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

[Dengler Avenue]

Also a new question:
In Quebec, people along Route 117 (between Labelle and Mont Laurier) are pressing their provincial government to twin the road, which is also part of the TCH network.
IMO, if their government is really willing, I can see route 117 twinned all the way to Rouyn-Noranda.
(Of course, if the government is willing for real, extending/twinning A50 will take priority, then twinning A20 east of Rivière-du-Loup, and completing the missing link between the 2 segments of 138, then wrapping up the A70 project. I really don't know where route 117 will fit in this to-do list, because it's the only direct route from Montreal (and Ottawa-Gatineau) to Abitibi-Témiskamingue but also because there are definitely other more pressing issues to address.

If Route 117 does get twinned to Rouyn-Noranda, though, how will that affect Ontario's decision on which route to twin? Specifically, how?
Again, IMO, I can see the AADT on 66 significantly increase, perhaps even to the point that a bypass needs to be built around Kirkland Lake area (including Swastika and King Kirkland). And lol, MTO will have to realign 66 around Virginiatown once more.

But what about 11 between Kenogami Lake and North Bay then??

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Also a new question:
In Quebec, people along Route 117 (between Labelle and Mont Laurier) are pressing their provincial government to twin the road, which is also part of the TCH network.
IMO, if their government is really willing, I can see route 117 twinned all the way to Rouyn-Noranda.
(Of course, if the government is willing for real, extending/twinning A50 will take priority, then twinning A20 east of Rivière-du-Loup, and completing the missing link between the 2 segments of 138, then wrapping up the A70 project. I really don't know where route 117 will fit in this to-do list, because it's the only direct route from Montreal (and Ottawa-Gatineau) to Abitibi-Témiskamingue but also because there are definitely other more pressing issues to address.

If Route 117 does get twinned to Rouyn-Noranda, though, how will that affect Ontario's decision on which route to twin? Specifically, how?
Again, IMO, I can see the AADT on 66 significantly increase, perhaps even to the point that a bypass needs to be built around Kirkland Lake area (including Swastika and King Kirkland). And lol, MTO will have to realign 66 around Virginiatown once more.

But what about 11 between Kenogami Lake and North Bay then??

That's an interesting hypothesis about Route 117, which raises another one - what about a twinned Route 117 from the Ontario border all the way down to the A-15 north of Montreal, as a competitive commercial advantage?

At the moment the main route from the West to Quebec and the Atlantic region is through Ontario because it's a better road than the Quebec routes.

If Quebec were to twin the 117 that would become the best and fastest highway between Western Canada, Montreal and anywhere east of there.

Now the question is whether Quebec would reap enough benefits of that to justify the costs.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's an interesting hypothesis about Route 117, which raises another one - what about a twinned Route 117 from the Ontario border all the way down to the A-15 north of Montreal, as a competitive commercial advantage?

At the moment the main route from the West to Quebec and the Atlantic region is through Ontario because it's a better road than the Quebec routes.

If Quebec were to twin the 117 that would become the best and fastest highway between Western Canada, Montreal and anywhere east of there.

Now the question is whether Quebec would reap enough benefits of that to justify the costs.

IMO...
Regionally speaking, for one, it depends on how tightly connected Abitibi-
Témiskamingue is to the rest of Southern Québec. Then it also depends on how much the government cares about developing Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d'Or. I can totally see these 2 places grow (and sprawl) if an autoroute is built all the way to the provincial boundary.
Also, I would recommend extending A50 through Joliette to meet up with A40 somewhere near Ville de Québec because traffic on Autoroute Métropolitaine is way too heavy, and because people probably don't like to see an excess number of trucks on city highways too.
Ps: To ensure that the twinning effort will be worthwhile, the AADT on the twinned 117 should be at least 3* the AADT on 175.
Also, even if the economic argument is weak, I can see a somewhat strong political one, both nationally and provincially.

