Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion

[lenaitch]

Good news but they should really just finish this before the end of the decade. It’s been way too long. The whole project started in the 90s and it’s taking 40 years to build ~225km of 4 lane highway. If they can’t even get this 82km gap done by 2030, it’s total joke.

At least Quebec didn’t take this long to twin the A-85 but it’s less than 100km.

I think we're discussing two different things. Yes, the twinning of 69 is taking a long time, but there is only so much tax dollars to go around unless residents are willing to contribute more. An unprecedented buttload of provincial money is being spent on GTA transit, as well as Hwy 401 improvements, Hwy 11/17 in the TBay area, etc. etc. Not apologizing for this or any other government, but there is only so much that can get done at any one time. There also might be limits to contractors that can take on this scale of project.

Every time the MTO, Hydro One, or anybody else, wishes to impact on FN lands, or even in their 'traditional territory', it becomes a tripartite land claims issue where other issues are often added into the mix, and can become quite protracted. I think from Parry Sound to Sudbury they have to deal with four.

As for Hwy 17 between Sudbury and SSM, I agree that traffic volumes, and perhaps even the collision data, hardly justify twinning. They added a number of passing lanes years back. Anecdotally, I think both the SW and SE Sudbury bypasses justify 4-laning based on observed traffic volumes.

 

[innsertnamehere]

While it would be nice to connect Sudbury to the 400 series highway network and improve access to Northern Ontario, it's really not needed from a traffic standpoint. 69 has probably half the traffic volume needed to even approach requiring a 4-laning. MTO understandably doesn't really prioritize it. Gotta make sure that there is always a part that is under construction to make it clear that progress is getting made, but that's about it.

 

[Steve X]

I know it’s not a priority for twining highway 69. However of they never finish this, they will never start on the next project like upgrading the North Bay 11/17 to a freeway.

 

[Kitsune]

While it would be nice to connect Sudbury to the 400 series highway network and improve access to Northern Ontario, it's really not needed from a traffic standpoint. 69 has probably half the traffic volume needed to even approach requiring a 4-laning. MTO understandably doesn't really prioritize it. Gotta make sure that there is always a part that is under construction to make it clear that progress is getting made, but that's about it.

The issue with 69 is the truck traffic on a highway designed in the 40s/50s .. with a small section of that bypassed in the 70s...... and the fact highway 11 was twinned upto North Bay. Where the MTO is over doing it is with all the interchanges. Really should be grade intersections imo.

 

[ShonTron]

The issue with 69 is the truck traffic on a highway designed in the 40s/50s .. with a small section of that bypassed in the 70s...... and the fact highway 11 was twinned upto North Bay. Where the MTO is over doing it is with all the interchanges. Really should be grade intersections imo.

I can’t help but agree. Highway 11 has several stretches with at-grade intersections at low traffic crossroads. There are several interchanges on 69 that didn’t need the grade separation – Crooked Lake Road being a prime example.

 

[Undead]

Are there any plans to get rid of the atrocious at grade ramps on the 400 at Canal?

 

[lenaitch]

I can’t help but agree. Highway 11 has several stretches with at-grade intersections at low traffic crossroads. There are several interchanges on 69 that didn’t need the grade separation – Crooked Lake Road being a prime example.

I suppose it comes with the '400-series' designation and the standards that come with it. Perhaps it's our version of 'Interstate envy'; lots of fully separated interchanges in the boonies down there. The one problem with at-grade intersections on high-speed divided highways is you need really good acceleration and deceleration lanes, and sightlines, for vehicles entering/exiting from/to the left. Another is a low volume intersection can change if the 'off highway' use changes. The at-grade intersection at Port Sydney on Hwy 11 is apparently becoming problematic.

Are there any plans to get rid of the atrocious at grade ramps on the 400 at Canal?

A much earlier post, somewhere, said that it will be closed when lanes are added to the 400, which can't happen until all the bridge work is done.. Not sure I'd call it "atrocious" but it does seem to be quite the anomaly and I'm surprised it has survived this long.

 

[innsertnamehere]

the 400 Canal Rd "interchange" is going to close when they begin work on replacing the North Canal bridges, which are currently scheduled to be replaced starting next summer. So it's not long for this world.

 

[ShonTron]

I suppose it comes with the '400-series' designation and the standards that come with it. Perhaps it's our version of 'Interstate envy'; lots of fully separated interchanges in the boonies down there. The one problem with at-grade intersections on high-speed divided highways is you need really good acceleration and deceleration lanes, and sightlines, for vehicles entering/exiting from/to the left. Another is a low volume intersection can change if the 'off highway' use changes. The at-grade intersection at Port Sydney on Hwy 11 is apparently becoming problematic.

That part of Highway 11 was twinned in the early 1980s – I remember when the Highway 141 intersection to the north was at grade too. The newer twinning north of Huntsville seems to get the balance better, though one intersection near Powassan had to be converted to RIRO-only.

