HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6781  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 1:28 PM
Taeolas Taeolas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fredericton
Posts: 2,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco401 View Post
NB always uses super wide medians whenever possible, but the old Trans-Canada bypass of Fredericton (the oldest freeway in the province, built 1959) is a disaster for crash protection. Even with guardrails near signs, you basically just have a narrow strip of flat grass separating traffic flows, even when the road curves and traffic doing 110 on a road designed for 90 has to swerve just to stay in lane. You then get to go down a VERY steep hill where it narrows to one lane for no reason, adds another, goes down to a four-lane undivided road, loses the right lane at a ramp with a laughable indicated speed of 30 and makes another dangerous turn onto a narrow bridge.
This is the area in question, all leading down to the Princess Margaret Bridge; the old TCH bridge across the Saint John.

Thankfully, now that the TCH is routed elsewhere, traffic levels are a lot lower, but that stretch of highway needs a LOT of work. It is still one of the 2 river crossings within City limits. On top of being a narrow bridge at the end, the highway at the north end of the bridge is a mess. By the roads, the traffic priority heads to the north east, away from the city since that is the original TCH routing.

But traffic volume is now distinctly north-west oriented, heading back into the city and heading to the Route 8 highway to the northern part of the province (not a divided highway but a nice modern route for the most part). Northbound traffic ends up doing a 270 degree turn, looping under the old highway and merging with traffic from the east. Then you can either merge onto the new Route 8, or you can get stuck at a traffic light to continue on into the city.

Southbound traffic is even worse. People coming from the west on the old highway hit a traffic light right at the end of the bridge, so traffic coming out of the city can come up the ramp and onto the bridge.

The Route 8 highway was finished about 4 years or so ago. And for whatever reason instead of having it link up directly with the Princess Margaret Bridge, they gave it a curve and had it link up with Union street 3/4 of a kilometer away, something that still boggles us. At least now, the city and province are considering fixing that interchange up and probably putting a 2-lane roundabout in that intersection. But they're only starting to do the studies and plans for it, so we're years away from seeing any significant changes there.

*Edit* Looking at Streetview, the traffic light is a fairly recent addition; it wasn't there in 2013, but it's been there since 2016 onward; I think it may have been put in 2014 or 15.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6782  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 4:01 PM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,114
The cost of building to full freeway standards is expensive. The interchanges with the bridges make each exit much more expensive. Having turning lanes,, while not the best answer is a better one than leaving it a 2 lane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6783  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 9:28 PM
Franco401's Avatar
Franco401 Franco401 is offline
Kneel before Irving
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southside Fredericton, NB
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeolas View Post
The Route 8 highway was finished about 4 years or so ago. And for whatever reason instead of having it link up directly with the Princess Margaret Bridge, they gave it a curve and had it link up with Union street 3/4 of a kilometer away, something that still boggles us. At least now, the city and province are considering fixing that interchange up and probably putting a 2-lane roundabout in that intersection. But they're only starting to do the studies and plans for it, so we're years away from seeing any significant changes there.

*Edit* Looking at Streetview, the traffic light is a fairly recent addition; it wasn't there in 2013, but it's been there since 2016 onward; I think it may have been put in 2014 or 15.
The traffic light on the end of the bridge was put there in 2015 to deal with the massive increase in traffic due to the repairs on the Westmorland, and left there because it was so much safer.

Even though the long section Route 8 was completed in 2014, the section from the end of the bridge to Marysville is over 30 years old. The routing made sense when Route 2 still had to go downriver, and the city is only a few years away from building a roundabout or interchange at that junction to straighten the flow.