Now that I think about it, Ontario government may actually welcome the news, because twinning the 66-11 corridor is probably a lot easier than doing the same thing with either 11 or 17 alone. The amount of rock that needs to be blasted goes down by quite a bit (although not non-zero).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

IMO...
Regionally speaking, for one, it depends on how tightly connected Abitibi-
Témiskamingue is to the rest of Southern Québec. Then it also depends on how much the government cares about developing Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d'Or. I can totally see these 2 places grow (and sprawl) if an autoroute is built all the way to the provincial boundary.
Also, I would recommend extending A50 through Joliette to meet up with A40 somewhere near Ville de Québec because traffic on Autoroute Métropolitaine is way too heavy, and because people probably don't like to see an excess number of trucks on city highways too.
Ps: To ensure that the twinning effort will be worthwhile, the AADT on the twinned 117 should be at least 3* the AADT on 175.
Also, even if the economic argument is weak, I can see a somewhat strong political one, both nationally and provincially.

Now that I think about it, Ontario government may actually welcome the news, because twinning the 66-11 corridor is probably a lot easier than doing the same thing with either 11 or 17 alone. The amount of rock that needs to be blasted goes down by quite a bit (although not non-zero).

Something else that could be done is a new highway from Temiskaming to Rapids-de-Joachims and then down to Sheenboro. This would greatly improve the travel down to Montreal.

...

But,, I am not sure how anything in Quebec does anything good for Northern Ontario's traffic and highways.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

But,, I am not sure how anything in Quebec does anything good for Northern Ontario's traffic and highways.

Maybe because if the 117 route through Quebec becomes a good alternative to go from the West to Montreal and Atlantic Canada, it will take quite a bit of traffic off the 11 and the 17? Thus leading to less political pressure to spend on improvements to them.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Also, I would recommend extending A50 through Joliette to meet up with A40 somewhere near Ville de Québec because traffic on Autoroute Métropolitaine is way too heavy, and because people probably don't like to see an excess number of trucks on city highways too.
.

There is already a northern bypass of Montreal for traffic going east of the city coming from either the west (A-50) or the north (A-15/R-117): it's the A-640 that goes in an arc from St-Eustache to Repentigny, where it meets up with the A-40.

You can also go east-west in this area on another route (A-440) that crosses the island of Laval, without going onto the island of Montreal either.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Maybe because if the 117 route through Quebec becomes a good alternative to go from the West to Montreal and Atlantic Canada, it will take quite a bit of traffic off the 11 and the 17? Thus leading to less political pressure to spend on improvements to them.

Hard to say. There's a few spots on 17 that have minor volume related problems, but those tend to be local issues - in Eastern Ontario from Pemboke to Arnprior and on the Sudbury-North Bay corridor in Northeastern Ontario.

The rest of the highway has an AADT of less than 5,000 (and often much lower than that). A vehicle count of greater than 10,000 is a very rough guide to start looking at twinning a highway from an operations point of view.

I'd make an estimate of about 2000-3000 vehicles travel across Canada each day through Northern Ontario.

The major problems with highways 11 and 17 are terrain and weather. Since there's two routes, traffic (and by extension, funding) is split, making a case for one involves neglecting the other.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by wave46

Hard to say. There's a few spots on 17 that have minor volume related problems, but those tend to be local issues - in Eastern Ontario from Pemboke to Arnprior and on the Sudbury-North Bay corridor in Northeastern Ontario.

The rest of the highway has an AADT of less than 5,000 (and often much lower than that). A vehicle count of greater than 10,000 is a very rough guide to start looking at twinning a highway from an operations point of view.

I'd make an estimate of about 2000-3000 vehicles travel across Canada each day through Northern Ontario.

The major problems with highways 11 and 17 are terrain and weather. Since there's two routes, traffic (and by extension, funding) is split, making a case for one involves neglecting the other.

Actually, up to SSM, aadt on 17 is around 6000, and drops significantly until Nipigon.
While aadt on 11 is relatively lower, one must remember that induced demand is a thing. At that point, cross-country aadt may increase significantly. Unfortunately, I don't have a number on how many cross-country traffic goes through the states then use the 401. If there are quite a bit though, I also see that as an opportunity to take them off that highway because they technically shouldn't be there to begin with.

