Trans Canada Highway Twinning: Segments U/C

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

At this point, when I drive from Edmonton to Winnipeg, it's much faster to just drive to Saskatoon, down to Regina, and then follow the #1 to Winnipeg. Two-lane highways can really slow you down if there's ANY traffic on the road. I don't think the traffic warrants two twinned highways, especially since SK 11 from Saskatoon to Regina also runs south-east.

The largest center between Saskatoon and Winnipeg on TCH 16 is Yorkton (pop. 15,000) and it's only an extra 46 km to take TCH 1 & SK 11 between Saskatoon and Winnipeg - I also do not thinking twinning the route is warrented.

With the Yellowhead/Trans Canada Hwy through western Canada, you could almost get away declassify certain sections as being part of the Trans Canada Highway - Hwy 16 between Saskatoon and Portgage La Prairie and Hwy 16 west of Tete Jeaune Cache through northern BC. In turn, SK 11 and BC 5 could be added and renumbered to one current route and then more focus could be placed on improving those routes (specifically BC 5).

[blake10]

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

There isn't enough traffic volumes to warrant it. I drove from Winnipeg to Kenora this weekend, and even then, as soon as you're past the exit for Steinbach, the traffic on the TCH drops off substantially. As much as I'd love to see it as a way to promote more unity in our country (quicker to get places), I don't see it happening. Maybe we should be looking at improvements to our cross-country passenger rail instead.

That is true, but the Winnipeg-Kenora section gets very busy in the summer (especially on Fridays and Sundays) and there have been a number of serious accidents. I believe they announced that they were going to twin the road to Granite Lake (about halfway between the MB border and Kenora) and make "improvements" from there to Kenora. Of course, this leaves the small Manitoba section through the Whiteshell. I don't know if they have any plans to twin this part but they should: It's not that long and it will be really annoying driving out to the cabin to have a two-lane section in the middle of two divided highways.

Here are two related articles (from last summer):


<<OTTAWA - The Ontario government is looking at twinning the Trans Canada Highway between Kenora and the Manitoba border with money from its new infrastructure agreement with Ottawa.
The section of highway 17 - about 55 kilometres - is one of the most accident-prone stretches of road in the country. Highway 17 through northern Ontario is also one of the last remaining legs of the Trans Canada which is not a twinned and divided highway.

Regular twists and turns through Canadian shield rock give the highway poor sitelines and many accidents are caused by traffic passing on the single-lane road.

In the summer months it is also one of the busiest highways in the country with thousands of cottagers and tourists visiting the region for its vast lakes, fishing and recreational spots.

Ontario and Ottawa today signed a $6.2 billion infrastructure agreement under the Building Canada Fund and the Ontario government listed Highway 17 as one of its four priority projects for the money.

Earlier in the day, Winnipeg MP Steven Fletcher told the Free Press he has been working on the issue for about a year now and said “it is rather gratifying” to see it finally happening.

“This is obviously very important to a lot of people who use that section,” said Fletcher.

Since August 2006, at least eight people have died in fatal crashes on the highway and many others have been injured.>>

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/historic/32952244.html




<<OTTAWA -- Some of the most dangerous stretches of the Trans-Canada Highway in northwestern Ontario will be twinned under a new deal the province inked with the federal government Thursday.
The $6.2-billion Building Canada Fund agreement between Ottawa and Ontario listed upgrades to Highway 17 in northwestern Ontario as one of the four priority spending areas for the money, which lasts through to 2014.

Among the plans for Highway 17 -- listed in 2007 by the Canadian Automobile Association as one of the worst stretches of road in Ontario -- are engineering studies to look at how to twin all or part of the highway between Kenora and the Manitoba border.

Improvements will also be made to Highway 17 between Kenora and Thunder Bay. Since August 2006, at least eight people have died in fatal crashes on that section of highway.

Thousands of Manitobans travel the highway each summer to take advantage of the recreational opportunities in northwestern Ontario.

Manitoba senior minister Vic Toews said Ontario has gone beyond its initial pledge to just do a feasibility study on twinning the highway and is commissioning engineers to figure out how to make it happen.

"This is the first time the highways in northwestern Ontario have been mentioned as a priority (for Ontario)," Toews said.

In the summer months, as many Manitobans use the highway as Ontarians.

"I'm looking around the parking lot here and more than half the licence plates are from Manitoba," Toews said.

Residents and politicians in the region have been lobbying Queen's Park to twin the 550-km stretch of highway between Kenora and Thunder Bay for years.

