Atlantic Highways Thread - Page 49

mylesmalley · #**961** Posted **Nov 20, 2018, 1:39 PM**

Agree with all of that, but I'm skeptical anything as drastic as a collector - express arrangement is needed in Truro.

Dengler Avenue · #**962** Posted **Nov 20, 2018, 1:40 PM**

Whenever you have an on-ramp that becomes an off-ramp in less than 2 km, it’s good to have something like that.

OliverD · #**963** Posted **Nov 20, 2018, 2:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

And the Highway 104 interchange needs to be redesigned to avoid making traffic slow down to 50km/h on freeway to freeway ramps.

Sounds like a good way to spend tens of millions of dollars for negligible benefit.

Dengler Avenue · #**964** Posted **Nov 20, 2018, 2:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OliverD

Sounds like a good way to spend tens of millions of dollars for negligible benefit.

If traffic from New Glasgow is low, sure;
Otherwise, it’s not that bad of an investment.

MonctonRad · #**965** Posted **Nov 20, 2018, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

If traffic from New Glasgow is low, sure;
Otherwise, it’s not that bad of an investment.

The problem is more with westbound traffic to Moncton/Amherst exiting off the 102, not exiting eastbound traffic to New Glasgow/Cape Breton.

The design of the 102/104 interchange was originally to be much different. They had done some site prep work about 20 years ago, but left it fallow when the NS government of the day decided to cheap out.

Dengler Avenue · #**966** Posted **Nov 20, 2018, 3:11 PM**

This is what I meant:
If through traffic on 104W is low, cars from 102N to 104W should be able to go from 50 kph to 130 kph without much difficulty. Obviously we need a flyover ramp if the through traffic is heavy.

MonctonRad · #**967** Posted **Nov 20, 2018, 3:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

This is what I meant:
If through traffic on 104W is low, cars from 102N to 104W should be able to go from 50 kph to 130 kph without much difficulty. Obviously we need a flyover ramp if the through traffic is heavy.

I see what you mean.

As far as I'm concerned, the turning radius for westbound traffic off the 102 heading to Amherst/Moncton is disturbingly tight. To me, it's mostly a nuisance, but I could see it being a safety issue for drivers not familiar with the ramp, especially in winter conditions. It really should be redesigned.

michael_d40 · #**968** Posted **Nov 20, 2018, 6:40 PM**

Here’s a map showing where the Saint John Northern Bypass and 3rd bridge crossing was supposed to go.

JHikka · #**969** Posted **Nov 20, 2018, 6:59 PM**

A part of me really prefers the Northern bypass, but:

It cuts through Rockwood Park, effectively splitting it in two and negating most of its usefulness; and,
Fulfills sprawl in Millidgeville (making things like the regional and UNBSJ possible).

As much as we all dislike the urban renewal platform that occurred with the Main Street Viaduct and Route 1 ripping through the valley I think it's the best highway alignment connecting Uptown with West and East SJ.

West side would certainly be much different without the highway going through lower west along the falls. Likewise, if we managed to preserve main street and the valley i'm not sure how much of a change that would have had on the city as a whole.

Mapleton_Roadie · #**970** Posted **Nov 21, 2018, 3:57 PM**

I see a lot of discussion on here about extra lanes etc between certain areas.
There is somewhere, a policy in place that any new interchanges on a 100 Series Highway that fall within I think 2 km of the next closest, deems a third lane be built. This lane acts as a by-pass lane for local users but also drops the speed limit from 110km/h to 100 km/h or 100-90. I wish I could find that somewhere so I could read it and share it properly. Hearing of this from a friend who is with NS Dept of Highway and Infrastructure and is involved with the consultation of the 101 project through my hometown of Windsor.

Dmajackson · #**971** Posted **Nov 21, 2018, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mapleton_Roadie

I see a lot of discussion on here about extra lanes etc between certain areas.
There is somewhere, a policy in place that any new interchanges on a 100 Series Highway that fall within I think 2 km of the next closest, deems a third lane be built. This lane acts as a by-pass lane for local users but also drops the speed limit from 110km/h to 100 km/h or 100-90. I wish I could find that somewhere so I could read it and share it properly. Hearing of this from a friend who is with NS Dept of Highway and Infrastructure and is involved with the consultation of the 101 project through my hometown of Windsor.

