HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario


View Poll Results: Which route should be twinned? Quelle route doit-on élargir?
11 4 15.38%
17 22 84.62%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2017, 5:18 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,275
They outcry if they by-passed Thunder Bay would be so fucking intense that a route from Nipigon to Shabaqua will never happen, not to mention that that region is our "cottage country" with several thousand people. If you look at it on Google Earth you'll notice all the houses, and none of them will allow a major road to go through. Without local government they've managed to get the province to severely restrict quarry operations that existed before they live there. Much of the city's upper class lives up there to hide from taxes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2017, 12:55 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
They outcry if they by-passed Thunder Bay would be so fucking intense that a route from Nipigon to Shabaqua will never happen, not to mention that that region is our "cottage country" with several thousand people. If you look at it on Google Earth you'll notice all the houses, and none of them will allow a major road to go through. Without local government they've managed to get the province to severely restrict quarry operations that existed before they live there. Much of the city's upper class lives up there to hide from taxes.
Oh wow for the longest time I thought those houses would be easily expropriated. I was so mistaken then. GG there's no hope of linking Manitoba and Ontario with a freeway then, unless it's to go through the north shore of Lake Nipigon (in which case the twinning will go down 17, 72 then 11).
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2017, 1:29 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
Oh wow for the longest time I thought those houses would be easily expropriated. I was so mistaken then. GG there's no hope of linking Manitoba and Ontario with a freeway then, unless it's to go through the north shore of Lake Nipigon (in which case the twinning will go down 17, 72 then 11).
Don't you mean 102?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2017, 1:35 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
Don't you mean 102?
Wait I think we have some miscommunication here. When you said that a 4-laned highway will never happen between Shabaqua and Nipigon, do you mean that it can't even go down 11/17? Or do you just mean that twinning 102 is a no-go?
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2017, 2:15 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,275
Twinning 102 is a no-go. If anything, there will be pressure to eliminate it as a provincial highway so that suburban expansion along it can continue. There is a very strong desire in Thunder Bay to ban transports from using 102 (the Shabaqua Extension, which connects Thunder Bay to Twin Cities, was supposed to replace it) but because a small portion of it is controlled by the province they can't do that.

A four lane highway will connect Shabaqua and Nipigon, but it will go through Thunder Bay via the existing 11/17 corridor, not around it.

Also, property expropriation in Ontario is very difficult. The province and cities have, for years, simply planned things out far enough ahead of time to make sure there are potential corridors open for future expansion. When the Shabaqua Highway was started in the 1990s, they bought up about a 200m wide right of way, because if it ever does get expanded to a divided four lane road, they'll need the space. They're starting the same process now for the rest of the Shabaqua Highway to link Twin Cities to Shabaqua, by-passing Kakabeka Falls, and that project is just a vision that might be started in the 2030s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2017, 2:41 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Twinning 102 is a no-go. If anything, there will be pressure to eliminate it as a provincial highway so that suburban expansion along it can continue. There is a very strong desire in Thunder Bay to ban transports from using 102 (the Shabaqua Extension, which connects Thunder Bay to Twin Cities, was supposed to replace it) but because a small portion of it is controlled by the province they can't do that.

A four lane highway will connect Shabaqua and Nipigon, but it will go through Thunder Bay via the existing 11/17 corridor, not around it.

Also, property expropriation in Ontario is very difficult. The province and cities have, for years, simply planned things out far enough ahead of time to make sure there are potential corridors open for future expansion. When the Shabaqua Highway was started in the 1990s, they bought up about a 200m wide right of way, because if it ever does get expanded to a divided four lane road, they'll need the space. They're starting the same process now for the rest of the Shabaqua Highway to link Twin Cities to Shabaqua, by-passing Kakabeka Falls, and that project is just a vision that might be started in the 2030s.
Wow I'm surprised that any government would have thought this far ahead of time.

Meanwhile, I've always wondered if having the twinned freeway go through Kakabeka Falls is a viable option. For one, residents there don't want it to be a ghost town. For two, most trucks don't stop by T Bay anyway. If we're to put 2 and 2 together, that means we can turn KF into a (truck) logistics centre <k at least a major stop point for trucks>. The only messy thing will be property relocation.

Ps: This is how I view freeway bypasses now - Can the town remain prosperous if the bypass is built, provided that it's even feasible (geographically, financially and perhaps politically) to begin with?
If yes, do it!
If not, then we will have to twin it through the town. Surely relocation will be a messy job, but it's a price that the town will have to pay to not get bypassed.
Don't let 4-laning happen then? If AADT for truck is low, sure. If it's high though, rejecting the bypass/twinning through the town with grade-separation will no longer be an option. (The residents won't like it anyway when they see trucks go through the town every 30 seconds. "For the sake of the kids, we must keep them out of town!") I know that as per MTO's policy, freeway bypass is the way to go around towns, but it shouldn't preclude exceptions.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.