According to a 2006 petition led by Ontario MPP David Orazietti, there are an average of 488 accidents on Highway 17 each year, resulting in 839 injuries and 31 deaths.

The highway is part of the Trans-Canada system but is among the only parts of the nationwide highway that is not a four-lane divided road. In Manitoba, the only remaining section of the Trans-Canada that isn't four lanes wide is the 20 or so kilometres between Falcon Lake and the Ontario border.>>

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/historic/32971209.html

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

I'd say 17 could be a freeway standard from Ottawa all the way to North Bay, possibly even all the way to Sudbury. From there to Manitoba, I'd say make it a three-lane alternating centre-lane solution. If you put any interchanges along the three-lane section, make sure the overpass is built to accommodate a twinned highway in the future... See how much traffic comes first, and plan ahead.

The problem with a center lane is that it can become a "suicide lane" even if only one direction is supposed to be using it at any one time.

[Rathgrith]

Originally Posted by blake10

The problem with a center lane is that it can become a "suicide lane" even if only one direction is supposed to be using it at any one time.

Exactly. Doing that would be like building highway 69 in Ontario all over again. I have one memory as a 6 year old waiting on highway 69 after a horrific car cars that shut down the entire highway. At least Highway 11 to North Bay and Highway 69 400 to Sudbury are being twinned right now.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by blake10

The problem with a center lane is that it can become a "suicide lane" even if only one direction is supposed to be using it at any one time.

Well lot of highways in BC are 3 lane for obvious reasons, including the upgrded sea to sky to whistler. You just have 2 lanes in one direction and one lane in the other, ever 5-10km the second lane merges back while the oposite direction turns to a two lane highway. This way you have a smaller right of way but people can always pass every few km, naturally the slower traffic will create a gap ahead of it so once you pass it then you can rip it down the one lane highway for a good stretch until you hit another car to pass, at which point you wait for the pass lane and continue.

Im assuming you were thinking of a center lane that is used for passing for both directions at the same time, now that is allot more dangerous than just having a 2 lane highway and just passing when you have a opportunity.

[blake10]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Well lot of highways in BC are 3 lane for obvious reasons, including the upgrded sea to sky to whistler. You just have 2 lanes in one direction and one lane in the other, ever 5-10km the second lane merges back while the oposite direction turns to a two lane highway. This way you have a smaller right of way but people can always pass every few km, naturally the slower traffic will create a gap ahead of it so once you pass it then you can rip it down the one lane highway for a good stretch until you hit another car to pass, at which point you wait for the pass lane and continue.

Im assuming you were thinking of a center lane that is used for passing for both directions at the same time, now that is allot more dangerous than just having a 2 lane highway and just passing when you have a opportunity.

I see what you mean now. The section between the MB border and Kenora (I don't know about Kenora->TB, however) does have quite a few passing lanes (certainly not the whole way, but there are enough), but although this helps, only a true divided highway will really make the road safer.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Rathgrith

Its going to take a LONG time before all of Highway 17 is twinned in Ontario. Some parts of the highway in Northern Ontario have more bears/deer/moose using it than cars.

thats cause everyone goes through the states....

[eemy]

I definitely think a divided highway through Northern Ontario is warranted, not because it has high traffic, but for safety reasons. That said, I don't feel the investment that would be required to achieve it is warranted. I do like the idea of having 3 lanes with an alternating centre lane instead, and perhaps dividing the highway where traffic warrants (Highway 69 to Sudbury, and 17 to Sault Ste. Marie) or were it would significantly improve safety.

[0773|=\]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I definitely think a divided highway through Northern Ontario is warranted, not because it has high traffic, but for safety reasons. That said, I don't feel the investment that would be required to achieve it is warranted. I do like the idea of having 3 lanes with an alternating centre lane instead, and perhaps dividing the highway where traffic warrants (Highway 69 to Sudbury, and 17 to Sault Ste. Marie) or were it would significantly improve safety.

I'd say 17 could be a freeway standard from Ottawa all the way to North Bay, possibly even all the way to Sudbury. From there to Manitoba, I'd say make it a three-lane alternating centre-lane solution. If you put any interchanges along the three-lane section, make sure the overpass is built to accommodate a twinned highway in the future... See how much traffic comes first, and plan ahead.

[urbanfan89]

Highway 17 is shorter, and much of it is three/four lanes. Because it's further south, there should be fewer stretches of driving without any signs of civilization.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by urbanfan89

Highway 17 is shorter, and much of it is three/four lanes. Because it's further south, there should be fewer stretches of driving without any signs of civilization.

