Trans Canada Highway Twinning: Segments U/C

[Mister F]

It's odd considering Highway 11 south of North Bay has a speed limit of 100 and it has the same design. It's not surprising though, Ontario has some of the lowest speed limits anywhere.

The design of the road is fine. With its relatively low traffic volumes it doesn't need interchanges.

[UrbanPlannerr]

Originally Posted by Biff

^^^ Still in design, construction start is expected for 2011. It is apparently fairly large design because they are not only building the interchange for 1 & 16 but an overpass for the rail line on 16, 2km north. They expect about 7 separate overpass structures.

Are there not more busy intersections on the perimeter that do not have an interchange? I'm guessing this is more important and busy than any of these on the perimeter?

[jmt18325]

There are already plans for 4 more overpass structures on the perimeter in the medium term (CCW, Saskatchewan, full interchange at 59, and eventual interchange where Waverly currently connects) and there will probably be more soon...and yes, the intersection of the two Trans Canadas needs it more.

BTW Biff, what ever happened with the completion of the intersection of highways 101 and 15? Are they waiting for the new bridge to be built, or is it on hold?

[0773|=\]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

^ And a beauty at that, Winnipeg's perimeter is the only highway I've seen in NA with curbs directly against the left hand lane, real helpful when trying to flip your car during accident avoidance maneuvers!

Nope. Not true. Edmonton has a few.

Whitemud Drive from Fox Drive to Terwilligar Drive has a left-lane curb (although a two-foot shoulder also exists), and our ring road (AB 216) has a 2-3 km section around the Sherwood Park Freeway interchange with curbs right next to the left lane. Both will likely be gone in a few years (pending an interchange overhaul at Whitemud and Terwilligar, and that section of AB 216 is getting an overhaul before 2015. You're not entirely alone... for now.

That being said, the Winnipeg's Perimeter needs some serious help.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

There are already plans for 4 more overpass structures on the perimeter in the medium term (CCW, Saskatchewan, full interchange at 59, and eventual interchange where Waverly currently connects) and there will probably be more soon...and yes, the intersection of the two Trans Canadas needs it more.

BTW Biff, what ever happened with the completion of the intersection of highways 101 and 15? Are they waiting for the new bridge to be built, or is it on hold?

You would think that now would be the time to build it without any traffic disruption but nope. No plans for the foreseeable future. I believe they studied it, but I'm sure you probably know the outcome of that....

[jmt18325]

Ha, yeah. I know that it was in the original renewal plan (which I wish they would update since they have added and taken away many different projects), and I would assume that they'll have to do something some day....but I guess not yet.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Mister F

It's odd considering Highway 11 south of North Bay has a speed limit of 100 and it has the same design. It's not surprising though, Ontario has some of the lowest speed limits anywhere.

The design of the road is fine. With its relatively low traffic volumes it doesn't need interchanges.

Yeah, I've done the Winnipeg - Ottawa drive a few times now...
Good lord the speed limits are low for the design of the road. Ontario does deserve the title of having the best highway standards in the country, but they certainly could offer a more reasonable speed limit on MOST of highway 17.

We prefer to split the trip in Canada and US, and use US highway 2 from Grand Forks ND to Sault Ste. Marie. The road isn't a freeway, but neither is highway 17... and the speed limit is higher on US highway 2.
Granted, it doesn't really save any time... but gas is a bit less, the hotel is cheaper, I dunno... either way the trip is a bit of a void-crossing.

[vid]

MTO says it is because of the terrain. The trip through the US is flat, the one through Canada is zig-zagging and full of hills and cliffs. There have been a good amount of cases where people have driven into rock cliffs or into lakes and swamps. Places like Rainy River and Thunder Bay where the terrain is flat, though, could certainly use higher speed limits. The Thunder Bay Expressway should be at least 100km/h, 120km/h on the divided portion. If would have been an actual freeway if Harris wasn't an asshole.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by vid

MTO says it is because of the terrain. The trip through the US is flat, the one through Canada is zig-zagging and full of hills and cliffs. There have been a good amount of cases where people have driven into rock cliffs or into lakes and swamps. Places like Rainy River and Thunder Bay where the terrain is flat, though, could certainly use higher speed limits. The Thunder Bay Expressway should be at least 100km/h, 120km/h on the divided portion. If would have been an actual freeway if Harris wasn't an asshole.

If that was the case, then why are 11 and 69/400 both 100 km/h (or going to be) even though the terrain is no different? Terrain wouldn't be an issue with proper guardrails either.

I wonder if Northwest Region made that decision? There are no highways in Northwestern Ontario with a 100 km/h limit, so I guess they felt that this was no different.

Using the official plan, I modified it here to make my ideas for what the ultimate alignment of that section will be (maroon = my own changes). It is a full freeway in this plan. I didn't adjust the road network in Manitoba as that would be in a separate project.

I am working on submitting it to the engineering firm involved as my recommendation.

(Caution - large file, 3.4MB) http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1610/17w2050.jpg

As for the Thunder Bay Expressway, due to the large number of traffic lights and undivided nature given the traffic volume, I wouldn't increase it beyond 90 km/h until divided and the traffic lights are replaced by interchanges and grade separations. On the divided portion, 100 km/h would definitely be warranted especially after the extension.

[vid]

Northwest Region of MTO or Northwest Region itself? We have no region government so it would have to be an MTO thing. We really have little say into what happens up here. All of the highway work is contracted to companies based in Toronto.