This policy has been enacted a few time already. Margeson Drive (Hwy 101, Middle Sackville) and Larry Uteck (Hwy 102, Halifax) both have connecting auxiliary lanes with their nearest interchange. At Margeson its only in one direction but that is just because of land constraint along Hefler's Mill.

I don't think the second part of your post is quite accurate. Connecting auxiliary lanes allow for local traffic to avoid merging into high volume traffic lanes. Quite often this means it will be 120 - 105 - 90kph. It doesn't necessarily mean the speed limit drops. In fact it can help maintain the speed limit at 100 or 110 kph due to reduced weaving and other factors. For example Highway 102 NB between Hwy 118 and Airport has three lanes but a speed limit of 110 kph. In ideal conditions this results in >120 - 110 - <100 scenario.

The difference between 110 and 100 kph posted limits is usually dependant on the with of the centre median and on how close the highway is to an urban area. The widening of Highway 101 through Windsor will be posted as 90 or 100 kph because it will have a narrow raised median, tightly spaced interchanges, and its in the centre of town. On the other hand the new Exit 8A on Highway 102 will have connecting auxiliary lanes but it won't result in dropping the speed limit to 100kph because it still has a wide depressed median and its in a rural area.

Dengler Avenue · #**972** Posted **Nov 21, 2018, 8:58 PM**

That’s what I noticed about Atlantic freeways too. NB Highway 2 is posted at 100 kph only through Edmundston and that’s the only spot on Highway 2 other than bridges where the highway needs concrete median barrier.

Mapleton_Roadie · #**973** Posted **Nov 22, 2018, 1:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

I don't think the second part of your post is quite accurate. Connecting auxiliary lanes allow for local traffic to avoid merging into high volume traffic lanes. Quite often this means it will be 120 - 105 - 90kph. It doesn't necessarily mean the speed limit drops. In fact it can help maintain the speed limit at 100 or 110 kph due to reduced weaving and other factors. For example Highway 102 NB between Hwy 118 and Airport has three lanes but a speed limit of 110 kph. In ideal conditions this results in >120 - 110 - <100 scenario.

The difference between 110 and 100 kph posted limits is usually dependant on the with of the centre median and on how close the highway is to an urban area. The widening of Highway 101 through Windsor will be posted as 90 or 100 kph because it will have a narrow raised median, tightly spaced interchanges, and its in the centre of town. On the other hand the new Exit 8A on Highway 102 will have connecting auxiliary lanes but it won't result in dropping the speed limit to 100kph because it still has a wide depressed median and its in a rural area.

Thanks!! That sounds familiar

Dengler Avenue · #**974** Posted **Dec 10, 2018, 3:53 AM**

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ment-1.4938183

Why does this article smell of excessive environmentalism to me?

ghYHZ · #**975** Posted **Dec 10, 2018, 11:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ment-1.4938183

The only place I’ve ever encountered moose while on my trail bike has been in the Weavers Mountain area and that where they plan to erect wildlife fencing and underpass structures according to this article.

JHikka · #**976** Posted **Dec 10, 2018, 2:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ment-1.4938183

Why does this article smell of excessive environmentalism to me?

Probably because it's literally about the environmental assessment of the project.

Franco401 · #**977** Posted **Dec 10, 2018, 3:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ment-1.4938183

Why does this article smell of excessive environmentalism to me?

You mean a standard procedure for any big infrastructure project?

MonctonianSentinel01 · #**978** Posted **Dec 10, 2018, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ment-1.4938183

Why does this article smell of excessive environmentalism to me?

LOL poor Dengler, they're just pounding you into the ground now aren't they?

Dengler Avenue · #**979** Posted **Dec 10, 2018, 4:31 PM**

My bad my bad. I’ve probably just read too much about the feud between Alberta and the feds lately.

I think I just got rubbed the wrong way when the article only focused on the environmental damages. Then again that’s what road projects do and I have barely read any EA documents before.

MonctonRad · #**980** Posted **Dec 10, 2018, 4:47 PM**

My thoughts go back to the completion of the Fundy Trail Parkway project, where an environmental impact study had been done over a decade ago, but when the government finally got around to funding the project, the old study had expired, and a new one was necessary, thus delaying the project by another 1-2 years.........

There's gotta be a better way.......