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

[Dengler Avenue]

I have had this thought before (which was unrelated to "severing ties between politics and infrastructure improvement"), and now it's coming back to me.
Suppose that the provincial government enters into an agreement with the municipalities along TCH where the latter are allowed to twin the highway (to provincial standard) whenever they see fit, just to be reimbursed by the former in other ways.

Q1: Could the scenario happen at all?
Q2: Even if yes, would anything happen lol?

The reason why this thought is coming back to me is as follows:
A while back, an old man got fed up with broken staircases (?) in a Toronto park and took it upon himself to fix them. People liked it (because it worked), but the city took it down citing that it didn't meet the municipal requirement. Heh what political nonsense.

Also, for the record, the scenario that I described is a thing in SK.

Ps: I also can't believe that we just flipped a page in the span of 3 hours. :o

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I have had this thought before (which was unrelated to "severing ties between politics and infrastructure improvement"), and now it's coming back to me.
Suppose that the provincial government enters into an agreement with the municipalities along TCH where the latter are allowed to twin the highway (to provincial standard) whenever they see fit, just to be reimbursed by the former in other ways.

Q1: Could the scenario happen at all?
Q2: Even if yes, would anything happen lol?

The reason why this thought is coming back to me is as follows:
A while back, an old man got fed up with broken staircases (?) in a Toronto park and took it upon himself to fix them. People liked it (because it worked), but the city took it down citing that it didn't meet the municipal requirement. Heh what political nonsense.

Also, for the record, the scenario that I described is a thing in SK.

Ps: I also can't believe that we just flipped a page in the span of 3 hours. :o

The problem is, most municipalities are broke. Sudbury cannot afford to fix the roads it has much less 4 lane anything.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The problem is, most municipalities are broke. Sudbury cannot afford to fix the roads it has much less 4 lane anything.

Oh well, time for some (justifiable) cash grab (two of which I have already mentioned in the previous page) ~

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Oh well, time for some (justifiable) cash grab (two of which I have already mentioned in the previous page) ~

Photo Radar and higher fines?

The voters won't go for it.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Photo Radar and higher fines?

The voters won't go for it.

Nah nah nah, no photo radar. That's a big no no.

Higher fines come with higher speed limit though. I bet people can't wait to drive 120 kph on 17 and 11 without getting into trouble. :o

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Nah nah nah, no photo radar. That's a big no no.

Higher fines come with higher speed limit though. I bet people can't wait to drive 120 kph on 17 and 11 without getting into trouble. :o

Locally, the people took a rural road and forced the city to lower it....

So, higher speeds will also be a no.

[vid]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Is all of his riding served by a freeway on 17?

Just the part where all the people live.

This is Mauro's riding:



This is Gravelle's:

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Locally, the people took a rural road and forced the city to lower it....

So, higher speeds will also be a no.

How does that work?

Oh well, what about cops enforcing laws where they have previously given leeways? That can be anything, by the way.
Voters can't say no to that, can they?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

How does that work?

Oh well, what about cops enforcing laws where they have previously given leeways? That can be anything, by the way.
Voters can't say no to that, can they?

I have flown by the cops doing 30 over and they don't care.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by vid

Just the part where all the people live.

I'm guessing most people in that riding are boomers? If that's the case, NIMBY attitude can be a concern.

Here's the thing, though: Widening that corridor secures reliable access to health care, especially when it comes to getting equipment and stuff and needing to see doctors in T Bay (for some really bad diseases). I would say, there's still an incentive to widen 11/17 through that riding.

Also @swimmer_spe: I don't see why people would object to having the speed limit on TCH bumped to 100 kph though. Just those 2 routes. None else. Also was the cop travelling in the same direction as you? Was it on the 4-lane or 2-lane section?

Anyway, it's 1 am now. Time to call it a night?

[Dengler Avenue]

Meanwhile,
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...14901&page=169 # 3371
If that thing gets built in Coniston, I wonder where the alignment for 417 can be then.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Meanwhile,
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...14901&page=169 # 3371
If that thing gets built in Coniston, I wonder where the alignment for 417 can be then.

The plan is for the alignment to be north of the current alignment. The site is the old twin stacks site.

[Dengler Avenue]

Ah okay, I have always thought that the plan was to twin the current alignment until west of Wahnipitae, then bypass it and Stinson, then back to current alignment once again.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Ah okay, I have always thought that the plan was to twin the current alignment until west of Wahnipitae, then bypass it and Stinson, then back to current alignment once again.

http://agendasonline.greatersudbury....hment=5101.pdf

Go to page 14

[Dengler Avenue]

Question: If the twinning goes along 11 east of Nipigon, how should it be done, in conjunction with an EDR for the bridge?

I have 2 options in my head right now:
(1) Bypass the (future) 5-lane section of 11-17, blast tons of rocks to make a new 4-lane alignment 10 km east of the current Highway 11 (basically where 17 starts looping around a bay), and rejoin the current alignment southwest of Beardmore. The EDR bridge will cross the Lagoon immediately east of the railway bridge, then cross the river once again.
(2) Bypass Nipigon altogether from the west, go along 585, cross Nipigon River south of Pine Portage, vear northeast, and cross another river and rejoin current alignment 8 km north of the power plant.

Any thought? Terrain's nasty either way.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by dengler avenue

question: If the twinning goes along 11 east of nipigon, how should it be done, in conjunction with an edr for the bridge?

I have 2 options in my head right now:
(1) bypass the (future) 5-lane section of 11-17, blast tons of rocks to make a new 4-lane alignment 10 km east of the current highway 11 (basically where 17 starts looping around a bay), and rejoin the current alignment southwest of beardmore. The edr bridge will cross the lagoon immediately east of the railway bridge, then cross the river once again.
(2) bypass nipigon altogether from the west, go along 585, cross nipigon river south of pine portage, vear northeast, and cross another river and rejoin current alignment 8 km north of the power plant.

Any thought? Terrain's nasty either way.

edr?

[Dengler Avenue]

EDR = emergency detour route, aka an alternative route to the previous broken bridge.
Ps: I forgot that there isn’t any controlled-access freeway in NW Ontario just yet, so you guys may not be familiar with that term.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

EDR = emergency detour route, aka an alternative route to the previous broken bridge.
Ps: I forgot that there isn’t any controlled-access freeway in NW Ontario just yet, so you guys may not be familiar with that term.

I have heard of that, but was not thinking of that.

As far as where, I don't know.

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-ne...uck-ban-839825

The City of T Bay probably didn’t intend this, but if passed, it’s forcing the province to twin 11-17 all the way to Shabaqua Corners and bypass Oliver Paipoonage “prematurely”. (MTO wasn’t even planning to twin TCH until 2030 lol.)

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-ne...uck-ban-839825

The City of T Bay probably didn’t intend this, but if passed, it’s forcing the province to twin 11-17 all the way to Shabaqua Corners and bypass Oliver Paipoonage “prematurely”. (MTO wasn’t even planning to twin TCH until 2030 lol.)

... and sometimes politicians do good things.

A good way to force the hand of the Province.