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

[vid]

Twinning 102 is a no-go. If anything, there will be pressure to eliminate it as a provincial highway so that suburban expansion along it can continue. There is a very strong desire in Thunder Bay to ban transports from using 102 (the Shabaqua Extension, which connects Thunder Bay to Twin Cities, was supposed to replace it) but because a small portion of it is controlled by the province they can't do that.

A four lane highway will connect Shabaqua and Nipigon, but it will go through Thunder Bay via the existing 11/17 corridor, not around it.

Also, property expropriation in Ontario is very difficult. The province and cities have, for years, simply planned things out far enough ahead of time to make sure there are potential corridors open for future expansion. When the Shabaqua Highway was started in the 1990s, they bought up about a 200m wide right of way, because if it ever does get expanded to a divided four lane road, they'll need the space. They're starting the same process now for the rest of the Shabaqua Highway to link Twin Cities to Shabaqua, by-passing Kakabeka Falls, and that project is just a vision that might be started in the 2030s.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by vid

Twinning 102 is a no-go. If anything, there will be pressure to eliminate it as a provincial highway so that suburban expansion along it can continue. There is a very strong desire in Thunder Bay to ban transports from using 102 (the Shabaqua Extension, which connects Thunder Bay to Twin Cities, was supposed to replace it) but because a small portion of it is controlled by the province they can't do that.

A four lane highway will connect Shabaqua and Nipigon, but it will go through Thunder Bay via the existing 11/17 corridor, not around it.

Also, property expropriation in Ontario is very difficult. The province and cities have, for years, simply planned things out far enough ahead of time to make sure there are potential corridors open for future expansion. When the Shabaqua Highway was started in the 1990s, they bought up about a 200m wide right of way, because if it ever does get expanded to a divided four lane road, they'll need the space. They're starting the same process now for the rest of the Shabaqua Highway to link Twin Cities to Shabaqua, by-passing Kakabeka Falls, and that project is just a vision that might be started in the 2030s.

Wow I'm surprised that any government would have thought this far ahead of time.

Meanwhile, I've always wondered if having the twinned freeway go through Kakabeka Falls is a viable option. For one, residents there don't want it to be a ghost town. For two, most trucks don't stop by T Bay anyway. If we're to put 2 and 2 together, that means we can turn KF into a (truck) logistics centre <k at least a major stop point for trucks>. The only messy thing will be property relocation.

Ps: This is how I view freeway bypasses now - Can the town remain prosperous if the bypass is built, provided that it's even feasible (geographically, financially and perhaps politically) to begin with?
If yes, do it!
If not, then we will have to twin it through the town. Surely relocation will be a messy job, but it's a price that the town will have to pay to not get bypassed.
Don't let 4-laning happen then? If AADT for truck is low, sure. If it's high though, rejecting the bypass/twinning through the town with grade-separation will no longer be an option. (The residents won't like it anyway when they see trucks go through the town every 30 seconds. "For the sake of the kids, we must keep them out of town!") I know that as per MTO's policy, freeway bypass is the way to go around towns, but it shouldn't preclude exceptions.

[vid]

Twinning the highway through Kakabeka Falls is not feasible. First off, the road's right of way isn't wide enough for two lanes in each direction, plus turning lanes at intersections, plus a median. Five lanes (two in each direction and a turning lane in the centre) is possible, but that's not a freeway. Of the ~20 commercial buildings in the town, about half would need to be demolished or changed (including their school and post office) and half would lose parking areas. The two gas stations wouldn't have enough room to operate, and their tanks would have to be removed and the soil cleaned up.

Second, every single building in Kakabeka Falls is using well water (if you ever go there, btw, don't drink anyone's tap water, it's all contaminated with nasty shit). So there is no municipal water system. Highway construction through the town (or even near it) would contaminate almost every well more than they already are due to the gas stations and aqueduct construction's interference in the water table. When the intersection of Balsam and the Thunder Bay Expressway was rebuilt in 2011, it messed up a lot of wells north of the area and it's now under more restrictive testing than the rest of the city as a result of it. So building the freeway through the town would require the installation and maintenance of a municipal water system, or the condemning of every single home and almost every single business.

Basically, building a freeway along the path of the current highway at Kakabeka Falls would essentially result in the elimination of that town. Building a by-pass around it would simply reduce the traffic there, but it also gets an opportunity to do what Nipigon did and reinvent itself as a retirement/tourism community orbiting Thunder Bay. Doing nothing within the town but four laning the highway before and after it would essentially maintain the status quo.

