Highways in Canada

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

They were, but what used to be a "100-year flood" or "100-year storm" is both more frequent and more severe.

Other factors will also have to be considered: changes in freeze-thaw cycles, increased summer vs. winter temperature extremes, changes in the predominant types of precipitation by season (more or less snow, rain, ice).

Design standards have to be updated to reflect all this, and they'll vary by region of the country. But that just means new infrastructure will be built to withstand expected future weather events, climate norms, and environmental risks. Upgrading the older stuff will either happen when it's due for replacement, or if it's deemed important enough and at a high enough risk that it needs to be done before its useful lifespan is up.

While true, I'm not sure a '100-year' concept is really well-developed in much of Canada or extremes tested with any rigour.

A lot of this country has only had permanent settlements for ~100-150 years. I'd imagine that any realistic flood mapping has only existed for the last 75. Before, it was probably 'Don't build on the swamp' and hope for the best.

When the first all-terrain highway was completed across this country in, uh, 1943, it doesn't exactly lend itself to in-depth analysis of extreme events and their effect on modern infrastructure.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The Coq is built similar to interstates. Isn't it still closed?

It will be closed at least until the spring or early summer. There are some interesting photos on the Transportation Dept facebook page. One section of the Coq is now the river. so they are going to have to divert the river or realign the highway.

BC Highway 8 doesn't exists in one section so they will have to build a whole new road.

The bridges that are out are already being worked on. but I did notice in one of the images that there was a truck with girders on it. so they must be building some temp bridges in sections.

As it is we have canceled out trip to Victoria in Jan.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Airboy

As it is we have canceled out trip to Victoria in Jan.

Were you planning to go up the Island?

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by thewave46

While true, I'm not sure a '100-year' concept is really well-developed in much of Canada or extremes tested with any rigour.

A lot of this country has only had permanent settlements for ~100-150 years. I'd imagine that any realistic flood mapping has only existed for the last 75. Before, it was probably 'Don't build on the swamp' and hope for the best.

When the first all-terrain highway was completed across this country in, uh, 1943, it doesn't exactly lend itself to in-depth analysis of extreme events and their effect on modern infrastructure.

It's based on a statistical probability. It basically just means that on average there is a 1% chance of something of a certain scale happening in a given year, because we expect it to occur at least once per century. But for extreme weather events the annual probability has been increasing.

The period of observation of such things in Canada and the US is relatively short, so the terminology is a bit misleading here... and it was probably chosen for its psychological impact: "Something like THAT only happens every 100 years!" carries more weight than "The annual probability of such an occurrence is X%"

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by esquire

Were you planning to go up the Island?

Yup. but we normally drive. Flying just adds more to the trip. Still possible since I have a coaching conference in Jan I may attend out there.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I believe the area just west of Sault Ste. Marie around Batchewana Bay and Lake Superior Provincial Park has some issues. Two years ago my family had a hiking trip up at Pukaskwa Park and had to detour through Chapleau because Hwy 17 was washed out west of Batchewana Bay. Then just a few weeks ago we were grabbing breakfast at the A&W in Blind River, and a heavy-equipment operator was in there heading to that same area as one lane was closed due to some rockfall. In both instances, though, I think the highway was reopened in relatively short order. Certainly nothing comparable to what BC or Nfld have seen just now.

I would be curious if it's even possible for Ontario to experience rainfall like they have seen. The Great Lakes are big, but I don't know if they are big enough for weather systems to pick up that amount of moisture. The most significant flooding event I'm aware of is Hurricane Hazel, which was a highly anomalous event, and damage from that was primarily due to irresponsible land-use planning practices of the time. If it were happen today, damage would likely be far more limited.

