Ontario Highways

[MolsonExport]

early 1970s vintage 401:






The beginning of the current 401. the Basketweave, 1972:

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Until it doesn't.

Haha well at least we'll get one long HOV lane as part of this so hopefully that means full cars and buses can still get through.

One thing I've noticed is more and more vehicles are cutting through the stripped buffer zone whenever they want. Sense of entitlement? Lack of enforcement?

In the US they use bollards and things in the buffer zones to force vehicles to use the transfer points. They're flexible enough so they could be run over by vehicles with a heavy front bumper like fire trucks and police cars.

I think Ontario should consider installing these to clamp down on the weavers / risk takers in the HOVs

Example of what I mean:


Probably ain't great for snow plows however- is this why we don't use them?

[Dengler Avenue]

Yep, winter maintenance is the main reason that we don’t use those in Ontario. An improperly plowed spot around the barrier can mean disaster for cars in both the HOV and the left lane.

[sonysnob]

Scenic view of Highway 35 between Newcastle and Lindsay in the vicinity of Ballyduff Road:


http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_30-39_images/35_cl_DSC02223_42x28.jpg

[sonysnob]

Highway 407 looking east from Sideline 24 in Pickering:


http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_407-409_images/407_cl_106_east_WB_Oct24_42x28.jpg

[haljackey]

Great pic! Love the fall colours

-----

Ontario is upping more 400-series to 100- exploring 120 and maybe designing for 140. Imagine one day...

[sonysnob]

View of Hwy 11 looking south through Katrine taken last month:


http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_11_images/11_cl_253-5_south_SB_Sep24_42x28.jpg

[Loco101]

The end of the Maximum 110 zone when heading South.

[sonysnob]

Easterly view along Highway 417 just west of the Quebec border in eastern Ontario:


http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_410-427_images/417_cl_9-5_east_Oct24_42x28.jpg

[sonysnob]

View looking southerly from the Rathburn Road overpass overtop of the northbound lanes of the 427 in Etobicoke:

http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_410-427_images/427_cl_5-5_south_NB-t_Oct24_42x28.jpg

[sonysnob]

I stumbled across an interesting consultant assignment on the MTO's website today:

Location
Canada, Ontario, Northwestern

Job Location
Highway 11/17 - Kakabeka Falls easterly to Thunder Bay Expressway

Road Name
HWY 11/17

Length
26.00

Description
This is a preliminary design assignment for the widening of a section of Highway 11/17 from a two lane undivided highway to a four lane divided facility from Kakabeka Falls easterly to the Thunder Bay Expressway. Design work includes preliminary design and an environmental assessment for the highway expansion, new structures, interchanges, intersection improvements, drainage features, and illumination.

Just preliminary design... but not nothing.

[Dengler Avenue]

^ Widening? Isn’t Highway 11/17 supposed to go on a new alignment between K Falls and the western limit of Shabaqua Extension?

[Innsertnamehere]

Interesting. I thought MTO did the initial EA for that stretch about a decade ago? I have a memory of seeing the design.

I figured interchanges on the TB expressway would proceed to construction first.

[F. Lionel]

Study into potential route of twinning

To be fair this is just another study of potential routing. The MP for this particular area is a part of the Conservative government and is just trying to look like he's accomplished something. The MTO did publish an alignment decades ago but I think all of those plans have gone out the window and they are looking at a potential new alignment - Just like there is a new alignment on the books for the twinning plans from Dorion to Hurkett.

The government isn't actually going to build new highway in this part of Northwestern Ontario beyond the current announced projects any time soon. Take a look at the evidence: Twinning and new bridges across Black Sturgeon by Red Rock have not gone forward despite being ready years ago; twinning and grade separation of the Thunder Bay Expressway was quickly shelved after the Conservatives came to power despite being virtually shovel ready; twinning of 11/17 from the Thunder Bay expressway to Twin City crossroads is shovel ready at any time but no movement; expansion of Highway 61 south from Arthur Street is on a shelf; nothing at all about 5 laning the highway through Nipigon in decades.

There have been designs in place for all of these projects for years (decades in some cases). What is lacking is the political will to complete these projects. I am concerned that once the current projects are completed construction will grind to a halt as things are re-examined and re-studied again.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by F. Lionel

Study into potential route of twinning

To be fair this is just another study of potential routing. The MP for this particular area is a part of the Conservative government and is just trying to look like he's accomplished something. The MTO did publish an alignment decades ago but I think all of those plans have gone out the window and they are looking at a potential new alignment - Just like there is a new alignment on the books for the twinning plans from Dorion to Hurkett.

