HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 3:28 PM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I totally forgot Goodview Road sort of has 2 branches toward the interchange, one of which does meet 69. When we finally extend 400 there, of course the branch that meets the highway needs closing.
Which then makes your argument about a detour moot. The interesting thing, the Provincial Government Offices Rd sort of could connect to Long Lake Rd, but it is a private road, and mainly an ATV trail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 3:45 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Dear me, that's why I suggested closing the current access from Goodview Road and tunneling the other branch under the 17E to 69S ramp to join the roundabout...

K I need to get started on work...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2020, 11:02 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Huh, it seems that so far, Highway 69’s interchange with Estaire Road near Richard Lake is the only super-4 interchange in the provincial highway network.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2020, 11:08 PM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
Huh, it seems that so far, Highway 69’s interchange with Estaire Road near Richard Lake is the only super-4 interchange in the provincial highway network.
Super 4?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 12:26 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
Super 4?
I should have just said undivided 4 lanes, like what Coquihalla Pass used to be like.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 7:13 AM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 7,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
Huh, it seems that so far, Highway 69’s interchange with Estaire Road near Richard Lake is the only super-4 interchange in the provincial highway network.
I know what you mean.

I remember reading the reason why it was done like that. The original plan was that the overpass will be part of a future interchange and where a new 4-lane divided alignment of Hwy 69 will be constructed between there and Hwy 17.

I think the MTO later changed plans and has more recently considered just using the current alignment but we'll have to see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 3:18 PM
sonysnob sonysnob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,654
When the overpass at Estaire Road was built, it was thought that it was going to be throwaway infrastructure.

As Loco said above, there was once a proposed alignment of Highway 69 extending from the current end of the divided highway to Highway 17 east of Richard Lake.

Had that alignment of Highway 69/400 been selected, the existing Estaire Road overpass would have been redundant and would have potentially been demolished.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 4:48 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonysnob View Post
When the overpass at Estaire Road was built, it was thought that it was going to be throwaway infrastructure.

As Loco said above, there was once a proposed alignment of Highway 69 extending from the current end of the divided highway to Highway 17 east of Richard Lake.

Had that alignment of Highway 69/400 been selected, the existing Estaire Road overpass would have been redundant and would have potentially been demolished.
An Ontario tall-wall would basically complete the separation of lanes for that section of Highway 69.

Honestly, I'm at the point of even thinking that a full on freeway-to-freeway interchange for 69 and 17 is kind of wasteful at this point.

Then again, the MTO has really gone gung-ho for over designing things on that highway given its volume. Beautiful overbuilt interchanges for podunk side roads, massive rock cuts when narrowing the freeway would have sufficed. No expense was spared.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 5:07 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
An Ontario tall-wall would basically complete the separation of lanes for that section of Highway 69.

Honestly, I'm at the point of even thinking that a full on freeway-to-freeway interchange for 69 and 17 is kind of wasteful at this point.

Then again, the MTO has really gone gung-ho for over designing things on that highway given its volume. Beautiful overbuilt interchanges for podunk side roads, massive rock cuts when narrowing the freeway would have sufficed. No expense was spared.
I sort of disagree with the 2nd part. I think a free-flowing interchange between freeways is simply a matter of good practice. For example, I find the interchange between 401 and Highbury Avenue in London aweful. Bref, 8 S to 401 W and 401 E to 8 N in Cambridge is even worse.
Anyway back to 17/69: At the very least, 69 north to 17 west shouldn’t be interrupted because I’m sure (lol I can be really wrong) lots of truck go to the industrial park at Fielding. As for 17 W to 69 S, at least we should allocate ROW for the free-flowing ramp.

As for the last part, I really think 110 m ROW in Canadian Shield is financially irresponsible outside of North Bay, Sudbury, SSM and Thunder Bay, where having a 6-lane freeway isn’t without basis.
@swimmer_spe, don’t you always complain that Queen’s Park shorted the North in terms of freeway extension? Tell them to stop going extravagant so they can no longer cite cost as a factor to not do it. Outside of those 4 cities, I already struggle to make a case even for 4 lanes, so 6 lanes are pure pipe dreams.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.

