HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2009, 9:33 PM
ConundrumNL ConundrumNL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St. John's
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirjtc2 View Post
eternallyme: It makes more sense, and other places are seeing the light. Maine switched from the sequential exit numbers to the milepost system about 5 years ago. And the way NS adds random letters (I remember our family getting lost once when I was little because the map said exit 1 but the sign said 1D) makes it even more confusing.

Can anyone explain all those weird letter suffixes at the 1/101/102 interchange? If there's an "Exit ##K" anywhere else in North America, I'd be shocked.
Newfoundland uses sequential exits on the Trans Canada, and there are a few ##A and B exits around St. John's and maybe Corner Brook. I don't think the province uses exit numbers on any other highways, they just sign where the exit leads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2009, 10:07 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is online now
Haru Urara
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 6,509
Newfoundland does use the sequential numbers, but that's because the TCH is literally the only highway for the vast majority of that province.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2009, 11:46 PM
NLJP's Avatar
NLJP NLJP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St. John's
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConundrumNL View Post
Newfoundland uses sequential exits on the Trans Canada, and there are a few ##A and B exits around St. John's and maybe Corner Brook. I don't think the province uses exit numbers on any other highways, they just sign where the exit leads.
The only ##A/B exit in the province I know of is the interchange between the TCH (Highway 1) and Pitts Memorial Drive (Highway 2) in St. John's - on the TCH it's Exit 41A southbound on Pitts Memorial Drive into Mount Pearl/downtown and 41B northbound on Pitts Memorial Drive onto the CBS bypass into CBS.

The interchanges at Kenmount Road/Karwood Drive, Torbay Road and Portugal Cove Road have separate north/south exits, but I don't think they're numbered with A/B. Either way the signage is quite good for 41A/B, if you know where you're going in St. John's. If you're going east into the city from, well, the middle of nowhere (also known as Newfoundland, flamesuit ), there's a sign saying Exit 41A - Mount Pearl / St. John's (downtown) and then two overhead signs with the left lanes reading Exit 41B - Conception Bay South and the right lane reading Exit 41A - Mount Pearl / St. John's (downtown) again, and then the exit opens for 41A (cloverleaf) and 41B is on a weaving lane with traffic going eastbound on the TCH from Pitts Memorial and traffic heading north on Pitts Memorial/CBS Bypass/Highway 2 exiting.

That was quite possibly the most confusing paragraph I've ever written, but it isn't overly complicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregHickman View Post
Newfoundland does use the sequential numbers, but that's because the TCH is literally the only highway for the vast majority of that province.
Yeah, pretty much. I've never seen any highway in the province other than the TCH have exit numbers. Pitts Memorial only has 4 or 5 exits anyway before it goes into CBS, and then 4 or 5 more there and the other highways are mostly just at-grade intersections.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2009, 7:34 PM
Smevo's Avatar
Smevo Smevo is offline
Sarcstic Caper in Exile
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,837
Just wanted to give an update, I'm currently working on the maps for the trunk highways, so watch for them in the next week or so.

I've also decided I will be doing the collectors (though aadt only) and then doing a series on the urban areas, first with just highways and roads of each class, then (if the maps don't get too cluttered), all three classes of highways and local roads that I have info for combined to get a comprehensive traffic flow map for each urban area (by statscan standards).

I've checked into the NB stuff, and have run into the same problems others have, but would still like to see similar info for PEI and NL if anyone's up for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 3:27 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
How would Highway 104 look if the exits were re-numbered and made more sense? This assumes the entire corridor is twinned or basically left as-is, except for the Antigonish bypass and a possible Canso Causeway relocation.

(Red = currently an at-grade intersection, but assume they are kept as interchanges in the ultimate design; Blue = under construction or planned, a pure guess)

