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

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Dang it I should have gone down Highway 6 between Guelph and Hamilton when the road's snow-covered to test out the rumble strips in the middle lane then. I just wanna see for myself.

I just don't understand how anything can work if covered in snow. For example, if a car in the opposite lane is about to drift into yours, rumble strips covered in snow, is that car's driver still gonna feel the rumbling under his wheels?

Yup. In fact, in snowy conditions, I tend to drive by feel. Then I know I am on my side.

[vid]

There are rumble strips on some parts of the Thunder Bay Expressway where space is set aside for double left turn lanes but they're not implemented, and if you accidentally drive over them when they're snow covered you do feel it. And of course, pot holes never get "hidden" by snow, either.

[Dengler Avenue]

Does that mean MTO can upgrade the within-city segment of Thunder Bay Expressway cheaply by simply adding overpasses and interchanges without putting barriers between the 2 directions?

My other question about rumble strips in winter is as follows: If they remain effective while covered by snow, why do head-on collisions still happen on Autoroute 50 during winter? Or are those things of the past now?

[vid]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Does that mean MTO can upgrade the within-city segment of Thunder Bay Expressway cheaply by simply adding overpasses and interchanges without putting barriers between the 2 directions?

There are no rumble strips on the centre line of the expressway, but it has a wider painted yellow median. The expansion plans all call for twinning the road with a ditch between the two directions.

I was referring to a couple of the at-grade intersections where there is space for double left turn lanes, but the outer left turn lane is replaced by concrete pads with rumble stripping on them. They're located across from double left turn lanes, but the direction they're going sees so little traffic, the MTO didn't install the outer left turn lane, and the rumble strips are there to ensure vehicles don't use it, although in every case there is room to safely make a double left turn and a corresponding lane to turn into, though that lane gets used up by an on-ramp coming from the opposite direction.

There are concrete pads and rumble stripping in the outer left turn lanes of the southbound directions on 11/17 at Dawson Road and John Street, northbound at the terminus of Highway 61 with 11/17 and Harbour Expressway (since left turns in that way are rare) and northbound on 61 at Arthur Street. There would be on the on eastbound turn of 11/17 and 61 and Harbour, but the left turn lane on the opposite side isn't twinned even though traffic levels warrant it. If they didn't have an extra lane due to the combined RIRO intersection to Innova Park and the offramp to northbound 11/17 that intersection would be a mess, as the left turn lane regularly backs up nearly 1km at rush hour. That left turn lane itself is nearly 300m long but still not long enough to fit all the vehicles turning left there during the heaviest traffic.

I think a few spots near on and off ramps have rumble stripping between the road surface and the shoulder as well just to keep drivers on the road.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

My other question about rumble strips in winter is as follows: If they remain effective while covered by snow, why do head-on collisions still happen on Autoroute 50 during winter? Or are those things of the past now?

They don't prevent all collisions, but they help.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Driving home today, I was thinking about the need for a divided highway.

My commute is between Chelmsford and Cambrian College here is Sudbury. Part of my route is on MR 35. Part of MR 35 is 4 lanes, with a wider centre line, right and left turn lanes, and even an interchange for the busiest street. It has rumble strips down thee centre line and along the shoulders.

If highways 11, 17, 101, 144 and 6 In Northern Ontario were all upgraded to this, it would be a good solution.

MR 35 has low accidents in this location, even in winter. Most issues are either due to moose or people driving into the ditch.

During snowstorms, when the city still hasn't plowed it becomes a single lane road, but it is wide enough to avoid hitting the other lane. Once it is plowed, even when partially covered, it returns back to a 4 lane road. If you pass someone and you hear a noise, you move over slightly and avoid an accident.

We do not need 400 series highways, but we do need safe highways.

I think this or a 2+1 would be ideal. A lot of the silliness I see is impatient drivers trying to pass. A set up such as this would allow passing at all times without the costs required for a completely new divided highway. It would be relatively cheap - the province already owns the right of way and adding additional lanes shouldn't require much blasting.

It also allows a larger margin of error when weather is poor. A center barrier could be used where there are no entrances/exits for additional safety.

Do this on 11 from North Bay-Hearst and 17 from North Bay-Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay westwards.

[Dengler Avenue]

Funny enough, when I drove down TCH between Dryden and Ignace and along Lake Superior Shore, some segments do already have the 2+1 configuration. Concrete barrier can be installed at those places.
(Initially, I considered rumble strip too, just to realize that would depend on where the 4th lane would be in the future when traffic warrants.)

