TCH east of Nipigon (La route transcanadienne à l'est de Nipigon)

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

That means the federal liberals will fund twinning 17 from Manitoba to Kenora 6 months before the federal election then.

Not enough ridings there.

[Dengler Avenue]

Never mind then.
Then I found this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-annex-kenora-april-fools-1.3516165.
Too bad it was just a prank.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

For the second sentence, that I understand, but what about Mt Revelstoke and glacier national parks?? Also more has to be done within Yoho too.

The biggest factor would simply be the number of cars using the roads. I don't have stats on hand, but traffic to Lake Louise is much heavier than further west. The cost/benefit of building the easier, more well used section from Calgary-BC border will be much greater than the BC sections, which have much more rugged terrain and are less well used.

[Dengler Avenue]

Interesting... I thought that the AADT on BC HWY 1 would be high (as in 10,000+) throughout all segments.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Interesting... I thought that the AADT on BC HWY 1 would be high (as in 10,000+) throughout all segments.

BC Highways AADT

This is an interactive map that allows you to look at information regarding AADT on BC's highways.

The lowest counts tend to be around the ~6000 vpd AADT. However, there is a lot of seasonality to it. The terrain, along with the volume of truck traffic can make the stretch congested in the summer, whereas in the winter, weather is the hazard.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by wave46

BC Highways AADT

This is an interactive map that allows you to look at information regarding AADT on BC's highways.

The lowest counts tend to be around the ~6000 vpd AADT. However, there is a lot of seasonality to it. The terrain, along with the volume of truck traffic can make the stretch congested in the summer, whereas in the winter, weather is the hazard.

In the case of BC, the most compelling reason to twin TCH despite a moderate AADT will be terrain, weather and lack of reasonable detour then. Especially with "keep right except to pass" strictly enforced there, I can see how twinning (and dividing the lanes) can ease congestion and prevent collision.

I suppose that the same can be said about 17 along Lake Superior Shore, except an AADT as low as 1.5K makes it hard to justify the twinning.

[Dengler Avenue]

17's closed from Nipigon to Wawa. I'm shaking my head very hard right now.

[sonysnob]

Four laning a highway doesn't mean snow stops falling on it.

Signs such as these are very common on midwestern US interstates to facilitate highway closures due to weather.

https://goo.gl/JhrajY

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Well, Garden River reserve held out for 30 years before they decided to allow the stretch from the Black Road (eventually) to Echo Bay to be built. This was in spite of the safety issues of having a transcontinental highway routed down their Main Street, with their kids riding their bikes on the shoulders alongside transport trucks. In that case, going around the reserve wasn’t feasible, however.

Revisiting this, I realized a key issue:
Highway 17 passes through a lot more FN's than Highway 11. Not only that, if any of them says no, twinning will only remain as a dream.
Garden River was an example.
Another example will be Missisauga 8 at Blind River. If the FN says no, the deal's over. One can probably say the same thing about Pays Plat 51.
As for Serpent River, while bypassing it on the east seems feasible, it is nonetheless very costly. The same goes for going around Nipissing 10.

In hindsight, if the province really wanted to play hard ball, it would have given up on twinning 17 west of Spanish (or ended 417 west of there) and continued twinning 11 instead. I'm sure that a lot of you know that the stretch from North Bay to Tri-towns is abysmal.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

17's closed from Nipigon to Wawa. I'm shaking my head very hard right now.

The weather off Lake Superior can be pretty severe. That, along with the terrain, is why most trucks use 11 through Northern Ontario.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by wave46

The weather off Lake Superior can be pretty severe. That, along with the terrain, is why most trucks use 11 through Northern Ontario.

Which explains why 11 Nipigon - North Bay should be 4 lanes.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Which explains why 11 Nipigon - North Bay should be 4 lanes.

Should we therefore then say that twinning 17 from SSM to Desbarat was a waste of money and time (due to extensive holdout by Garden River FN) when the money could have been used to twin 11 from North Bay to Temiskaming Shores??

Also that means someone needs to persuade MTO to abandon the idea of twinning the entirety 17. IMO if we're really committed to twinning 11, 417 should only go as far west as Massey (if not Espanola).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Should we therefore then say that twinning 17 from SSM to Desbarat was a waste of money and time (due to extensive holdout by Garden River FN) when the money could have been used to twin 11 from North Bay to Temiskaming Shores??

Also that means someone needs to persuade MTO to abandon the idea of twinning the entirety 17. IMO if we're really committed to twinning 11, 417 should only go as far west as Massey (if not Espanola).

