Ontario Highways

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Huh I just noticed this: Highway 11 has no reasonable EDR between Exit 294 (end of Highway 124) and Beachley Road (a bit south of Exit 301, Highway 522). (Going to Highway 69 then back doesn't count.)

Just figure that once you are out of farmland, you are out of reasonable EDRs.

[Dengler Avenue]

Fair point. The provincial highways in the area around Hastings and Lennox & Addington Highlands (i.e. Bancroft) don't seem to have reasonable EDR's either. Bref, even Highway 7 around Sharbot Lake has issues with route redundancy too.

On the other hand, lol, it means that provincial highways in SCO will never be twinned even if they have high volume, i.e. 9 east of Orangeville, 10 north of Orangeville, and 26.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Fair point. The provincial highways in the area around Hastings and Lennox & Addington Highlands (i.e. Bancroft) don't seem to have reasonable EDR's either. Bref, even Highway 7 around Sharbot Lake has issues with route redundancy too.

On the other hand, lol, it means that provincial highways in SCO will never be twinned even if they have high volume, i.e. 9 east of Orangeville, 10 north of Orangeville, and 26.

I don't feel the 2 are mutually connected. Why would 9 or 10 not be twinned? I could see them twined before 11 or 17 is completely twinned between the MB border and Ottawa.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I don't feel the 2 are mutually connected. Why would 9 or 10 not be twinned? I could see them twined before 11 or 17 is completely twinned between the MB border and Ottawa.

What do you mean by the first part?

Provincial highways through SCO has too many EDR's lol.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

What do you mean by the first part?

Provincial highways through SCO has too many EDR's lol.

Basically, there is no reason that having many EDRs would negate twinning.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Basically, there is no reason that having many EDRs would negate twinning.

Indeed. The presence or absence of an EDR should play a minimal role in the decision to upgrade highways.

One could make the argument that by having a high-speed, high volume route would improve safety by drawing excess traffic off the lower-volume roads in the area. The safety benefits of having the appropriate level of traffic on a highway are notable.

My trips through southern Ontario typically use the major highways in the region. I rarely use Highway 27 or (old) 11 from Barrie to Toronto as opposed to the 400 and I'd imagine most people do similar.

An EDR is simply a very short-term stop-gap to keep traffic moving somewhat around a temporary obstruction and is only really useful for the most major highways. Indeed, since 11 and 17 don't really have EDRs already, I don't see why they need one now. Either one waits out the highway closure, or makes a fairly major detour.

Given that the major cause of closures in the north are weather-related, an EDR would be of minimal benefit as they're subject to the same weather conditions.

[Dengler Avenue]

You don't think it's worthwhile to accident-proof those two highways? I mean, weather-related closures, you can't do anything about it. Much crash-related ones, people shouldn't need to wait hours, IMO.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

You don't think it's worthwhile to accident-proof those two highways? I mean, weather-related closures, you can't do anything about it. Much crash-related ones, people shouldn't need to wait hours, IMO.

How often does an accident close these highways for more than a couple of hours in a year? Having an EDR that isn't a local access road of some sort seems overkill for that.

I've traveled on these roads and never really worried about a lack of detour. It's not like much of highways 11, 17 and 69 had detours prior - it's just nice having sections of them twinned now. In fact, merely twinning them created all sorts of parallel roads that could act as partial detours.

A trip from Estaire to Sudbury couldn't be done if Highway 69 was closed north (and south of 537) of it as recently as 15 years ago. You'd have to go down to Highway 64 and loop back via 17.

Maybe I'm just used to longer drives, but I'd rather a detour that involves hours of driving as opposed to places that do have EDRs, but clog instantly with volume. Crawling along the 400 between Toronto and Barrie with a section of the highway closed (even with an EDR) is far most infuriating and time consuming process than a multi-hour detour through the north.

[Dengler Avenue]

Good question. I would think (judging from OPP NER & OPP NWR tweets) that it used to happen quite often. Then these few years (pre-covid), things have improved.

