HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 12:36 AM
The Jabroni's Avatar
The Jabroni The Jabroni is offline
Go kicky fast, okay!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Donut Dominion
Posts: 2,959
I hate asking this, but it's bound to be asked sooner or later, but...

...is it actually worth it to twin the remaining 16 km of the TCH in Manitoba, considering the nature (almost literally) of the terrain that goes through it? I know many cottagers go to NW Ont. for long weekends and such, but, digging through all that rock... it's too much trouble for engineers and workers to go through all that again, as it's evident on the rock face with those drill marks when you pass by those large rocks.

Then again, I'd love to see the TCH twinned fully from border to border or beyond. 110 km/h from at least Kenora to Calgary would be nice (or in this case, bump it up from 90 km/h to 100 km/h, pending the safety IF there was going to be a twinning from the border to Kenora).
__________________
Back then, I used to be indecisive.

Now, I'm not so sure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 1:51 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
The "Harbour Expressway" in Thunder Bay has 6 sets of lights along it's 3.6km stretch.



Our highway by any other name would be a street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 2:02 AM
Only The Lonely..'s Avatar
Only The Lonely.. Only The Lonely.. is offline
Portage & Main 50 below
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
The "Harbour Expressway" in Thunder Bay has 6 sets of lights along it's 3.6km stretch.



Our highway by any other name would be a street.
Except in Winnipeg where it would be called a boulevard.
__________________
WINNIPEG: Home of Canada's first skyscraper!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 2:06 AM
Only The Lonely..'s Avatar
Only The Lonely.. Only The Lonely.. is offline
Portage & Main 50 below
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,871
I think as a country we make a lot of excuses for ourselves as to why our national highway system is so poor.

I mean were not exactly Somalia, we should be able to maintain at least one good highway across this country that is free flowing in nature.

Furthermore, I don't think there should be a speed limit at all anywhere on the prairies where the highway is twinned. If there was ever a place in the world that lent itself to an autobahn type concept it would certainly be the stretch between Winnipeg and Calgary.
__________________
WINNIPEG: Home of Canada's first skyscraper!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 2:35 AM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jabroni View Post
I hate asking this, but it's bound to be asked sooner or later, but...

...is it actually worth it to twin the remaining 16 km of the TCH in Manitoba, considering the nature (almost literally) of the terrain that goes through it? I know many cottagers go to NW Ont. for long weekends and such, but, digging through all that rock... it's too much trouble for engineers and workers to go through all that again, as it's evident on the rock face with those drill marks when you pass by those large rocks.

Then again, I'd love to see the TCH twinned fully from border to border or beyond. 110 km/h from at least Kenora to Calgary would be nice (or in this case, bump it up from 90 km/h to 100 km/h, pending the safety IF there was going to be a twinning from the border to Kenora).
Well it was all supposed to be twinned years ago around Kenora, but then the Ontario government abandoned northern Ontario. I remember seeing the call for tenders for the Kenora by-pass (maybe around 25 years ago) and it stated specifically that it was to be 2 lanes initially and then 4 lanes by some year that at the time sounded far off in the future but was probably 1990 or something. There's nothing particularly unusual in doing rock cuts. It's probably a tight squeeze given the density of development in the Whiteshell though, plus the fact that a couple of interchanges / overpasses would be required (as exist now). They did do that little bit right at the border in the mid-70s, where they built the tourist centre. Originally the old highway (now 44) started just inside the Ontario border and veered north; they changed it all around at that time.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 3:36 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
The red lines I show on that map I posted is the right of way for those roads. In the early 90s, The Harbour Expressway and Thunder Bay expressway were supposed to be expanded to six lane controlled highways with interchanges, and the entirety of 11/17 was to be four lanes, divided between Dorion and Sunshine, with a new four lane divided and controlled highway between Thunder Bay and Shabaqua. In reality, only one of about 20 interchanges was built (that is, half build, as it still has a lighted intersection), only about 4% of 11/17 is four lanes, none of the network is 6 lanes, the highway between Shabaqua is two lanes ("Will be expanded to four in the future" ) and ends about 60km short of it's destination.