Actually, highway 11 is about 30kms shorter...and much straighter....but it isn't nearly as pretty and it doesn't have as many passing lanes.

[vid]

Highway 11 is desolate. Only use that if you have to go up there or like not being near anything whatsoever for long periods of time.

The Trans-Canada up here has climbing lanes and passing lanes, which are the same thing as the three lane idea but on the outside and spread apart a little more. You can see examples by following 11/17 east, it starts off with two lanes eastbound and one west, then alternates, then is two lane for a few kilometres.

There is a new right of way that the province is establishing in Shuniah, this will result in three east-west corridors in that area (Lakeshore Drive, the original TCH; the current TCH; and the future one) and I think they're finished environmental reports, it's supposed to start construction on Insert Future Date Here.

Should note however, that the stretch of Highway 11/17 and Former 11/17 west of Thunder Bay have claimed many lives in the past year. People don't seem to understand how to use the new highway.

The stretch of highway near Kenora is in Conservative ridings. North-east of Thunder Bay along the shoreline is in a former Conservative riding, now NDP, so I doubt it will see any funding, as non-partisanship doesn't exist in Canada.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by vid

Highway 11 is desolate. Only use that if you have to go up there or like not being near anything whatsoever for long periods of time.

The Trans-Canada up here has climbing lanes and passing lanes, which are the same thing as the three lane idea but on the outside and spread apart a little more. You can see examples by following 11/17 east, it starts off with two lanes eastbound and one west, then alternates, then is two lane for a few kilometres.

There is a new right of way that the province is establishing in Shuniah, this will result in three east-west corridors in that area (Lakeshore Drive, the original TCH; the current TCH; and the future one) and I think they're finished environmental reports, it's supposed to start construction on Insert Future Date Here.

Should note however, that the stretch of Highway 11/17 and Former 11/17 west of Thunder Bay have claimed many lives in the past year. People don't seem to understand how to use the new highway.

The stretch of highway near Kenora is in Conservative ridings. North-east of Thunder Bay along the shoreline is in a former Conservative riding, now NDP, so I doubt it will see any funding, as non-partisanship doesn't exist in Canada.

Northern Ontario was solidly Conservative at the provincial level for generations, during 40 years of PC governments, and it didn't seem to do much good in terms of highways. I remember when John Rhodes was the Tory MPP for the Sault and the Transportation minister we got the short four-lane stretch built through the Bar River Flats east of the Sault but it took another 30+ years to get the portion from the Sault to Echo Bay (nearly) completed. This is really essential for the economic development of Northern Ontario and especially for tourism. I could even see Manitoba and the Lake Winnipeg beaches developing as a destination for Torontonians on summer vacations if they could be assured of a safe drive across northern Ontario. People routinely drive to PEI for the same thing and would go the other direction for a change if the driving were equally easy.

[blake10]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Northern Ontario was solidly Conservative at the provincial level for generations, during 40 years of PC governments, and it didn't seem to do much good in terms of highways. I remember when John Rhodes was the Tory MPP for the Sault and the Transportation minister we got the short four-lane stretch built through the Bar River Flats east of the Sault but it took another 30+ years to get the portion from the Sault to Echo Bay (nearly) completed. This is really essential for the economic development of Northern Ontario and especially for tourism. I could even see Manitoba and the Lake Winnipeg beaches developing as a destination for Torontonians on summer vacations if they could be assured of a safe drive across northern Ontario. People routinely drive to PEI for the same thing and would go the other direction for a change if the driving were equally easy.

You should see the number of cars here from Alberta in the summer...it's crazy! Drive into Kenora in July and it seems to be 1/3 Manitoba plates, 1/3 Ontario plates and 1/3 Alberta plates! I suspect things are similar up near Lake Winnipeg.

Interesting article:

<<Owning a cottage is a dream that many people share --especially at this time of year. And a Winnipeg entrepreneur is working hard to create a new cottage development that he hopes will rival other popular vacation spots around the province.
Chad Olafson, president of Narrows West Developments, is developing a resort community at Lake Manitoba Narrows. Last year, his company opened up 365 cottage lots in the area. Most of those lots have already sold.

"We sold 340 cottage lots in one year," says Olafson. "It's blown my socks off -- I never expected that."

Located just two hours northwest of Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba Narrows is not only a picturesque getaway it's affordable, too. One- and two-acre cottage lots in the Narrows West development are priced at $30,000 up to about $45,000.
.......................................................................
"You will be able to pull your boat up to almost every one of these lots," says Olafson. "I can say with confidence that I truly believe that these are some of the most beautiful cottage lots in the province!"