[Dengler Avenue]

Speaking of that, if the twinning does go down the 17 from NW to NE, which town along the route, would you say, is the hardest to bypass, in terms of geography and opposition?

[vid]

Thunder Bay would be hardest to by-pass because we already have a by-pass. But if you're looking for an actual town on the highway, since the only one is Kakabeka Falls, the answer remains Kakabeka Falls.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by vid

Thunder Bay would be hardest to by-pass because we already have a by-pass. But if you're looking for an actual town on the highway, since the only one is Kakabeka Falls, the answer remains Kakabeka Falls.

Wouldn't using the current Bypass make Thunder Bay almost ready for it?

[Dengler Avenue]

And what about east of Nipigon then? SSM and everything between Sudbury and North Bay?

[vid]

There is no real benefit to twinning Highway 17 between Nipigon and Sault Ste Marie, it's a scenic route. There are so many hills that it takes transports just as long to travel it between North Bay and Thunder Bay as it does for them to take Highway 11, so most take the latter. If they twinned it, it would become safer for it's 2,000 daily travelers but would probably be a less picturesque drive, and at this point, "picturesque drive" is all that region has. At some points it could be further improved but it doesn't need to be a full twinned freeway.

Even 11 doesn't need to be a full freeway, simply twinning it would probably suffice. All the level intersections can stay. Barely anyone uses them; the largest towns along it have nothing left in them. You could make that highway was wide as you want to, no one would give a shit. It would actually help, since there are lots of mines up there and limited opportunities to truck product out with rail lines closing or giving preference to oil.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Wouldn't using the current Bypass make Thunder Bay almost ready for it?

There have been two somewhat serious proposals in the past for by-passes that completely avoid the city:



The green line would connect Nipigon and Raith, completely by-passing the Thunder Bay area. Theoretically this would only serve Trans-Canada traffic, around 2,500 vehicles a day, but it's really unlikely due to the terrain of the area (hill, lake, or swamp) and the fact that they've just spend tens of millions on the highway going into the city itself.

The pink line is a slightly more plausible idea, going from about Highway 527 to a village called Intola, where it would merge with 102 (itself a highway through hills, swamps, and lakes). It would intersect dozens of streets and probably piss off the several thousand people who live in the rural area north of the city (lawyers, doctors, politicians, business owners; a cottage country where people literally own entire lakes). Unless it's absolutely necessary for economic reasons, the people living there will (and can) prevent it, so it's not even brought up except by people living in the growing suburbs along Highway 102 in the city itself.

And since the province actually started building 11/17 to higher standards east of the city, any suggestion of either of these has basically disappeared.


BTW whoever chose the names on that map is a moron. I've never heard of Mabella, there is no Dublin, and Pine Portage is a hydroelectric dam. Where did Nipigon go? What a stupid map.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by vid

There is no real benefit to twinning Highway 17 between Nipigon and Sault Ste Marie, it's a scenic route. There are so many hills that it takes transports just as long to travel it between North Bay and Thunder Bay as it does for them to take Highway 11, so most take the latter. If they twinned it, it would become safer for it's 2,000 daily travelers but would probably be a less picturesque drive, and at this point, "picturesque drive" is all that region has. At some points it could be further improved but it doesn't need to be a full twinned freeway.

Even 11 doesn't need to be a full freeway, simply twinning it would probably suffice. All the level intersections can stay. Barely anyone uses them; the largest towns along it have nothing left in them. You could make that highway was wide as you want to, no one would give a shit. It would actually help, since there are lots of mines up there and limited opportunities to truck product out with rail lines closing or giving preference to oil.

In that case, for 17 along north shore of Lake Superior, if the geography (and money, most importantly) allow(s), we can just convert it into a divided (emphasis on that because lately there's been quite a few closures due to serious <if not fatal> accidents along that segment) alternating 2+1 for the most part then. Near towns, though, it may still need to be 4-laning just to avoid troubles.

For 11, really? The towns won't care? Also what about Long Lake 58 then?
Where's loco101? We probably need his opinion on this. Who else lives along the 11 corridor (and Timmins)?
I do agree though that by twinning 11 (bypassing Nipigon on the west) we can eliminate the bottleneck across Nipigon River.

