.

I am figuring that what they will do is continue west from the current end of the 417.

I am thinking they will extend the other current 4 laned parts around Thunder Bay, Sault St Marie, Sudbury and North Bay as well.

That's it exactly.

They're already 4-laning from Thunder Bay to Nipigon.

The MTO has done a study near the east end of Sudbury to 4-lane the 17 bypass around Sudbury to as far as Markstay. So, I see the next corridor of interest would be from Sudbury-North Bay.

I imagine they'll want to bypass all the little towns on 17 from Sudbury-Sault Ste. Marie too.

Finally, if they can sign an agreement with First Nations near Kenora, the plan includes 4-laning from Kenora to Manitoba.

As for anything else, well.....don't hold your breath. The AADT drops off markedly on 17 north of the Sault and 11 north of North Bay.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Highway 11 averages 5000+ in some places. It can get as low as about 1500 around Geraldton.

.

I believe there are some stretches that are even below 1000 AADT east or west of Hearst. In the 600-800 range.

[sonysnob]

There is one stretch west of Hearst in the vicinity of the Hwy 631 junction that had an AADT of 900 in 2012, but besides that it was all of 1000. Traffic volumes on Hwy 11 do drop precipitously on Hwy 11 west of Shabaqua Corners though. Hwy 11 between Fort Frances and Shabaqua Corners is one of the least traveled sections of king's highway in Ontario.

To comment on another point above, MTO shelved the study to bypass Hwy 17 with a new four lane highway east of Sudbury several years ago mid study. This was about the time that the Liberals won a majority government. Seeing as Sudbury voted NDP in that election, it seems to me that their is at least a possibility that the decision to shelve widening that section of Hwy 17 was doe for political reasons.

I know there has been a push to widen Hwy 11 northerly from North Bay by some of the mayors in the Temiskaming Region of the province. while I certainly understand how that would benefit the region, to me, I'd prioritize Hwy 17 from west of Sudbury to east of North Bay well ahead of Hwy 11. For one, Hwy 17 is generally much more busy than Hwy 11 is, but more importantly, Hwy 17 is much less well designed road. Hwy 17 goes through far more communities on its trek across this portion of northeastern Ontario, and to me, the cost-benefit calculation would be much greater to widen Hwy 17 than it is for Hwy 11.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

There is one stretch west of Hearst in the vicinity of the Hwy 631 junction that had an AADT of 900 in 2012, but besides that it was all of 1000. Traffic volumes on Hwy 11 do drop precipitously on Hwy 11 west of Shabaqua Corners though. Hwy 11 between Fort Frances and Shabaqua Corners is one of the least traveled sections of king's highway in Ontario.

To comment on another point above, MTO shelved the study to bypass Hwy 17 with a new four lane highway east of Sudbury several years ago mid study. This was about the time that the Liberals won a majority government. Seeing as Sudbury voted NDP in that election, it seems to me that their is at least a possibility that the decision to shelve widening that section of Hwy 17 was doe for political reasons.

I know there has been a push to widen Hwy 11 northerly from North Bay by some of the mayors in the Temiskaming Region of the province. while I certainly understand how that would benefit the region, to me, I'd prioritize Hwy 17 from west of Sudbury to east of North Bay well ahead of Hwy 11. For one, Hwy 17 is generally much more busy than Hwy 11 is, but more importantly, Hwy 17 is much less well designed road. Hwy 17 goes through far more communities on its trek across this portion of northeastern Ontario, and to me, the cost-benefit calculation would be much greater to widen Hwy 17 than it is for Hwy 11.

Highway 11 is still fairly busy between North Bay and Kirkland Lake/Matheson. It is only beyond Matheson (and particularly beyond Cochrane) where traffic volumes drop off rapidly.

In some ways, it functions as two separate highways with the same number with the east-west section acting more as a cross-provincial remote highway (linked with Quebec 117).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by wave46

That's it exactly.

They're already 4-laning from Thunder Bay to Nipigon.

The MTO has done a study near the east end of Sudbury to 4-lane the 17 bypass around Sudbury to as far as Markstay. So, I see the next corridor of interest would be from Sudbury-North Bay.

I imagine they'll want to bypass all the little towns on 17 from Sudbury-Sault Ste. Marie too.

Finally, if they can sign an agreement with First Nations near Kenora, the plan includes 4-laning from Kenora to Manitoba.

As for anything else, well.....don't hold your breath. The AADT drops off markedly on 17 north of the Sault and 11 north of North Bay.

The most unique place to have to bypass would be near Algoma Mills/Blind River. There is no room between Lake Lauzon and The North Shore unless they bulldoze the town.