I guess it also depends on what you consider reasonable, though I highly doubt that 8 hours of detour can be considered as such by anyone. (I think 3 hours should be maximum.) Lol, swimmer_spe gets up in the arms if that bridge on the 17 west of Nairn Centre is closed because there goes his work shift.

The other time, sonysnob also brought up "ponying up cash" for EDR's. That was when swimmer_spe said that Highway 12 has lots of EDR's, to which sonysnob replied that those are regional roads maintained by tax money and that, if swimmer_spe wants it for the 17 too, he should pony up for it. In the context of Sudbury district though, there isn't a government at the level of territorial districts so to speak, so I'm not sure how that pans out.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I guess it also depends on what you consider reasonable, though I highly doubt that 8 hours of detour can be considered as such by anyone. (I think 3 hours should be maximum.) Lol, swimmer_spe gets up in the arms if that bridge on the 17 west of Nairn Centre is closed because there goes his work shift.

The other time, sonysnob also brought up "ponying up cash" for EDR's. That was when swimmer_spe said that Highway 12 has lots of EDR's, to which sonysnob replied that those are regional roads maintained by tax money and that, if swimmer_spe wants it for the 17 too, he should pony up for it. In the context of Sudbury district though, there isn't a government at the level of territorial districts, so I'm not sure how that pans out.

I'm not saying it doesn't suck for some people, but I'm also of the opinion that if you want to live in the boonies there are compromises, especially in regards to transportation. It is unreasonable to accommodate every Ontarian who can't get to work because a provincial highway is closed, especially for something as infrequent as an accident (winter weather tends to close all roads in a region, so an EDR does nothing for that). There are just not enough tax dollars to make something like this even remotely possible - a goal of 3 hours delay on thousands of kilometres of highway through the north of Ontario would cost billions.

I mean, I've lived in small towns in the north that have been completely cut off for a day plus. It sucks. Many of these places are much cheaper to live in, though, so when you can buy a house for a song compared to city-dwellers, pay minimal property taxes outside of municipalities, well, such are the trades you make to live where you want.

Government has infinite problems and finite money. I mean, we could hack millions out the budget of Health Sciences North in Sudbury and the Espanola Hospital to pay for this fancy EDR, but you'd find out quickly about how people view that idea (hint: not good).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by wave46

How often does an accident close these highways for more than a couple of hours in a year? Having an EDR that isn't a local access road of some sort seems overkill for that.

I've traveled on these roads and never really worried about a lack of detour. It's not like much of highways 11, 17 and 69 had detours prior - it's just nice having sections of them twinned now. In fact, merely twinning them created all sorts of parallel roads that could act as partial detours.

A trip from Estaire to Sudbury couldn't be done if Highway 69 was closed north (and south of 537) of it as recently as 15 years ago. You'd have to go down to Highway 64 and loop back via 17.

Maybe I'm just used to longer drives, but I'd rather a detour that involves hours of driving as opposed to places that do have EDRs, but clog instantly with volume. Crawling along the 400 between Toronto and Barrie with a section of the highway closed (even with an EDR) is far most infuriating and time consuming process than a multi-hour detour through the north.

Try to find an alternate route between Espanola and Narin Centre. How long is it? Now, imagine you work on one side of the Spanish River Bridge on Highway 17, and live on the other.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Good question. I would think (judging from OPP NER & OPP NWR tweets) that it used to happen quite often. Then these few years (pre-covid), things have improved.

I guess it also depends on what you consider reasonable, though I highly doubt that 8 hours of detour can be considered as such by anyone. (I think 3 hours should be maximum.) Lol, swimmer_spe gets up in the arms if that bridge on the 17 west of Nairn Centre is closed because there goes his work shift.

The other time, sonysnob also brought up "ponying up cash" for EDR's. That was when swimmer_spe said that Highway 12 has lots of EDR's, to which sonysnob replied that those are regional roads maintained by tax money and that, if swimmer_spe wants it for the 17 too, he should pony up for it. In the context of Sudbury district though, there isn't a government at the level of territorial districts so to speak, so I'm not sure how that pans out.