And then for highway numbering/signage, we should also co-sign ON HWY 1 along the freeway portion of TCH.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

In that case, for 17 along north shore of Lake Superior, if the geography (and money, most importantly) allow(s), we can just convert it into a divided (emphasis on that because lately there's been quite a few closures due to serious <if not fatal> accidents along that segment) alternating 2+1 for the most part then. Near towns, though, it may still need to be 4-laning just to avoid troubles.

For 11, really? The towns won't care? Also what about Long Lake 58 then?
Where's loco101? We probably need his opinion on this. Who else lives along the 11 corridor (and Timmins)?
I do agree though that by twinning 11 (bypassing Nipigon on the west) we can eliminate the bottleneck across Nipigon River.

And then for highway numbering/signage, we should also co-sign ON HWY 1 along the freeway portion of TCH.

I would say that twinning Hwy 11 between North Bay and Nipigon would be the best move for a 4 lane highway to cross Canada. The expensive parts would be around Temagami and between Beardmore and Nipigon. But it wouldn't be impossible. I also feel that Hwy 11 could link with Hwy 17 further East than it does now in Nipigon. That way it doesn't go through the Long Lake 58 reserve and along Lake Helen. (it's scenic but not the right place for a divided highway.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

In that case, for 17 along north shore of Lake Superior, if the geography (and money, most importantly) allow(s), we can just convert it into a divided (emphasis on that because lately there's been quite a few closures due to serious <if not fatal> accidents along that segment) alternating 2+1 for the most part then. Near towns, though, it may still need to be 4-laning just to avoid troubles.

For 11, really? The towns won't care? Also what about Long Lake 58 then?
Where's loco101? We probably need his opinion on this. Who else lives along the 11 corridor (and Timmins)?
I do agree though that by twinning 11 (bypassing Nipigon on the west) we can eliminate the bottleneck across Nipigon River.

And then for highway numbering/signage, we should also co-sign ON HWY 1 along the freeway portion of TCH.

Twinning Hwy 17 along Lake Superior would be insanely expensive. There would also be issues with provincial parks. And with many snowsqualls there are often highway closures on the 17 between the Sault and Wawa.

Highway 11 would be easier to twin and for bypassing towns.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Twinning Hwy 17 along Lake Superior would be insanely expensive. There would also be issues with provincial parks. And with many snowsqualls there are often highway closures on the 17 between the Sault and Wawa.

Highway 11 would be easier to twin and for bypassing towns.

And they won't even put up a fight?! Wow that's a first. Until now, I've never heard of any town that won't at least put up a fight to keep the highway (and hence businesses) through it (i.e. Nobel, Nipigon, Kakabeka Falls).

By the way, has anyone heard the "news" (quotation marks because it's been a month now) that the Chamber of Commerce of Timiskaming Shores asked MTO to turn 11 into a 2+1 because a 4-laned freeway doesn't seem to add up for MTO? Dang I wanna read up more on that. The news for that wasn't free. All in all, though, the chamber shouldn't have compromised.

Also, west of Matheson, should the twinning follow 101, up 655, back to 11, or follow 11 all the way with a freeway that bypasses Timmins on the north?

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

And they won't even put up a fight?! Wow that's a first. Until now, I've never heard of any town that won't at least put up a fight to keep the highway (and hence businesses) through it (i.e. Nobel, Nipigon, Kakabeka Falls).

By the way, has anyone heard the "news" (quotation marks because it's been a month now) that the Chamber of Commerce of Timiskaming Shores asked MTO to turn 11 into a 2+1 because a 4-laned freeway doesn't seem to add up for MTO? Dang I wanna read up more on that. The news for that wasn't free. All in all, though, the chamber shouldn't have compromised.

Also, west of Matheson, should the twinning follow 101, up 655, back to 11, or follow 11 all the way with a freeway that bypasses Timmins on the north?

Some of those towns may try to delay a bypass but they know that eventually it will happen. Some places actually like having a safer main road and not the constant noisy transports going through. They will work with the MTO to have interchanges at each end of the town and where businesses can advertise for the exits. The most recent bypass that I have read about is Hwy 17 going around Mattawa. You can probably Google to find out how that is going.

