Trans Canada Highway Twinning: Segments U/C

[vid]

102 should be downgraded from provincial highway to local road. 7 kilometres of its length, most of the portion in the city limits, is already the responsibility of the city of Thunder Bay, it's mostly residential and it duplicates 11/17. There is no reason for Ontario Highway 102 to exist.

None of the intersections on highways outside of the city warrant an interchange. The traffic volume isn't there, and probably won't ever be. A Y-interchange would suffice for TCH/102, and diamond interchanges for everything else. There is certainly room enough for ramps and a single bridge, and no intersections along that route are busy enough to warrant loops, even going into Kakabeka.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by vid

102 should be downgraded from provincial highway to local road. 7 kilometres of its length, most of the portion in the city limits, is already the responsibility of the city of Thunder Bay, it's mostly residential and it duplicates 11/17. There is no reason for Ontario Highway 102 to exist.

None of the intersections on highways outside of the city warrant an interchange. The traffic volume isn't there, and probably won't ever be. A Y-interchange would suffice for TCH/102, and diamond interchanges for everything else. There is certainly room enough for ramps and a single bridge, and no intersections along that route are busy enough to warrant loops, even going into Kakabeka.

Unless a county-level government is formed in the Thunder Bay region, it would still be too important of a road IMO to turn back to municipal control beyond the Thunder Bay city limits. Sections of the route beyond Mud Lake Road (Oliver-Paipoonge limits) have no municipal government to turn it over to as well. It would have to remain a provincial highway at least in part.

Likewise, the section of 11/17 bypassed from 11W to 102 would have to remain a provincial highway as well (7000-series perhaps?). The bypassed southern sections near Kakabeka Falls could be turned over to Conmee and Oliver-Paipoonge though, except for the section through Kakabeka Falls to Oliver Road, which should become an extension of Highway 590. If deemed too important to turn over, the east-west section west of Thunder Bay could become an extension of Highway 130.

However, the changes should discourage through traffic from utilizing 102 (plus a total ban on through trucks).

[vid]

The part of 102 north of Oliver Paipoonge and Conmee (the township of Dawson Road Lots) is part of Kaministiquia Local Services Board area, which could maintain the road. (That's basically all LSBs do.) The Dawson Road Lots could also be added to Oliver Paipoonge or Conmee by provincial law. (I'm actually surprised they haven't incorporated Lappe-Kaministiquia yet, there are over 2,000 people living up there.) The part of highway 102 between Kaministiquia and the trans-Canada could be a 7000-series highway, unmarked but maintained by the province. It could do that for the whole road through the Lots as well.

The province didn't seem to worry about turning over Arthur Street to the city, so I doubt it will worry about turning the rest of the road to Oliver Paipoonge. Especially if the PCs are in government at the time.

[Jimby]

One of 3 new animal overpasses part of completing the twinning through Banff National Park. By this fall, I think the majority of work will be done. Plus there is extensive work going on east of Kicking Horse.

[eternallyme]

Hopefully Parks Canada can start serious planning through Yoho National Park next and close that gap...

[jmt18325]

I would imagine that will be their next project.

[RTD]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the difference would be between the costs of twinning a 1km stretch of the TCH through the rockies in BC or the Shield in NW Ontario? Which one would be more expensive?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by RTD

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the difference would be between the costs of twinning a 1km stretch of the TCH through the rockies in BC or the Shield in NW Ontario? Which one would be more expensive?

Not sure, but there's a huge extra cost doing it in a national park. Studies, studies, and studies. Animal fencing, overpasses, and other such "special" features really add up. The actual twinning itself is possibly cheaper as the rock is much easier to chew through (limestone/shale vs granite) and much of it is on river plain anyway. And a lot fewer bridges, surprisingly. Mind you, in NWO they just make the road extra-curvy to compensate.

Of course, the TCH out here sees 100x the traffic that most of NWO does.

[RTD]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Not sure, but there's a huge extra cost doing it in a national park. Studies, studies, and studies. Animal fencing, overpasses, and other such "special" features really add up. The actual twinning itself is possibly cheaper as the rock is much easier to chew through (limestone/shale vs granite) and much of it is on river plain anyway. And a lot fewer bridges, surprisingly. Mind you, in NWO they just make the road extra-curvy to compensate.

Of course, the TCH out here sees 100x the traffic that most of NWO does.

Not counting any development through national parks; just straight up backcountry, average twinning costs.

[Andy6]

It's really north central (north of Superior) Ontario that would be the big challenge. Most of NW Ontario is relatively flat, if a bit boggy.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by RTD

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the difference would be between the costs of twinning a 1km stretch of the TCH through the rockies in BC or the Shield in NW Ontario? Which one would be more expensive?

Perhaps one might look at some examples to look at the costs involved.

The last three sections of Banff twinning averaged out at:

1. ~$7 million/km
2. ~$10 million/km
3. ~$16 million/km.

The more expensive sections required considerably more blasting and building/rebuilding of highway crossings as well as interchanges.

East of Kamloops, two adjoining sections of Hwy 1 will average out at:

1. ~$4 million /km
2. ~$10 million/km

While neither section will require crossings/interchanges the more expensive section involves realignment and a considerable amount of blasting;

Of course, the costly king of them all will be the Kicking Horse Canyon section of Hwy 1, which will average out at ~$40 million/km. That section involves a major re-alignment of Hwy 1, considerable blasting, rock cuts, retaining walls, bridges, viaducts, tunnels, rockfall sheds, wildlife overpasses, and wildlife fencing.