Exit 1/1A (Fort Lawrence Road/Welcome Centre) - Exit 1
(there is no Exit 2? Laplanche Street is entrance only)
Exit 3 (Trunk 6, Amherst) - Exit 5
Exit 4 (Trunk 2, Amherst) - Exit 9
Exit 5 (Highway 142, Springhill) - Exit 29
Exit 6 (Route 321, Oxford) - Exit 40
Exit 7 (Trunk 4, Thomson Station) - Exit 49
Exit 8 (Wentworth-Collingwood Road) - Exit 59
(there is no Exit 9)
Exit 10 (Station Road) - Exit 83
Exit 11 (Trunk 4, Glenholme) - Exit 89
Exit 12 (Trunk 2, Debert Station) - Exit 92
Exit 13 (McElmon Road) - Exit 97
(there is no Exit 14)
Exit 15 (Highway 102) - Exit 106
(there is no Exit 16)
Exit 17 (Trunk 4, Bible Hill) - Exit 116
Exit 18 (Stevens Cross Road) - Exit 125
Exit 18A (Trunk 4, Mount Thom) - Exit 132
Exit 19 (Trunk 4, Salt Springs) - Exit 146
Exit 20 (Salter Road) - Exit 154
Exit 21 (Trunk 4, Westville) - Exit 158
Exit 22 (Highway 106) - Exit 160
Exit 23 (Trunk 4/Route 289, New Glasgow) - Exit 163
Exit 24 (Route 374/Foord Street) - Exit 165
Exit 25 (Route 348/East River Road) - Exit 166
Exit 26 (Route 347) - Exit 169
Exit 27A (Trunk 4/Pine Tree Road) - Exit 176
Exit 27 (Trunk 4, Sutherlands River) - Exit 178

(no Exit 28? although the ultimate design might have one)
Exit 29 (Trunk 4, Barneys River Station) - Exit 197
Exit 29A (Trunk 4, Marshy Hope) - Exit 203

Exit 30 (Beaver Meadow Road) - Exit 209
Exit 31A (Addington Forks Road) - Exit 219
Exit 31 (Trunk 4/Trunk 7, Antigonish) - Exit 221

(Exit 32 stands to be bypassed)
Exit 33 (Church Street) - Exit 223
(Exit 34 stands to be bypassed)
Exit 35 (Route 316/Southside Harbour Road) - Exit 228
Exit 36 (Bayfield Beach Road) - Exit 238
Exit 36A (Trunk 4, Heatherton) - Exit 240

Exit 37 (Trunk 4, Monastery) - Exit 251
Exit 38 (Trunk 4, Havre Boucher) - Exit 260 eastbound, Exit 261 westbound
Exit 39 (Trunk 4, Aulds Cove) - Exit 269
(I would assume Exit 40 would be bypassed if the Canso Causeway is relocated/twinned)
(Canso Causeway)
Exit 41 (Highway 105/Trunk 4/Trunk 19, Port Hastings) - Exit 273
(Currently a gap - assuming interchanges will be at Trunk 19 and at Highway 105)
Exit 43 (Trunk 4, Port Hawkesbury) - Exit 281
Exit 44 (Port Malcolm Road) - Exit 291
Exit 45 (Evanston Road) - Exit 293

Exit 46 (Route 320) - Exit 304
Exit 47 (Sporting Mountain Road) - Exit 314
(Ends at Trunk 4, not aware of any determined route beyond River Tillard)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 3:52 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,169
^Just a correction for yah;

Exit 32 is Church Street (stands to be bypassed)

Exit 33 is Beech Hill Road (new interchange being built)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 4:42 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ View Post
^Just a correction for yah;

Exit 32 is Church Street (stands to be bypassed)

Exit 33 is Beech Hill Road (new interchange being built)
Thanks, I was going by a combination of maps, other sites and Google Earth, since I haven't travelled that highway since 2000.

Twinning/bypassing the Canso Causeway would be an interesting decision, since the options are:

1) Twinning the causeway, new approaches (but how to cross the railway?)

2) Twinning the causeway and the approaches (requires major expropriation, and curves are too much)

3) New 4 lane causeway to the north (IMO the best option)

4) New 4 lane high-level bridge to the north (most expensive option for sure)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 6:10 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,169
^I think replacing it with a brand new state of the art bridge would be the best idea. From what I hear the causeway has had a few downsides like allowing non-native animals onto CB, altering tidal patterns in the Strait, and killing the local fish populations.

Besides for a province built on the water and known for our coastline I think its time we have an iconic bridge somewheres in the province.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 6:12 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ View Post
^I think replacing it with a brand new state of the art bridge would be the best idea. From what I hear the causeway has had a few downsides like allowing non-native animals onto CB, altering tidal patterns in the Strait, and killing the local fish populations.

Besides for a province built on the water and known for our coastline I think its time we have an iconic bridge somewheres in the province.
The new bridge would also need to have a railway track provision (pretty difficult for a freeway bridge), or railway service to Cape Breton Island is lost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 6:15 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
The new bridge would also need to have a railway track provision (pretty difficult for a freeway bridge), or railway service to Cape Breton Island is lost.
This would shoot the price up a lot but a seperate two-track rail bridge might work the best.