Last edited by Dengler Avenue; Apr 26, 2020 at 11:29 PM. Reason: improving readability
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 5:42 PM
Djeffery Djeffery is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 4,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I sort of disagree with the 2nd part. I think a free-flowing interchange between freeways is simply a matter of good practice. For example, I find the interchange between 401 and Highbury Avenue in London aweful.
It's not a freeway to freeway interchange though, Highbury ceases to be a freeway as you approach the 401 from the north.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 5:57 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djeffery View Post
It's not a freeway to freeway interchange though, Highbury ceases to be a freeway as you approach the 401 from the north.
That's why I find it awful. At least we should have a flyover from 401 E to Highbury Avenue northbound and protect the loop from Highbury Avenue southbound to 401 E from the traffic light.

The same configuration can be had with 17/69 (417/400) in the future too, though I think terrain, environmental sensitivity, and property acquisition issues forced the design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eEQqz2xynU 2:28.

As for the minimum 110-meter ROW, I'm curious what sonysnob thinks.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 7:04 PM
Djeffery Djeffery is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 4,449
I would think there are dozens of other interchanges that could benefit from a costly flyover more than this one. I take that exit a few times a day and I can count on one hand the number of times I have not made the left in 1 light in the last year. In a truck. West to south is a busier left than east to north.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 11:31 PM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
An Ontario tall-wall would basically complete the separation of lanes for that section of Highway 69.

Honestly, I'm at the point of even thinking that a full on freeway-to-freeway interchange for 69 and 17 is kind of wasteful at this point.

Then again, the MTO has really gone gung-ho for over designing things on that highway given its volume. Beautiful overbuilt interchanges for podunk side roads, massive rock cuts when narrowing the freeway would have sufficed. No expense was spared.
Tell that to those that regularly use that. It is no less important that the MTO does it right than any other major highway intersection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I sort of disagree with the 2nd part. I think a free-flowing interchange between freeways is simply a matter of good practice. For example, I find the interchange between 401 and Highbury Avenue in London aweful. Bref, 8 S to 401 W and 401 E to 8 N in Cambridge is even worse.
Anyway back to 17/69: At the very least, 69 north to 17 west shouldn’t be interrupted because I’m sure (lol I can be really wrong) lots of truck go to the industrial park at Fielding. As for 17 W to 69 S, at least we should allocate ROW for the free-flowing ramp.

As for the last part, I really think 110 m ROW in Canadian Shield is financially irresponsible outside of North Bay, Sudbury, SSM and Thunder Bay, where having a 6-lane freeway isn’t without basis. @swimmer_spe, don’t you always complain that Queen’s Park shorted the North in terms of freeway extension? Tell them to stop going extravagant so they can no longer cite cost as a factor to not do it. Outside of those 4, where I already struggle to make a case for 4 lanes, 6 lanes are pure pipe dreams.
You do not need 6 lanes for 110 km/hr. Proof of that is the Coq is 120 km/hr. If you think that outside of the cities, Northern Ontario doesn't warrant a divided 4 lane highway, or that it is too costly, then you need to look at BC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 11:47 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
You misunderstood me.
(1) Of course we can have 110 km/h speed limit on a 4 lane divided freeway. If anything, it gets harder with 6 lanes.
(2) Like I said, some cases are easier to make (like Espanola to North Bay) and some harder (like North Bay and east). Some are straight up non-starters at this time.