Complains about the highway speed limits really go nowhere, we just feel better complaining about it.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by vid

We really have little say into what happens up here. All of the highway work is contracted to companies based in Toronto.

There are plenty of firms from outside Toronto that do MTO work. The City of Thunder Bay has just as much say in what happens with provincial highways as any other municipality. Your constant playing the victim gets tiresome.

[vid]

What they're doing by expanding the highway to the east without upgrading it in the city would be like building a 12 lane freeway between Scarborough and Cobourg while the 401 in Toronto remains a 6 lane road with at-grade intersections. They are building an interchange at the least busy intersection along the Thunder Bay Expressway, completely ignoring at-grade intersections that cause gridlock in our suburbs.

Their priorities are completely mixed up. Upgrading the Thunder Bay Expressway to a full freeway was proposed twenty years ago. Imagine if any upgrades Toronto's major highways were delayed by 20 years.

[eternallyme]

I'm referring to MTO Northwest Region, not Northwestern Ontario as a whole. I think people up there would love the higher speed limits...

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

^^^ Still in design, construction start is expected for 2011. It is apparently fairly large design because they are not only building the interchange for 1 & 16 but an overpass for the rail line on 16, 2km north. They expect about 7 separate overpass structures.

Details are here:

http://www.1and16interchange.ca/

Here is, in my humble estimation, the likeliest configuration based on the pros-and-cons listed on the site:

[AirGuitarChampion]

Originally Posted by vid

Their priorities are completely mixed up. Upgrading the Thunder Bay Expressway to a full freeway was proposed twenty years ago. Imagine if any upgrades Toronto's major highways were delayed by 20 years.

Well the differences in growth between the two make that a silly statement.

However having said that the least they could have done is make the Harbour Expressway extension flow without intersection (i.e. some kind of flyover bridge from eastbound Harbour to easbound T-Bay expy) into the Thunder Bay Expressway.

Pretty much moot though because I only use 102 to get there whenever I drive there anyway. Not sure why they just don't upgrade that road, and sink any money into a full Red River / T-Bay Expy interchange (appears as though there's enough land). All the Harbour Expressway extension does is get me to tubing and Stanley Burgers only *slightly* faster.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by esquire

Details are here:

http://www.1and16interchange.ca/

Here is, in my humble estimation, the likeliest configuration based on the pros-and-cons listed on the site:

If Alternative D (two separate interchanges) was chosen, what would be the spacing between the two? Otherwise Alternative B is definitely best, maintaining the existing MB-1 routing.

[vid]

Originally Posted by AirGuitarChampion

Not sure why they just don't upgrade that road, and sink any money into a full Red River / T-Bay Expy interchange (appears as though there's enough land). All the Harbour Expressway extension does is get me to tubing and Stanley Burgers only *slightly* faster.

People live along it. The reason the Shabaqua Extension was built is because the city and MTO have been allowing people to build homes and businesses along the corridor. There was supposed to be a Parclo at the 102/TCH/Red River intersection (they razed about a dozen houses to build it in the 90s) but Harris cancelled it. That is the intersection that causes the most problems and it is also the most neglected. They're only just now adding another turning lane. I've seen it backed up more than a half mile before.

The Shabaqua Highway was supposed to go to Shabaqua, it's another thing Harris fucked up. (No work was done on it while he was in office, the NDP started the thing.) I don't think it is every going to be a full highway. I don't think it is even carrying that much traffic. The city will probably consider this and open the land around it for development.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

If Alternative D (two separate interchanges) was chosen, what would be the spacing between the two? Otherwise Alternative B is definitely best, maintaining the existing MB-1 routing.

The diagram on the website shows the two interchanges being two miles apart. It seems unlikely that MIT will build two interchanges given that two simple interchanges will still probably cost a lot more than one somewhat less straightforward (due to the CN main line and geographic constraints) interchange.

If there were two interchanges built, then the Portage la Prairie urban area would start to rival Winnipeg when it comes to number of traffic interchanges - they would be up to five, which is nearly as many full-scale interchanges as there are in the City of Winnipeg proper (excluding the ones on the Perimeter Highway running outside the City).

Not bad for a city and environs with a population that is probably no more than 2% of Winnipeg's!

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by vid

What they're doing by expanding the highway to the east without upgrading it in the city would be like building a 12 lane freeway between Scarborough and Cobourg while the 401 in Toronto remains a 6 lane road with at-grade intersections. They are building an interchange at the least busy intersection along the Thunder Bay Expressway, completely ignoring at-grade intersections that cause gridlock in our suburbs.

The horror! You need to leave Thunder Bay more often. Gridlock in the suburbs is common.

Their priorities are completely mixed up. Upgrading the Thunder Bay Expressway to a full freeway was proposed twenty years ago. Imagine if any upgrades Toronto's major highways were delayed by 20 years.

I'll do you one better - cancelling a subway line that's already under construction. Or downloading every provincial road that goes anywhere near downtown. Or selling off a brand new highway for pennies on the dollar. Seriously, your idea that Toronto gets preferential treatment is laughable.

[mersar]

Just drove the #1 from Canmore to Sicamous today, and I must say the amount of construction is amazing. The newly opened part through Banff was a very nice improvement, and the sheer amount of work that the BC government has started (plus all its planned, noticable due to the signage everywhere) was quite a nice thing to see. I grabbed a number of photo's as I drove through that I'll post when I get a chance.