Another option would be to have a double deck bridge with vehicles on top and two rail lines underneath.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 7:57 PM
Smevo's Avatar
Smevo Smevo is offline
Sarcstic Caper in Exile
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
Thanks, I was going by a combination of maps, other sites and Google Earth, since I haven't travelled that highway since 2000.

Twinning/bypassing the Canso Causeway would be an interesting decision, since the options are:

1) Twinning the causeway, new approaches (but how to cross the railway?)

2) Twinning the causeway and the approaches (requires major expropriation, and curves are too much)

3) New 4 lane causeway to the north (IMO the best option)

4) New 4 lane high-level bridge to the north (most expensive option for sure)
I'm basing my assumption on where the current 104 ends outside Port Hawkesbury, but I think a new structure to the north is the most likely, whether it's a causeway or bridge is anybody's guess. As for the 104 past River Tillard, there was a call for route proposals to complete the design and ROW to Sydney a couple of years back. The plan was to design for 4-lane twinned, but build initially as 2-lane controlled access freeway.

I did an estimate of traffic on a completed 104 by taking through traffic on 105 and adding that to each section of 104/Tk4 on the island (local traffic on Tk4, with the exceptions of Port Hawkesbury, St. Peter's, and close to Sydney) accounts for only about 500-1,000 vehicles of the aadt. It's not a perfect estimate by any means, but the least busy section would see about 4,300 and the busiest near 10,000 (near Sydney). This doesn't take into account the use of certain sections near Port Hawkesbury and Sydney as local road, nor does it account for increased usage for vacation traffic since the trip would now be easier and faster. I'll do up a quick map for illustration, than underneath list the sections and estimated aadt.

I'll use a different scale for this one, just to illustrate it a bit better, since it's only this one section of road, and I'll use Tk4 alignment after the 104 ends since I don't know where the route is going to go, though I have an idea of where I'd put it. (I think I'll do up a quick map of that underneath). Again, maps made by me in Google maps.

The legend for this one:
White = <5,000
Grey = 5,001 to 6,000
Blue = 6,001 to 7,000
Green = 7,001 to 8,000
Yellow = 8,001 to 9,000
Orange = 9,001 to 10,000
Red > 10,000


Causeway to 105 - 9,630 (unchanged)
Port Hawkesbury Bypass - ~8500 (I kinda roughed in this one by assuming it be about half way between the levels of the section before and after it)
Exit 43 to 44 - 7,490
Exit 44 to 45 - 7,050
Exit 45 to 46 - 6,440
Exit 46 to 47 - 5,640
Exit 47 to River Tillard - 5,620
River Tillard to St Peters - 6,650
St Peters to Rte 247 - 7,400
Rte 247 to Soldier's Cove - 5,260
Soldier's Cove to Hay Cove - 4,660
Hay Cove to Irish Cove - 4,320
Irish Cove to Big Pond Centre - 4,490
Big Pond Centre to Loch Lomand Rd - 5,300
Loch Lomand Rd to Ben Eion - 5,020
Ben Eion to East Bay - 5,980
East Bay to Meadows Rd - 8,300
Meadows Rd to Hwy 125 - 10,050 (this one's rougher than the others too, due to more local traffic).

Here's a rough route that I would do with an explanation below (if anybody wants a close-up of any section of this road I can do that too, though it's very rough because I'm actually not that good at Google maps unless I'm following an actual road).
Orange = Existing 105
Grey = Existing Tk 4
Green = Existing 104
Blue = New 104
White = Existing Connector, little to no upgrade
Yellow = Existing Connector, upgrade probably needed
Red = New Connector
Black = Road Removal
Brown = Re-alignment Tk 4



