Trans Canada Highway Twinning: Segments U/C

[vid]

The stretch from Hodder Avenue to the 11/17 split between Nipigon and Lake Helen is 102 kilometres. They haven't announced exactly which parts will be four laned. Hopefully all of it. If plans are approved, the stretch between Hodder Avenue and Highway 527 will be twinned and anchored with interchanges. The terms "twinning" and "four laning" are being used synonymously here, so I don't know exactly what is going on. A more informative announcement is expected later in the year.

They're also doing improvement work to the Thunder Bay Expressway, more turning lanes, re-surfacing and lights. Still no twinning or dividing and no interchanges.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by vid

They're also doing improvement work to the Thunder Bay Expressway, more turning lanes, re-surfacing and lights. Still no twinning or dividing and no interchanges.

Ah yes, if I recall the TBay Expressway is an expressway that really isn’t one, right?

[vid]

Yes. Same with the Harbour Expressway, which not only has seven traffic lights along 4 kilometres but also has uncontrolled 'intersections'.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Thanks for the numbers. That’s quite low. I think Highway 17 (after it goes from four to two lanes) west of Ottawa is in the 10,000 to 15,000 range for a good distance going towards Pembroke.

That whole section should have been a 4-lane freeway many years ago.

[unimaginative2]

The AADT of Highway 17 through the most remote bits of Northern Ontario averages around 2,500-3,000. I-90 through Wyoming, a full expressway, averages around 5,000. You can bet that a Highway 17 freeway would attract enough travellers who are now travelling through the States to easily make up that difference. I-95 in northeastern Maine actually drops below 2,000, so the Americans certainly wouldn't consider a full expressway across Northern Ontario to be unreasonable from a traffic standpoint, never mind safety.

[vid]

Well the US was (and is, really) on a big Car is King spending trip with their highway system. It is pretty unrealistic. They also have two levels of government funding these things. In Canada, the federal level contributes almost nothing to road transport. (I think, at the very least, there should be a basic strategy for this kind of thing.)

The big reasons here for twinning the highway have nothing to do with how many people us it, it's to do with safety. If you have ever driven NWO highways at night, you will know how scary it can be. Last time I was on the highways at night we had a semi behind us along a no-passing stretch and the headlights were glaring off the windshield, we couldn't see and didn't want to stop because it was that close. With a four lane highway, it could have passed us. Just a few months ago the driver of a transport went clear across the Thunder Bay Expressway and could have taken out a lot of people. At the very least we should have some sort of divider. There is just a double line along most of the Thunder Bay Expressway, and that got 25,000 AADT in 2004. It's probably more now.

[Mininari]

Yeah, one has to wonder what the replacement value of the entire interstate network, and state-level freeway systems is. When a single interchange can cost upwards of $300M in today's dollars, you have to wonder...

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by unimaginative2

The AADT of Highway 17 through the most remote bits of Northern Ontario averages around 2,500-3,000. I-90 through Wyoming, a full expressway, averages around 5,000. You can bet that a Highway 17 freeway would attract enough travellers who are now travelling through the States to easily make up that difference. I-95 in northeastern Maine actually drops below 2,000, so the Americans certainly wouldn't consider a full expressway across Northern Ontario to be unreasonable from a traffic standpoint, never mind safety.

Politics plays a big role too. Canada has a much larger percentage of its population in a much smaller area, so politicians know they can ignore the outlying areas if it gets them votes in the big urban regions.

[0773|=\]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Yeah, one has to wonder what the replacement value of the entire interstate network, and state-level freeway systems is. When a single interchange can cost upwards of $300M in today's dollars, you have to wonder...

$300 MILLION?! Perhaps this is why Winnipeg doesn't build any interchanges, their public thinks they cost 10X as much as they actually do... It's more like $30 Million for a standard diamond interchange and it's cheaper in rural areas, plus replacement value is lower when all the earth grading has already been done. You're talking about a pretty fancy interchange (4-5 levels high, free-flowing 90km/hr design speed for all directions) if you're talking about $300 Million...

[vid]

The two interchanges and five kilometres of twinning outside of Thunder Bay probably won't cost more than 75 million, and they're dealing with rock cuts, hills, swamps and so on out there. We won't know an actual price until tenders go out but I honestly don't think it will be more than that.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

$300 MILLION?! Perhaps this is why Winnipeg doesn't build any interchanges, their public thinks they cost 10X as much as they actually do... It's more like $30 Million for a standard diamond interchange and it's cheaper in rural areas, plus replacement value is lower when all the earth grading has already been done. You're talking about a pretty fancy interchange (4-5 levels high, free-flowing 90km/hr design speed for all directions) if you're talking about $300 Million...

Yep I am!
I know that the 'usual' interchange come in around 25-30M, but some of those guargantuan interchanges in the states are easily 300M. I was merely exercising curiousity at the replacement value of ALL of the highway infrastructure in the US... and yes, there are some fancy interchanges!

