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

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

What do you base your fatality count statistics on? News articles aren't a reliable source because they aren't statistically significant.

For example, a news outlet is far more likely to report a collision on the 401 through Chatham because a smart news outlet knows that people in the area are upset about the 401 in the area and that will drive people to click/read/watch the news story.

A fatality on a road that is less "renowned" is less likely to get the same media attention because it is less likely to drive people to click/read/watch the news story.

News reports are terrible indicators of statistics.

Oh yea I'm totally aware of that. The main source of my statistics (and information in general) is from OPP twitter accounts (NWR, NER and ER, especially OPPCommunications).

No wonder sometimes I see OPP tweet about a closure on either 11 or 17 (if not both!) but can't find news on it.

A few days ago, OPP GTA Traffic tweeted about a closure on 400 near 88 due to collision, but I couldn't find any news on it.

In short, media bias is real.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by wave46

Aside from the Coden area, I think the MTO already has sufficient right of way for twinning.

The highest volumes are between Sturgeon Falls and North Bay. The terrain between Verner to about 15 km east of Sturgeon Falls is quite subdued, however the Sturgeon river is a notable obstacle and the escarpment between North Bay and Sturgeon Falls is notable one too.

Property acquisition is often a divisive process in local communities, especially if there's preexisting use, such as farming.

Apparently expropriating properties near Cobden has become so hard that MTO has to abandon the obvious route (which is to bypass the town on the west) and makes 417 go around the lake and rejoin 17 at County Road 40.

I read about the routing somewhere.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Traffic engineers are aware of the truck volume on any given highway in Ontario.

Believe it or not, the people who administer our provincial highway network are actually better informed about the network than even the people who read and post in this forum!

After all, they are the professional ones.

All along, I've only been speaking from the driver's perspective. Even then, that's only mine.

Ps: I didn't multi-quote because doing so was hard when all 3 posts were on the previous page. This is my first time seeing this thread receive so much attention in such short time.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Apparently expropriating properties near Cobden has become so hard that MTO has to abandon the obvious route (which is to bypass the town on the west) and makes 417 go around the lake and rejoin 17 at County Road 40.

I read about the routing somewhere.

Did the Government of Ontario acquire the right of way for the railway that used to pass close to that route? Was it the Ottawa Valley Railway?

That would seem to be the easiest option for a bypass.

Edit: nevermind - looked at it on Google Maps.

[Dengler Avenue]

Oh yea I asked something similar in the previous pages too, and loco101 (I think...?) said that cleaning up the rail site costs way too much, and that EA will fail anyway.

[Dengler Avenue]

OPPCommunicationsNER tweeted an hour ago that 17's closed between Blind River and Iron Bridge due to a collision. There's a back road for detour via Missisagi River 8, however.

Update: https://www.sootoday.com/local-news/highway-17-east-closed-in-both-directions-963658

[Dengler Avenue]

This is getting ridiculous. Every single fatality (except for the two that occurred on the twinned section of Sudbury SW Bypass) that I’ve documented in this thread resulted from head-on collisions. The median rumble strip for sure isn’t working. As a matter of fact, 90% of the fatalities on 11, 17, 69, 101, 102, and 144 are head-ons.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

This is getting ridiculous. Every single fatality (except for the two that occurred on the twinned section of Sudbury SW Bypass) that I’ve documented in this thread resulted from head-on collisions. The median rumble strip for sure isn’t working. As a matter of fact, 90% of the fatalities on 11, 17, 69, 101, 102, and 144 are head-ons.

People are in too much of a rush. We need more police out on patrol ticketing more drivers.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

People are in too much of a rush. We need more police out on patrol ticketing more drivers.

Oh yea I agree (even if that means I get ticketed once again). Maybe Ontario should even copy Saskatchewan by expanding MTO’s responsibilities. After all, after a year of 24/7 patrol, people will learn. The province also gets some cash for the next twinning project.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Oh yea I agree (even if that means I get ticketed once again). Maybe Ontario should even copy Saskatchewan by expanding MTO’s responsibilities. After all, after a year of 24/7 patrol, people will learn. The province also gets some cash for the next twinning project.

The MTO should go into permanent Blitz mode. They seem to get lots of trucks on those blitzes.

Having both the OPP and the MTO going after "bad operators" would not only make our roads safe, but also add money for the government.

[Dengler Avenue]

Here’s the thing: When I suggested depoliticizing highway projects, this is exactly what I meant.

Start Highway 17 Twinning Authority, which is still a government institution, but strictly non-partisan. It’s like Metrolinx. So the institution can invest in bonds and what not to earn profit. But, additionally, some of the MTO officers will now work under them (such that the only change is the title; change in form not in substance) and doing so won’t cost the government any extra money. These officers will be out ticketing all day such that the source of revenue of the twinning authority will be investments and tickets. A key feature will be that the authority can plan and carry out twinning work even when the government isn’t planning to.

Previously I’ve held myself back from suggesting this, but since swimmer_spe mentioned it, I might as well say it.

I hope I don’t get suspended.

I know that the governing party takes the blame when massive ticketing happens.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Here’s the thing: When I suggested depoliticizing highway projects, this is exactly what I meant.

Start Highway 17 Twinning Authority, which is still a government institution, but strictly non-partisan. It’s like Metrolinx. So the institution can invest in bonds and what not to earn profit. But, additionally, some of the MTO officers will now work under them (such that the only change is the title; change in form not in substance) and doing so won’t cost the government any extra money. These officers will be out ticketing all day such that the source of revenue of the twinning authority will be investments and tickets. A key feature will be that the authority can plan and carry out twinning work even when the government isn’t planning to.