Rundown of route with exit #'s under current scheme (I'll only list the changes):
New crossing North of current Canso Causeway
Exit 41- Diamond Interchange at Tk 19 (Inverness, Cabot Trail)
Exit 41A - Diamond and Cloverleaf at Hwy 105 - Port Hastings, Baddeck, Cabot Trail (I missed the SE corner of the cloverleaf on the drawing, however, there is room)
Exit 42 - Diamond at Crandall Rd (upgrade) - Port Hawkesbury
Exit 43 - 3/4 Diamond and 1/4 Cloverleaf at Tk 4 - Port Hawkesbury, Cleveland (1/4 Cloverleaf and 1/4 Diamond already exists)
Evanston Bypass to allow for interchanges rather than at-grade intersections.
Exit 44 - Diamond at Port Malcolm Rd - Lower River Inhabitants
Exit 45 - Diamond at Whiteside Rd - Evanston, Whiteside
Exit 48 - Diamond at current Tk 4 - River Tillard, St. Peters (Extend Tk 4 at current intersection slightly to meet up with diamond, re-align Tk 4 slightly east to make room for interchange, remove excess roadway from old Tk 4)
Exit 49 - Diamond at Oban Rd - St. Peters, Oban
Exit 50 - Diamond at Bras-D'Or Lakes Dr - St. Peters, Sampsonville, L'Ardoise
3 short crossings of Bras-D'Or Lakes, 2 of which could be fill or bridge
Exit 51 - Diamond at Tk 4 - Barra Head, Lynche River, L'Ardoise
Exit 52 - Diamond at Soldier's Cove Rd - Chapel Island (Potlotek), Soldier's Cove (upgrade)
Exit 53 - Diamond at Hay Cove Rd - Hay Cove, Johnstown (upgrade)
Exit 54 - Diamond at Irish Cove Rd - Irish Cove (upgrade)
Exit 55 - Diamond at Loch Lomond Rd - Big Pond, Loch Lomond (upgrade surface)
Exit 56 - Diamond - Ben Eion (new connector south of ski hill/golf course)
Exit 57 - Diamond - East Bay, Eskasoni (new connector as extension of Rte 216)
Exit 58 - Diamond at Morley Rd - Portage, Meadows Rd (upgrade, gravel pit industrial traffic though so maybe not, and may not actually be needed though it would keep some more trucks off section of Tk 4 with a lot of local traffic)
Exit 59 - Diamond at Tk 4 - Portage, Howie Centre, Sydney Forks
Exit 60 - Diamond at Blackett's Lake Rd - Blackett's Lake, Coxheath, Sydney Forks
Exit 61 - Diamond at Mountain Rd - Coxheath
Exit 62E/W - at 125 Diamond with Sydport Access Rd -
E-Sydney, Glace Bay, New Waterford, Louisbourg
W- North Sydney, Sydney Mines, Nfld Ferry

My initial thought was to put a new interchange with 125 east of Prime Brook, but then I remembered the existing barely used interchange at Sydport Access Rd, and figured this alignment would make that interchange more useful and would make the highway easier to access for current Sydport traffic and future container traffic.

The new route, if given a speed limit of 110 (which there's no reason I can see why it shouldn't), would cut the time down to all urban areas in the Sydney region, and would avoid the Kelly's Mountain hairpin which has been the site of many an overturned truck.

North Sydney (1h25min)-18mins vs current 104/4, -6mins vs 105
Sydney (1h19min)-26mins vs 105, -14mins vs current 104/4
Glace Bay (1h32min)-26mins vs 105, -14mins vs current 104/4
New Waterford (1h39min)-26mins vs 105, -14mins vs current 104/4
Louisbourg (2h2min)-26mins vs 105, -14mins vs current 104/4
Because of the decreased travel times, I'm guessing my estimates were a little more of a low-ball than I thought, since I only estimated through traffic to Sydney and East.

I'm still working on the trunks, but since the causeway came up and the proposed Port Hawkesbury bypass was in the news recently, I figured why not put this up for discussion.

Last edited by Smevo; Dec 13, 2009 at 8:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 8:01 PM
Smevo's Avatar
Smevo Smevo is offline
Sarcstic Caper in Exile
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ View Post
This would shoot the price up a lot but a seperate two-track rail bridge might work the best.

Another option would be to have a double deck bridge with vehicles on top and two rail lines underneath.
Part of me thinks the causeway would remain as Scenic Rte 4 even with a new crossing. The causeway has created an ice-free harbour for Port Hawkesbury and Melford, so there could be more economic implications there on its removal, seeing as Port Hawesbury handles high volumes of bulk cargo and the ice-free harbour was a selling point for the Melford container terminal proposal.

As for the non-native animals, they usually get killed by traffic before they make it across.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 9:02 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smevo View Post
Part of me thinks the causeway would remain as Scenic Rte 4 even with a new crossing. The causeway has created an ice-free harbour for Port Hawkesbury and Melford, so there could be more economic implications there on its removal, seeing as Port Hawesbury handles high volumes of bulk cargo and the ice-free harbour was a selling point for the Melford container terminal proposal.

As for the non-native animals, they usually get killed by traffic before they make it across.
I never thought of the ice problem (even though Google Maps shows quite the pile-up on the northside of the causeway).