I will have to look at my books and search online to see the biggest rain events in Ontario. I know that Hurricane Hazel (was actually a tropical storm) is one of them. There was a huge rainfall in Toronto about 4-6 years ago that may have broken the record from Hazel. I'll have to get back on rainfalls records.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

^ There were some major washouts near Wawa on Hwy 17 maybe 4 or 5 years ago as well. I think the highway was only closed for a few days though. It's generally not too troublesome to replace a washed out culvert. All the materials are generally pre-cast products that are ordered basically out of a catalogue.

BC's problems are far more serious since they involved full bridge washouts. I'd be willing to bet that the mountains of BC don't have comprehensive floodline mapping. Even in fairly built up areas in places like southern Ontario, the floodline mapping is constantly being updated and refined, and despite how engineered everything there is, flooding still poses a small risk to some properties and structures.

Yes I remember those washouts along Hwy 17. In fact, I was in Wawa during one of those two washout events. I was supposed to head to Sault Ste Marie but had to go via Hwy 129.

There were two separate washout events. The rivers flowing into Lake Superior can be quite powerful right before they flow into the lake. I can't remember exactly where it happened South of Wawa. But I know part of a motel on Hwy 17 in Wawa was washed out. And the bridge in the village of Michipicoten got wrecked from Wawa Creek by a flash flood. Here is the old bridge: https://www.google.ca/maps/@47.9359139,-...-tzsWfIRAxVMNRV8hao0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Now there is a much more expensive a larger concrete bridge. There area has lots of waterfalls and dams.

Here's the motel before the washout: https://www.google.ca/maps/@48.0290702,-...wSA!2e0!5s20120801T000000!7i13312!8i6656

And after: https://www.google.ca/maps/@48.0290821,-...QJw!2e0!5s20151001T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Many of the washouts were caused by overflowing creeks that normally have little water in them.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

They were, but what used to be a "100-year flood" or "100-year storm" is both more frequent and more severe.

Other factors will also have to be considered: changes in freeze-thaw cycles, increased summer vs. winter temperature extremes, changes in the predominant types of precipitation by season (more or less snow, rain, ice).

Design standards have to be updated to reflect all this, and they'll vary by region of the country. But that just means new infrastructure will be built to withstand expected future weather events, climate norms, and environmental risks. Upgrading the older stuff will either happen when it's due for replacement, or if it's deemed important enough and at a high enough risk that it needs to be done before its useful lifespan is up.

Have things changed that much in 30 years? Obviously designs change and materials change. However, if the 100 year storm was planned, and then we get it, the road should be good.

Originally Posted by Airboy

It will be closed at least until the spring or early summer. There are some interesting photos on the Transportation Dept facebook page. One section of the Coq is now the river. so they are going to have to divert the river or realign the highway.

BC Highway 8 doesn't exists in one section so they will have to build a whole new road.

The bridges that are out are already being worked on. but I did notice in one of the images that there was a truck with girders on it. so they must be building some temp bridges in sections.

As it is we have canceled out trip to Victoria in Jan.

After what happened, diverting the river should not even be considered.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Have things changed that much in 30 years? Obviously designs change and materials change. However, if the 100 year storm was planned, and then we get it, the road should be good.

Part of the point is that the storm intensity is beyond what was expected when these things were built... I should have bolded the last part of "more frequent and more severe"

I am not an engineer, I just have some understanding of the issue from courses I've taken and from working alongside people in the infrastructure business. But yeah things have changed! The materials science is much more advanced, design tools have changed, modelling is better and offers more opportunity to test scenarios of weather and climate...

Weather is more sensationalized these days because we live in a much more connected world (and amped up by social media), and more humans are living in higher-risk areas than before so the impacts tend to be more expensive in both money and social terms. But the experts have been telling us more and more that we're seeing devastating regional events -- floods, fires, storms, droughts, etc. -- more often than we used to, and in places that we didn't see them that often before. We're going to need to adapt and it won't be cheap, but the effects of not adapting seem to be becoming much more expensive to society.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by davee930

Of course if we had an interstate system like the US. This catastophe would have been minimized. Bigger roads, more roads, bigger bridges. What am I missing here?