Also think this way: invest in 11 in NE (relatively decent terrain), but in 17 in NW (directly route to Western Canada unless you wanna twin 71 or built a super bridge across Lake of the Woods). Doesn't that even out?

Ps: There's technically already a road from Temiskaming to Rolphton, but it's a winding one.

[Dengler Avenue]

Also, the thing with Quebec twinning 117 all the way to provincial boundary is that, in that case twinning 17 north of SSM no longer makes sense.

My line of thinking is this: twin one of them (whichever option is cheaper) so that the twinned highway takes away the bypassing traffic from the other, making the latter slightly safer. If people decry such "neglect", remind them (in the future) how the number of serious (if not fatal) crashes goes down.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Actually, up to SSM, aadt on 17 is around 6000, and drops significantly until Nipigon.
While aadt on 11 is relatively lower, one must remember that induced demand is a thing. At that point, cross-country aadt may increase significantly. Unfortunately, I don't have a number on how many cross-country traffic goes through the states then use the 401. If there are quite a bit though, I also see that as an opportunity to take them off that highway because they technically shouldn't be there to begin with.

Also think this way: invest in 11 in NE (relatively decent terrain), but in 17 in NW (directly route to Western Canada unless you wanna twin 71 or built a super bridge across Lake of the Woods). Doesn't that even out?

Ps: There's technically already a road from Temiskaming to Rolphton, but it's a winding one.

Do tell. Is it paved? (I own a motorcycle and it likes the winding roads that have some sort of blacktop.)

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Maybe because if the 117 route through Quebec becomes a good alternative to go from the West to Montreal and Atlantic Canada, it will take quite a bit of traffic off the 11 and the 17? Thus leading to less political pressure to spend on improvements to them.

When I go to Atlantic Canada or anywhere in Quebec I take Route 117, bypass Montreal, take Autoroute 40 to Quebec City, cross the bridge over the St. Lawrence River on A-73 and join up with A-40, (Transcanadienne). Or I'll go up to Chibougamau then down to Saguenay and then to one of the ferries that crosses the St Lawrence River.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Also a new question:
In Quebec, people along Route 117 (between Labelle and Mont Laurier) are pressing their provincial government to twin the road, which is also part of the TCH network.
IMO, if their government is really willing, I can see route 117 twinned all the way to Rouyn-Noranda.
(Of course, if the government is willing for real, extending/twinning A50 will take priority, then twinning A20 east of Rivière-du-Loup, and completing the missing link between the 2 segments of 138, then wrapping up the A70 project. I really don't know where route 117 will fit in this to-do list, because it's the only direct route from Montreal (and Ottawa-Gatineau) to Abitibi-Témiskamingue but also because there are definitely other more pressing issues to address.

If Route 117 does get twinned to Rouyn-Noranda, though, how will that affect Ontario's decision on which route to twin? Specifically, how?
Again, IMO, I can see the AADT on 66 significantly increase, perhaps even to the point that a bypass needs to be built around Kirkland Lake area (including Swastika and King Kirkland). And lol, MTO will have to realign 66 around Virginiatown once more.

But what about 11 between Kenogami Lake and North Bay then??

Just drove the entire Route 117 in Quebec in January. Some 4 lane sections have recently opened North of Mont-Tremblant that bypass a couple of towns. (Labelle and Rivière-Rouge) It seems as though the current goal is to have the 4 lanes up to Mont-Laurier. That goes through the Upper Laurentian hills and there are quite a few curves and hills. It will have to be mostly new alignments because there are a lot of private homes and some businesses along that section. So that will take quite a long time to complete. I actually like driving that section as it's scenic.

Beyond Mont-Laurier and especially North of Montcerf-Lytton through the La Vérendrye wildlife reserve doesn't see a lot of traffic. The highway has paved shoulders and is nice to drive. There are a lot of passing lanes.

The only section where there is somewhat more traffic is between Val-d'Or and Rouyn-Noranda. But probably not worth 4 laning yet unless the mining traffic picks up even more with many more ore trucks. Rouyn to the Ontario border has very little traffic.