The southside interchange will continue to be a problem, however.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.93977.../data=!3m1!1e3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6784  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 11:29 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 17,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
The cost of building to full freeway standards is expensive. The interchanges with the bridges make each exit much more expensive. Having turning lanes,, while not the best answer is a better one than leaving it a 2 lane.
But it can (and should) be done. NB is a small and poor province, yet we have over 800 km of divided highway built to full freeway standard. The only exception is three level railway crossings around Moncton (all little used spur lines that only see 1-3 shuttle trains of no more than six cars per week).
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6785  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 11:53 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 6,216
You guys don't realize how good you have it in the highways departments. Let me put this into perspective for you so you can visualize how bad the highway system is in BC...……….Essex County Ontario with 400,000 varying from 330 to 400 km from Toronto has more 6 lane freeway than ALL of BC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6786  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 12:11 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
But it can (and should) be done. NB is a small and poor province, yet we have over 800 km of divided highway built to full freeway standard. The only exception is three level railway crossings around Moncton (all little used spur lines that only see 1-3 shuttle trains of no more than six cars per week).
To build a freeway through Northern Ontario would cost well over 10 Billion. if they left out most o the lower use exits and had them as level, we could probably half that cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6787  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 12:27 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
To build a freeway through Northern Ontario would cost well over 10 Billion. if they left out most o the lower use exits and had them as level, we could probably half that cost.
When they freewayize a road they always close down most exits. That's why they're classified as limited access roads. Not only would it be super expensive to build interchanges at every turn off it would be super unsafe to have people exiting and entering the freeway if the exits were too close together.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6788  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 12:51 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
When they freewayize a road they always close down most exits.
Someone tell that to AB roads (and SK, MB and BC...).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6789  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 1:32 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
When they freewayize a road they always close down most exits. That's why they're classified as limited access roads. Not only would it be super expensive to build interchanges at every turn off it would be super unsafe to have people exiting and entering the freeway if the exits were too close together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Someone tell that to AB roads (and SK, MB and BC...).
And NB and NS, and possibly QC too.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6790  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 2:25 AM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
To build a freeway through Northern Ontario would cost well over 10 Billion. if they left out most o the lower use exits and had them as level, we could probably half that cost.
Considering $2 billion cost for Highway 69 from Parry Sound to Sudbury (145km), I would expect a full freeway to cost in the $20-30 billion range, presuming ~1800 km to be twinned from Arnprior, ON to Manitoba border, excluding 4-lane sections near Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay.

Unforgiving terrain, lots of service roads required for property access.

I suggest 4-lane undivided with geometry improvements - prevents foolish overtaking maneuvers, allows more forgiveness during winter storm conditions (effectively becomes 2 lanes) at minimal cost due to access to province already owning right-of-way. Perhaps a center median on long stretches where no property access required.

Bypasses of built up areas can be factored in too.

There's a middle ground here with respect to roads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6791  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 3:10 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
Considering $2 billion cost for Highway 69 from Parry Sound to Sudbury (145km), I would expect a full freeway to cost in the $20-30 billion range, presuming ~1800 km to be twinned from Arnprior, ON to Manitoba border, excluding 4-lane sections near Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay.

Unforgiving terrain, lots of service roads required for property access.

I suggest 4-lane undivided with geometry improvements - prevents foolish overtaking maneuvers, allows more forgiveness during winter storm conditions (effectively becomes 2 lanes) at minimal cost due to access to province already owning right-of-way. Perhaps a center median on long stretches where no property access required.

Bypasses of built up areas can be factored in too.

There's a middle ground here with respect to roads.
4 lanes undivided would be a good start. Centre medians would also be good too. The reality is, Northern Ontario, and much of Canada does not need 401 style freeways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6792  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 3:20 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Someone tell that to AB roads (and SK, MB and BC...).
Where has AB not done that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6793  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 3:25 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
Where has AB not done that?
Highway 1 between Calgary and the SK border.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6794  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 3:26 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
4 lanes undivided would be a good start. Centre medians would also be good too. The reality is, Northern Ontario, and much of Canada does not need 401 style freeways.
You can't have sections of your main highway network being below standard if you want to maximize the economic potential of the nation. If places like ND and MT can have Interstate highways then there's no reason why Canada can't do the same. And it's not like the U.S. doesn't have crazy terrain to deal with either. You'd think that after approximately 60 years we could at least have two limited access controlled freeways that stretch from one end of the country to the other. With today's "we don't deserve better" mentality in this nation we likely wouldn't even have railroads that go across the country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6795  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 3:27 AM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 17,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
And NB and NS, and possibly QC too.....
There are no non-limited access point on NB 1 & 2, and the freeway portions of 11, 15 & 7. There are also no non-limited access points on the freeway portions of the 100 series highways in NS. I don't know what you're getting at.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6796  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 3:55 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
Where has AB not done that?
Literally every road that isn't the 201 or 216, and Highway 1 west of Calgary. The QE2 is closest to being up to spec, but has multiple uncontrolled intersections, and that stupid interchange at Red Deer (being fixed). Plus cloverleafs.