Last edited by Dengler Avenue; Nov 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2017, 4:41 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,275
Twinning the highway through Kakabeka Falls is not feasible. First off, the road's right of way isn't wide enough for two lanes in each direction, plus turning lanes at intersections, plus a median. Five lanes (two in each direction and a turning lane in the centre) is possible, but that's not a freeway. Of the ~20 commercial buildings in the town, about half would need to be demolished or changed (including their school and post office) and half would lose parking areas. The two gas stations wouldn't have enough room to operate, and their tanks would have to be removed and the soil cleaned up.

Second, every single building in Kakabeka Falls is using well water (if you ever go there, btw, don't drink anyone's tap water, it's all contaminated with nasty shit). So there is no municipal water system. Highway construction through the town (or even near it) would contaminate almost every well more than they already are due to the gas stations and aqueduct construction's interference in the water table. When the intersection of Balsam and the Thunder Bay Expressway was rebuilt in 2011, it messed up a lot of wells north of the area and it's now under more restrictive testing than the rest of the city as a result of it. So building the freeway through the town would require the installation and maintenance of a municipal water system, or the condemning of every single home and almost every single business.

Basically, building a freeway along the path of the current highway at Kakabeka Falls would essentially result in the elimination of that town. Building a by-pass around it would simply reduce the traffic there, but it also gets an opportunity to do what Nipigon did and reinvent itself as a retirement/tourism community orbiting Thunder Bay. Doing nothing within the town but four laning the highway before and after it would essentially maintain the status quo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 12:08 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,532
Speaking of that, if the twinning does go down the 17 from NW to NE, which town along the route, would you say, is the hardest to bypass, in terms of geography and opposition?
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 1:10 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,275
Thunder Bay would be hardest to by-pass because we already have a by-pass. But if you're looking for an actual town on the highway, since the only one is Kakabeka Falls, the answer remains Kakabeka Falls.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 1:54 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Thunder Bay would be hardest to by-pass because we already have a by-pass. But if you're looking for an actual town on the highway, since the only one is Kakabeka Falls, the answer remains Kakabeka Falls.
Wouldn't using the current Bypass make Thunder Bay almost ready for it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 3:46 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,532
And what about east of Nipigon then? SSM and everything between Sudbury and North Bay?
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 4:12 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,275
There is no real benefit to twinning Highway 17 between Nipigon and Sault Ste Marie, it's a scenic route. There are so many hills that it takes transports just as long to travel it between North Bay and Thunder Bay as it does for them to take Highway 11, so most take the latter. If they twinned it, it would become safer for it's 2,000 daily travelers but would probably be a less picturesque drive, and at this point, "picturesque drive" is all that region has. At some points it could be further improved but it doesn't need to be a full twinned freeway.

Even 11 doesn't need to be a full freeway, simply twinning it would probably suffice. All the level intersections can stay. Barely anyone uses them; the largest towns along it have nothing left in them. You could make that highway was wide as you want to, no one would give a shit. It would actually help, since there are lots of mines up there and limited opportunities to truck product out with rail lines closing or giving preference to oil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
Wouldn't using the current Bypass make Thunder Bay almost ready for it?
There have been two somewhat serious proposals in the past for by-passes that completely avoid the city:



The green line would connect Nipigon and Raith, completely by-passing the Thunder Bay area. Theoretically this would only serve Trans-Canada traffic, around 2,500 vehicles a day, but it's really unlikely due to the terrain of the area (hill, lake, or swamp) and the fact that they've just spend tens of millions on the highway going into the city itself.

The pink line is a slightly more plausible idea, going from about Highway 527 to a village called Intola, where it would merge with 102 (itself a highway through hills, swamps, and lakes). It would intersect dozens of streets and probably piss off the several thousand people who live in the rural area north of the city (lawyers, doctors, politicians, business owners; a cottage country where people literally own entire lakes). Unless it's absolutely necessary for economic reasons, the people living there will (and can) prevent it, so it's not even brought up except by people living in the growing suburbs along Highway 102 in the city itself.

And since the province actually started building 11/17 to higher standards east of the city, any suggestion of either of these has basically disappeared.


BTW whoever chose the names on that map is a moron. I've never heard of Mabella, there is no Dublin, and Pine Portage is a hydroelectric dam. Where did Nipigon go? What a stupid map.

Last edited by vid; Nov 20, 2017 at 4:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 4:47 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
There is no real benefit to twinning Highway 17 between Nipigon and Sault Ste Marie, it's a scenic route. There are so many hills that it takes transports just as long to travel it between North Bay and Thunder Bay as it does for them to take Highway 11, so most take the latter. If they twinned it, it would become safer for it's 2,000 daily travelers but would probably be a less picturesque drive, and at this point, "picturesque drive" is all that region has. At some points it could be further improved but it doesn't need to be a full twinned freeway.

