Highways in Canada

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by wave46

This seems to be the prudent decision.

As long as the new road is future-proofed and doesn't concede too much to multiple at-grade intersections (thinking about the Perimeter in Winnipeg as a bad example of that), why have an interchange for every podunk side road?

You could have big cost savings there.

If they're building a true freeway then there must be no at grade intersections. Minor side roads should never have an interchange. People can exit at the nearest interchange and then drive on surface streets to reach that location.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by craner

I like that Saskatchewan plans to build fully free-flow ring roads from the outset but I don’t think building full systems interchanges at intersections where they won’t be required for 10, 20, 30 years or more is a smart idea. Reserve the space for them sure but there are just too many variables over time that could make one regret building them too soon.

Esquire mentions full cloverleafs which are never built now for good reasons. Saskatchewan may end up rebuilding the systems interchanges the build now anyway. Seems like money you don’t need to spend currently.

You can still have a fully free-flowing ring road and plan for future full systems interchanges (including pre-grading, etc.). I think Alberta has done a good job with the 201 & 216 in this regard.

There's times a full-fledged freeway with grade separations makes sense right off the get-go.

Ontario built much of its 400-series highways network fully grade-separated. However, it was a province of 4.5 million in 1951 with a change from a non-automotive-based way of life to one dominated by the automobile. In the interim from the basis of that to the completion of the network in the 1970s and 1980s, Ontario nearly doubled in population to 8.6 million in 1981.

While Saskatchewan may increase in population, I doubt such a transportation modal shift will occur in the same fashion. It does make sense to plan for the future, but expecting a systems interchange-level growth in transportation requirements seems unlikely for every side road, hence a significant savings could be achieved over the short-term.

Indeed, had the Province of Manitoba gone whole hog on the Perimeter in the 1950s, it might've hard to shoulder that infrastructure burden (rebuilding interchanges isn't cheap) through economic rough times. The trick is to not to let that siren song of doing it cheaply today cripple one tomorrow, when it is needed. Winnipeg is just starting to catch up now.

[sonysnob]

What Saskatchewan is proposing doesn't seem all that outrageous to me.

Pretty well all of the ramps are going to be constructed on earthen fills, which don't have high long term maintenance costs, and while I'm sure they could defer some of the direct flyover ramps, assuming they build the new bridges with pre-cast concrete barriers (as most jurisdictions are) even in a salt-rich environment, they should still get a long 75+ year service life out of everything.

Plus, there are economies of scale to building everything at once. It costs more to move heavy equipment in again, and the biggest cost is always moving traffic around to do construction once the highway has been opened.

Moving traffic around construction zones adds so much time, cost and complexity to some projects.

[MolsonExport]

Montreal over built its freeway system (well, at least it had a system which for about 15 very lean years (1990-2005) it could not well afford, and we were seeing overpasses falling down and bridges on the verge of collapse. Don't underestimate the maintenance costs when you have a harsh climate and a vicious freeze-thaw period.

Most overpasses don't last 75 years; not without serious reinforcements and replacing the bridge decks.

[milomilo]

When I've driven through Houston I dread to think of the future cost of maintaining the thousands of soaring overpasses they have. It's impressive (in its own way) now, but when they inevitably don't spend the money on upkeep it's going to be a huge problem.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by esquire

Ah yeah. A whole pile of these were eliminated on the south Perimeter a year or so ago, the situation is much better now. There are still a few left but on the whole the situation is much better. I think the north Perimeter (north of the TCH) still has them, although I'm sure the province will phase those out soon too.

I don't know if you saw, but the tender just went out to eliminate the Brady Road intersection (as well as improvements to the 100/330 intersection:

https://www.merx.com/mbgov/solicitations...Median-Closures-Service-Roads/0000178364

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Montreal over built its freeway system (well, at least it had a system which for about 15 very lean years (1990-2005) it could not well afford, and we were seeing overpasses falling down and bridges on the verge of collapse. Don't underestimate the maintenance costs when you have a harsh climate and a vicious freeze-thaw period.

Most overpasses don't last 75 years; not without serious reinforcements and replacing the bridge decks.

Never mind freeways - Saskatchewan has massively overbuilt its road network in general, leading to some truly horrendous tertiary 'highways' which remain on the books but are otherwise abandoned.