Interestingly, most of the people buying the Lake Manitoba Narrows properties are from Alberta. Olafson estimates about 80 per cent of the lots are owned by Albertans. In the first week that lots were made available last year, the first 100 lots were all sold to Albertans.

"It's so affordable and there are no lakes out there," Olafson explains. "Here people can enjoy one of Manitoba's most beautiful lakes for $30,000 and you're never very far from the water.">>>>
Full article: http://homes.winnipegfreepress.com/i...article&id=297

[vid]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Northern Ontario was solidly Conservative at the provincial level for generations, during 40 years of PC governments, and it didn't seem to do much good in terms of highways. I remember when John Rhodes was the Tory MPP for the Sault and the Transportation minister we got the short four-lane stretch built through the Bar River Flats east of the Sault but it took another 30+ years to get the portion from the Sault to Echo Bay (nearly) completed. This is really essential for the economic development of Northern Ontario and especially for tourism. I could even see Manitoba and the Lake Winnipeg beaches developing as a destination for Torontonians on summer vacations if they could be assured of a safe drive across northern Ontario. People routinely drive to PEI for the same thing and would go the other direction for a change if the driving were equally easy.

Well, North Eastern Ontario might have been solidly Conservative, but Northwestern Ontario elect it's first conservative to any upper level of government for the first time in 75 years last October. Thunder Bay hasn't elected a Conservative since the days of R. B. Bennett. I don't think we've ever been represented by a Conservative in the Ontario legislature. Most of the Thunder Bay Expressway was built under Bill Davis's minority in the mid 1970s, and partly twinned under Rae. Other than that, this region gets little support for highways. Most of our road infrastructure only exists because corporations wanted to cut down trees.

They won't even add rumble strips. We tried asking for that and they aren't doing it. Just a couple years ago, the Thunder Bay Expressway got this fantastic new technology called "Cat's Eyes". Now you can see the centre line at night! Still no dividers though. How many more transports have to cross all four lanes and wipe out other drivers before they do something?

The reason there aren't as many people going through the north shore drive is because it's so dangerous. Trans-Canada freight traffic goes through the US.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by vid

Well, North Eastern Ontario might have been solidly Conservative, but Northwestern Ontario elect it's first conservative to any upper level of government for the first time in 75 years last October. Thunder Bay hasn't elected a Conservative since the days of R. B. Bennett. I don't think we've ever been represented by a Conservative in the Ontario legislature.

I think you'll find you're mistaken. The PCs almost always held Fort William. The more working class Port Arthur riding tended to be CCF and NDP, I think, and was represented by Jim Foulds for a long time. Kenora was represented by Leo Bernier, who was more or less the Premier of Northern Ontario during the Davis years. The Liberals replaced the PCs as the opponents of the NDP in Northern Ontario at the end of the Davis era. Previously, the Liberals were non-entities in Northern Ontario provincially almost to the extent the PCs were federally.

[mersar]

In terms of using Glenmore/Sarcee, I'd agree with using Glenmore however I'd suggest skipping Sarcee and just running the extra ~3km west along Glenmore/Highway 8 to where Stoney will intersect with it and then go north on Stoney to get back to #1. By the time that portion of #201 is fully built there will probably only be a half dozen signalized intersections left (52nd, Barlow, 37th and Sarcee at a minimum should hopefully be gone).

And yeah, I can't see a bypass around Strathmore then does more then just bypass Strathmore... its a pretty significant distance outside the city.

[manny_santos]

Between Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie, I doubt the TCH will ever be twinned. It's not needed either. If there are accidents, that's not the fault of the highway, it's the fault of bad drivers.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Between Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie, I doubt the TCH will ever be twinned. It's not needed either. If there are accidents, that's not the fault of the highway, it's the fault of bad drivers.

Fair enough but dead people don't really care who's at fault. Anybody who's ever driven that stretch of the TCH will attest to the fact that about the only safe way to travel on it is to not. Maybe not twinned but a center barrier wouldn't be a bad idea in many spots. The problem is that there are very few straightaways so the only way to pass somebody is to wait until it's safe ("Next safe place to pass : 50 kms") or play pole position. 50 slow moving semis will convince anybody that "it's just a little risk...".

[vid]

It doesn't change the fact that our road infrastructure is worse than Zimbabwe's.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by vid

It doesn't change the fact that our road infrastructure is worse than Zimbabwe's.

No. It is not that important. I agree that the one major highway across the country should be in much better condition, especially given the boost it would give to a region that isn't doing well economically.