HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario

View Poll Results: Which route should be twinned? Quelle route doit-on élargir?
11 1 50.00%
17 1 50.00%
Voters: 2. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2017, 4:44 PM
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 12
Exclamation TCH east of Nipigon (La route transcanadienne à l'est de Nipigon)

K I know that this is a big if, given the provincial government’s commitment, but for now let’s suppose that transcanada highway will be twinned.
I wanna know which route to twin between Nipigon and North Bay because I can’t choose between 11 and 17.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
If we barge onto 11:
Generally, the terrain is easy for a long distance so twinning shouldn’t cost much. Also, currently it’s more reliable than the 17 in the winter. In addition, it’s shorter than 17 by 30 km.
However, there aren’t that many towns along the highway.
If we stay on 17 (I will start from North Bay and go west):
Between North Bay and Espanola, the freeway is badly needed.
Between east of Espanola and east of SSM, the terrain is forgiving, so twinning shouldn’t cost much. Also, there are quite a few sizable towns along the way (i.e. Blind River, Thessalon, Bruce Mine).
Between SSM and Nipigon, though, it’s a different story.
First, we will need to bypass Rankin Location 15D on the north east because the First Nations there won’t let the highway in. If the freeway is to follow Trunk Road and Black Road, we are talking about massive expropriations and relocations here.
Then, we need to make a brand-new freeway section with smoother grades between Hayden and Wawa so that trucks can go on safely. This will be the most expensive piece.
Between Marathon and Nipigon, how can we even fix the 17…
I’m sorry that I haven’t given much detail about 11 because I have only been on the 17 (twice). (The part along Lake Superior can get dangerous…)
What do you guys think? Please tell me which route and why. It’s for a project. Thank you.

Je sais qu’il est possible que la route transcanadienne en Nord-Ontario ne sera jamais élargie à quatre (4) voies, basée sur l’engagement du gouvernement provincial, mais pour les objectifs de cette discussion, on peut présumer qu’elle sera élargie (ou qu’elles seront élargies).
Je veux savoir quelle route doit être élargie entre Nipigon et North Bay (que j’appelle « Baie du nord » parfois pour une traduction littérale) car je ne peux pas choisir entre l’11 et la 17.
Veuillez me corriger si je fais tort. (Aussi, mon français n’est pas bon. Excusez-moi pour la mauvaise grammaire.)
Si l’on continue plutôt l’élargissement sur l’11 :
En général, la terre est facile (ou pardonnante) pour une longue distance, alors les travaux d’élargissement ne seront pas trop coûteux. Elle est aussi plus fiable que la 17 en hiver, et présente une distance plus courte par 30 km.
Le problème? Il n’y a pas beaucoup de villes sur cette route.
Si l’on continue sur la 17 (Je discuterai les tronçons de North Bay « la Baie du nord » à Nipigon, de l’est à l’ouest):
Entre North Bay et Espanola (Espagnole), il faut convertir immédiatement la route courante à une autoroute.
Entre Espanola et l’est de SSM, la terre est pardonnante (facile), alors les travaux d’élargissement ne seront pas trop coûteux. Aussi, il y a beaucoup de villes moyennes sur cette route, par exemple, Blind River (Rivière-Aveugle, haha), Thessalon, Bruce Mines (les mines de Bruce), etc.
Mais entre l’est de SSM et Nipigon, les travaux deviendront beaucoup plus difficiles.
D’abord, on doit contourner le territoire des autochtones à Rankin 15D au nord-est, car ils n’y voudront pas d’autoroute. Si l’autoroute suivra Chemin Trunk et Chemin Black (Noir), il faut exproprier beaucoup de propriétés et les déménager.
Alors, voici la partie des travaux qui sera la plus coûteuse : une nouvelle autoroute (évidemment, à 4 voies avec des chaussées séparées) entre Hayden et Wawa. Il faut réduire les pentes afin de créer un roulant sauf pour des camions.
Entre Marathon et Nipigon, est la 17 améliorable ???
Je suis désolé que je n’ai pas donné beaucoup de détails pour l’11, car j’ai seulement roulé sur la 17 (pour deux fois). (Le tronçon le long du Lac Supérieur peut être dangereux…)
À quoi pensez-vous? Veuillez me dire quelle route et pourquoi. C’est pour un projet. Merci.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2017, 4:48 PM
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 12
Notes to Admin

I'm aware that there have been previous threads on this topic, but I just wanna start a new one to gauge people's opinion. It's the reason that I'm after.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2017, 11:31 PM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 1,893
Highway 11 is the route that almost all transports take so that's why I prefer it be twinned first. But I do feel that Hwy 17 needs to be twinned between Sault Ste. Marie and Mattawa. The Lake Superior section of Hwy 17 wouldn't be as scenic and fun if it were twinned which would be extremely expensive.

Hwy 11 is much flatter and has many straight sections. I've always felt that a 4 lane divided highway would be in Canada's best economic interests. Yes it would be costly at first but long-term economic benefits make doing it worth it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2017, 12:03 AM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 639
I've driven both highways.

The crux of the problem is that they both simultaneously need it in sections, but not at all in others. So, if choosing one eliminates the other, I can't really choose either.

The length and terrain involved in each makes it prohibitive as well. Whereas Highway 11 generally has better terrain, the most challenging sections of the highway (between North Bay/New Liskeard and Geraldton/Nipigon) tend to have low AADT. Really low, in the latter's case.

Highway 17 has higher AADT, but more consistently worse terrain.

In lieu of making a choice, here's how I'd apportion the dollars:

Highway 11:
North Bay to New Liskeard: 2+1 highway
New Liskeard to 101 West to Timmins: 4 lanes
101 West to Hearst: 2+1 highway
Hearst to Nipigon: As-is

Highway 17:
Mattawa to North Bay: 2+1 highway
North Bay to Sault Ste. Marie: 4 lanes
Sault to Nipigon: As-is.

If we had only one major highway through the region (like in NW Ont.) I'd be much more supportive of 4 lanes through the entire route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2017, 1:00 AM
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 12
Yea for the 11, I totally agree with twinning along 101 west of Matheson towards Timmins, then barging up on 655. Sadly Cochrane and places will be completely left out. Also, in that case, I would also twin 101 from west of 144 and build a freeway bypass on the north. Later on though, I would also twin 11 and pass Polly Lake on the north and join the current alignment west of Nipigon (1 bridge) to eliminate that bottleneck.
Yea it just sucks that things are spread over the 2 routes...
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:31 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.