Even 11 doesn't need to be a full freeway, simply twinning it would probably suffice. All the level intersections can stay. Barely anyone uses them; the largest towns along it have nothing left in them. You could make that highway was wide as you want to, no one would give a shit. It would actually help, since there are lots of mines up there and limited opportunities to truck product out with rail lines closing or giving preference to oil.
In that case, for 17 along north shore of Lake Superior, if the geography (and money, most importantly) allow(s), we can just convert it into a divided (emphasis on that because lately there's been quite a few closures due to serious <if not fatal> accidents along that segment) alternating 2+1 for the most part then. Near towns, though, it may still need to be 4-laning just to avoid troubles.

For 11, really? The towns won't care? Also what about Long Lake 58 then?
Where's loco101? We probably need his opinion on this. Who else lives along the 11 corridor (and Timmins)?
I do agree though that by twinning 11 (bypassing Nipigon on the west) we can eliminate the bottleneck across Nipigon River.

And then for highway numbering/signage, we should also co-sign ON HWY 1 along the freeway portion of TCH.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 5:31 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,532
My biggest concern, though, is how to upgrade 11 (especially north of 17) within North Bay. I just checked the map and, boy, to do so without wrecking too much havoc will require wiping out/relocating every single shop on the east side of Algonquin Avenue from Maplewood Avenue to Airport Road. It also doesn't help that the distance between Airport Road and 17 is only 550 m. I can't see how any North-Bayers will like that.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 5:40 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
My biggest concern, though, is how to upgrade 11 (especially north of 17) within North Bay. I just checked the map and, boy, to do so without wrecking too much havoc will require wiping out/relocating every single shop on the east side of Algonquin Avenue from Maplewood Avenue to Airport Road. It also doesn't help that the distance between Airport Road and 17 is only 550 m. I can't imagine how to fit a freeway-to-freeway interchange at 11N/17.
As far as I understand, it will not go along the current route from Algonquin to Airport Road.

I think they will turn it north west of Main Street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 5:48 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
As far as I understand, it will not go along the current route from Algonquin to Airport Road.

I think they will turn it north west of Main Street.
Ah like a 3-quarter ring road?
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 5:50 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
Ah like a 3-quarter ring road?
Maybe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 10:11 PM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 3,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
In that case, for 17 along north shore of Lake Superior, if the geography (and money, most importantly) allow(s), we can just convert it into a divided (emphasis on that because lately there's been quite a few closures due to serious <if not fatal> accidents along that segment) alternating 2+1 for the most part then. Near towns, though, it may still need to be 4-laning just to avoid troubles.

For 11, really? The towns won't care? Also what about Long Lake 58 then?
Where's loco101? We probably need his opinion on this. Who else lives along the 11 corridor (and Timmins)?
I do agree though that by twinning 11 (bypassing Nipigon on the west) we can eliminate the bottleneck across Nipigon River.

And then for highway numbering/signage, we should also co-sign ON HWY 1 along the freeway portion of TCH.
I would say that twinning Hwy 11 between North Bay and Nipigon would be the best move for a 4 lane highway to cross Canada. The expensive parts would be around Temagami and between Beardmore and Nipigon. But it wouldn't be impossible. I also feel that Hwy 11 could link with Hwy 17 further East than it does now in Nipigon. That way it doesn't go through the Long Lake 58 reserve and along Lake Helen. (it's scenic but not the right place for a divided highway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 10:21 PM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 3,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
In that case, for 17 along north shore of Lake Superior, if the geography (and money, most importantly) allow(s), we can just convert it into a divided (emphasis on that because lately there's been quite a few closures due to serious <if not fatal> accidents along that segment) alternating 2+1 for the most part then. Near towns, though, it may still need to be 4-laning just to avoid troubles.

For 11, really? The towns won't care? Also what about Long Lake 58 then?
Where's loco101? We probably need his opinion on this. Who else lives along the 11 corridor (and Timmins)?
I do agree though that by twinning 11 (bypassing Nipigon on the west) we can eliminate the bottleneck across Nipigon River.

And then for highway numbering/signage, we should also co-sign ON HWY 1 along the freeway portion of TCH.
Twinning Hwy 17 along Lake Superior would be insanely expensive. There would also be issues with provincial parks. And with many snowsqualls there are often highway closures on the 17 between the Sault and Wawa.

Highway 11 would be easier to twin and for bypassing towns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 10:36 PM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 3,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
My biggest concern, though, is how to upgrade 11 (especially north of 17) within North Bay. I just checked the map and, boy, to do so without wrecking too much havoc will require wiping out/relocating every single shop on the east side of Algonquin Avenue from Maplewood Avenue to Airport Road. It also doesn't help that the distance between Airport Road and 17 is only 550 m. I can't see how any North-Bayers will like that.
As swimmer spe wrote, the MTO has been looking at Hwy 11 intersecting with 17 right at the Westernmost part of the city limits. Right by where the new hospital is I believe. Some issues is that it is right beside the Duchesnay Falls conservation area and right near Nipissing First Nation. It would mean a longer section of where Hwys 17 and 11 are together. The MTO also has had plans to make the North Bay "bypass" a freeway all of the way through but I'm not sure if that has been shelved indefinitely.
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 > Ontario
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:21 AM.

     

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