As soon as Google Maps starts working for me again I'm going to do a quick sketch up of the route I think is the best for the 104. I'm going to leave the rail line out of it since it can stay with Trunk 4 across the Causeway for now.

Two little qusetions though for you Smevo;

1) How do you get Google Maps images to show up on the forum. I always end up posting a link ...

2) And you might know more than me on this. I remember a couple of years back seeing a government plan for a Port Hawkesbury bypass for the 104. Do you happen to know the routing of the proposed highway?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 9:40 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Looking at traffic counts, 104 should definitely be twinned up to Port Hastings before significant re-alignments on Cape Breton are necessary (the entire mainland section should be twinned ASAP - they should aggressively pursue a twinning of the entire remaining mainland section plus the Canso Causeway bypass). Once that is done, Cape Breton can begin to be conquered.

Existing 105 could even be downgraded and renumbered as Trunk 5 once 104 bypasses it from Port Hastings to the CBRM, since no part of it is a freeway and most of it is a rural arterial highway.

I do agree the existing Canso Causeway should be maintained as Trunk 4 for local traffic, since otherwise for local vehicles from Auld Cove to Port Hastings, it is a long way out to the two exits necessary.

The new 4-lane bridge/causeway could also be tolled until the cost is paid off, but in that situation, trucks would be banned from the existing causeway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 9:44 PM
Smevo's Avatar
Smevo Smevo is offline
Sarcstic Caper in Exile
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ View Post
I never thought of the ice problem (even though Google Maps shows quite the pile-up on the northside of the causeway).

As soon as Google Maps starts working for me again I'm going to do a quick sketch up of the route I think is the best for the 104. I'm going to leave the rail line out of it since it can stay with Trunk 4 across the Causeway for now.

Two little qusetions though for you Smevo;

1) How do you get Google Maps images to show up on the forum. I always end up posting a link ...

2) And you might know more than me on this. I remember a couple of years back seeing a government plan for a Port Hawkesbury bypass for the 104. Do you happen to know the routing of the proposed highway?
About posting Google Maps images on the forum, I cheat. That is to say I take a screencap, crop it in paint, and then host the jpg on my pbase account.

And for the Port Hawkesbury bypass, my assumption based on where the 104 ends at that end right now, it being planned to intersect 105, and the probable area for a new crossing, is a route similar to this here.



It probably goes either a little further south of the airport, or it goes north of it, but I doubt the airport actually poses much of a problem as it's a low traffic airport for small private planes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 9:59 PM
Smevo's Avatar
Smevo Smevo is offline
Sarcstic Caper in Exile
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
Looking at traffic counts, 104 should definitely be twinned up to Port Hastings before significant re-alignments on Cape Breton are necessary (the entire mainland section should be twinned ASAP - they should aggressively pursue a twinning of the entire remaining mainland section plus the Canso Causeway bypass). Once that is done, Cape Breton can begin to be conquered.

Existing 105 could even be downgraded and renumbered as Trunk 5 once 104 bypasses it from Port Hastings to the CBRM, since no part of it is a freeway and most of it is a rural arterial highway.

I do agree the existing Canso Causeway should be maintained as Trunk 4 for local traffic, since otherwise for local vehicles from Auld Cove to Port Hastings, it is a long way out to the two exits necessary.

The new 4-lane bridge/causeway could also be tolled until the cost is paid off, but in that situation, trucks would be banned from the existing causeway.
Looking at traffic counts alone, I'd have to agree with you for the most part. The only issues are that most people actually take the longer way (105) because of the condition of Tk 4, though as the upgrading along Tk 4 continues, that may change. The other issue is the hairpin on Kelly's Mountain isn't likely going anywhere anytime soon, and neither is the truck traffic there. The hairpin speed rating is 40km/h at the end of a long, steep descent, and that's why there's so many problems with it. This has prompted some truckers nervous of it to take Tk 4, which has no shoulders and a lane width that is too narrow to properly accomodate truck traffic. According to word on the street, there was a ban on trucks on Tk 4, and although I've never seen anything official to confirm this, it would be a good location for a truck ban, at least until there's a minimum of maintained gravel shoulders and wider lanes along it's entire length.

Basically, even though the traffic counts data doesn't warrant the completion of a 2-lane 104 through CB, imho the other circumstances surrounding the situation do warrant a push to be done on it. I do however agree that twinning on the mainland takes priority, but it should be done a lot faster than what's happening now, and the push through CB needs to be done immediately after the mainland twinning.