You don't need an interstate system to have bigger roads, bigger bridges.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The problem is not with Ottawa but BC.

When expanding HWY#15 from the border to HWY#1 which is Vancouver's only north/south trucking route, BC just wanted a regular 4 lane road which is now has with 13 lights going thru 2 school zones and a major urban area, with much a 50km/hr speed limit. This was part of the Border Infrastructure Program and Ottawa was willing to contribute more to create a much faster and reliable route but it was BC that declined the money because they would have to match it and BC doesn't like spending money on roads no matter how essential.

Now HWY#15 is painfully slow and terminally backed-up, is used by agriculture tractors, lights at the bottom of 3 major hills bringing transport traffic to a painful stop, and even has a sign telling drivers to "slow to 50km/hr when children playing on the highway"...........you couldn't make this stuff up.

HWY 15 will never be a freeway. It is simply a secondary highway.

Besides even if it was a freeway it wouldn't stop the washouts in the mountains.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Aren't most bridges designed for "100 year floods"?

If you think back to the early 80's when the Coquihalla was built. At the time the 100 year flood would of only brought has a certain amount of water.

The rain fall we had was far worse than than that. Hope broke its all time 24 hour rain fall by 4 times. Most records are not broken by that wide of a margin.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Airboy

It will be closed at least until the spring or early summer. There are some interesting photos on the Transportation Dept facebook page. One section of the Coq is now the river. so they are going to have to divert the river or realign the highway.

BC Highway 8 doesn't exists in one section so they will have to build a whole new road.

The bridges that are out are already being worked on. but I did notice in one of the images that there was a truck with girders on it. so they must be building some temp bridges in sections.

As it is we have canceled out trip to Victoria in Jan.

They will probably open the Coq in a limited capacity, limited speed mode.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Part of the point is that the storm intensity is beyond what was expected when these things were built... I should have bolded the last part of "more frequent and more severe"

I am not an engineer, I just have some understanding of the issue from courses I've taken and from working alongside people in the infrastructure business. But yeah things have changed! The materials science is much more advanced, design tools have changed, modelling is better and offers more opportunity to test scenarios of weather and climate...

Weather is more sensationalized these days because we live in a much more connected world (and amped up by social media), and more humans are living in higher-risk areas than before so the impacts tend to be more expensive in both money and social terms. But the experts have been telling us more and more that we're seeing devastating regional events -- floods, fires, storms, droughts, etc. -- more often than we used to, and in places that we didn't see them that often before. We're going to need to adapt and it won't be cheap, but the effects of not adapting seem to be becoming much more expensive to society.

We definitely need to adapt to the changing climate or else we will become extinct.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by cabotp

They will probably open the Coq in a limited capacity, limited speed mode.

Announcements were made last night that the Coq could be partially open to commercial Traffic only by Jan. A lot of temp bridges for the time being. If that is the case, expect the Coq to be opened by summer. With restrictions but open.

[JustForTheHalibut]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I give Saskatchewan low marks for their highways. Even Highway 1 has busy at-grade intersections where there should clearly be proper interchanges.
But there really aren't freeways in Manitoba or Saskatachewan. Just some short sections in each of those provinces.

Alberta is surprisingly low standards in some parts. At grade intersections along Hwy 1 on the outskirts of Calgary in Chestermere and Strathmore. Really?!? And even some at grade ones along Hwy 2 between Edmonton and Calgary!!

What i'd give to have even just at grade intersection right now to bypass the washouts in BC. At grade intersections in flatter terrain is a lot easy to navigate than what we have in BC at some traffic lite intersections and over passes.

Now that I think of it I think I read somewhere that Alberta and probably Saskatchewan too, has by far the highest number of miles or kilometers of highway in Canada by population and by a long shot.

