2018 Provincial Election Transit Promises

[innsertnamehere]

This document from 2005 puts the cost of upgrading Highway 69 at $6.5 million/km. Costs have no doubt risen since then. 4 laning the entire Highway 17 corridor across northern Ontario, even without interchanges, would get into 11-figure territory. That's a lot of money to spend on a project across a vast and mostly unpopulated wilderness, the kind of project that's almost unheard worldwide. Just because the Americans have cross-country expressways that doesn't mean that we need them too.

Selective widenings in key areas, 2+1 expansions, additional passing lanes, etc. are much better ways to improve highways across the north and more typical of highways in large remote regions.

The cost per km of the recent contracts for 69 twinning sit around $10 million per km. That is a reasonable metric to go off of if you ask me. So 100km would cost about $1 billion.

twinning the ~2,000 km of highway 17 that is not twinned would therefor cost around $20 billion.

I think the most rational approach would be to drop about $2 billion on the highway to build various bypasses and twinning sections where they are needed most. Get the 417 to Petawawa, 17 through Sudbury and past Espanola, through North Bay, through Thunder Bay, around Sault Ste Marie, add a bunch of passing lanes all along the highway, and a few more smaller town bypasses. That alone would vastly improve travel times and safety.

 

[ShonTron]

The cost per km of the recent contracts for 69 twinning sit around $10 million per km. That is a reasonable metric to go off of if you ask me. So 100km would cost about $1 billion.

twinning the ~2,000 km of highway 17 that is not twinned would therefor cost around $20 billion.

I think the most rational approach would be to drop about $2 billion on the highway to build various bypasses and twinning sections where they are needed most. Get the 417 to Petawawa, 17 through Sudbury and past Espanola, through North Bay, through Thunder Bay, around Sault Ste Marie, add a bunch of passing lanes all along the highway, and a few more smaller town bypasses. That alone would vastly improve travel times and safety.

It need not be the 417 past Highway 60 at Renfrew. A simple twinned highway as past that as far as Petawawa is more than sufficient.

But generally, I agree. Twinning the Sudbury Bypass and extending it to Highway 6 (along with a better connection to Highway 69/400), and twinning Manitoba-Highway 71, and completing the Thunder Bay-Nipigon section are what's needed. A better route through SSM makes sense as well, as are improvements in North Bay. Not much else besides more passing lanes and maybe a few strategic realignments.

 

[Neutrino]

@BurlOak nfitz is still suffering from Ford Derangement Syndrome. I think a little bed rest for the next four years is called for.

 

[nfitz]

n=n-1

Regardless of the numbering(!) or which party proposes it: twinning remote unused highways is clearly an unnecessary expenditure, is pandering towards the voters, and is a misplaced priority! And not very conservative!

While an AADT in the 8,000 range approaching Pembroke might eventually justify continuing the long-standing Harris-era and Liberal plans of twinning 17 a bit further - numbers west of Thunder Bay and around Lake Superior are often below 2,000 when there's little local traffic.

When you look at historic data back to the 1980s - the AADTs were about the same, where there's little local traffic.

http://www.raqsa.mto.gov.on.ca/techpubs/TrafficVolumes.nsf/fa027808647879788525708a004b5df8/88c66a2279555c798525788d0048cca4/$FILE/Provincial Highways traffic Volumes 1988-2016.pdf

 

[gweed123]

It need not be the 417 past Highway 60 at Renfrew. A simple twinned highway as past that as far as Petawawa is more than sufficient.

But generally, I agree. Twinning the Sudbury Bypass and extending it to Highway 6 (along with a better connection to Highway 69/400), and twinning Manitoba-Highway 71, and completing the Thunder Bay-Nipigon section are what's needed. A better route through SSM makes sense as well, as are improvements in North Bay. Not much else besides more passing lanes and maybe a few strategic realignments.

I agree. 417 to Renfrew, twinned to Petawawa, a bypass of Mattawa (that section slows down big time), twinned coming into North Bay, at least twinned from North Bay to Sudbury, expressway around Sudbury, completion of a logical bypass around SSM, and select widenings for the rest should be sufficient.

 

[Kitsune]

The Sudbury portion of 69 will be upgraded once construction is started on the remaining sections, which is dependent on negotiations with the Aboriginals both for the existing highway and the new highway. That was before this election. The Sudbury portion will be completely free flow, iirc there will be one interchange at St. Lane Road, new frontages and the 17 to 400 interchange will be upgraded to allow free flow from 17 to 400, while the local side / regent st will maintain traffic lights. Wish I could find the reports... however what I do remember is that the 69 and 17 will be done concurrently. The plan is to four lane 17 from where the existing part ends near Lively all the way to Markstay, with the kingsway portion being put on a new alignment. The city also wants to build a new road from the existing 17 / 17 / kingsway intersection to an extended Maley Drive... Sudbury has some fairly road geek fancy road plans - the goal is to get all the heavy mining trucks off local roads with a ring road, portions of which have already been built, underconstruction and in planing.

 

[interchange42]

Re: some recent posts: civil discussion please! Anyone continuing with personal attacks in this thread will be going on a long holiday.

42

 

[lenaitch]

Highway 71 and 11 up near Aticokan are not really part of a Trans-Canada highway - they are for getting to the US border (maybe it's for redundancy?).