That is just it, it doesn't. It goes back to the province.

Originally Posted by wave46

I'm not saying it doesn't suck for some people, but I'm also of the opinion that if you want to live in the boonies there are compromises, especially in regards to transportation. It is unreasonable to accommodate every Ontarian who can't get to work because a provincial highway is closed, especially for something as infrequent as an accident (winter weather tends to close all roads in a region, so an EDR does nothing for that). There are just not enough tax dollars to make something like this even remotely possible - a goal of 3 hours delay on thousands of kilometres of highway through the north of Ontario would cost billions.

I mean, I've lived in small towns in the north that have been completely cut off for a day plus. It sucks. Many of these places are much cheaper to live in, though, so when you can buy a house for a song compared to city-dwellers, pay minimal property taxes outside of municipalities, well, such are the trades you make to live where you want.

Government has infinite problems and finite money. I mean, we could hack millions out the budget of Health Sciences North in Sudbury and the Espanola Hospital to pay for this fancy EDR, but you'd find out quickly about how people view that idea (hint: not good).

Having alternate routes is important, for more than just the local traffic. Look at the Nipigon River Bridge incident. What did that do? This is why EDRs are important. They could be local roads, which, down south, the usually are.

[Dengler Avenue]

In other news, O.P.P. closed Highway 427 northbound lanes near Finch Avenue 20 minutes ago due to a large sinkhole. How did it even happen...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

In other news, O.P.P. closed Highway 427 northbound lanes near Finch Avenue 20 minutes ago due to a large sinkhole. How did it even happen...

Link?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Link?

OPP Highway Safety Division tweet

=====

Update: It was actually from OPP GTA Traffic: https://twitter.com/opp_gtatraffic/status/1257304547493425152?s=21.

[Dengler Avenue]

MTO’s doing work on Highway 404 Overpass above Highway 7. Any chance that it will make the span longer to accommodate a 2nd Viva lane, or is it like, “Screw you York Region, we aren’t paying for your mistakes?”

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

MTO’s doing work on Highway 404 Overpass above Highway 7. Any chance that it will make the span longer to accommodate a 2nd Viva lane, or is it like, “Screw you York Region, we aren’t paying for your mistakes?”

It's just a deck rehabilitation project. Replace any damaged concrete, apply new waterproofing and pavement, and conversion of the expansion joints to semi-intergral abutments.

There are no plans to demolish the current bridges to accommodate an extra transit lane beneath the 404.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

It's just a deck rehabilitation project. Replace any damaged concrete, apply new waterproofing and pavement, and conversion of the expansion joints to semi-intergral abutments.

There are no plans to demolish the current bridges to accommodate an extra transit lane beneath the 404.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1258397460390727680

Maybe if York Region got serious on transit, they would.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1258397460390727680

Maybe if York Region got serious on transit, they would.

When a bridge is replaced by rapid replacement the bridge abutments don't change. So, the new structures that will carry Highway 400 over Finch Avenue are going to be built to the exact same dimensions as the bridges that are being replaced.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

When a bridge is replaced by rapid replacement the bridge abutments don't change. So, the new structures that will carry Highway 400 over Finch Avenue are going to be built to the exact same dimensions as the bridges that are being replaced.

Are they just reducing the vehicle lanes?

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Are they just reducing the vehicle lanes?

Must be. There are currently 8 lanes beneath the 400 bridge.

Hwy 7 only had six beneath the 404. The Highway 7 bridges don't have central support pillars, so they cannibalized the former raised central median (as well as one of the pedestrian walkways) when they constructed the VIVA lane beneath the 400.

In the case of Highway 7, if VIVA buses really started being tremendously inconvenienced by the single lane alternating flow, the buses could just merge with vehicle traffic beneath the 404 and run with mixed traffic. That'd be a much more cost effective solution to replacing a perfectly good bridge.