IMO, 11 from Nipigon to North Bay and 17 from International Bridge in Sault St Marie to the end of the 417 should both be twinned.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

IMO, 11 from Nipigon to North Bay and 17 from International Bridge in Sault St Marie to the end of the 417 should both be twinned.

Oops I forgot to say that I had a budget constraint in mind when I wrote that. Now, with a budget constraint in mind, how would you prioritize then, assuming that all the bottlenecks in Northwestern Ontario are twinned?

For me, I will try to twin 17 from 417 to Petawawa first, then Corbeil to Danlou, then 11 from North Bay to Earlton. Afterwards, I will do 17 from Danlou to Massey, then from Petawawa to Corbeil.

Initially, I was gonna say doing all of the above concurrently just to realize it’s financially unrealistic.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Oops I forgot to say that I had a budget constraint in mind when I wrote that. Now, with a budget constraint in mind, how would you prioritize then, assuming that all the bottlenecks in Northwestern Ontario are twinned?

For me, I will try to twin 17 from 417 to Petawawa first, then Corbeil to Danlou, then 11 from North Bay to Earlton. Afterwards, I will do 17 from Danlou to Massey, then from Petawawa to Corbeil.

Initially, I was gonna say doing all of the above concurrently just to realize it’s financially unrealistic.

Do everything like they are on 69, in 20 km chunks.

Start at the ends of the current 4 lanes at Thunder Bay, Loon, Sault St Marie, Desbarts, Denlou, Lively, Arnprior, and the 3 highways at North Bay.

Once the 20km section is done, continue, adding 20km at a time.

[Dengler Avenue]

Hah this is my first time hearing about the 20km increment. I wonder if it can be increased to per 25 ~ 30 km though. xD Otherwise we really will have to wait 75 years if not more.

Also, a very important question: What is each FN's attitude towards TCH twinning??

Ps: How much money did US get from WWII so that it got SO MANY interstates built so much earlier on...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Hah this is my first time hearing about the 20km increment. I wonder if it can be increased to per 25 ~ 30 km though. xD Otherwise we really will have to wait 75 years if not more.

Also, a very important question: What is each FN's attitude towards TCH twinning??

Ps: How much money did US get from WWII so that it got SO MANY interstates built so much earlier on...

They could do it in longer chunk, but the time it takes may also be extended.

As far as I can tell, the FN want money, and lots of it.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

They could do it in longer chunk, but the time it takes may also be extended.

As far as I can tell, the FN want money, and lots of it.

Do you, or does anyone, know whether the relationship between time and length of chunk is linear, sub-linear or quadratic then? (Sorry my mathy mindset just kicked in.)

No wonder Highway 17 could only bypass Garden River then. Seriously, though, at this rate, we might as well twin 11.

Of course, if Ontario is rich, that will have been a different story.

Disclaimer: I never intended to trash-talk the aboriginal people. I do believe that we need to help them out (especially considering all the craps that the government has done to them). Nonetheless, it's just a bummer that they stalled the twinning of TCH so badly, another example being Shoal Lake 39 & Shoal Lake 40 not letting the twinning from Manitoba to Kenora happen.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Do you, or does anyone, know whether the relationship between time and length of chunk is linear, sub-linear or quadratic then? (Sorry my mathy mindset just kicked in.)

No wonder Highway 17 could only bypass Garden River then. Seriously, though, at this rate, we might as well twin 11.

Of course, if Ontario is rich, that will have been a different story.

It seems that time is sort of related to distance in a somewhat linear fashion. It seems it takes about 3-4 years for 20km. I would imagine about 5-6 years for 30km. Mind you, if we threw more money on it, it could be done quicker.

As far as FN, I almost think that if they play hardball, we should just bypass their land. Problem solved.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It seems that time is sort of related to distance in a somewhat linear fashion. It seems it takes about 3-4 years for 20km. I would imagine about 5-6 years for 30km. Mind you, if we threw more money on it, it could be done quicker.

As far as FN, I almost think that if they play hardball, we should just bypass their land. Problem solved.

Ah 3 - 4 centuries to finish twinning TCH in Ontario. I see.

See that's the problem: it's impossible to do that for the 17, unless we first bypass Serpent River, go up the 108, then build a brand new 4-lane freeway to link up to 129, then continue west on 101, bypass Wawa and rejoin 17. You see how many towns we're skipping in that case? And this proposal will serve barely any town except Elliot Lake, Chapleau (really pushing it because it's still somewhat out of the way) and Wawa.

As for the 11, I looked at the map: there are a lot fewer FN's along the way. Even with the one along Lake Nipigon which the highway somewhat cuts through, there's enough space to put down a 2nd set of lane.

Again, I uphold my disclaimer.

Ps: What about the treaties then?