News   Jul 15, 2024
Twilight Glow
 118     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.7K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.3K     1 

Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion

MisterF said:
In what way is it a national embarrassment? Freeways across expanses as vast and empty as northern Ontario are extremely rare, even in the United States. I don't think you're really considering the scale of what you're proposing. A freeway across Ontario would require about 1900 km of new or expanded highway though mostly rugged, sparsely populated wilderness. As a comparison, the entire length of the 401 isn't even half that. Hell, our entire 400 series network is barely that long (1972 km to be exact). Our first freeway was built in 1931, so it's taken 87 years to build that much. So essentially you're saying the fact that we haven't built in 15 years what previously took almost a century, through our most rugged and isolated region no less, is a national embarrassment. I think it's safe to say that I disagree.

The United States has something like 8 or 9 times our population and is the most extreme builder of freeways in the world. That's not a model we want to copy. Countries that are more comparable to Canada have no freeways crossing them. There are no freeways connecting the lengths of the Nordic countries. No freeways crossing the Outback or the Amazon or Siberia. The countries those regions are part of build freeways to connect cities in the most populated areas, corridors where the capacity that they offer is actually needed. There's nothing embarrassing about that.

What tends to be done on important highways in remote regions is selective widenings, 2+1 designs, frequent passing lanes, etc. That's the model we should be following for the remote parts of the Trans Canada Highway, not trying to copy what they have in the US.
Click to expand...

Agree. Many forget that the US Interstate system was built with Department of Defence funding for national security reasons (troop movement) during the Cold War, not for any domestic transportation reasons. Before that, they had a fairly disjointed system of state highways, caused primarily because of the nature of their union (state autonomy). The two Ontario highways, 11 and 17, simply don't have the traffic volumes to justify twinning outside some localized areas.

Twinning the highway between Kenora and the Manitoba border has been on the books for a while. Although I don't know the actual traffic data, there is a fair bit of traffic between Kenora and Winnipeg in addition to commercial inter-provincial traffic. There is also a bit of a national economic security angle. The stretch between the border and Kenora (actually Longbow Lake just to the east) is the one and only highway link between east and west Canada. It is the same between Thunder Bay and Nipigon, which is in the process of being twinned.
 
lenaitch said:
Agree. Many forget that the Interstate system was built with Department of Defence funding for national security reasons (troop movement) during the Cold War, not for any domestic transportation reasons. Before that, they had a fairly disjointed system of state highways, caused primarily because of the nature of their union (state autonomy). The two Ontario highways, 11 and 17, simply don't have the traffic volumes to justify twinning outside some localized areas.

Twinning the highway between Kenora and the Manitoba border has been on the books for a while. Although I don't know the actual traffic data, there is a fair bit of traffic between Kenora and Winnipeg in addition to commercial inter-provincial traffic. There is also a bit of a national economic security angle. The stretch between the border and Kenora (actually Longbow Lake just to the east) is the one and only highway link between east and west Canada. It is the same between Thunder Bay and Nipigon, which is in the process of being twinned.
Click to expand...
Technically, the part west of Thunder Bay (Sistonens Corners to Shabaqua Corners) is also the one and only highway link*. I don't think there are any twinning plans for that portion.
* - If you are really good at navigating logging roads, you can almost find an alternate route for this - except for the last 400m at the west end across the Oskondaga River. But if you count this, then technically it is possible to go around the north side of Lake Nipigon to connect Nakina to Armstrong.

PS. Just in case the Nipigon River Bridge has trouble again, they are considering an emergency detour route.
http://nipigonalternateaccess.ca/
 
North south covers a lot of territory, just as east west does. I75 for example comes in around 2500 km. But all of that is off topic from provincial election transit promises!
 
Streety McCarface said:
In all fairness: the US has 7+ transcontinental railroads and 4 transcontinental freeways (I 10, I 40, I 80, I 90), and all are extremely well utilized. The difference is that the US has many little small cities throughout the country that don't really warrant a railway connection. The freeways allow for flexibility in transport which are important. Also, Germany has a much higher density of freeways crossing their country and still have an amazing rail system. You can have both.

We shouldn't be against building freeways between cities, they allow for flexibility. What we should be against is building freeways within cities, where commuting should be by higher order transit. That being said, Ontario doesn't need a full-fledged control access highway when Interstates 90 and 80 are just south and allow for faster travel times to western canada. What needs to be addressed is the fact that there is only one access between the west and east of Canada in ontario and if that access fails, the country is literally divided.
Click to expand...
Germany also has a population density that nowhere in Canada approaches except the greater Golden Horseshoe. In cases like that I agree, you can have amazing roads and rails. That's where RER comes in, as well as highway projects like the 407 and 427 extensions. But northern Ontario is nothing like Germany or the Golden Horseshoe. It has more in common with the more remote regions of northern Scandinavia, the South Island of New Zealand, or the aforementioned Australian Outback. Such a high standard of infrastructure just isn't possible. There are no freeways going from one end of those countries to the other, only in the more highly developed areas.

I do agree about the places where there's only one road connecting east to west. One mishap can completely cut off access, like with the Nipigon Bridge a couple years ago. Even twinning those stretches isn't really enough since it's pretty easy for even a divided highway to be closed off. I'm surprised they didn't build alternate roads in those areas a long time ago.

To go anywhere in Canada you just follow the only road...
 
Last edited:
Norway has an incredible highway build for its size and population, but it’s not in the form of four-lane divided superhighways. It’s more in two-lane bridges and tunnels (many under water) that connects places that would otherwise lack direct road access.