There are a lot of nuances to be had, IMO.
For the divided 4 lanes west of T Bay, MTO has designated the corridor yes. Even then, it still needs to proceed to design the detailed roadway elements such as horizontal curves, interchange ramp dimensions (because Murillo may need one right from the start given its proximity to T Bay), etc. Also, the current corridor is very far from Kakabeka Falls, so, even if the alignment has to be selected again, I am technically in favour of one that's much closer to K Falls, potentially also one that twins the current alignment from north of the river to Mokomon (as opposed to a new divided 4-lane highway along the river), as long as such an alignment is geotechnically feasible.

As for updating the design of the twinning between T Bay and Nipigon, after examining some of the old drawings, I can see why.
For example:
(1) The old design has 0% longitudinal slope, i.e. flat roadways. This is unacceptable today, as all roads need to be at least sloped at 0.1% for proper drainage. Even then, MTO desires 0.5% slope to be used.
(2) The old design also has turning radius (for horizontal curves) of R = 650 m, which is, on paper, the minimum turning radius for a design speed of 120 kph. If the circular curve is along the right edge of the innermost lane, this is fine. However, the circular curve is usually along the centre of profile of the divided 4 lanes (i.e. in the median), so this is unacceptable. Effectively, for a 30-m median 4-lane highway, the minimum R = 700 m, so that the turning radius measured to the right edge of the innermost lane is 700 m - 30 m / 2 - 3.75 m x 2 = 677.5 m, which is actually not much. Moreover, MTO's technically switched to a design of 130 kph for divided 4 lanes (requiring at least R = 850 m). However, doing so for the T Bay - Nipigon Corridor might run into property constraints (i.e. changing which property to acquire). This might be why MTO ended up sticking to a 120-kph design speed.
(That said, if you're curious, for previous freeway designs that are only 30% complete at most, MTO does ask engineers to upgrade the design to match a design speed of 130 kph.)

Originally Posted by F. Lionel

The government isn't actually going to build new highway in this part of Northwestern Ontario beyond the current announced projects any time soon. Take a look at the evidence: Twinning and new bridges across Black Sturgeon by Red Rock have not gone forward despite being ready years ago; twinning and grade separation of the Thunder Bay Expressway was quickly shelved after the Conservatives came to power despite being virtually shovel ready; twinning of 11/17 from the Thunder Bay expressway to Twin City crossroads is shovel ready at any time but no movement; expansion of Highway 61 south from Arthur Street is on a shelf; nothing at all about 5 laning the highway through Nipigon in decades.

Admittedly I don't know what's happening with that bridge over Black Sturgeon River. Oddly enough, twinning work has been underway west of it. Google Satellite view even shows that traffic is now shifted onto the new lanes as crews prepare to resurface the old ones.
As for grade-separating T Bay Expressway, interchanges are expensive. While I am sad that people have been killed on that road (which, IMO, should have been built with a 22.5-m median when it was being widened, similar to Hanlon Parkway through Guelph), I can also see why MTO wants to hold off on that. This is not to mention that MTO had to update the detailed design of the interchanges in the meantime. (1997 was the turning point, in case you wonder.)
As for twinning Shabaqua Extension from Twin City Crossroad to JCT T Bay Expressway, that's an interesting point. The distance between the two JCT is 10 km. Prima facie, it may have been feasible to twin the first 9 km and leave the remaining 1 km as undivided 4 lanes. I wonder whether there's an issue of driver expectation, though. If I am having fun passing people (heading east) for those 9 km, I am not going to be happy to
(i) find a traffic light;
(ii) realize that I need to turn left to stay on TCH;
(iii) see that there is only one left-turn lane to stay on TCH.
If driver expectation is indeed an issue, one may ask, "Why not just build that proposed interchange between TCH and 61?"
I agree that we should, but... there are still a couple more traffic lights heading north. What ends up happening is that we solve one driver expectation issue and create a few more. (I might need @sonysnob to correct me if I am wrong on this one, because I am no engineer...)
I'd say, for this (new?) design, the biggest thing to watch is how MTO will treat JCT Harbour Expressway - TCH West & T Bay Expressway.

(Since I am focusing on TCH, I will omit 61 for now.)

Nipigon is also a strange one. The town's zoning map shows TCH to be a controlled-access freeway(!) on both sides of the river. However, currently, undivided 4 lanes go down a 7.5%(!) slope towards an intersection before the bridge. Anything steeper than 7% is substandard for freeway design, and MTO is big on roadway design consistency. Personally, I'd rather see what MTO does with that 7.5% slope first, because that will affect how the undivided 5 lanes through Nipigon will be built.

Originally Posted by F. Lionel

There have been designs in place for all of these projects for years (decades in some cases). What is lacking is the political will to complete these projects. I am concerned that once the current projects are completed construction will grind to a halt as things are re-examined and re-studied again.