[Loco101]

The reason I'm for 4 laning Hwy 11 is mainly due to transports and the many accidents with them that result in fatalities. There are some section that are worse than others and the Temagami area is probably the worst so 4 laning there should be a priority without looking at traffic volumes.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Loco101

The reason I'm for 4 laning Hwy 11 is mainly due to transports and the many accidents with them that result in fatalities. There are some section that are worse than others and the Temagami area is probably the worst so 4 laning there should be a priority without looking at traffic volumes.

Yea I would agree with that too. The big problem is that north of 64 and south of 11B there is no alternative road, and what the heck, we've already seen 4 fatalities in the past 2 - 3 months.
The same can be said about 17 near Espanola (intersection with 6) though, just saying.

Twinning-wise, I would rather that it be done all in one go from Marten River to Earlton. I have seen google map enough to realize that traffic can be a gong show near the latter.

Now, assuming that the premier and/or MTO is willing to carry it out (I don't know who has a bigger say on something like this), if some mean people in Queens Park keep it from happening, NE and NW Ontario should just separate. Enough is enough with the neglect.

[Dengler Avenue]

OPP NER just posted on twitter that the crash on 69 near Still River at 4 pm claimed multiple lives.

[vid]

Nipigon is the choke point between east and west, where both 11 and 17 merge, and its AADT is around 5000. Considering the amount of traffic commuting between Thunder Bay and Nipigon, you can probably cut that number in half and that would be a reasonable estimate at traffic volume crossing the north. Wave46's estimate sounds reasonable to me.

[Dengler Avenue]

If AADT isn’t the sole criterion for twinning, though, I’m still hopeful that it will be done, soon. By soon I mean 10 years.
Defending the decision in front of opposition will be a challenge though.

Ps: Funny enough, Michael Gravelle has advocated for twinning between T Bay and Nipigon and west of Nipigon, but he never said anything about the segment between Sistonens Corner and Shabaqua Corner.

[swimmer_spe]

I doubt twinning of northern highways will happen that quickly. They are moving at a snails pace on 69, and it has an AADT of about 6000-7000.


http://www.raqsb.mto.gov.on.ca/techpubs/TrafficVolumes.nsf/fa027808647879788525708a004b5df8/f51986ea499a13b08525745f006dd30b/$FILE/Provincial%20Highways%20Traffic%20Volumes%202016%20AADT%20Only.pdf

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by wave46

Hard to say. There's a few spots on 17 that have minor volume related problems, but those tend to be local issues - in Eastern Ontario from Pemboke to Arnprior and on the Sudbury-North Bay corridor in Northeastern Ontario.

The rest of the highway has an AADT of less than 5,000 (and often much lower than that). A vehicle count of greater than 10,000 is a very rough guide to start looking at twinning a highway from an operations point of view.

I'd make an estimate of about 2000-3000 vehicles travel across Canada each day through Northern Ontario.

The major problems with highways 11 and 17 are terrain and weather. Since there's two routes, traffic (and by extension, funding) is split, making a case for one involves neglecting the other.

I'm actually starting to question whether this argument holds water now.
The example I have in mind is BC, where there are 2 TCH routes too: 1 (to Calgary) and 16 (to Edmonton).

Now we know that the decision is to twin Highway 1 despite its more rugged terrain, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of opposition to that decision. (Or am I wrong about that?) Can't we do something similar?

Ps: I am aware, though, that there are a lot fewer significant settlements on the 16 east of Prince George.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I'm actually starting to question whether this argument holds water now.
The example I have in mind is BC, where there are 2 TCH routes too: 1 (to Calgary) and 16 (to Edmonton).

Now we know that the decision is to twin Highway 1 despite its more rugged terrain, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of opposition to that decision. (Or am I wrong about that?) Can't we do something similar?

Ps: I am aware, though, that there are a lot fewer significant settlements on the 16 east of Prince George.

If 17 was divided west of Thunder Bay and east of Sault St Marie, and if 11 was divided between North Bay and Nipigon, that would please most people.