The funny thing is, that two lane highway cost more than the four lane would have because the government bungled it up so much. When the four laning is completed in the future, the highway could be as much as 400% overbudget. (Just like the hospital, which was four years late and 350 million more expensive than it was supposed to, and is not only falling apart but sinking.)

Generally: Infrastructure = (The rest of Canada > Ontario)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 4:46 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes View Post
^Well, to be somewhat kind to Canada's governments over the years. We have about the longest stretch of road to actually build and the fewest citizens to pay taxes to support it. Infrastructure in such a gigantic country with sparse population density is difficult. Take mass transit, take highways, take healthcare, take rail service. It's a common issue across the board and Canada with fewer tax dollars to build larger infrastructure has to make some ugly choices some times.

Yes, the TCH does suck big time in a lot of places and could seriously us some improvement (removal of lights, twinning, general maintenance) in places.
Let's look at some facts first and then decide if we should let the government off the hook. The Federal Gas Tax brings in about $5.5 billion/yr. of which very little goes to building or maintaining highways. My goal to turn the TCH into a freeway in 10 years would have about $60 billion (factoring in increased miles driven) in financing from this tax alone not to mention what should be put in from general revenues, vehicle registration fees, and whatever taxes they charge truckers. Also, don't forget how much could have and should have been over the last several decades.

It's obvious we could have coast to coast freeways in this country and it would not involve increasing taxes one bit. Sure some left-wing social program that more than likely has next to no support would go unfunded but big deal. A decent national highway system would benefit every citizen despite what people like Layton and Suzuki might say. The party that finally wakes up to this idea will have a guaranteed vote getter in every region of the country. We need to get going on this now for all of the reasons I mentioned before.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 4:58 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister F View Post
Is a freeway really necessary through the Prairies? Except in the cities, traffic volumes are usually in the 4000-5000 AADT range (link), and lower over the north shore of Lake Superior. I can't think of a single Ontario freeway with traffic counts that low. I think four lanes across the country is smart and doable, but it doesn't have to be a full freeway. Something like a British dual carriageway would be plenty.

Incidentally, roundabouts instead of traffic signals at rural intersections work wonders to keep traffic moving.
Traffic volumes should not always be the deciding factor of what type of road gets built, etc. but safety and maintaining a certain, consistent standard on the road. If Montana with less than a million people (and the third lowest population density) can have two Interstates cross the state then we can justify building freeways anywhere as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 5:33 AM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,846
If Montana jumped off a bridge....

Seriously though, I think a divided highway with at-grade intersections is fine for most of the distance between Sault Ste. Marie and Calgary, except in urban areas, which should all have freeway bypasses. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 5:56 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
It's embarrassing we have freakin' traffic lights on our highways. Harper needs to announce a major national highway initiative where within 10 years you could go from Vancouver to where ever the TCH ends in NL without encountering a traffic light, etc. In other words an actual real freeway. This would create a ton of jobs, improve safety immensely, help lower the cost of products, etc. We should be ashamed that we are the only industrialized nation that does not have a national highway plan.

Let's look at some facts first and then decide if we should let the government off the hook. The Federal Gas Tax brings in about $5.5 billion/yr. of which very little goes to building or maintaining highways. My goal to turn the TCH into a freeway in 10 years would have about $60 billion (factoring in increased miles driven) in financing from this tax alone not to mention what should be put in from general revenues, vehicle registration fees, and whatever taxes they charge truckers. Also, don't forget how much could have and should have been over the last several decades.

It's obvious we could have coast to coast freeways in this country and it would not involve increasing taxes one bit. Sure some left-wing social program that more than likely has next to no support would go unfunded but big deal. A decent national highway system would benefit every citizen despite what people like Layton and Suzuki might say. The party that finally wakes up to this idea will have a guaranteed vote getter in every region of the country. We need to get going on this now for all of the reasons I mentioned before.
Completely agree with you - I like what you're preachin'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 6:12 AM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Only The Lonely.. View Post
I think as a country we make a lot of excuses for ourselves as to why our national highway system is so poor.

