TCH east of Nipigon (La route transcanadienne à l'est de Nipigon)

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Wondering if a tunnel (like how the Aussies did it with their A1 around St Helen) would be cost effective then...

Tunnels are pretty expensive. Given the terrain, I'd imagine the highway would be rerouted away from the river and built with conventional methods.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Yo people it just occurred to me that:
Right now, the AADT on Highway 17 between Nipigon and SSM is low (minimum 1500), but if we twin the highway between Manitoba and Nipigon and between SSM and Arnprior, won't that jack up the AADT on that segment?

If this was done less people would cut through the US since the travel times would be more competitive, particularly the SSM to Arnprior part.

[swimmer_spe]

Yesterday, We were hit with a bad snow storm that left us with 30cm. Also had blowing snow. So bad that an accident forced the closure of Highway 17 between Whanupatai and Sturgeon Falls for most of the day.
A few days earlier, the highway was closed between Espanola and Lively.

In both cases, they were head on collisions.

4 laning would reduce head on collisions. It would make the roads safer. Who cares about AADT? If there is a reasonable amount of use, and there is build a divided highway.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Yesterday, We were hit with a bad snow storm that left us with 30cm. Also had blowing snow. So bad that an accident forced the closure of Highway 17 between Whanupatai and Sturgeon Falls for most of the day.
A few days earlier, the highway was closed between Espanola and Lively.

In both cases, they were head on collisions.

4 laning would reduce head on collisions. It would make the roads safer. Who cares about AADT? If there is a reasonable amount of use, and there is build a divided highway.

I knew it was bad when I read from twitter that OPP closed those 2 sections of 17 for a bit.
Yea how I wish that northern Ontarians can just get together and pressure the government to twin 17 to at least SSM in the east and the bottlenecks in the west. Remember how CRASH 69 pressured the governments back in the days to twin 69, and how people in Saguenay pressured the QC government to twin 274 km of Rte. 175 where the AADT is only 4000. (C'est vrai, Acajack?)

[craigbear]

Just to respond to a few points here: at Sault Ste. Marie, I don't believe there are actually any concrete plans to build a second bridge to Michigan. The reason the realigned highway ends where it does isn't that another bridge is in the works; it's that the east-west part of the highway is eventually meant to connect directly to Black Road/Second Line -- the holdup being that it has to cross First Nations land to get there. When that does finally happen, the north-south jog is just going to become part of Trunk Road.

At North Bay, I actually have a few downloaded map jpgs of the planned four-laned 17 route, from the last time it got covered in the North Bay Nugget. I have no insight into if and when the four-laning is ever actually going to happen, but the plan's really not all that radical or surprising -- it basically amounts to the four-laned route shooting up the vacant ROW behind the Travelodge and Northgate Square, expropriating a bit of the Eastview subdivision, and then coming back onto the existing 11/17 route right around Meighen Avenue. If you look at the satellite view on Google Maps, it's very easy to see exactly the route I'm talking about -- from the 17E interchange, you can plainly see that the existing 11/17 route almost immediately turns to the northwest while there's an undeveloped strip continuing exactly straight up between the Travelodge and the industrial park. That's undeveloped for a reason: it's the ROW that the MTO has always reserved for the eventual freeway conversion. And the bypassed segment is going to turn west between the retirement home and Franco-Nord, and get connected to Lansdowne. As for 11 north, the plan right now is indeed to realign it to the west, so that it comes down near 17B/Main Street and the hospital rather than trying to freewayize Algonquin Avenue.

As for the main question, whether a four-laned route should be on 11 or 17, I don't know the right answer. There are pros and cons to both; there's a clear case for a 417 at least as far as the Sault, and for a four-laned route from Nipigon west, but I agree that the around-Superior link is a harder call.

