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

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.renfrewtoday.ca/2019/11/...-17-expansion/

Either I'm an idealist, or Renfrew County's shorting-selling itself.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://www.renfrewtoday.ca/2019/11/...-17-expansion/

Either I'm an idealist, or Renfrew County's shorting-selling itself.

Wow, that is pretty bad.

[Dengler Avenue]

The main beef I have with 2+1 is only this though:
Let’s say the highway is slated to be converted to a 4-lane freeway in the future. Are we just gonna add an extra lane, or are we gonna construct a new set of 2-lane roadway like we’ve always done before? In the latter case, we will end up taking down the barrier and tearing out the extra 3rd lane in the 2+1 setting (unless we wanna have a 3+2 freeway). To me, what’s the point of adding that extra lane and setting up that barrier just to tear it down later? Again I’m probably being idealistic here.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

The main beef I have with 2+1 is only this though:
Let’s say the highway is slated to be converted to a 4-lane freeway in the future. Are we just gonna add an extra lane, or are we gonna construct a new set of 2-lane roadway like we’ve always done before? In the latter case, we will end up taking down the barrier and tearing out the extra 3rd lane in the 2+1 setting (unless we wanna have a 3+2 freeway). To me, what’s the point of adding that extra lane and setting up that barrier just to tear it down later? Again I’m probably being idealistic here.

A thought:

Do a 2+1 for the short-term. Start building interchanges at the intersections.

Eventually, slap on a 4th lane to +1 side and complete the highway as a 4-lane divided freeway. Kind of like Highway 11 between Bracebridge and Barrie, but without all the businesses.

The center divider keeps traffic from crossing over without the big footprint required by a 400-series highway. Smaller interchanges are cheaper to build too.

[Dengler Avenue]

So still a 4-lane freeway down the road, but with concrete barrier instead of a ridiculously wide median? Lol I’m kinda conflicted. On one hand, it’s something I can totally get behind whenever/wherever terrain isn’t friendly*. On the other hand, having a 4-lane freeway divided by a concrete barrier when the terrain’s flat feels weird. It also sort of “goes against the Ontarian standard for freeways”. Upper Ottawa Valley between Arnprior and CFB Petawawa isn’t that rocky.

* If MTO didn’t insist on wide median for Thunder Bay Expressway and Highway 400 where the terrain’s rugged, we could have saved so much money.

[vid]

I wonder why they made the decision to do a wide median instead of a barrier.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

So still a 4-lane freeway down the road, but with concrete barrier instead of a ridiculously wide median? Lol I’m kinda conflicted. On one hand, it’s something I can get behind whenever/wherever terrain isn’t friendly*; on the other hand, having a 4-lane freeway divided by a concrete barrier when the terrain’s flat feels weird. Upper Ottawa Valley between Arnprior and CFB Petawawa isn’t that rocky.

* If MTO didn’t insist on wide median for Thunder Bay Expressway and Highway 400, we could have saved so much money.

I'm wondering if the cost would be cheaper to do that. I don't actually have any numbers for construction and I'm pretty sure the MTO has the right-of-way except for the Cobden area.

A 2+1 is a reasonably achievable interim solution, even with just a cable barrier/box girder barrier. It prevents stupidity on the part of those trying to overtake foolishly and provides ample passing opportunities every few kilometres. The biggest expense would be grade-separation, but that could be done piecemeal.

I wonder if the 400 north of Port Severn could have been value engineered in a similar fashion, albeit with 4 lanes. Having a much narrower cross-section and much smaller structures for interchanges could likely have saved money. It's quite unlikely that the 400 will ever need more than 4 lanes past that point anyway.

I understand why the MTO goes with the highest design standard, but I'm wondering if completing more kilometers of highway to a lower standard may be more effective in the short-term, especially on highways that are already 'groomed' for such a setup. Legacy highways with frequent crossroads would be much more difficult, I admit.

[Dengler Avenue]

TCH will bypass Cobden on the other side of Muskrat Lake. I too wonder if new alignments should just have 4 lanes right from the get-go. I can see 2+1 on the sections between Bruce Street (Renfrew) and Cobden, then between Renfrew County Road 40 and Chalk River, but between Mattawa and North Bay? It seems to me that the finalized design doesn’t allow for 2+1 in the short term unless MTO’s down to tearing out the extra 3rd lane. It also doesn’t help that widening TCH between Denlou and turnoff to Joseph Island will largely require realigning the highway anyway (with few exceptions). For the last part, you can check out my drawings back at #787 with swimmer_spe’s suggestions in #789.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

TCH will bypass Cobden on the other side of Muskrat Lake. I also wonder if new alignments should just have 4 lanes right from the get-go. I can see 2+1 on the sections between Bruce Street (Renfrew) and Cobden, then between Renfrew County Road 40 and Chalk River, but between Mattawa and North Bay? It seems to me that the finalized design doesn’t allow for 2+1 in the short term unless MTO’s down to tearing out the extra 3rd lane. It also doesn’t help that widening TCH between Denlou and turnoff to Joseph Island will largely require realigning the highway anyway (with few exceptions).

My thoughts are that the 2+1 will end somewhere just past Petawawa.

I suspect that the MTO will continue the piecemeal addition of geometry improvements and passing lanes between Mattawa and North Bay. Likewise, between Sudbury and North Bay.

[Dengler Avenue]

Slowly and gradually, 17 will become an undivided 4-lane roadway between SSM and Renfrew, and likewise 11 from North Bay to Englehart.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Slowly and gradually, 17 will become an undivided 4-lane roadway between SSM and Renfrew, and likewise 11 from North Bay to Englehart.