Temiskaming Shores isn't all that bad because you've always been able to through it where the maximum speed is 80km/h through the busiest part with the businesses. There normally isn't that much traffic but you may end up actually driving about 60km/h and there are a couple traffic lights. A bypass would be nice and it would actually be close to the current highway so I don't think it would really hurt the current businesses.

Not sure about twinning Hwy 101 from Matheson and then up Hwy 655. I'd say it would be easier just keep it along 11.

[VANRIDERFAN]

I did this circle route for my trip to the old homestead. Did a ferry ride and rim of Lake Superior camping trip on the way to Manitoba and bag drove the three 8 hour plus days through the States and Sudbury.

I thought the 17 around the lake was pretty good. Lots of newly paved sections and passing lanes and very little truck traffic (due to the 11 being the preferred trucker route). Camping was excellent. There was a big rerouting project going on east of Dryden. I was wondering if they would twin the part they were working on because it would make sense to do it now while all the equipment is there. It seemed like there was enough clearing to make that happen. Was very happy to see the prairies though, unlike many Canadians, the Canadian Shield and endless pine trees quickly loses its appeal to me.

Once again Manitoba wins the award hands down for the worst highways in Canada. Roads designed for pick-up or 1 ton grain trucks are nowhere near adequate for the B-train grain trucks and livestock liners that roar down these roads at 100km per hour. The roads are pounded to shit and there seems to be no appetite to do what's required to fix the problem.

Heading back through the States was pretty good but there are sections in the UP that need to be improved.

Re-entered Canada at SSM was held up 4 times for paving, culvert replacement and blasting (somewhere between the Espanola turnoff and Sudbury). Between North Bay and Arnprior I was wondering if I was ever going to get on 4 lanes again!

Overall the driving experience wasn't too bad, but I wish both level of governments would just pick a route and get the hell going with improving the highway to a 4 lane standard.

cheers!

[Dengler Avenue]

My biggest concern, though, is how to upgrade 11 (especially north of 17) within North Bay. I just checked the map and, boy, to do so without wrecking too much havoc will require wiping out/relocating every single shop on the east side of Algonquin Avenue from Maplewood Avenue to Airport Road. It also doesn't help that the distance between Airport Road and 17 is only 550 m. I can't see how any North-Bayers will like that.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

My biggest concern, though, is how to upgrade 11 (especially north of 17) within North Bay. I just checked the map and, boy, to do so without wrecking too much havoc will require wiping out/relocating every single shop on the east side of Algonquin Avenue from Maplewood Avenue to Airport Road. It also doesn't help that the distance between Airport Road and 17 is only 550 m. I can't imagine how to fit a freeway-to-freeway interchange at 11N/17.

As far as I understand, it will not go along the current route from Algonquin to Airport Road.

I think they will turn it north west of Main Street.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As far as I understand, it will not go along the current route from Algonquin to Airport Road.

I think they will turn it north west of Main Street.

Ah like a 3-quarter ring road?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Ah like a 3-quarter ring road?

Maybe.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

My biggest concern, though, is how to upgrade 11 (especially north of 17) within North Bay. I just checked the map and, boy, to do so without wrecking too much havoc will require wiping out/relocating every single shop on the east side of Algonquin Avenue from Maplewood Avenue to Airport Road. It also doesn't help that the distance between Airport Road and 17 is only 550 m. I can't see how any North-Bayers will like that.

As swimmer spe wrote, the MTO has been looking at Hwy 11 intersecting with 17 right at the Westernmost part of the city limits. Right by where the new hospital is I believe. Some issues is that it is right beside the Duchesnay Falls conservation area and right near Nipissing First Nation. It would mean a longer section of where Hwys 17 and 11 are together. The MTO also has had plans to make the North Bay "bypass" a freeway all of the way through but I'm not sure if that has been shelved indefinitely.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Loco101

As swimmer spe wrote, the MTO has been looking at Hwy 11 intersecting with 17 right at the Westernmost part of the city limits. Right by where the new hospital is I believe. Some issues is that it is right beside the Duchesnay Falls conservation area and right near Nipissing First Nation. It would mean a longer section of where Hwys 17 and 11 are together. The MTO also has had plans to make the North Bay "bypass" a freeway all of the way through but I'm not sure if that has been shelved indefinitely.

It is shelved for the time being. The properties are being bought up by the MTO. I now this as one of my family owns one of the properties yet to be bought up. Basically, if they put it up for sale, they can only sell it to the MTO.