Remember that extensive conversation that we had about shoehorning freeways? That’s what I was referring to. My thoughts have been this.
(1) Where 6 lanes have some basis to it, it should have either 6 lanes right away or 4 lanes with a median barrier with possible expansion outward.
(2) Where 6 lanes are not at all warranted, especially where even 4 lanes are pushing it right now, it should have 4 lanes with a median barrier. This configuration allows maximal use of current alignment because we can shoehorn the freeway. As for concerns about snow clearing in winter, we can probably refer to how B.C. deals with highways in the Interior.
(3) Overbuilt freeways invite excessive speeds. If Highway 400 extension is built with median barriers and narrow left shoulders (though widen right shoulders), I will know that 120~132 km/h is my range. With what we have right now, if it weren’t for O.P.P., I really would max it at 200 km/h. Seriously 120 km/h on Highway 400 north of Crown Hills feels more like 80 km/h.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 11:54 PM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
You misunderstood me.
(1) Of course we can have 110 km/h speed limit on a 4 lane divided freeway. If anything, it gets harder with 6 lanes.
(2) Like I said, some cases are easier to make (like Espanola to North Bay) and some harder (like North Bay and east). Some are straight up non-starters at this time.

Remember that extensive conversation that we had about shoehorning freeways? That’s what I was referring to. My thoughts have been this.
(1) Where 6 lanes have some basis to it, it should have either 6 lanes right away or 4 lanes with a median barrier with possible expansion outward.
(2) Where 6 lanes are not at all warranted, especially where even 4 lanes are pushing it right now, it should have 4 lanes with a median barrier. This configuration allows maximal use of current alignment because we can shoehorn the freeway. As for concerns about snow clearing in winter, we can probably refer to how B.C. deals with highways in the Interior.
(3) Overbuilt freeways invite excessive speeds. If Highway 400 extension is built with median barriers and narrow left shoulders (though widen right shoulders), I will know that 120~132 km/h is my range. With what we have right now, if it weren’t for O.P.P., I really would max it at 200 km/h. Seriously 120 km/h on Highway 400 north of Crown Hills feels more like 80 km/h.
If somewhere like Wyoming can have interstates, we can have full freeways. I do feel the speed limits are artificially too low in Ontario. The 407 could have no speed limit and likely remain as safe as it is now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2020, 11:58 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
@swimmer_spe for that part, you can debate sonysnob. Just remember to use numbers. For me, I just question the need to have wide divided median even in Canadian Shield. Like what’s the main reason? Drainage? Snow clearing? Or cost of concrete barrier?
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2020, 12:05 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
@swimmer_spe for that part, you can debate sonysnob. Just remember to use numbers. For me, I just question the need to have wide divided median even in Canadian Shield. Like what’s the main reason? Drainage? Snow clearing? Or cost of concrete barrier?
I don't argue with people who say "we have always done it".

For a simple argument, I look to Germany's Autobahns. They have mountains and cities. Their speed limits are for places where one is warranted. So, yes, through the city where the traffic can be heavy, have speed limits. Even better would be speed limits that change based on traffic flow, weather, and other factors. Then traffic could go faster when there isn't much of it. Ontario is the only province with the high $10,000 fine for speeding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2020, 12:14 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
There’s a reason as to why people do things certain way. You can always challenge that underlying reason and propose your alternatives. Then we will evaluate using the same standard (to avoid double standard. It’s easier said than done). I’m sure you have already, but too bad I don’t have the proper software to simulate traffic...
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2020, 12:18 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
There’s a reason as to why people do things certain way. You can always challenge that underlying reason and propose your alternatives. Then we will evaluate using the same standard (to avoid double standard. It’s easier said than done). I’m sure you have already, but too bad I don’t have the proper software to simulate traffic...
Some things should be done for less tangible reasons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2020, 12:39 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
Some things should be done for less tangible reasons.
I agree, but it's a hard sell in this day and age when sacrificing the life of seniors to keep the economy afloat is even considered. Anyway, I digress.

There's hope though. Think this way: Half a century ago, if someone were to suggest that Highway 69 be built as a 4-lane divided freeway from the get-go, everybody would have laughed at him/her. Now, every single km has been planned, if not completed. Unfortunately, the remainder through Parry Sound will take some time because Queen's Park's known for dragging its feet negotiating with FN's.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
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 10:04 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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