I mean were not exactly Somalia, we should be able to maintain at least one good highway across this country that is free flowing in nature.

Furthermore, I don't think there should be a speed limit at all anywhere on the prairies where the highway is twinned. If there was ever a place in the world that lent itself to an autobahn type concept it would certainly be the stretch between Winnipeg and Calgary.
If we do that, make it at least three lanes. I don't wanna get rear-ended by some idiot doing 200 while I'm passing a semi at 150 myself.

I'd much rather simply see the speed limits for all prairie highways (Yellowhead, Deerfoot, and #1) be set at 130 or 140. so I can still pas the semi truck at 150 without as much fear of getting clobbered.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 6:36 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister F View Post
If Montana jumped off a bridge....

Seriously though, I think a divided highway with at-grade intersections is fine for most of the distance between Sault Ste. Marie and Calgary, except in urban areas, which should all have freeway bypasses. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
At-grade intersections are dangerous, especially in rural areas. Why risk the safety of thousands of drivers just to save some money? We don't interchanges at every such intersection--build them where necessary and completely close off the other intersections. This would also save us millions in healthcare and insurance costs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 5:00 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
"At-grade intersections are dangerous, especially in rural areas."

Most of our fatal accidents happen on at grade intersections in rural areas! Golly gee, yer smart.

The Shabaqua Extension intersects with Maple Ward road, and while there is a stop sign, people pass it. That is, people are speeding down a highway at speeds of about 150km/h, and running through a stop sign while they're doing it. A fly over with off ramps should have been built. It wouldn't even by too hard, they built two flyovers along that stretch for trains. Just run roads down the sides of the hill to intersect with the street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 5:45 PM
lubicon's Avatar
lubicon lubicon is offline
Suburban dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary - our road planners are as bad as yours Edmonton
Posts: 5,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
At-grade intersections are dangerous, especially in rural areas. Why risk the safety of thousands of drivers just to save some money? We don't interchanges at every such intersection--build them where necessary and completely close off the other intersections. This would also save us millions in healthcare and insurance costs.
Exactly. 3 more people were killed yesterday south of Calgary on the #2 (4 lane highway) when theyr tried to make a left turn onto the road across the southbound lanes.
__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 6:21 PM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
At-grade intersections are dangerous, especially in rural areas. Why risk the safety of thousands of drivers just to save some money? We don't interchanges at every such intersection--build them where necessary and completely close off the other intersections. This would also save us millions in healthcare and insurance costs.
That's why roundabouts have become so popular in rural areas in other countries. They're far safer than regular intersections. Even at regular intersections it's not exactly difficult or dangerous to turn onto a road that gets 3000 or 4000 cars per day. I imagine Highway 2 south of Calgary is busier than that and should probably be a freeway. Southern Ontario has dozens and dozens of two lane undivided highways with 4000+ cars per day - should the feds pay to make them all freeways?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 9:03 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by lubicon View Post
Exactly. 3 more people were killed yesterday south of Calgary on the #2 (4 lane highway) when theyr tried to make a left turn onto the road across the southbound lanes.
I was thinking about that accident when I posted. Just another example of why we need controlled, limited access highways.

By the way, just how far was this from the new interchange they just finished? I couldn't tell from the media coverage because of the darkness but I sensed it was rather close by. If so, how sad that people are too damn lazy to drive a few seconds out of their way to use an interchange to safely get to the otherside of the highway.

Just for the benefit of people not from the Calgary area, that stretch of highway is 6 lanes and that part also had extra lanes for exiting and merging. In other words, it is not your typical rural highway and actually has a lot of traffic on it, especially during rush hour.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 9:11 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
"At-grade intersections are dangerous, especially in rural areas."

Most of our fatal accidents happen on at grade intersections in rural areas! Golly gee, yer smart.
Thanks for being a smart ass. I was trying to emphasize a point since so many people in this country feel we can cheap out on just about all of our infrastructure. Whenever the transportation department in AB plans on building a new interchange they mention that interchanges, on average, reduce accidents by about 45%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
"The Shabaqua Extension intersects with Maple Ward road, and while there is a stop sign, people pass it. That is, people are speeding down a highway at speeds of about 150km/h, and running through a stop sign while they're doing it. A fly over with off ramps should have been built. It wouldn't even by too hard, they built two flyovers along that stretch for trains. Just run roads down the sides of the hill to intersect with the street.
They'll wait until enough people get killed or badly injured before they do anything. It seems to the Canadian way unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 9:18 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
"Thanks for being a smart ass."