If nothing else at least this ring road is actually placing resources where the people are, as opposed to building expressways to Farmer Joe's doorstep.

[SaskScraper]

^ Shall see how much of the Sask Governments $7.5 Billion commitment to roads over next couple years will fix some of those tertiary highways.

Originally Posted by foolworm

Maybe not for twenty or thirty years, but if an interchange is needed in ten years then it should go in today, since building these things does often take the better part of a decade. The real issue is whether to take the Alberta or Manitoba approach - Winnipeg's Perimeter Highway did act as a rural bypass for the longest time because it was built far out enough. Compare that to, say, Edmonton where Highway 19 is posted as a truck bypass for QE2 traffic heading west because the corresponding section of 216 is horribly inadequate (in particular the diamond interchange at Terwillegar is a piece of work... the Province should have just put in a full cloverstack, City be damned).

One thing is that both the Saskatoon and Regina bypasses are three-quarter orbitals, but Regina's unbuilt quadrant is the northeast while Saskatoon's is the southwest. I'm guessing their existing inner ring roads are enough there?

Enough for now, a majority of Regina's Bypass traffic runs along Highway #1, but any traffic that needs to travel between Highway #1 East and Highway #11 North to Saskatoon can still use traffic light free & free-flowing Ring Road (Purple) and continue on Victoria Ave East through 7 traffic-lit intersections (dark Purple).
In Saskatoon, traffic currently uses Circle Dr South (Gold), and even if the as yet unplanned phase 4 part of Freeway isn't built for the time being. Traffic on West side of river can still enter/exit Circle Dr to join 11th Street (Gold) through two traffic lights to get to & from Highway #7 SouthWest or use Valley Road to Highway #7 as well (Gold too).

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Montreal over built its freeway system (well, at least it had a system which for about 15 very lean years (1990-2005) it could not well afford, and we were seeing overpasses falling down and bridges on the verge of collapse. Don't underestimate the maintenance costs when you have a harsh climate and a vicious freeze-thaw period.

Most overpasses don't last 75 years; not without serious reinforcements and replacing the bridge decks.

Case in point.

https://goo.gl/maps/AbPMzcyFFrp6BD2v8

I'm all for minimal setbacks but this can't be pleasant. When corners are cut on design and maintenance the consequences aren't good.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Montreal over built its freeway system (well, at least it had a system which for about 15 very lean years (1990-2005) it could not well afford, and we were seeing overpasses falling down and bridges on the verge of collapse. Don't underestimate the maintenance costs when you have a harsh climate and a vicious freeze-thaw period.

Most overpasses don't last 75 years; not without serious reinforcements and replacing the bridge decks.

What Montreal built is far more extravagant then what is being proposed in Saskatchewan. Montreal could have afforded to maintain their system and chose not to, and bridge technology has evolved considerably since the 1960s.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Case in point.

https://goo.gl/maps/AbPMzcyFFrp6BD2v8

I'm all for minimal setbacks but this can't be pleasant. When corners are cut on design and maintenance the consequences aren't good.

Sure, you can pick all of the cherry's that you like.

Nothing that is being proposed in Saskatoon is anything like what was built in Genoa. The biggest maintenance issue from the Saskatoon bridges would be the potential for in-water piers in the South Saskatchewan River. Aside from that, the bridges they build should last for a long time.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

What Montreal built is far more extravagant then what is being proposed in Saskatchewan.

well, yes, Montreal is a single urban area of 4.2 million (back then, 2.5 million) and Saskatchewan is a thinly populated province of barely 1.1 million (less than 200K more than in 1930)

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

What Montreal built is far more extravagant then what is being proposed in Saskatchewan. Montreal could have afforded to maintain their system and chose not to, and bridge technology has evolved considerably since the 1960s.

I wonder why Montreal let it's infrastructure slide if they had it, such a waste, the city has a little over a million and half people, not much larger than Saskatchewan 1.2 million. You'd think they could have maintained their extravagance, but unfortunately not I guess?

Saskatchewan is planning for the future, spending per capita on highway system like a country like Norway, but Quebec is like a Turkmenistan on maintaining roads perhaps

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

I wonder why Montreal let it's infrastructure slide if they had it, such a waste, the city has a little over a million and half people, not much larger than Saskatchewan 1.2 million. You'd think they could have maintained their extravagance, but unfortunately not I guess?