Good point about replacement value being lower when the grading is done, but theres still the various structures, bridges, elevated viaducts, and yes, the 4-level multi-stack interchanges.

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Yep I am!
I know that the 'usual' interchange come in around 25-30M, but some of those guargantuan interchanges in the states are easily 300M.

300M???

Turcot Interchange will be reconstructed and will cost more than 1 billion!

Reconstruction of the interchange is expected to cost between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion.

During construction in 1966


The reconstructed one:


I think some US interchanges might cost even higher now.

[Mininari]

Well there we go.
Yowza.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by vid

Well the US was (and is, really) on a big Car is King spending trip with their highway system. It is pretty unrealistic. They also have two levels of government funding these things. In Canada, the federal level contributes almost nothing to road transport. (I think, at the very least, there should be a basic strategy for this kind of thing.)

Also the postwar development of the U.S. national expressway system had a national defence purpose as well, no doubt partly because of the experience of how useful the autobahns were to Hitler during the war. The official name of the interstate highway system is the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. That is partly why the system extends to every part of the Lower 48 regardless of the lower demand in places like northern Maine.

[amor de cosmos]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Also the postwar development of the U.S. national expressway system had a national defence purpose as well, no doubt partly because of the experience of how useful the autobahns were to Hitler during the war. The official name of the interstate highway system is the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. That is partly why the system extends to every part of the Lower 48 regardless of the lower demand in places like northern Maine.

it's because when Eisenhower was in the military he noticed how crappy the highway system was, so when he became president he was determined to do something about it. i don't think the German autobahn system had anything to do with it.

[0773|=\]

There are some funny urban myths that have developed over the purpose of the Interstate highway system. One potentially has credibility, the other is a pure myth...

They say that the reason so many of the highways are paved with concrete is so that they can double as military vehicle corridors (tanks can drive on them), though as many would know if they ever looked at a truckers' road atlas, there are several exceptions along Interstate highways where overpass clearances are just too short (<14') for certain military vehicles to be transported along or use these routes.

But the pure myth has to be that certain stretches of Interstate highways were designed so that military aircraft could make emergency landings on the highway. The logistics of civilian automobiles sharing a carriageway with a plane in distress has far too many loopholes to be credible. It sounds cool though!

I've always thought though, the US has 4.5 transnational E/W freeways crossing the country, and they've had this ever since their population was sitting at 200 million people. Each of these highways feeds from a corridor of 40 million people that live within 200 kms of each route (a 400 km wide corridor). Canada is now approaching that threshold. 35 million people and most of us (except for Edmonton) are well within 200 kms of THE MAINLINE Trans Canada Highway (Okay, Southern Ontario is an exception, but I would also argue that the 401/A20 corridor should be designated as a Trans-Canada route as well). ...This all to say, maybe it's time for Canada to invest in ONE Trans-Canada Freeway corridor.

I'm open for a debate, because a lot of US Interstate traffic is due to long-haul trucking, and maybe Canada should move in a different direction by building a high-speed freight rail system. I don't know... the issue will likely boil down to sustainability.

Any thoughts?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by amor de cosmos

it's because when Eisenhower was in the military he noticed how crappy the highway system was, so when he became president he was determined to do something about it. i don't think the German autobahn system had anything to do with it.

I find it difficult to believe that the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe would not have had the renowned German highway system somewhere in the back of his mind when he "noticed how crappy" the U.S. system was. But I don't know; maybe you're right.

On 0773|=\'s point, the U.S. hasn't had to build an interstate through land that is as unrelentingly mountainous as British Columbia. It doesn't have any stretches of territory like the hundreds of miles of Canadian Shield in Northern Ontario either. Not that that's entirely an excuse but Canada is difficult country. That's what makes the achievement of the CPR so extraordinary.

[craner]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I find it difficult to believe that the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe would not have had the renowned German highway system somewhere in the back of his mind when he "noticed how crappy" the U.S. system was. But I don't know; maybe you're right.

On 0773|=\'s point, the U.S. hasn't had to build an interstate through land that is as unrelentingly mountainous as British Columbia. It doesn't have any stretches of territory like the hundreds of miles of Canadian Shield in Northern Ontario either. Not that that's entirely an excuse but Canada is difficult country. That's what makes the achievement of the CPR so extraordinary.

Well, Colorado, Montana, Washington have difficult terrain that they managed to build interstates through.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by craner

Well, Colorado, Montana, Washington have difficult terrain that they managed to build interstates through.

Yes, but that difficult terrain is mostly just relatively short stretches amidst vast plateaus where the roads run pretty much straight. The route of the Trans-Canada in B.C. seems to present signficant challenges for almost its entire length.

[vid]

The Rocky Mountains in Canada are quite different from those in the US. Look at a map. It's like several chains are colliding in Montana.