All the other roads aren't proper freeways, just divided rural roads with dangerous uncontrolled left turns. Drive east on highway 1 and it's like that until Ontario. Every single bloody range road has kept its access to the highway, the very opposite of what a controlled access road should be. Similarly highway 43 up to GP, highway 16, highway 2 south to the border... all of them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6797  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 4:21 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Literally every road that isn't the 201 or 216, and Highway 1 west of Calgary. The QE2 is closest to being up to spec, but has multiple uncontrolled intersections, and that stupid interchange at Red Deer (being fixed). Plus cloverleafs.

All the other roads aren't proper freeways, just divided rural roads with dangerous uncontrolled left turns. Drive east on highway 1 and it's like that until Ontario. Every single bloody range road has kept its access to the highway, the very opposite of what a controlled access road should be. Similarly highway 43 up to GP, highway 16, highway 2 south to the border... all of them.
The province doesn't consider any of those roads to be freeways--there is a difference between a freeway and a highway. They do have plans to turn big stretches of Highway 2 into a controlled access freeway but they can't do it all at once. They also have to fight with the people who think it's their God given right to have direct access off the road into their property and/or business. If it was up to AB Transportation that shit would be gone tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6798  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 4:32 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
The province doesn't consider any of those roads to be freeways--there is a difference between a freeway and a highway. They do have plans to turn big stretches of Highway 2 into a controlled access freeway but they can't do it all at once. They also have to fight with the people who think it's their God given right to have direct access off the road into their property and/or business. If it was up to AB Transportation that shit would be gone tomorrow.
That's kind of what I mean - AB don't really care about any distinction between a freeway and any other road, they just upgrade everything piecemeal. Technically a 'highway' is pretty much any road that is open to the public, although I think conventionally the range roads and township roads in the prairies aren't classed as highways. So there is no actual difference between one of our 'freeways' and a two lane rural road. One is just a bigger version of the other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6799  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 8:33 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Transit Geek
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: see profile picture
Posts: 2,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
Highway 1 between Calgary and the SK border.
For TCH between Arnprior and south of Lake Superior Shore, I suppose it’s okay to twin it and have at most 1 interchange per community and at most 4 per city.

For the rest (except around communities and cities), we copy US Route 1 in Rhode Island from E Beach Road (Charlestown) to Pond Street (Wakefield):

First, leave a wide median (0.5 ~ 1 km) between the 2 directions;
Then, RIRO at ALL little used intersections; note that if they’re too close, we need to combine access;
Now comes the tricky part: U-turn spots 1.5 ~ 2 km, with exit and merge lanes (hence the need for wide median), after the last RIRO in each direction for the next 10 km.

Let me know whether my suggestion makes sense.

In Canadian Shield, this might be the way to grade-separate intersections. Alternatively, we can always use the terrain to build interchanges (like ON 400 around Parry Sound).

In all seriousness, if US can have multiple interstates through the Rockies where population isn’t even that dense, I don’t see why not for Canada. Also, building through Canadian Shield still looks cheaper than through Interior BC.
__________________
Source of photo: https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Coas.../_Riverport%27

Last edited by Dengler Avenue; Jun 19, 2018 at 8:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6800  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 3:04 PM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
For TCH between Arnprior and south of Lake Superior Shore, I suppose it’s okay to twin it and have at most 1 interchange per community and at most 4 per city.

For the rest (except around communities and cities), we copy US Route 1 in Rhode Island from E Beach Road (Charlestown) to Pond Street (Wakefield):

First, leave a wide median (0.5 ~ 1 km) between the 2 directions;
Then, RIRO at ALL little used intersections; note that if they’re too close, we need to combine access;
Now comes the tricky part: U-turn spots 1.5 ~ 2 km, with exit and merge lanes (hence the need for wide median), after the last RIRO in each direction for the next 10 km.

Let me know whether my suggestion makes sense.

In Canadian Shield, this might be the way to grade-separate intersections. Alternatively, we can always use the terrain to build interchanges (like ON 400 around Parry Sound).

In all seriousness, if US can have multiple interstates through the Rockies where population isn’t even that dense, I don’t see why not for Canada. Also, building through Canadian Shield still looks cheaper than through Interior BC.
Money is the problem. We as a country are broke. We as a province are broke.

We simply cannot afford to upgrade 11 and 17 to full freeway.

Also, most of those interstates were built using war as a pretext.
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
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:41 PM.

     

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