Saskatchewan is planning for the future, spending per capita on highway system like a country like Norway, but Quebec is like a Turkmenistan on maintaining roads perhaps

I need to look at all interchanges in detail again, but still, system interchanges everywhere sound excessive. I think they should only be used for connection with other trunk roads, i.e. 7, Yellowhead Highway, 12, and Louis Riel Trail. For other roads, a giant roundabout interchange (like those in U.K.) should suffice.

[SaskScraper]

^ Giant roundabout interchanges like they have in the UK are rare in Canada.

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

I wonder why Montreal let it's infrastructure slide if they had it, such a waste, the city has a little over a million and half people, not much larger than Saskatchewan 1.2 million. You'd think they could have maintained their extravagance, but unfortunately not I guess?

Saskatchewan is planning for the future, spending per capita on highway system like a country like Norway, but Quebec is like a Turkmenistan on maintaining roads perhaps

maybe Saskatoon's freeway project can be a tourist attraction

https://www.tripadvisor.ca/Attraction_Re...e_Highway-Naypyidaw_Mandalay_Region.html

[wave46]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

I wonder why Montreal let it's infrastructure slide if they had it, such a waste, the city has a little over a million and half people, not much larger than Saskatchewan 1.2 million. You'd think they could have maintained their extravagance, but unfortunately not I guess?

Saskatchewan is planning for the future, spending per capita on highway system like a country like Norway, but Quebec is like a Turkmenistan on maintaining roads perhaps

The miserable recession of the early 1990s combined with provincial budget cuts severely hurt infrastructure spending in all provinces during that era.

As Quebec's infrastructure was older (most of it was was 1960s era), a lot of the maintenance demands came due in the 1990s and 2000s.

Quebec did plan for the future....in the 1960s. It built subways, highways and all sorts of wonderful things. It didn't plan for the future that actually happened though. We shall see if all this infrastructure many provinces are building now comes back to haunt us with costs to rebuild it 30-50 years down the road.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

I wonder why Montreal let it's infrastructure slide if they had it, such a waste, the city has a little over a million and half people, not much larger than Saskatchewan 1.2 million. You'd think they could have maintained their extravagance, but unfortunately not I guess?

Saskatchewan is planning for the future, spending per capita on highway system like a country like Norway, but Quebec is like a Turkmenistan on maintaining roads perhaps

Montreal metro is 4.2 million.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

I wonder why Montreal let it's infrastructure slide if they had it, such a waste, the city has a little over a million and half people, not much larger than Saskatchewan 1.2 million. You'd think they could have maintained their extravagance, but unfortunately not I guess?

Saskatchewan is planning for the future, spending per capita on highway system like a country like Norway, but Quebec is like a Turkmenistan on maintaining roads perhaps

The Quebec government had a tendency to buy poor quality concrete. I read the report for the collapse of the Place de la Concorde overpass, and the primary fault of the collapse was due to poor quality concrete, insufficient rebar, but not specifically a lack of maintenance. And that seems to be a problem specific just to that one overpass.

The Turcot interchange opened one year more recently than the 401/400 interchange in Toronto, and the Turcot was in far, far worse condition than anything in Toronto.

Most modern bridges are built using pre-cast concrete I-beams that are built in controlled environments. The life expectancy of concrete I-beams built in these environments should exceed anything built in the 1950s and 60s. The design is also standardized, so there is less room for specific design or construction problems with more uniquely designed structures.

Most of the bridges on Ontario's Highway 407 are 25 years old now, and still look brand new -- despite exiting in a salt rich environment of a northern highway.

If anyone is nerdy enough, the report about the failure of the boulevard de la Concorde overpass is a great read:
http://cip.management.dal.ca/publications/report_eng%20concorde%20overpass%20montreal.pdf

[MolsonExport]

salt applied to the roads is particularly corrosive. Toronto does NOT have the same winter climate as Montreal. It isn't even close.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

salt applied to the roads is particularly corrosive. Toronto does NOT have the same winter climate as Montreal. It isn't even close.

Areas that have more freeze-thaw cycles (such as Toronto's) are harder on infrastructure than areas that have less freeze-thaw cycles (such as Montreal's or Saskatchewan's for that matter).