In an ideal world, of course, we'd simply do both -- hell, in an ideal world, the entire TCH would already have been four-laned a couple of decades ago (even if it wasn't always fully freewayized everywhere) -- but in the world we actually live in, it's obviously a more complex question of what's the best value for the money. If it's a choice of one or the other, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. At the same time, I don't think ruining the scenic vistas of 17 over Superior is particularly a knock against four-laning 17 over Superior -- in areas where the geography requires taking a four-laned route away from the existing road, it would be entirely possible to leave the existing road in operation as a scenic "parkway" for people who want that, while still having a four-laned route for the people who just want a faster and safer trip.

Anyway, that's my (longwinded) two cents for the pot.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by craigbear

Just to respond to a few points here: at Sault Ste. Marie, I don't believe there are actually any concrete plans to build a second bridge to Michigan. The reason the realigned highway ends where it does isn't that another bridge is in the works; it's that the east-west part of the highway is eventually meant to connect directly to Black Road/Second Line -- the holdup being that it has to cross First Nations land to get there. When that does finally happen, the north-south jog is just going to become part of Trunk Road.

At North Bay, I actually have a few downloaded map jpgs of the planned four-laned 17 route, from the last time it got covered in the North Bay Nugget. I have no insight into if and when four-laning the segment is ever actually going to happen, but it's really not all that radical or surprising -- it basically amounts to the four-laned route shooting up the vacant ROW behind the Travelodge and Northgate Square, expropriating a bit of the Eastview subdivision, and then coming back onto the existing 11/17 route right around Meighen Avenue. If you look at the satellite view on Google Maps, it's very easy to see exactly the route I'm talking about -- from the 17E interchange, you can plainly see that the existing 11/17 route almost immediately turns to the northwest while there's an undeveloped strip continuing exactly straight up between the Travelodge and the industrial park. That's undeveloped for a reason: it's the ROW that the MTO has always reserved for the eventual freeway conversion. As for 11 north, the plan right now is indeed to realign it to the west, so that it comes down near 17B/Main Street and the hospital rather than trying to freewayize Algonquin Avenue.

As for the main question, whether a four-laned route should be on 11 or 17, I don't know the right answer. There are pros and cons to both; there's a clear case for a 417 at least as far as the Sault, and for a four-laned route from Nipigon west, but I agree that the around-Superior link is a harder call.

In an ideal world, of course, we'd simply do both -- in an ideal world, the entire TCH would already be four-laned even if it isn't always fully freewayized everywhere -- but in the world we actually live in, it's obviously a more complex question of what's the best value for the money. If it's a choice of one or the other, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. At the same time, I don't think ruining the scenic vistas of 17 over Superior is particularly a knock against four-laning 17 over Superior -- in areas where the geography requires taking a four-laned route away from the existing road, it would be entirely possible to leave the existing road in operation as a scenic "parkway" for people who want that, while still having a four-laned route for the people who just want a faster and safer trip.

Anyway, that's my (longwinded) two cents for the pot.

That's what I thought too. The question remains though: Why couldn't I find any "news" or articles about this?? Many times, I looked through google past page 6 or 7 but nothing, nothing, turned up.
Also, what about 17 between North Bay and Corbeil?

[craigbear]

Also, as for solar roads, that is actually an idea that's being worked on in small scale tests (see https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/...rance-normandy), but we're a long way from being able to upscale them to an entire national highway system.

[craigbear]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

That's what I thought too. The question remains though: Why couldn't I find any "news" or articles about this?? Many times, I looked through google past page 6 or 7 but nothing, nothing, turned up.
Also, what about 17 between North Bay and Corbeil?

There's not a lot of recent news out there about either Sault Ste. Marie or the North Bay expressway plans, I know. For SSM, I just remember what I read about the plan way back when the construction started, rather than having seen anything particularly recent. And at any rate, here's the article from which I downloaded the North Bay map images that I mentioned in my first post: http://www.nugget.ca/2012/07/27/nort...tprint-updated

North Bay to Corbeil does have the plans in place as well. Unfortunately the project planning website for that segment isn't available anymore, but you could probably get a copy of that report from the MTO if you really wanted to see it -- and I do remember that it involved at least part of the route being realigned southward, while a chunk of the existing route would just become an extension of the bypassed 11/17-connected-to-Lansdowne.