I wasn't being a smart ass. Almost every fatal vehicular accident in this region occurs at an intersection. It's why we have so many traffic lights (106 sets and counting.)

"Whenever the transportation department in AB plans on building a new interchange they mention that interchanges, on average, reduce accidents by about 45%."

They should tell Ontario. Ontario needs to know that kind of information.

"They'll wait until enough people get killed or badly injured before they do anything."

Indeed. If Ernie Eves' son wasn't killed in an accident in Parry Sound, they would still have a 2 lane highway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 9:24 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister F View Post
That's why roundabouts have become so popular in rural areas in other countries. They're far safer than regular intersections. Even at regular intersections it's not exactly difficult or dangerous to turn onto a road that gets 3000 or 4000 cars per day. I imagine Highway 2 south of Calgary is busier than that and should probably be a freeway. Southern Ontario has dozens and dozens of two lane undivided highways with 4000+ cars per day - should the feds pay to make them all freeways?
Apparently roundabouts are being used more often in the US on rural highways and are quite successful. However, they seem to do a much better job of educating people than we do. The AB government is putting one in just west of Calgary and it sounds like it will be a disaster. Very little educational material from what I've heard and I'm not convinced that roundabouts should be used in a rapidly growing area. There are plans to replace it with an interchange down the road and around here down the road always comes a lot faster than the planners think it will. :-(

Yes, Highway 2 south of Calgary is a lot busier than 4,000 vehicles a day and the area is growing very rapidly. Okotoks (near where the accident happened) is one of the fastest growing cities in the country and the south part of Calgary is also growing like crazy. Where they built the new interchange is where 3 highways sort of meet up and there were a lot of people killed there because of poor visibility (there is a major hill) and people getting so frustrated because it took forever for a gap in the traffic to occur so you could cut across and then make a left-hand turn.

No, I'm not advocating all highways be turned into freeways. Major ones that are a key part of the economic lifeline of the province should be. For example, the AB government is going to be turning Highway 2 into a limited, controlled access freeway. They just need to get off their lazy butts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 9:53 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
"Thanks for being a smart ass."

I wasn't being a smart ass. Almost every fatal vehicular accident in this region occurs at an intersection. It's why we have so many traffic lights (106 sets and counting.)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. It just seems a lot of people on these forums are willing to attack over any comment.

I thought Calgary was bad with it's stated 882 sets of lights but 106 for you guys sounds way worse. How bad are the traffic calming measures there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
"Whenever the transportation department in AB plans on building a new interchange they mention that interchanges, on average, reduce accidents by about 45%."

They should tell Ontario. Ontario needs to know that kind of information.
I'd be amazed if they don't. Here is a link to a news release that the AB government put out when they opened the interchange just south of Calgary that is near the accident that happened yesterday.

http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/NewsFrame....8197BD9B0.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
"They'll wait until enough people get killed or badly injured before they do anything."

Indeed. If Ernie Eves' son wasn't killed in an accident in Parry Sound, they would still have a 2 lane highway.
I'm not surprised. Given that Ontario has a gas tax of its own (and higher than AB's) there is no reason why you guys should have to wait for a ton of accidents to happen before they improve the roads. I'm glad that the AB and BC governments spend way more on highway construction and maintenance than they bring in from the gas tax. Speaking of BC, if they can build roads through the mountains then the MB government should be able to finish twinning the last 10 miles of the TCH there. The road project through the Kicking Horse Pass that opened a few months ago that consists of that very cool bridge that is 400 feet up in the air is proof that just about anything can be done. It's also another great example of a P3 road project. Initially the government thought it would take 44 months to build but the private companies did it in 22 and that is despite having to deal with one of the most complex road engineering projects ever in Canada.
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 > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:55 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.