Highways in Canada

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Highway 11 between Gravenhurst and North Bay is either grade separated or RIRO, nobody is able to cross it. (Maybe there is some obscure side road with a level crossing).

Between Barrie and Gravenhurst there are no at grade crossings - that is not the case between Gravenhurst and North Bay.

South of Gravenhurst 11 is a RIRO expressway with a 90km/h speed limit. There are no level crossings, but hundreds of private property accesses along it. Every couple of kilometres there is an overpass for cross traffic.

North of Gravenhurst 11 is closer to a regular freeway with a 100-110km/h speed limit and no private property accesses. Some smaller roads do meet the road at grade however, and allow left turns across oncoming traffic. There are quite a few of these crossings south of North Bay.

MTO has converted a few of these at grade crossings to RIROs in the last few years though, especially on the southern part of the highway which is busier south of Huntsville.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Two actually. Three if you include the level crossing on the divided Highway 15 by the airport, but that’s not the TCH.

All of these crossings are little used spurs servicing industrial parks. They are all well marked with overhead signs and flashing signals. I have lived in Moncton 34 years, and I have personally witnessed trains using these crossings only 5-6 times. The trains approach the crossings very slowly and are quite visible.

It is no doubt a surprise to unwary drivers to see a train crossing an expressway carrying road traffic averaging 120 km/hr, but alert drivers should have no trouble stopping in time.

There is no reason to try and beat the train at the crossings. These are shunt trains usually no more than 6-8 cars in length.

Should these level crossing exist? Absolutely not. But, they are an unfortunate legacy of a previous time with questionable standards. Is it worth it to spend $100M to fix the problem? This is debatable.

My hope would be that as money becomes available, NB puts overpasses on them.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Highway 11 between Gravenhurst and North Bay is either grade separated or RIRO, nobody is able to cross it. (Maybe there is some obscure side road with a level crossing).

From Gravenhurst to Huntsville, many of the "exits" are level crossings, including the one to Doug Ford's cottage in Port Carling.

From Callander to Powassan, there are level crossings as well.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

North of Gravenhurst 11 is closer to a regular freeway with a 100-110km/h speed limit and no private property accesses. Some smaller roads do meet the road at grade however, and allow left turns across oncoming traffic. There are quite a few of these crossings south of North Bay.

The main differences between Hwy 11 and the intersection where that accident happened in Manitoba being:

1. That a highway of the same importance as the one in Manitoba would have been grade separated

2. The at-grade intersection has a median that is large enough to permit cars to cross one direction and stop before proceeding across the other.

[Dengler Avenue]

Indeed. I came across the design document for twinning of TCH between Thunder Bay and Nipigon a while back. One reason for using 30-m was to store vehicles (which can be as long as a truck) in the median.
It comes in handy for junctions like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/AfXChM5xBDL88pzM6?g_st=ic

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

From Gravenhurst to Huntsville, many of the "exits" are level crossings, including the one to Doug Ford's cottage in Port Carling.

From Callander to Powassan, there are level crossings as well.

They are RIROs, you cannot cross the highway (the way you can where the accident happened). The level crossing at Powassan appears to be gone. There are a few level crossings left here and there but they are pretty minor roads.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They are RIROs, you cannot cross the highway (the way you can where the accident happened). The level crossing at Powassan appears to be gone. There are a few level crossings left here and there but they are pretty minor roads.

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.1803012,...D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.1770065,...D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu

[Dmajackson]

With the new TCH 104 twinning wrapping up in the Barney's River section, Nova Scotia is now looking to start twinning east of Antigonish from Taylor Road to Paqtnkek.

https://novascotia.ca/tran/highways/highway-104-twinning-taylors-road-paqtnkek.pdf

[Innsertnamehere]

Getting the twinning up to the Causeway is probably a good goal for that area - though honestly I imagine traffic levels are already pretty low up there.

[lio45]

Quebec and the Prairies have opposite approaches on this.

Here's a typical sample of something that Quebec hasn't upgraded to full Interstate Freeway standards yet:

(Super-2, I believe it's called.)

https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.1441672,-...dx3drphk6Vw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Each approach has its pros and cons.

In the Prairies (divided, but at grade crossings), every ~20 years a fully-loaded semi t-bones a loaded bus, with 15-20 dead, but no one ever dies in head-on frontal crashes.

In Quebec (Super-2s + overpasses), every now and then people die as they collide head-on with a speed differential of 220-240 km/h, but no one can possibly ever t-bone anyone else.

Given that highway funding is finite... Pick your poison.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

200 million per interchange?

That’s a really high estimate for simple diamonds on flat land, which most of these interchanges would be.

Also, why does it seem that Canada had its thumb up its ass when the US was building the interstate system when things were cheap?

An important distinction in the US is that the Interstate system was built, in part, for defence purposes. This was a big deal during the Cold War, and this would have contributed to the high standards those freeways are generally built to.

I don’t believe Canada ever had the same motivations for building a national freeway system.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

An important distinction in the US is that the Interstate system was built, in part, for defence purposes. This was a big deal during the Cold War, and this would have contributed to the high standards those freeways are generally built to.