[Dengler Avenue]

So the content of negotiation between Rankins 15D and the provincial government was basically kept confidential??

[craigbear]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

So the content of negotiation between Rankins 15D and the provincial government was basically kept confidential??

I really don't know, to be honest. But the construction of the current four-laned SSM-to-Echo Bay segment happened about a decade ago now -- but a simple Google search wouldn't be very good at turning up decade-old media coverage most of the time, so in all likelihood you'd have to dig into Sault Star microfilms or databases to actually find any of the coverage that happened at the time.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by craigbear

I really don't know, to be honest. But the construction of the current four-laned SSM-to-Echo Bay segment happened about a decade ago now -- but a simple Google search wouldn't be very good at turning up decade-old media coverage most of the time, so in all likelihood you'd have to dig into Sault Star microfilms or databases to actually find any of the coverage that happened at the time.

Ah, thanks for letting me know.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by craigbear

Just to respond to a few points here: at Sault Ste. Marie, I don't believe there are actually any concrete plans to build a second bridge to Michigan. The reason the realigned highway ends where it does isn't that another bridge is in the works; it's that the east-west part of the highway is eventually meant to connect directly to Black Road/Second Line -- the holdup being that it has to cross First Nations land to get there. When that does finally happen, the north-south jog is just going to become part of Trunk Road.

At North Bay, I actually have a few downloaded map jpgs of the planned four-laned 17 route, from the last time it got covered in the North Bay Nugget. I have no insight into if and when the four-laning is ever actually going to happen, but the plan's really not all that radical or surprising -- it basically amounts to the four-laned route shooting up the vacant ROW behind the Travelodge and Northgate Square, expropriating a bit of the Eastview subdivision, and then coming back onto the existing 11/17 route right around Meighen Avenue. If you look at the satellite view on Google Maps, it's very easy to see exactly the route I'm talking about -- from the 17E interchange, you can plainly see that the existing 11/17 route almost immediately turns to the northwest while there's an undeveloped strip continuing exactly straight up between the Travelodge and the industrial park. That's undeveloped for a reason: it's the ROW that the MTO has always reserved for the eventual freeway conversion. And the bypassed segment is going to turn west between the retirement home and Franco-Nord, and get connected to Lansdowne. As for 11 north, the plan right now is indeed to realign it to the west, so that it comes down near 17B/Main Street and the hospital rather than trying to freewayize Algonquin Avenue.

As for the main question, whether a four-laned route should be on 11 or 17, I don't know the right answer. There are pros and cons to both; there's a clear case for a 417 at least as far as the Sault, and for a four-laned route from Nipigon west, but I agree that the around-Superior link is a harder call.

In an ideal world, of course, we'd simply do both -- hell, in an ideal world, the entire TCH would already have been four-laned a couple of decades ago (even if it wasn't always fully freewayized everywhere) -- but in the world we actually live in, it's obviously a more complex question of what's the best value for the money. If it's a choice of one or the other, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. At the same time, I don't think ruining the scenic vistas of 17 over Superior is particularly a knock against four-laning 17 over Superior -- in areas where the geography requires taking a four-laned route away from the existing road, it would be entirely possible to leave the existing road in operation as a scenic "parkway" for people who want that, while still having a four-laned route for the people who just want a faster and safer trip.

Anyway, that's my (longwinded) two cents for the pot.

I read somewhere that the current end of 4 lanes would be where a bridge would be built to USA.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I read somewhere that the current end of 4 lanes would be where a bridge would be built to USA.

How long ago was the article/news published?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

How long ago was the article/news published?

Not sure where I saw it, but it was about a month or so.