I also agree that 105 should be downgraded to Tk 5 once the 104 is done because it is far from freeway standard, and is probably the 100-series highway that's least deserving of the designation by design standards. I also think that 162 and 142 should be downgraded to Trunks as well, but that's more because of traffic counts and maintenance priorities than design standards. They served their purpose while mining was big, but now there's really not much use for them beyond local trunks or even collectors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2009, 11:32 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
What are the chances of a fixed link across the Cabot Strait?

The distances from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland:

Shortest possible - Bay St. Lawrence to Cape Ray via Victoria Island - 2 sections, 26 and 77 km each (plus 4 km on land)

Shortest straight line - Bay St. Lawrence to Cape Ray by-passing Victoria Island - 105 km

Shortest with good road access - Neils Harbour to Cape Ray - 118 km

Best road access - Point Aconi to near Grand Bay - 160 km

Best traffic potential - Sydney Mines to Channel-Port Aux Basques - 165 km

Shortest route to the Avalon - Scatarie Island to Point Crewe - 298 km (but through French waters)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2009, 12:07 AM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is offline
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 19,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smevo View Post
Part of me thinks the causeway would remain as Scenic Rte 4 even with a new crossing. The causeway has created an ice-free harbour for Port Hawkesbury and Melford, so there could be more economic implications there on its removal, seeing as Port Hawesbury handles high volumes of bulk cargo and the ice-free harbour was a selling point for the Melford container terminal proposal.

As for the non-native animals, they usually get killed by traffic before they make it across.
I agree, the existing causeway would have to remain because of the (artifical) ice free harbour at Port Hawksbury.

If a new link is built to CB, I imagine it would be a bridge. I have a feeling that a new causeway might be the more expensive option. It seems to me that the existing causeway is (was) the deepest one in the world when it was constructed. It took half of Porcupine Mountain for the fill.

A bridge would likely be cheaper and if the existing causeway is maintained, local rte. 4 and the rail line could still continue to use it.

How much traffic is using this rail line at present now anyway?
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2009, 1:13 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smevo View Post
About posting Google Maps images on the forum, I cheat. That is to say I take a screencap, crop it in paint, and then host the jpg on my pbase account.

And for the Port Hawkesbury bypass, my assumption based on where the 104 ends at that end right now, it being planned to intersect 105, and the probable area for a new crossing, is a route similar to this here.



It probably goes either a little further south of the airport, or it goes north of it, but I doubt the airport actually poses much of a problem as it's a low traffic airport for small private planes.
I might post mine later when I'm done.

Basically right now I have this;

The bridge + approaches would be approximately 4km long and be located where the 104 currently turns South on the mainland.

The freeway would cross the Strait and Trunk 19 then curve south to Hwy 105 then continue down to the existing Hwy 104.

For now I have interchanges at the mainland approach (new connector to Trunk 4), CB approach (new connector to Trunk 19), Highway 105, and Trunk 4. For service to Port Hawkesbury interchanges could be built at either Kings Rd or Crandall Rd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2009, 3:27 AM
Smevo's Avatar
Smevo Smevo is offline
Sarcstic Caper in Exile
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ View Post
I might post mine later when I'm done.

Basically right now I have this;

The bridge + approaches would be approximately 4km long and be located where the 104 currently turns South on the mainland.

The freeway would cross the Strait and Trunk 19 then curve south to Hwy 105 then continue down to the existing Hwy 104.

For now I have interchanges at the mainland approach (new connector to Trunk 4), CB approach (new connector to Trunk 19), Highway 105, and Trunk 4. For service to Port Hawkesbury interchanges could be built at either Kings Rd or Crandall Rd.
I was debating between Kings and Crandall myself, but Crandall seemed to provide the faster/more direct route into town. The mainland side sounds exactly like what I was thinking, though my route on that side is slightly off (towards the south) because I started where 104 ends on the CB side and tried to work around property lines to the mainland...it may have been better to work from the other end as the route I did crossed both the current 104 and the current Tk 4 on the mainland in very quick succesion. What I did on that side because of this was a 1/2 cloverleaf, 1/2 diamond interchange with the current 104, then met at an angle further west down the 104. I didn't dwell on that section too much though, since I'm pretty sure they already have some route options worked out as far as the causeway and probably as far as the Port Hawkesbury bypass to where it meets with the current CB 104.

If you get the chance, I'd love to see your idea, and if your interested in proposing a route to the Sydney area (by that I mean urban CBRM), I'd love to see that too, but I definitely would like to see what you've worked out so far.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:11 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.