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.sudbury.com/police/single-ve...-tractor-trailer-in-naughton-area-895551

2 fatal crashes in Sudbury area in one day. 2!!
This is starting to remind me of the first 4 days of 2018 where there was one death every day.

Ps: From pictures posted on OPP North East's Twitter page, I noticed that there was already rumble strip along the median. Maybe it really is time to upgrade 17 between the 2 cities.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://www.sudbury.com/police/single-ve...-tractor-trailer-in-naughton-area-895551

2 fatal crashes in Sudbury area in one day. 2!!
This is starting to remind me of the first 4 days of 2018 where there was one death every day.

Ps: From pictures posted on OPP North East's Twitter page, I noticed that there was already rumble strip along the median. Maybe it really is time to upgrade 17 between the 2 cities.

One of the accidents occurred on the 4 lanes. The transport driver hit a rock cut.

4 lanes cuts down on head on collisions, but drivers who can't stay on the road still could die and cause more accidents.

[F. Lionel]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Funny enough, when I drove down TCH between Dryden and Ignace and along Lake Superior Shore, some segments do already have the 2+1 configuration. Concrete barrier can be installed at those places.
(Initially, I considered rumble strip too, just to realize that would depend on where the 4th lane would be in the future when traffic warrants.)

The bigger issue with concrete barriers would be that they prohibit the movement of wildlife across the highway corridor. This could lead to more collisions between vehicles and animals.

I've found, driving on this highway, that drivers get complacent when they think they are safe. Concrete barriers would increase that false sense of security on the long, winding stretches.

A lot of the accidents that do take place that are attributed to driver error are due entirely to people thinking that they are safe to do something, such as passing, when they are not because they cannot see around the next corner. Passing on corners, on rises, and through rock cuts seems to lead to the majority of preventable accidents (from what I have seen). Driver fatigue also plays a large role in the single car accidents that I have seen as well.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by F. Lionel

The bigger issue with concrete barriers would be that they prohibit the movement of wildlife across the highway corridor. This could lead to more collisions between vehicles and animals.

I've found, driving on this highway, that drivers get complacent when they think they are safe. Concrete barriers would increase that false sense of security on the long, winding stretches.

A lot of the accidents that do take place that are attributed to driver error are due entirely to people thinking that they are safe to do something, such as passing, when they are not because they cannot see around the next corner. Passing on corners, on rises, and through rock cuts seems to lead to the majority of preventable accidents (from what I have seen). Driver fatigue also plays a large role in the single car accidents that I have seen as well.

One only needs to look at the accidents recently on the 400 near Barrie to hammer that point home.

This is why I almost would advocate for undivided 4 lanes, with a wide center line and a rumble strips at the centre and at the shoulder, and wide paved shoulders. That would be the best of all worlds, but yet likely be more reasonable costs.

[Dengler Avenue]

As much as fatal crashes are heart-wrenching, I do need to admit that some of them are absolutely preventable.

For example:
If a truck is involved and at fault, that should lead to immediate suspension for that driver (if not criminal charge or already dead), and intensive training (103 hours being the recommended, I heard?) for the rest;
If a passenger vehicle is involved and at fault, that should mean HTA charge for the driver (if not suspension or something more severe) and intensive education for everyone.

I know I make this mistake too, from time to time, but with lanes 3.7 meters wide (wider than the widest truck), if people still manage to swerve to the left (or to the right), there are 5 possibilities:
(1) You are no longer capable of driving for medical reasons, so surrender your license;
(2) You are a novice, so drive with someone more experienced next to you and make sure the person pays attention at all time;
(3) You are distracted for whatever reason - focus;
(4) You are fatigued - don't push it - take a break;
(5) You are impaired - what are you even doing?!

As for dangerous passing, there are quite a few ways of tackling it, some of which can be expensive however:
(1) Around curves, put 2 lanes each direction with a barrier in between and with an animal crossing underneath because it is places like this where you really don't people to cheat on the corners;
(2) Joint effort of MTO and OPP to crack down on improper passing and/or on people hogging the passing lane - the police has little to do in town anyway so why not just come out and make sure the highway stays open?
(3) New law that says: "4 or more vehicles behinds you -> move over and let them go, even if they're speeding because cops will deal with them", and actually enforce it.

[Dengler Avenue]

Also swimmer_spe, I just realized there’s a problem:
The standards for provincial roadways are higher than those for municipal ones. I was looking at the design for widening 11/17 between Ouimet and Dorion, and the picture specifies 3.75 m for lane width and 3 m for shoulder width.
The numbers are probably lower for Sudbury City Road 35 (although the fact that it used to be Highway 144 might prove me wrong).
That said, to maintain the provincial standard might still cost quite a bit.
Also, is Highway 69 right under the Estaire Road interchange your ideal?