I'd imagine it wouldn't make sense to try and build over/underpasses for some highways there that have traffic measured in dozens of vehicles per hour as compared to more populace provinces like BC, Quebec and Ontario. It would cost not billions of dollars to build overpasses on the most travelled highway intersections on the flat prairies, but probably Trillions of dollars to do so.

I talked with a rural business owner a number of years ago about similar types of upgrades to highways in Alberta. He said that most rural people, particularly farmers, would rather have numerous at grade crossings at highways for their equipment to travel to their fields instead of having to drive a dozen kilometers one way to try and negotiate a low hanging over pass with tall equipment just to have to drive a dozen kilometers back just to get across a single divided highway to get to one of their fields across the road.

not sure if that makes sense to non agricultural people or not but that's what I was told

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by JustForTheHalibut

Now that I think of it I think I read somewhere that Alberta and probably Saskatchewan too, has by far the highest number of miles or kilometers of highway in Canada by population and by a long shot.

I'd imagine it wouldn't make sense to try and build over/underpasses for some highways there that have traffic measured in dozens of vehicles per hour as compared to more populace provinces like BC, Quebec and Ontario. It would cost not billions of dollars to build overpasses on the most travelled highway intersections on the flat prairies, but probably Trillions of dollars to do so.

I talked with a rural business owner a number of years ago about similar types of upgrades to highways in Alberta. He said that most rural people, particularly farmers, would rather have numerous at grade crossings at highways for their equipment to travel to their fields instead of having to drive a dozen kilometers one way to try and negotiate a low hanging over pass with tall equipment just to have to drive a dozen kilometers back just to get across a single divided highway to get to one of their fields across the road.

not sure if that makes sense to non agricultural people or not but that's what I was told

It makes sense that rural farm country provinces have higher mileage of roads, given that many roads are essentially farm accesses.

The issue becomes one of conflict. If a farming road is only used as a local, low-volume local thing there's no issue. If that highway becomes a through route for high volumes of traffic between major cities, who does one prioritize?

When Winnipeg's Perimeter Highway was built in the 1950s, I'd imagine the farm lobby had a pretty big hand in keeping all sorts of side-accesses open. In the 21st century where Winnipeg is coming up on 800,000 people and the Perimeter is now a bypass and handles a fair bit of local traffic, is accommodating a tractor trying to make a hop across it with increasing amounts of traffic going 110km/h worth it?

Essentially the Prairies will have to make a choice on their more heavily trafficked routes about how they intend to proceed. Maybe they'll choose a handful of important routes to make into complete freeways.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by JustForTheHalibut

What i'd give to have even just at grade intersection right now to bypass the washouts in BC. At grade intersections in flatter terrain is a lot easy to navigate than what we have in BC at some traffic lite intersections and over passes.

Now that I think of it I think I read somewhere that Alberta and probably Saskatchewan too, has by far the highest number of miles or kilometers of highway in Canada by population and by a long shot.

I'd imagine it wouldn't make sense to try and build over/underpasses for some highways there that have traffic measured in dozens of vehicles per hour as compared to more populace provinces like BC, Quebec and Ontario. It would cost not billions of dollars to build overpasses on the most travelled highway intersections on the flat prairies, but probably Trillions of dollars to do so.

I talked with a rural business owner a number of years ago about similar types of upgrades to highways in Alberta. He said that most rural people, particularly farmers, would rather have numerous at grade crossings at highways for their equipment to travel to their fields instead of having to drive a dozen kilometers one way to try and negotiate a low hanging over pass with tall equipment just to have to drive a dozen kilometers back just to get across a single divided highway to get to one of their fields across the road.

not sure if that makes sense to non agricultural people or not but that's what I was told

It's more convenient for agriculture but not as safe for vehicles on the highway.