I am actually optimistic that once twinning between T Bay and Nipigon is done, MTO will move west of T Bay. There are chokepoints that need addressing on that side too, after all.

[F. Lionel]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

There are a lot of nuances to be had, IMO.
For the divided 4 lanes west of T Bay, MTO has designated the corridor yes. Even then, it still needs to proceed to design the detailed roadway elements such as horizontal curves, interchange ramp dimensions (because Murillo may need one right from the start given its proximity to T Bay), etc. Also, the current corridor is very far from Kakabeka Falls, so, even if the alignment has to be selected again, I am technically in favour of one that's much closer to K Falls, potentially also one that twins the current alignment from north of the river to Mokomon (as opposed to a new divided 4-lane highway along the river), as long as such an alignment is geotechnically feasible.

Given the development along the highway through Mokomon and (eventually) through Sunshine between Sistonen's and Shabaqua a the previous corridor is probably still the best solution. There will need to be new bridges across the Kam river and (as I recall) geotechnically there are few places where they can feasibly cross with twinned spans. It is further afield from Kakabeka but that won't deter vacationers and travellers from making the slight detour. There is a large part of the village of Kakabeka who want 11/17 relocated away. When the highway gets closed the village becomes un-navigable.

I also wonder if there might be an updated plan for a new MTO inspection complex along the east bound side of this route since the current one at the Twin City Crossroad is shut down. The old plan might have had a small inspection station to replace the original but not on the same scale as the new complex east of the city.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

As for updating the design of the twinning between T Bay and Nipigon, after examining some of the old drawings, I can see why.
For example:
(1) The old design has 0% longitudinal slope, i.e. flat roadways. This is unacceptable today, as all roads need to be at least sloped at 0.1% for proper drainage. Even then, MTO desires 0.5% slope to be used.
(2) The old design also has turning radius (for horizontal curves) of R = 650 m, which is, on paper, the minimum turning radius for a design speed of 120 kph. If the circular curve is along the right edge of the innermost lane, this is fine. However, the circular curve is usually along the centre of profile of the divided 4 lanes (i.e. in the median), so this is unacceptable. Effectively, for a 30-m median 4-lane highway, the minimum R = 700 m, so that the turning radius measured to the right edge of the innermost lane is 700 m - 30 m / 2 - 3.75 m x 2 = 677.5 m, which is actually not much. Moreover, MTO's technically switched to a design of 130 kph for divided 4 lanes (requiring at least R = 850 m). However, doing so for the T Bay - Nipigon Corridor might run into property constraints (i.e. changing which property to acquire). This might be why MTO ended up sticking to a 120-kph design speed.
(That said, if you're curious, for previous freeway designs that are only 30% complete at most, MTO does ask engineers to upgrade the design to match a design speed of 130 kph.)

I've had quite a few conversations with the group doing the local 11/17 redesigns. I know the increased speed factors and curve radii are a big part of what is going on for redesigns from 1997/98. But there are large parts of the previous plan that still can still safely be applied.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Admittedly I don't know what's happening with that bridge over Black Sturgeon River. Oddly enough, twinning work has been underway west of it. Google Satellite view even shows that traffic is now shifted onto the new lanes as crews prepare to resurface the old ones.

The twinning to the west of Black Sturgeon is, sadly, about a year behind schedule right now. I just drove it this evening and the crews have not 100% completed the new lanes - they still stop well short of the connection at Hurkett. The new connection to highway 582 is also not completed either. The geotechnical work is all completed for the new route and bridge across the Black Sturgeon but nothing is announced. The current bridge across the Black Sturgeon is coming to end of its lifespan so the lack of announcement is concerning.

Interestingly the twinning from Pass Lake to Pearl is actually about 8-10 months ahead of schedule.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

As for grade-separating T Bay Expressway, interchanges are expensive. While I am sad that people have been killed on that road (which, IMO, should have been built with a 22.5-m median when it was being widened, similar to Hanlon Parkway through Guelph), I can also see why MTO wants to hold off on that. This is not to mention that MTO had to update the detailed design of the interchanges in the meantime. (1997 was the turning point, in case you wonder.)