Originally Posted by sonysnob

There is one stretch west of Hearst in the vicinity of the Hwy 631 junction that had an AADT of 900 in 2012, but besides that it was all of 1000. Traffic volumes on Hwy 11 do drop precipitously on Hwy 11 west of Shabaqua Corners though. Hwy 11 between Fort Frances and Shabaqua Corners is one of the least traveled sections of king's highway in Ontario.

To comment on another point above, MTO shelved the study to bypass Hwy 17 with a new four lane highway east of Sudbury several years ago mid study. This was about the time that the Liberals won a majority government. Seeing as Sudbury voted NDP in that election, it seems to me that their is at least a possibility that the decision to shelve widening that section of Hwy 17 was doe for political reasons.

I know there has been a push to widen Hwy 11 northerly from North Bay by some of the mayors in the Temiskaming Region of the province. while I certainly understand how that would benefit the region, to me, I'd prioritize Hwy 17 from west of Sudbury to east of North Bay well ahead of Hwy 11. For one, Hwy 17 is generally much more busy than Hwy 11 is, but more importantly, Hwy 17 is much less well designed road. Hwy 17 goes through far more communities on its trek across this portion of northeastern Ontario, and to me, the cost-benefit calculation would be much greater to widen Hwy 17 than it is for Hwy 11.

Even though there is low AADT, that 800 is mostly all truck traffic.

[haljackey]

Video of the entire route of the 407, including the new extension

Turn annotations on for info

• Video Link

[FrAnKs]

Very nice Haljackey ^ !

-----------------

Last summer I made a trip to the Magdalen Islands. They are situated in the middle of the Gulf of St-Lawrence.
To get there, you need to drive to the little town of Souris, Prince Edward Island, then take a Ferry to the Magdalen Islands for a 5hrs trip.

I hope you'll enjoy.

• Video Link

[MolsonExport]

Another suburb video. love the embedded facts and history lessons. looking forward to the driving video for les Iles de la Madeleine.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Another suburb video. love the embedded facts and history lessons. looking forward to the driving video for les Iles de la Madeleine.

Well, if you say so, yes it's a far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far


Montréal suburb.

[MolsonExport]

no, I am pretty sure it should be in the Okotoks CMA if Statistics Canada didn't have such a hate on.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

no, I am pretty sure it should be in the Okotoks CMA if Statistics Canada didn't have such a hate on.

One will have to explain me the running gag about Okotoks one day.

[ssiguy]

Thanks for that 407 Frank.

How much do they charge per km?

[eemy]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

One will have to explain me the running gag about Okotoks one day.

Sometime around the time when the results from 2011 Census was released, there were a few forumers who argued that Okotoks should be considered part of the Calgary CMA while it was excluded by Statistics Canada. While it would normally be included based on commuting rules for inclusion, it was excluded because it is not contiguous and therefore has to be considered with the surrounding municipality, which brought the commuting numbers below the threshold.

The discussion over this would normally die off pretty quickly after the reason was provided, but the complaint that Okotoks should be included tended to resurface time after time, despite the explanation for its inclusion being mentioned each time. The likely reason is that Calgary missed surpassing Ottawa in population by a hair and the inclusion of Okotoks would have pushed it past Ottawa. Now that Calgary has surpassed Ottawa in population according to the population estimates (the better figure anyway), you don't see Okotoks resurface nearly so often except by people poking fun at other posters, generally when they're perceived to be misusing statistics as a means to make their area seem more important than it is or treating statistics like a contest between cities.

Okotoks is also well known on here for an entirely unrelated reason. They have possibly the most terribly hilarious tourism motto on earth, the definition of so bad, it's good: "There are a number of things to do in Okotoks."

[Airboy]

TCH at Field may be closed for up to 3 days. Contractors prepping a slop for explosives trigger a rock slide. 2 injured. Add a couple of hours to the drive on the detour.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Okotoks is also well known on here for an entirely unrelated reason. They have possibly the most terribly hilarious tourism motto on earth, the definition of so bad, it's good: "There are a number of things to do in Okotoks."

Yeah their tourism slogan is so bad that it won a national award.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/okotoks-marketing-campaign-award-tourism-1.3244811

[MolsonExport]

Then it must be good then. Awards are like assholes. Everybody has got one.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Yeah their tourism slogan is so bad that it won a national award.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/okotoks-marketing-campaign-award-tourism-1.3244811

In fairness, the visitor's guide won an award, not the slogan. That said, I did say "so bad, it's good". It got a lot of attention on social media and made me laugh. Not many slogans manage to do that and it's memorable as a result.