The rest of twinning/rebuilding Hwy 1 through eastern BC will fall somewhere in-between all of these figures depending upon the terrain and corresponding design challenges.

Also, costs/km will be dependent upon whether the design is classified as rural freeway standard, rural expressway standard or rural arterial standard. BC is using a mix of these three classifications at the present time along Hwy 1.

I imagine that the shield will require a considerable amount of blasting as well and wouldn't be surprised at costs in excess of $10 million/km. Saskatchewan builds 'em the cheapest at ~$1.5 million/km requiring just an additional carriageway.

As far as Parks Canada national parks twinning is concerned, they have previously studied:

Case C: Existing Situation, Phase IIIB and Twinning into BC with an Extended Fence around the Hamlet of Lake Louise

Case C extends twinning and fencing of the TCH into Field, British Columbia and beyond, and it assumes that wildlife crossing structures design and placement will be an integrated part of further twinning projects.

http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/ab/ban...page12.aspx#21

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Andy6

It's really north central (north of Superior) Ontario that would be the big challenge. Most of NW Ontario is relatively flat, if a bit boggy.

I dunno, there are some pretty insane rock cuts between the MB border and Dryden. Plus about a million lakes to go over/around (usually the latter).

I've done my fair share of walking in both, and I'll tell you - walking the Bow Valley by the river itself is much easier and flatter than anything I've experienced in the westernmost part of Ontario.

[Airboy]

Having driven the TCH a number of times, I'd say the North Shore would come in at the same price as the remaining section from Golden to Field.

The north shore would be longer and require a lot of blasting but the alignment is fairly easy.

The Golden route will actually require some major bridge work and or tunneling.

However animal fences would be nice, those pesky Moose like to think they own the road.

I agree the section between MB and Dryden would require considerable routing around all those lakes.

Lets also get the Yellowhead going again.

[vid]

The terrain here might not have a lot of big hills but it's very bumpy. If you look at the area southwest of Thunder Bay, it looks flat, but when you drive on those highways (especially the ones that just travel in straight lines) there are a lot of big hills and valleys that the highway goes through. It can be nerve wracking to drive them at night or in bad weather when visibility is reduced.

If you look at some of the PDFs posted by etnerallyme on the previous page you can read some of the reasons that some alignments don't get chosen in this area.

A highway through the north shore would probably mean, in many places, a completely new highway alignment, possible miles from the old highway, which would just be a scenic backroad.

[red-paladin]

At least the BC government finally committed to 4-lane the TCH eventually:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayprojects/Hwy1/index.htm


I emailed them about this, and they said they don't have a timetable, due to the extreme cost, but will do the worst parts first and eventually the whole thing.

Here is the link to the Kicking Horse Pass project:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/kickinghorse/index.htm

Phase 3 is under construction as we speak:


The new park bridge is one of the coolest bridges in the country:

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by vid

The terrain here might not have a lot of big hills but it's very bumpy. If you look at the area southwest of Thunder Bay, it looks flat, but when you drive on those highways (especially the ones that just travel in straight lines) there are a lot of big hills and valleys that the highway goes through. It can be nerve wracking to drive them at night or in bad weather when visibility is reduced.

If you look at some of the PDFs posted by etnerallyme on the previous page you can read some of the reasons that some alignments don't get chosen in this area.

A highway through the north shore would probably mean, in many places, a completely new highway alignment, possible miles from the old highway, which would just be a scenic backroad.

That is correct, although in many cases since the area is so undeveloped, the existing corridor could be used - but the look and feel would be so vastly different.

Through Lake Superior Provincial Park, a tighter alignment is recommended IMO, maintaining the 90 km/h speed limit while simply widening the existing alignment with a concrete median barrier.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

At least the BC government finally committed to 4-lane the TCH eventually:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayprojects/Hwy1/index.htm


I emailed them about this, and they said they don't have a timetable, due to the extreme cost, but will do the worst parts first and eventually the whole thing.

Here is the link to the Kicking Horse Pass project:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/kickinghorse/index.htm

Phase 3 is under construction as we speak:


The new park bridge is one of the coolest bridges in the country:

The Donald Bridge IMO should NOT be twinned, instead they should look into new alignments in those sections. Certainly from Golden to Donald Station, I think the terrain supports a new alignment on the west bank of the Columbia River, taking advantage of relatively flat terrain in that area to eliminate the nasty S-curve, build a new bridge over the Columbia and allow for a 110 km/h speed limit in that area.

The new bridge would be quite expensive, but otherwise it would be one of the cheaper sections and IMO should be done next as a western extension of Kicking Horse.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

and allow for a 110 km/h speed limit in that area.

You're never going to get more than 90 - 100 in the mountains....and some areas will always be slower. BC has to work within a budget while doing these things.

[waterloowarrior]

http://www.peterborohwy7studies.ca/index.htm

The Ministry of Transportation is conducting a multi-modal, strategic transportation study of the Peterborough Area and of the Highway 7 Corridor from Peterborough to Carleton Place. The purpose is to provide a long-term perspective on the movement of people and goods in these areas, and to assess the current and future transportation system needs and issues.



These studies will include:

Traffic engineering to collect traffic data and travel patterns in the study areas using an Origin-Destination Survey to be conducted in July/August, 2010;
Public consultation including stakeholder sessions, newsletters and public meetings held within each of the study areas; and
Transportation systems planning to establish transportation goals, objectives, outlooks, needs and forecasts

[bulliver]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

You're never going to get more than 90 - 100 in the mountains....and some areas will always be slower. BC has to work within a budget while doing these things.

The Coquihalla is 110km/h, but your point is valid, it was a very expensive chunk of highway.