I'd be curious if the MTO would go for that. I definitely could see it for between the Sault and North Bay, if nothing else, with bypasses of many of the communities.

I don't think the MTO has any particular bent against that kind of design - Highway 6 between the 401 and Hamilton and Highway 10 north of Brampton seem to work well.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by wave46

I'd be curious if the MTO would go for that. I definitely could see it for between the Sault and North Bay, if nothing else, with bypasses of many of the communities.

I don't think the MTO has any particular bent against that kind of design - Highway 6 between the 401 and Hamilton and Highway 10 north of Brampton seem to work well.

Same thing with highway 7 between New Hamburg and Stratford (in the planning).

A Sudbury municipal document back in 2011 did mention that MTO preferred divided freeway for 17 between Sault and Sudbury, but a 4-lane roadway with a median in between would qualify too. Plus, with concerns about climate change, loss of arable lands (which was actually mentioned in the design for Denlou Bypass), and terrain, it would only make sense to go with the latter (aka B.C. style). I just hope it won’t be too expensive to maintain the barriers.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by vid

I wonder why they made the decision to do a wide median instead of a barrier.

I think it has to do with snowplowing operations. If we go with median barrier and narrower left shoulder, I’m guessing we will need to dig ditches beside right shoulders so we can dump snow there.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Same thing with highway 7 between New Hamburg and Stratford (in the planning).

A Sudbury municipal document back in 2011 did mention that MTO preferred divided freeway for 17 between Sault and Sudbury, but a 4-lane roadway with a median in between would qualify too. Plus, with concerns about climate change, loss of arable lands (which was actually mentioned in the design for Denlou Bypass), and terrain, it would only make sense to go with the latter (aka B.C. style). I just hope it won’t be too expensive to maintain the barriers.

The median would be the tricky part to implement.

I could see the case for an undivided, median-free 4-lane highway - you get a lot of the benefits of a freeway (don't have to wait to pass), which cuts down on the redneck-style passing stupidity without the costs of trying to accommodate the many properties that need access.

The downside being that you still have the problem of crossing traffic and the potential for someone losing control and crossing over to the opposite side of the road, which usually means fatalities.

I don't know where the MTO falls on the spectrum of risk vs. benefit for the case.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by wave46

The median would be the tricky part to implement.

I could see the case for an undivided, median-free 4-lane highway - you get a lot of the benefits of a freeway (don't have to wait to pass), which cuts down on the redneck-style passing stupidity without the costs of trying to accommodate the many properties that need access.

The downside being that you still have the problem of crossing traffic and the potential for someone losing control and crossing over to the opposite side of the road, which usually means fatalities.

I don't know where the MTO falls on the spectrum of risk vs. benefit for the case.

That’s a good question. The RIRO part of Highway 11 as we know it today used to be undivided like the others that we mentioned. Somehow the traffic was too high for any left-turn movements, so MTO divided the 2 directions and converted every intersections to RIRO, with overpasses to turn around. It didn’t even bother with a median turn lane like there is on the 10 and 6. (By the way, 3 between Port Colborne and Fort Erie, which I forgot to mention, doesn’t really have that.)

That said, left turning traffic can still be a concern if you don’t add a median turn lane or divide the highway. Do anyone wanna pass someone at 120 km/h just to have someone stop dead in front of them waiting to turn left into their home sweet home?

As for crossover collisions, the recent fatality on 6 near Flamborough seemed to be suggesting that rumble strips wouldn’t help. I don’t remember the cause (or whether OPP has released a report about it). So far, it seems to me that if there’s a car out of control, it’s pretty much game over on undivided highways.

We definitely need someone like Bartolucci to tirelessly advocate this. Maybe Yakabuski (PC) and Oriazetti (former Liberal) at a provincial level? Fideli has other priorities on his mind right now.

Edit: I noticed that a lot of the federal electoral districts that 17 traverses went red. Maybe that helps?

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.facebook.com/22271780473...15?d=n&sfns=mo

Highway 17 is closed between Point Alexander (Highway 635) and Deep River. Ornge’s on scene. Darn it it’s one of those sections that don’t have (good) redundant routes.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://www.facebook.com/22271780473...15?d=n&sfns=mo

Highway 17 is closed between Point Alexander (Highway 635) and Deep River. Ornge’s on scene. Darn it it’s one of those sections that don’t have (good) redundant routes.

Once you hit Canadian Shield, that seems to be common. For instance. close the Spanish River bridge on highway 17 and you are doing an 8 hour trip to get to the other side. Close the Nipigon River Bridge and you need a passport.

[Dengler Avenue]

For instance. close the Spanish River bridge on highway 17 and you are doing an 8 hour trip to get to the other side.

Close 17 between White River and Highway 519, and it will take 9 hours to go around.
I’m starting to understand why roads are more sparse in the rocky area but wow just wow...

Close the Nipigon River Bridge and you need a passport.

Or starting using emergency fund because now one needs to spend a night at Nipigon...

[Dengler Avenue]

https://twitter.com/opp_ner/status/1...277182464?s=21
New speed limit on TCH from Nova Beaucage Road to West End of North Bay

I wonder if it’s because of terrain. Also I’ve heard that it’s a bad spot. Maybe North Bay Bypass should just have an overall speed limit of 80 km/h.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://twitter.com/opp_ner/status/1...277182464?s=21
New speed limit on TCH from Nova Beaucage Road to West End of North Bay

I wonder if it’s because of terrain. Also I’ve heard that it’s a bad spot. Maybe North Bay Bypass should just have an overall speed limit of 80 km/h.

I don't know, but when was the last time a speed limit on a southern Ontario highway was reduced?