I have to believe that border access was the last thing on the mind of highway planners in the 1950s. The western stretch of Hwy 11 was built to provide a more direct link to Thunder Bay and east from the (then) booming mining town of Atikokan and the Fort Francis area, rather than going up to Hwy. 17. The border crossing at Ft. Francis is a pretty local crossing. The Hwy 11/71 route does provide redundancy, however.

I do think there's value in treating the TCH as a strategic corridor and working on 4 laning it across the country, eventually. That's only valuable though if they are going to use it in other ways. Put down fibre optics along it, cell towers, etc. But that goal should also be accompanied by federal funding, if it's a national strategic priority.

As far as I am aware, the fibre optic backbone already exists and primarily follows the rail corridors. Installing cel towers (at probably a minimum of $1M a pop) to keep travellers from getting bored is a pretty steep price; although would improve emergency communications. Interestingly, when I carried an analogue phone I had pretty much consistent coverage from Sudbury to TBay, not so when they switched to digital - I guess there's no financial return for the carriers. A division of Bell is the carrier for all emergency Ontario government communications, which has consistent coverage along the corridors and one would think the same tower network would be available for their commercial networks but I suppose it is matter of frequency range and techy matters like that.


Regarding traffic volume discussions, people have to remember that AADT is annualized average. There are times in the winter on some stretches of northern highways you could hold an American football match between vehicles.

 

[BurlOak]

Regarding traffic volume discussions, people have to remember that AADT is annualized average. There are times in the winter on some stretches of northern highways you could hold an American football match between vehicles.

It kind of surprises me, but the SADT (summer) in the north is typically around 20% to 40% more than the AADT. No a huge difference if you ask me.

 

[crs1026]

As far as I am aware, the fibre optic backbone already exists and primarily follows the rail corridors. Installing cel towers (at probably a minimum of $1M a pop) to keep travellers from getting bored is a pretty steep price; although would improve emergency communications. Interestingly, when I carried an analogue phone I had pretty much consistent coverage from Sudbury to TBay, not so when they switched to digital - I guess there's no financial return for the carriers. A division of Bell is the carrier for all emergency Ontario government communications, which has consistent coverage along the corridors and one would think the same tower network would be available for their commercial networks but I suppose it is matter of frequency range and techy matters like that.
.

Yeah, the original analog phones were on a lower frequency range that propagates a little further...and a lot of those phones ran at higher power with bigger antennae. Each successive technology upgrade has put the telcos back to square 1 in coverage, although as they have filled in the gaps with towers, that’s often moot these days. The Ontario system is a different frequency range again, and its backbone linking it all together wouldn’t have the bandwidth for commercial traffic.

Having said all that, I do think cell coverage along the whole route is essential for emergency reasons, but not to the extent that the kids in the back seat have streaming. The TCH is a vital link, but it makes no sense to overbuild it at great expense. Beyond North Bay and Sudbury, the argument of time saved by divided highway speed limits gets much less compelling.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

Also, they have now shut down analog, and reallocated the original (lower) frequencies again to digital (LTE). 800Mhz, and now the 700Mhz are live.

Over the last few years, that has pretty much filled most of the gaps that appeared when analog got shut down.

(As long as you've got newer phones that supported the newer long-range frequencies)

Soon, 600 Mhz will also be available for LTE (reallocated from old analog TV) -- that carries quite far in rural areas.

This will continue make it cheaper to have WiFi on trains (via WiFi to LTE routers), as much fewer towers are needed to support a rural train corridor.

 

[kEiThZ]

As far as I am aware, the fibre optic backbone already exists and primarily follows the rail corridors.

We'll need more at some point. Why not build an alternative corridor and boost redundancy if we're upgrading the highway anyway? And note I am not suggesting it in one shot. I am suggesting a goal. Say 25 years to have twinned TCH end to end. And expressway standard where warranted.

Installing cel towers (at probably a minimum of $1M a pop) to keep travellers from getting bored is a pretty steep price;

This suggestion was not at all about the highway users. A lot of cell users will be relatively close to the highway. Putting towers up along the highway, will improve their service and would presumably we cheaper for the telcos to service. A substantial added benefit will be proper cell coverage on the TCH.

Again, the idea here is to stop thinking of the TCH as just a highway and start thinking of it a strategic corridor that allows several uses and assets to be co-located. Pipelines, power lines, comms lines/links and the road itself.

 

[Allandale25]

From the throne speech, this reference to transit via Matt Elliot.

[Suggestion: maybe this thread should be changed to 2018 Provincial Election Transit Promises and Ford Government's Transit Record. Similar to Mayor John Tory's Toronto thread in the Politics (Toronto Issues) subforum.]

 

[nfitz]

[Suggestion: maybe this thread should be changed to 2018 Provincial Election Transit Promises and Ford Government's Transit Record. Similar to Mayor John Tory's Toronto thread in the Politics (Toronto Issues) subforum.]

Or just move it to the politics sub-forum already!

 

[TheTigerMaster]

From the throne speech, this reference to transit via Matt Elliot.

[Suggestion: maybe this thread should be changed to 2018 Provincial Election Transit Promises and Ford Government's Transit Record. Similar to Mayor John Tory's Toronto thread in the Politics (Toronto Issues) subforum.]

This was the one and only mention of transit in his throne speech. Something tells me he doesn't care very much about it