I realize that it's very expensive to have freeways but I do believe that there should be proper interchanges with overpasses when there is quite a bit of traffic. And there are places in AB and SK that I have mentioned before where proper interchanges are badly needed. Ontario would never allow at-grade so close to large centres like I've seen in Alberta. And I witnesses a bad accident at a busy at-grade intersection at Hwy 1 and Hwy 9 in Whitewood SK where a proper interchange is badly needed.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by JustForTheHalibut

What i'd give to have even just at grade intersection right now to bypass the washouts in BC. At grade intersections in flatter terrain is a lot easy to navigate than what we have in BC at some traffic lite intersections and over passes.

Now that I think of it I think I read somewhere that Alberta and probably Saskatchewan too, has by far the highest number of miles or kilometers of highway in Canada by population and by a long shot.

I'd imagine it wouldn't make sense to try and build over/underpasses for some highways there that have traffic measured in dozens of vehicles per hour as compared to more populace provinces like BC, Quebec and Ontario. It would cost not billions of dollars to build overpasses on the most travelled highway intersections on the flat prairies, but probably Trillions of dollars to do so.

I talked with a rural business owner a number of years ago about similar types of upgrades to highways in Alberta. He said that most rural people, particularly farmers, would rather have numerous at grade crossings at highways for their equipment to travel to their fields instead of having to drive a dozen kilometers one way to try and negotiate a low hanging over pass with tall equipment just to have to drive a dozen kilometers back just to get across a single divided highway to get to one of their fields across the road.

not sure if that makes sense to non agricultural people or not but that's what I was told

Those overpasses are the only thing above water. The problem is that the area used to be a lake.

[JustForTheHalibut]

Originally Posted by thewave46

It makes sense that rural farm country provinces have higher mileage of roads, given that many roads are essentially farm accesses.

The issue becomes one of conflict. If a farming road is only used as a local, low-volume local thing there's no issue. If that highway becomes a through route for high volumes of traffic between major cities, who does one prioritize?

When Winnipeg's Perimeter Highway was built in the 1950s, I'd imagine the farm lobby had a pretty big hand in keeping all sorts of side-accesses open. In the 21st century where Winnipeg is coming up on 800,000 people and the Perimeter is now a bypass and handles a fair bit of local traffic, is accommodating a tractor trying to make a hop across it with increasing amounts of traffic going 110km/h worth it?

Essentially the Prairies will have to make a choice on their more heavily trafficked routes about how they intend to proceed. Maybe they'll choose a handful of important routes to make into complete freeways.

Yes, I think the people that live there probably know best what works for them, they don't seem to have to deal with road washouts as much as we do.
I don't know enough about the Perimeter Hwy in Winnipeg to say what it was like over 70 years ago when first build but I sort of doubt that now days that there are too many tractors entering the city to do farm work there. Now would be a good time to finally add the overpasses to the Perimeter road.

Originally Posted by Loco101

It's more convenient for agriculture but not as safe for vehicles on the highway.

I realize that it's very expensive to have freeways but I do believe that there should be proper interchanges with overpasses when there is quite a bit of traffic. And there are places in AB and SK that I have mentioned before where proper interchanges are badly needed. Ontario would never allow at-grade so close to large centres like I've seen in Alberta. And I witnesses a bad accident at a busy at-grade intersection at Hwy 1 and Hwy 9 in Whitewood SK where a proper interchange is badly needed.

Since you've lived in Saskatchewan and Alberta you would know better how the 8 million people in the Prairie provinces should spend their highway tax dollar and exactly which intersections need conversion first. The last thing I usually think about after seeing an accident (i've never been involved in a highway accident like you) after seeing an accident is say the highway was at fault. Maybe more education of highway drivers would help more than overpasses at every intersection.
i think as long as there still are two lane highways where vehicles are hurling at a combined 200kms/hour toward each other and narrowly missing each other by a few feet and a dotted yellow line, there will still be highway accidents, let alone the deer and moose and big horn sheep that don't follow highway rules.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Those overpasses are the only thing above water. The problem is that the area used to be a lake.

Part of the coquihalla highway washed out near the river, a overpass wouldn't have helped get across that more than the bridge that was already built there.