Before we spend the money to twin the TCA, we need to look for how that money might be spent otherwise to open up better transportation. For instance, the Ring of Fire road is a road to someplace that you can’t reach today, whereas twinning the TCA just gives you a wider roadway that goes nowhere new and doesnt need the extra capacity. More branch roads off the TCA might be a better use of the money. And, railway row is cheaper to build than highway, so maybe the ROF would benefit more from that.

Twinning the TCA is a poor use of that money.

- Paul
 
lenaitch said:
Twinning the highway between Kenora and the Manitoba border has been on the books for a while. Although I don't know the actual traffic data, there is a fair bit of traffic between Kenora and Winnipeg in addition to commercial inter-provincial traffic. There is also a bit of a national economic security angle. The stretch between the border and Kenora (actually Longbow Lake just to the east) is the one and only highway link between east and west Canada. It is the same between Thunder Bay and Nipigon, which is in the process of being twinned.
Click to expand...

There are also a lot of accidents along this route. Hopefully the number of deadly collisions will decrease.
 
lenaitch said:
Agree. Many forget that the US Interstate system was built with Department of Defence funding for national security reasons (troop movement) during the Cold War, not for any domestic transportation reasons. Before that, they had a fairly disjointed system of state highways, caused primarily because of the nature of their union (state autonomy). The two Ontario highways, 11 and 17, simply don't have the traffic volumes to justify twinning outside some localized areas.

Twinning the highway between Kenora and the Manitoba border has been on the books for a while. Although I don't know the actual traffic data, there is a fair bit of traffic between Kenora and Winnipeg in addition to commercial inter-provincial traffic. There is also a bit of a national economic security angle. The stretch between the border and Kenora (actually Longbow Lake just to the east) is the one and only highway link between east and west Canada. It is the same between Thunder Bay and Nipigon, which is in the process of being twinned.
Click to expand...

The national deference idea for the interstate system is a common myth - it was an element - and why most military bases often have short and otherwise useless interstate connections - but the interstate system was absolutely about improved domestic transportation. Sure, some of the interstate network got built because of the military, but about 95% was purely for domestic transportation.

The US interstate system does have some low AADT sections, primarily south of the Prairie border crossings into Canada, but none of it has 1,900km of AADTs in the 2-3k range.


IIRC Ontario has about 2,500km of freeways right now, once you include the ones that are not 400 series (69, DVP, 407ETR, etc.)

Several recent openings have pushed the 400 series network over 2,000km.
 
If there's any section of the TCH in Ontario that needs twinning, it's between Arnprior and Pembroke/Petawawa. The westward extension of 417 has been decades in the making, with it taking over a decade to go the 27km from Panmure Road to Sheel Dr. So by that pace, we should be in Pembroke by around 2050.
 
I used to drive Hwy 11 between Toronto and North Bay, and highway 17 between North Bay and Ottawa regularly. It made such a big difference when Hwy 11 was twinned -- as you say Highway 17 is long overdue.
 
PinkLucy said:
I used to drive Hwy 11 between Toronto and North Bay, and highway 17 between North Bay and Ottawa regularly. It made such a big difference when Hwy 11 was twinned -- as you say Highway 17 is long overdue.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And that section of 17 between Arnprior and Petawawa (with the exception of through Cobden) is relatively straight, and could be twinned relatively easily. The stretch from Petawawa to Mattawa would be tougher though, since it's much more rugged. But get the "easy" part done now.

It's weird how the Ottawa Valley gets ignored when it comes to expansion like this. I guess because it's so reliably blue, that the PCs don't want to invest there because they're not going to gain any seats from it, and the Liberals don't want to invest there because there's no way they're flipping those seats even with a highway expansion.
 
gweed123 said:
If there's any section of the TCH in Ontario that needs twinning, it's between Arnprior and Pembroke/Petawawa. The westward extension of 417 has been decades in the making, with it taking over a decade to go the 27km from Panmure Road to Sheel Dr. So by that pace, we should be in Pembroke by around 2050.
Click to expand...
That stretch actually has freeway like AADTs, so yes, it's needed. It sounds like the province is going to move on the next 30km or so to just past Renfrew soon - it is currently in detailed design.

Past Petawawa 17 drops significantly in traffic levels, under 2,000 cars a day, picking up a bit again (not a lot) between North Bay and Sault Ste Marie (about 4,000 a day), then down to under 2,000 again out to Thunder Bay.

Generally the rule for a freeway is you need 10-15,000 cars a day to justify it. 17 From Petawawa to Arnprior varies between 8-12,000 cars right now.
 
Don’t know if it’s changed but I drove Calgary to Vancouver over ten years ago. I challenge anyone to drive Calgary to Vancouver and still argue that Canada is a developed nation ;)

Continuous improvement to our national and regional highway system is absolutely important. With respect to national and regional infrastructure development in general Canada is very much a developing nation in my opinion
 
innsertnamehere said:
That stretch actually has freeway like AADTs, so yes, it's needed. It sounds like the province is going to move on the next 30km or so to just past Renfrew soon - it is currently in detailed design.

Past Petawawa 17 drops significantly in traffic levels, under 2,000 cars a day, picking up a bit again (not a lot) between North Bay and Sault Ste Marie (about 4,000 a day), then down to under 2,000 again out to Thunder Bay.

Generally the rule for a freeway is you need 10-15,000 cars a day to justify it. 17 From Petawawa to Arnprior varies between 8-12,000 cars right now.
Click to expand...

Yup, which is why I suggested Petawawa as the cut-off point for the foreseeable future. It's a combination of AADT and geography. I appreciated you bringing up the actual numbers though. I suspected they were somewhere around those marks, but didn't know them exactly.

And yes, next on my list would be between North Bay and Sudbury, followed by Sudbury to The Soo.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top