 

[Kitsune]

Are there any plans to get rid of the atrocious at grade ramps on the 400 at Canal?

heres the offical plans ... seems they are going to outright eliminate them... with no replacements. Interesting... http://hwy400ncanalbridges.ca/docs

 

[gweed123]

I suppose it comes with the '400-series' designation and the standards that come with it. Perhaps it's our version of 'Interstate envy'; lots of fully separated interchanges in the boonies down there. The one problem with at-grade intersections on high-speed divided highways is you need really good acceleration and deceleration lanes, and sightlines, for vehicles entering/exiting from/to the left. Another is a low volume intersection can change if the 'off highway' use changes. The at-grade intersection at Port Sydney on Hwy 11 is apparently becoming problematic.

The 'interstate envy' sentiment I think is quite real. However, it's puzzling that even super low volume side roads need to be grade-separated as part of the 400-series standard. There are even some sections of interstates in multiple states where farming roads have at-grade access to the interstate. This section of I-15 in California near the Nevada border is a good example, or this section of I-40 in West Texas.

Personally, I think the MTO needs a separate standard for 400-series highways in northern areas, where limited at-grade access points are permitted at very low volume roads. If the RIRO section of Hwy 11 north of the 400/11 interchange ever gets upgraded, I think it would make sense to give that entire highway between the 400 and North Bay a 400-series designation.

EDIT: Gah! Google Maps and its weird way of not updating a URL. Fixed to show the actual locations.

 

[ShonTron]

I also don’t know why parclo interchanges are needed at low volume rural or remote interchanges. Parclos were designed for minimal weaving and good flow on the cross street; they’re great for busy suburban areas.

Surely, simple diamond interchanges would be cheaper?

 

[innsertnamehere]

The 'interstate envy' sentiment I think is quite real. However, it's puzzling that even super low volume side roads need to be grade-separated as part of the 400-series standard. There are even some sections of interstates in multiple states where farming roads have at-grade access to the interstate. This section of I-15 in California near the Nevada border is a good example, or this section of I-40 in West Texas.

Personally, I think the MTO needs a separate standard for 400-series highways in northern areas, where limited at-grade access points are permitted at very low volume roads. If the RIRO section of Hwy 11 north of the 400/11 interchange ever gets upgraded, I think it would make sense to give that entire highway between the 400 and North Bay a 400-series designation.

both those links are sending me to directions on how to get to disney world

MTO has completed the EAs for upgrading 11 between Barrie and Gravenhurst, and it's a full 400-series highway with no at-grade intersections.

I agree that generally MTO could probably reduce standards in the north, including slightly steeper grade changes and much smaller interchanges (small diamond interchanges with narrow overpasses is enough), though I do believe that there is a lot of value in fully controlled access highways for constancy and safety.

Generally I like how A-5 was done up to Wakefield - small diamond interchanges, and a narrower median to cut right of way, grading, blasting, and structural costs. This overpass is about 50m wide for example, while the structures over the 400 extension are about 80m, with a main carriageway width of about 35 metres vs. 50 metres for the 400. A-5 also drops to an even narrower width with a central barrier in areas which need a larger amount of blasting.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

 

[gweed123]

both those links are sending me to directions on how to get to disney world

MTO has completed the EAs for upgrading 11 between Barrie and Gravenhurst, and it's a full 400-series highway with no at-grade intersections.

I agree that generally MTO could probably reduce standards in the north, including slightly steeper grade changes and much smaller interchanges (small diamond interchanges with narrow overpasses is enough), though I do believe that there is a lot of value in fully controlled access highways for constancy and safety.

Generally I like how A-5 was done up to Wakefield - small diamond interchanges, and a narrower median to cut right of way, grading, blasting, and structural costs. This overpass is about 50m wide for example, while the structures over the 400 extension are about 80m, with a main carriageway width of about 35 metres vs. 50 metres for the 400. A-5 also drops to an even narrower width with a central barrier in areas which need a larger amount of blasting.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

Thanks for letting me know the links were messed up! I've updated them, and confirmed they're accurate.

Agreed on the interchange type. Super wide medians and giant interchanges and overpasses somewhat make sense if you're looking to eventually widen, but in the north especially I can't see a need to ever go beyond 4 lanes, at least not in the lifetime of those structures.

 

[innsertnamehere]

thanks. One of those is a farm access road and the other a single driveway for what appears to be a small wrecking yard. I can't imagine either sees more than a car or two a day using them, at most.

Those are fine and agreed they generally don't need a large frontage road to service, as the conflict occurrences will be so infinitely small, but there is value in having actual roads generally separated from the freeway network for speed and safety reasons. A lot of the at-grade roads on 11 north of Bracebridge have hundreds of cars a day using the accesses.