Previously I’ve held myself back from suggesting this, but since swimmer_spe mentioned it, I might as well say it.

I hope I don’t get suspended.

I know that the governing party takes the blame when massive ticketing happens.

I have never thought of blaming the government for the blitzes. I blame the cop who pulled me over....

[Dengler Avenue]

Oh that’s what my friend said when I suggested the twinning authority thing.

Anyway, I think it’s justified because (1) it’s one of the cross-country routes and (2) twinning its entirety does cost a lot so it’s best if it doesn’t eat too much (if at all) into the provincial (or even federal) budgets.

Similar authority can also be set up for 7 (Central Route) and 11 (Northern Route) and other highways (7 between London and KW, 9 between Orangeville and Newmarket, 410 between Caledon and Shelbourne, etc.).

Ideally, speeding (among other offenses) tickets are given at 21 kph over when the speed limit’s 90 kph or lower, and at 25 kph over when the speed limits 100-110 kph. Yes, I do take into account a raise of freeway speed limits in the future.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Oh that’s what my friend said when I suggested the twinning authority thing.

Anyway, I think it’s justified because (1) it’s one of the cross-country routes and (2) twinning its entirety does cost a lot so it’s best if it doesn’t eat too much (if at all) into the provincial (or even federal) budgets.

Similar authority can also be set up for 7 (Central Route) and 11 (Northern Route) and other highways (7 between London and KW, 9 between Orangeville and Newmarket, 410 between Caledon and Shelbourne, etc.).

Ideally, speeding (among other offenses) tickets are given at 21 kph over when the speed limit’s 90 kph or lower, and at 25 kph over when the speed limits 100-110 kph. Yes, I do take into account a raise of freeway speed limits in the future.

Ideally, I still think 17 should not be twinned between Nipigon and Sault St Marie. Highway 11 should be.

[Dengler Avenue]

In theory, the authority will twin 17 from Manitoba border to Nipigon in NWON (and in the interim renumber it Highway 1 using the maple leaf shield ), then from SSM to 417 in NEON. From there on, it remains to see if traffic pattern will be substantially altered.

I mean, if you put 4-lane divided freeways on “both ends of” 17, it’s possible that (more) trucks will now use 17 instead of 11. Also, increasing traffic (Maritimes-bound traffic, especially) on the 11 will require that Québec widens its Route 117 to (at least) Rouyn Noranda.

Also, I suppose that Pays Plat, Schreiber, Terrace Bay, Marathon, Heron Bay, White River, Wawa and Heyden are more than happy to become freeway service towns because it means more $$ for them.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I mean, if you put 4-lane divided freeways on “both ends of” 17, it’s possible that (more) trucks will now use 17 instead of 11. Also, increasing traffic (Maritimes-bound traffic, especially) on the 11 will require that Québec widens its Route 117 to (at least) Rouyn Noranda.

Given the joys of running an 80,000 lb tractor-trailer up and down grades, I suspect that Highway 11 will remain the choice of most truckers crossing Canada.

Aside from North Bay-New Liskeard and near Nipigon, Highway 11 is a much easier drive with far fewer grades.

Also, most truck traffic runs from Southern Ontario to western Canada. The truck traffic on Highway 17 seemed quite minimal relative to Highway 11.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by wave46

Given the joys of running an 80,000 lb tractor-trailer up and down grades, I suspect that Highway 11 will remain the choice of most truckers crossing Canada.

Aside from North Bay-New Liskeard and near Nipigon, Highway 11 is a much easier drive with far fewer grades.

Also, most truck traffic runs from Southern Ontario to western Canada. The truck traffic on Highway 17 seemed quite minimal relative to Highway 11.

If trucks are from Southern Ontario, and if they aren’t going through the states, won’t 69 (400) and 17 (future 417) be shorter in distance?

I do realize that 17 along Lake Superior Shore has steep grades though. OPP tweets about trucks getting stuck on the highway during winter every now and then. I cruised at 108 kph, and my speedometer read 116 kph down the slope.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by wave46

Given the joys of running an 80,000 lb tractor-trailer up and down grades, I suspect that Highway 11 will remain the choice of most truckers crossing Canada.

Aside from North Bay-New Liskeard and near Nipigon, Highway 11 is a much easier drive with far fewer grades.

Also, most truck traffic runs from Southern Ontario to western Canada. The truck traffic on Highway 17 seemed quite minimal relative to Highway 11.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

If trucks are from Southern Ontario, and if they aren’t going through the states, won’t 69 (400) and 17 (future 417) be shorter in distance?

I do realize that 17 along Lake Superior Shore has steep grades though. OPP tweets about trucks getting stuck on the highway during winter every now and then. I cruised at 108 kph, and my speedometer read 116 kph down the slope.

North Bay to Nipigon:
Via 11 987km
Via 17 1018km

It is shorter and flatter to take 11. Trucks gain no advantage on divided highways, cars do.

[ScreamingViking]

It's more costly to run a truck on hilly terrain than flat roadways. More fuel is needed to keep speed going uphill (they can coast a bit on the down slope but still need to run in lower gear for engine braking) and there is more wear and tear on brake systems and transmissions.

[Loco101]

Hwy 11 is always the better choice for both cars and transports when it comes to driving time, fuel consumption and flat terrain with fewer curves.

The section of Hwy 11 around Temagami is sometimes not the greatest depending on weather conditions but it has been improved over the last 20 years. The section just North of Nipigon could use some improvements. But overall, the better choice for the things I mentioned above but the section between Hearst and Longlac is quite remote.