Ps: I don’t like the fact that having a passing lane means narrower shoulder in many places along Lake Superior Shore.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Also swimmer_spe, I just realized there’s a problem:
The standards for provincial roadways are higher than those for municipal ones. I was looking at the design for widening 11/17 between Ouimet and Dorion, and the picture specifies 3.75 m for lane width and 3 m for shoulder width.
The numbers are probably lower for Sudbury City Road 35 (although the fact that it used to be Highway 144 might prove me wrong).
That said, to maintain the provincial standard might still cost quite a bit.
Also, is Highway 69 right under the Estaire Road interchange your ideal?

Ps: I don’t like the fact that having a passing lane means narrower shoulder in many places along Lake Superior Shore.

69 at Estaire Rd to 17 would be an ideal.
I think that because it was 144, it was upgraded then.

[Dengler Avenue]

Yea I noticed: both old 17 and old 144 were upgraded. The dual-carriageway segment of City Road 55 straight up stands out.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Yea I noticed: both old 17 and old 144 were upgraded. The dual-carriageway segment of City Road 55 straight up stands out.

I would love to see that become 17 again, but as 417. Then I would like to see it swing north along Big Nickel Mine Rd, and then keep going north to the Maley Drive extension, and follow it to where it will eventually meet back up with 17.

With that, Sudbury would have a freeway going close to it's downtown.

[Dengler Avenue]

In that case, assuming that all roads will be of freeway standard, MTO will need to take over City Road 55, 34 and Maley Drive. Nobody coming from west of Sudbury to North Bay or further east will use SE Bypass anymore, in that case.

Of course, the City of Greater Sudbury can just do what T Bay’s doing - keeping trucks off “city roads” and on TCH, or what Windsor did - refusing to let MTO take back EC Row (blame Mike Harris) or merge the 401 extension with Highway 3 and EC Row.
Ps: Speaking of 401 extension, I still find it insensible that it doesn’t just merge with Highway 3. I remember North 42 telling me that people fought hard to take off the the table the option to merge 401 with EC Row.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

In that case, assuming that all roads will be of freeway standard, MTO will need to take over City Road 55, 34 and Maley Drive. Nobody coming from west of Sudbury to North Bay or further east will use SE Bypass anymore, in that case.

Of course, the City of Greater Sudbury can just do what T Bay’s doing - keeping trucks off “city roads” and on TCH, or what Windsor did - refusing to let MTO take back EC Row (blame Mike Harris) or merge the 401 extension with Highway 3 and EC Row.
Ps: Speaking of 401 extension, I still find it insensible that it doesn’t just merge with Highway 3. I remember North 42 telling me that people fought hard to take off the the table the option to merge 401 with EC Row.

I am certain that if the province wanted to take any roads from the city, Sudbury council would gladly give them up. More money to fix the rest of the road network.

[Loco101]

The widening of Regional Rd 35 from downtown Sudbury to Azilda happened within the last 10 years. I'm guessing it was 7 to 9 years ago but I'd have to check. It was a municipal road when the project took place. I think it was around 1986 when the portion of Hwy 144 between Chelmsford and Sudbury was changed to Regional Rd 35 because a new route was built for Hwy 144 from Chelmsford to Hwy 17 which is the one that exists today.

I still remember when I was a young child and Hwy 144 ended at the corner of Elm and Lorne in downtown Sudbury where it met up with Hwy 17 at that time. Hwy 17 went right through the downtown and along the Kingsway.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Loco101

The widening of Regional Rd 35 from downtown Sudbury to Azilda happened within the last 10 years. I'm guessing it was 7 to 9 years ago but I'd have to check. It was a municipal road when the project took place. I think it was around 1986 when the portion of Hwy 144 between Chelmsford and Sudbury was changed to Regional Rd 35 because a new route was built for Hwy 144 from Chelmsford to Hwy 17 which is the one that exists today.

I still remember when I was a young child and Hwy 144 ended at the corner of Elm and Lorne in downtown Sudbury where it met up with Hwy 17 at that time. Hwy 17 went right through the downtown and along the Kingsway.

Are you saying that the city did something right? Say it ain't so.....

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Are you saying that the city did something right? Say it ain't so.....

Why not? Did widening City Road 35 contribute to urban sprawl? (I did notice that some communities in Greater Sudbury are very far from others.)