You are absolutely correct that interchanges are expensive. Grade separating and twinning the length is going to be very expensive. I would like to point out that there are temporary measures that could be put into place that are relatively inexpensive and would make things much safer. Early warning lights have been requested multiple times and been denied with the excuse that they are too expensive. Jersey barrier medians have been requested. Again, too expensive. Lighting upgrades were also requested and, while there were lights added to new stretches, the entire stretch was not completed. There is no lighting north-east of Red River Road. One of the most frustrating parts of this exercise is that the city of Thunder Bay has paid to add early warning lights at 4 of the intersections of the Harbour Expressway but the provincial government cannot add them to any of the intersections on 11/17 beyond the single set at the Balsam Street intersection.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

As for twinning Shabaqua Extension from Twin City Crossroad to JCT T Bay Expressway, that's an interesting point. The distance between the two JCT is 10 km. Prima facie, it may have been feasible to twin the first 9 km and leave the remaining 1 km as undivided 4 lanes. I wonder whether there's an issue of driver expectation, though. If I am having fun passing people (heading east) for those 9 km, I am not going to be happy to
(i) find a traffic light;
(ii) realize that I need to turn left to stay on TCH;
(iii) see that there is only one left-turn lane to stay on TCH.
If driver expectation is indeed an issue, one may ask, "Why not just build that proposed interchange between TCH and 61?"
I agree that we should, but... there are still a couple more traffic lights heading north. What ends up happening is that we solve one driver expectation issue and create a few more. (I might need @sonysnob to correct me if I am wrong on this one, because I am no engineer...)
I'd say, for this (new?) design, the biggest thing to watch is how MTO will treat JCT Harbour Expressway - TCH West & T Bay Expressway.

One of the big problems is that passing along this 9 km stretch is very difficult and the route is often quite congested during the day. It has become more important as a commuter route in and out of the city to the west, especially as the population of these areas has grown. The proposed interchange at the Harbour Expressway and 11/17 is what will define the rest of the twinning of the highway, I agree. There are 4 lights heading north and two are slated to be eliminated with flyovers. These are all expensive projects but do not need to be completed all at once. But anything done to make the route safer and/or quicker would be welcomed. It is frustrating that when it was originally being built this didn't seem to taken into consideration.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Nipigon is also a strange one. The town's zoning map shows TCH to be a controlled-access freeway(!) on both sides of the river. However, currently, undivided 4 lanes go down a 7.5%(!) slope towards an intersection before the bridge. Anything steeper than 7% is substandard for freeway design, and MTO is big on roadway design consistency. Personally, I'd rather see what MTO does with that 7.5% slope first, because that will affect how the undivided 5 lanes through Nipigon will be built.

The mess that is Nipigon right now is dangerous on many levels. Without even touching the 7.5% grade hill the route is two lanes through the entire length except for a short turning lane at Tim Horton's. There are homes along the entire length, along with businesses, and everyone has an exit or two. I understand the town's desire to not have a by-pass but they have also been actively fighting the relocation of the homes in an attempt to protect their tax base. The lack of attention paid by transports and the travelling public as they pass through has led to a lot of close calls.

Adding in the approach grade to the bridge and the whole length is a mess. The connection to 11/17 at Railway Street should never have been part of the design. Without this connection the grade could be lessened slightly making it less that 7%.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I am actually optimistic that once twinning between T Bay and Nipigon is done, MTO will move west of T Bay. There are chokepoints that need addressing on that side too, after all.

I agree with you. Ultimately I do agree. I'll admit that I was feeling quite pessimistic this morning when I posted. I am still frustrated with the fact that we could be much further along this process except that politics gets involved each time and the locals pay for it. My wife and I commute this highway multiple times a week and we have both seen first hand how dangerous it is.

[sonysnob]

The contract to replace and twin the bridges at Black Sturgeon likely won't get called until one of the two current contracts is nearing completion. In all likelihood one of the contractors doing the current construction work will be awarded the next project, and there is probably limited capacity for contractors to actually build the work.

Even in southern Ontario, there is a shortage of skilled workers capable of doing construction work. One of the issues with moving the Gardiner Expressway rehabilitation to a 24 hour schedule is that there won't be enough skilled bridge construction crews to complete other projects in Toronto.

If skilled labour is a constraint in a region as populated as Toronto, it almost certainly is for Thunder Bay as well.

The Black Sturgeon River contract is scheduled to start in 2025 as part of the Ontario highway program. That coicides with the completion of the Coughlin Road widening.

[sonysnob]

View looking southerly along the 404 from the Elgin Mills overpass in Richmond Hill:

http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_404-406_images/404_cl_33_south_NB_Oct24_42x28.jpg

[sonysnob]

View looking northbound on the 400 approaching the King Road interchange in Vaughan.  Work has been ongoing in the past week to open both the northbound and southbound fourth general purpose lane between Major Mackenzie and King Road:


http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_400_images/400_dv_42_north_Oct24_42x28.jpg

[Innsertnamehere]

Interesting. I figured they would have left it roped off for a while until the widening to the south was completed, as it effectively creates a "bottleneck" of capacity between Major Mackenzie and Rutherford in the interim.

Overall looking forward to it's extension to Hwy 9.

Now.. when will the province push it further north than Hwy 9...