[Dengler Avenue]

I plowed through 28 pages of google and saw nothing. Does that mean I should look into SaultStars microfilms or database?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I plowed through 28 pages of google and saw nothing. Does that mean I should look into SaultStars microfilms or database?

Did you go to Wikipedia?

[craigbear]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Did you go to Wikipedia?

What Wikipedia article says there's any plan for a second bridge at Sault Ste. Marie? If it does I'll wipe it, because there's no way it's properly sourceable as true.

Here's why that's not happening anytime soon: cross-border trucking traffic in Western Canada will cross at Western Canadian border crossings. Cross-border traffic in Southern Ontario will cross at Windsor/Detroit or Fort Erie/Buffalo. And on and so forth -- each region which depends on cross-border trade has its own border crossings to use, so Sault Ste. Marie really only serves Northeastern Ontario and part of Western Quebec, and nobody else. And while that might eventually require adding lane capacity to the existing bridge, there's literally no foreseeable need to build a whole second bridge from Trunk Road to Sugar Island -- especially now that Carmen's Way exists to keep trucks off the downtown streets.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by craigbear

What Wikipedia article says there's any plan for a second bridge at Sault Ste. Marie? If it does I'll wipe it, because there's no way it's properly sourceable as true.

Here's why that's not happening anytime soon: cross-border trucking traffic in Western Canada will cross at Western Canadian border crossings. Cross-border traffic in Southern Ontario will cross at Windsor/Detroit or Fort Erie/Buffalo. And on and so forth -- each region which depends on cross-border trade has its own border crossings to use, so Sault Ste. Marie really only serves Northeastern Ontario and part of Western Quebec, and nobody else. And while that might eventually require adding lane capacity to the existing bridge, there's literally no foreseeable need to build a whole second bridge from Trunk Road to Sugar Island.

That's what I thought too. If 417 does somehow make its way to SSM, we're probably better off relocating everything on Second Line (onto Great Northern Road between Third and Fifth Line) to make way for the freeway towards border crossing. I do wonder if such plan will be well received though.

For Southern Ontario, don't forget Lewiston/Queenston (405) in Niagara and Port Huron/Sarnia (402) though. You may even wanna include the ferry from Leamington to somewhere in Ohio.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by craigbear

What Wikipedia article says there's any plan for a second bridge at Sault Ste. Marie? If it does I'll wipe it, because there's no way it's properly sourceable as true.

Here's why that's not happening anytime soon: cross-border trucking traffic in Western Canada will cross at Western Canadian border crossings. Cross-border traffic in Southern Ontario will cross at Windsor/Detroit or Fort Erie/Buffalo. And on and so forth -- each region which depends on cross-border trade has its own border crossings to use, so Sault Ste. Marie really only serves Northeastern Ontario and part of Western Quebec, and nobody else. And while that might eventually require adding lane capacity to the existing bridge, there's literally no foreseeable need to build a whole second bridge from Trunk Road to Sugar Island -- especially now that Carmen's Way exists to keep trucks off the downtown streets.

I don't know.

I guess I am going digging.

[craigbear]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I don't know.

I guess I am going digging.

My guess is maybe you just saw a blogger, or a participant in a comment thread, speculating about something they had no actual knowledge of.

I just checked the monthly crossing statistics, and Sault Ste. Marie only gets about one fifth to one seventh as much personal vehicle traffic as either Detroit/Windsor or Buffalo/Fort Erie does -- and when it comes to trucking, SSM only gets about 3K trucks per month to Buffalo's 84K and Detroit's 128K. Which means the business case for a second bridge just isn't there the way it is in Detroit/Windsor -- not to mention that the United States would also have to build a whole interstate spur to get from Sugar Island to I-75, including a second bridge across the shipping channel that actually separates Sugar Island from the UP mainland, and that's just not happening.

Realistically, the most you'll ever see is a twinned span of the existing bridge, with the connection to Carmen's Way realigned. And even that, you won't be seeing anytime real soon.