I don’t believe Canada ever had the same motivations for building a national freeway system.

This is largely a myth - there was some level of military intent behind it but it really wasn’t the driving factor of the program. It was just a well implemented federal highways program which was extremely well funded and based primarily out of the “Good Roads” movement of the first half of the 20th century.

[Djeffery]

There certainly are areas where a plane could use the highway, and even last year or the year before, the Michigan ANG did some testing where they were landing A-10's on a 2 lane highway in northern Michigan. But it's an urban legend that the interstate system was designed to be used as runway for fighter jets.

[swimmer_spe]

Thinking about the accident and ways to prevent it, here are some of my thoughts.

1) Lower the speed limit on all divided highways that have cross traffic. A good example of that is 17 in SSM remains at 90km/hr even though it is divided. BC's 19has it right. The speed limit drops at each intersection.

2) All numbered provincial highways that cross a divided highway becomes an interchange. This could funnel more traffic on to those highways making them even safer to use.

3) All future construction should have all road crossings become interchanges.

A lot of these kinds of accidents are preventable.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

This is largely a myth - there was some level of military intent behind it but it really wasn’t the driving factor of the program. It was just a well implemented federal highways program which was extremely well funded and based primarily out of the “Good Roads” movement of the first half of the 20th century.

Read about it here from an official source:

https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/su...hway-act-1956-creating-interstate-system

National defense did play a role for sure. President Eisenhower saw how successful the Autobahn system had been in Germany and wanted to replicate it in the U.S..

[Dengler Avenue]

1) Lower the speed limit on all divided highways that have cross traffic. A good example of that is 17 in SSM remains at 90km/hr even though it is divided. BC's 19has it right. The speed limit drops at each intersection.

I frankly find the 90 kph speed limit on the divided portion of TCH in Ontario (despite the cross roads) problematic because divided highways are designed to 120 kph.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I frankly find the 90 kph speed limit on the divided portion of TCH in Ontario (despite the cross roads) problematic because divided highways are designed to 120 kph.

It already takes forever to drive across this country as is. A 90 km/hr TCH just makes things worse.

I understand the costs involved, but I think whenever a cross-traffic volume threshold (passing across a divided highway) is exceeded, then that intersection should be prioritized for interchange construction. This should probably included all major numbered provincial highways intersecting the TCH, regardless of traffic volumes.

Small farm roads can probably be left alone.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It already takes forever to drive across this country as is. A 90 km/hr TCH just makes things worse.

I understand the costs involved, but I think whenever a cross-traffic volume threshold (passing across a divided highway) is exceeded, then that intersection should be prioritized for interchange construction. This should probably included all major numbered provincial highways intersecting the TCH, regardless of traffic volumes.

Small farm roads can probably be left alone.

Sadly in this country (likely all countries TBH) it takes a mass casualty event to force changes. In this case many Manitobans are cynical enough to think the best we'll get is stop lights.

That being said, every Provincial Trunk Highway crossing the TCH should have be an interchange and all rural roads crossing should be closed and redirected to the interchanges. That won't happen because of the number of crossings and that the size of todays agricultural equipment require the interchanges to have to be extra wide.

Will this crash get the feds to toss in some interchange improvement money to the provinces? Some of that 13 billion to Volkswagen would help, because electric vehicles need interchanges too.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Will this crash get the feds to toss in some interchange improvement money to the provinces? Some of that 13 billion to Volkswagen would help, because electric vehicles need interchanges too.

I hear that JT is banking on flying cars to fix the problem..........

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Quebec and the Prairies have opposite approaches on this.

Here's a typical sample of something that Quebec hasn't upgraded to full Interstate Freeway standards yet:

(Super-2, I believe it's called.)

https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.1441672,-...dx3drphk6Vw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Each approach has its pros and cons.

In the Prairies (divided, but at grade crossings), every ~20 years a fully-loaded semi t-bones a loaded bus, with 15-20 dead, but no one ever dies in head-on frontal crashes.

In Quebec (Super-2s + overpasses), every now and then people die as they collide head-on with a speed differential of 220-240 km/h, but no one can possibly ever t-bone anyone else.

Given that highway funding is finite... Pick your poison.

On those super-2s head-on collisions have been reduced quite a bit by implanting rumble strips down the double yellow line separating the two directions of traffic. It eliminates most of the crashes due to distractions or falling asleep but of course not all of them. Ideally highways such as the A-50 east of my place will be converted to four divided lanes sooner than later.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The main differences between Hwy 11 and the intersection where that accident happened in Manitoba being:

1. That a highway of the same importance as the one in Manitoba would have been grade separated

2. The at-grade intersection has a median that is large enough to permit cars to cross one direction and stop before proceeding across the other.

This is a good observation.

At the Manitoba intersection, the narrowness of the median gives you the sense that you have to cross multiple lanes of high speed traffic coming from two different directions, in one single step. That's a dangerous and stressful manoeuvre at the best of times.

The Ontario set-up allows for vehicles to cross the main highway in two stages.

Again, not as good as a full interchange but still much safer.