[Jonathan's Junction]

And people seem surprised when I say they would never live to see Hwy 11 and 17 divided all the way to the Manitoba border.

I don't think any level of government even has that remotely in their vision. Maybe in the distant future 17 will be twinned from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury and towards Ottawa, but I doubt it will ever happen on a large scale. More likely to see 2+1s.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Yes, the province is actively planning 2+1 north of North Bay, and I don't see 4-lanes between Sault Ste Marie and Nipigon either.

Most I could see long term is 4 lanes from Manitoba to Nipigon (even that would be a stretch) and Sault Ste Marie to Ottawa.. but at the pace they are going that's likely still many decades away. It's taking MTO 30 years to get the 400 to Sudbury which is only like 250km..

 

[golden-horseshoe-valley]

Yes, the province is actively planning 2+1 north of North Bay, and I don't see 4-lanes between Sault Ste Marie and Nipigon either.

Most I could see long term is 4 lanes from Manitoba to Nipigon (even that would be a stretch) and Sault Ste Marie to Ottawa.. but at the pace they are going that's likely still many decades away. It's taking MTO 30 years to get the 400 to Sudbury which is only like 250km..

I busted a tire on 17 between Thunder Bay and Dryden once. I didn't have a jack and I had to wait five minutes before another car came that I could flag down. As nice as it would be, I don't think it makes any sense to twin this highway outside of the spots where it's the only east-west provincial highway (which they're mostly already doing).

 

[lenaitch]

Yes, the province is actively planning 2+1 north of North Bay, and I don't see 4-lanes between Sault Ste Marie and Nipigon either.

Most I could see long term is 4 lanes from Manitoba to Nipigon (even that would be a stretch) and Sault Ste Marie to Ottawa.. but at the pace they are going that's likely still many decades away. It's taking MTO 30 years to get the 400 to Sudbury which is only like 250km..

Ya, my comment was on the rate of construction, notwithstanding whether or not it was in their plans. It's a been a particularly difficult winter this year on northern highways and 'twinning' seems to be the mantra that would solve everything. It is often raised in the context of 'the south has it'. Even if the government focused all of its highway construction resources to the north, it is simply a matter of kilometers.

A friend has received notice that her Hwy 17 adjacent property east of North Bay will be impacted, but she is under no illusion that she will live long enough to worry about it.

I busted a tire on 17 between Thunder Bay and Dryden once. I didn't have a jack and I had to wait five minutes before another car came that I could flag down. As nice as it would be, I don't think it makes any sense to twin this highway outside of the spots where it's the only east-west provincial highway (which they're mostly already doing).

That's one thing many people don't get is the traffic volumes simply don't justify expansion in most areas. For sure, a divided highway is inherently safer and less stressful, They could get a lot more mileage (pun intended) out of improved maintenance standards, better driver training and improved enforcement.

 

[Haljackey]

Twinning or 2+1, not a full freeway, is a great place to start.

Getting the 417 to Petawawa is fine, but then it could downgrade to a twinned 17 to eventually reach Sault St. Marie. You could maybe have a RIRO style road like 11 or 35/115 between North Bay and Sudbury. The Sault needs a bypass too.

After that, a 2+1 setup seems fine alongside Lake Superior. A lot of the curves/climbs here are already 2+1- they just need a barrier and maybe better shoulders to make it safer, and bypasses of communities along the way to Nipigon. Twinning then comes again from Nipigon to Thunder Bay which is in progress. West of Thunder Bay, you could keep it twinned to where hwy 11 exits again, then a 2+1 to Kenora where the twinning would resume to Manitoba.

 

[just east of the creek]

I don't think any level of government even has that remotely in their vision. Maybe in the distant future 17 will be twinned from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury and towards Ottawa, but I doubt it will ever happen on a large scale. More likely to see 2+1s.

What traffic level justifies twinning from Sudbury to Ottawa? I can see some twinning and 2 + 1 from Sudbury to NB, and then additional passing lanes to Renfrew to meet up with the eventual, announced, planned extension of the 417, but beyond that……?

 

[nfitz]

What traffic level justifies twinning from Sudbury to Ottawa? I can see some twinning and 2 + 1 from Sudbury to NB, and then additional passing lanes to Renfrew to meet up with the eventual, announced, planned extension of the 417, but beyond that……?

I can't imagine you'd build one for less than 10,000 AADT, which we've discussed before. Though it's certainly not necessary before 15,000 and that's more likely what I'd expect from MTO unless there's a big push politically.

Looking at the 2021 numbers, it's about 19,000 where the 417 currently ends, dropping to 14,900 at Highway 60 south of Renfrew, which is just before the widening ends. Then just north of Renfrew it's about 14,000 but then not much further at Haley where road to a bridge across the Ottawa River.

From there it oscillates from 7,000 to 10,000 to Deep River, and then falls off the cliff quickly to 3,000 to Mattawa and then steadily picks up from there to about 9,000 when it hits Highway 11.

West of North Bay it's about 9,000 to 10,000 to Sturgeon Falls, where it drops to about 6,500 to 7,500 to Markstay, climbing steadily hitting 10,000 at Nickel Centre, and then rising to about 16,000 when it hits Sudbury's SE Bypass.

The SE Bypass itself is only 11,500 between the old Highway 17 and Highway 69.

To put some perspective though, the 17 expressway from the SW Bypass to Whitefish is only 9,500 dropping to 7,500 where it joins old Highway 17 - but then is a steady 10,000 from there to Espanola (Highway 6). So while the demand on old 17 might well have justified an expressway, a significant amount of traffic is local, and stays on slightly shorter old road.

After Espanola, 17 is as low as 4,000 heading to Sault-St. Marie, and then 1,400 to Highway 11, east of Thunder Bay. Then it's about 2,500 to 3,000 to approaching Manitoba, with a bit higher approaching Dryden and Kenora.

So most of Renfrew to North Bay is a long, long away. My guess would be Sudbury to Nickel Centre. And we'll see Sudbury to Highway 6 done before much of the highway between Renfrew and North Bay.

Looking at other roads, Highway 7 between Guelph and Kitchener, where they are going to build an expressway, is 18,000 to 23,300. Even at Acton it is 15,000 then, 20,000 at Trafalgar Road. Where the Highway 7 expressway around Peterborough ends, it's 26,000 - all the way to Highway 28 - it's 4-lanes of course, but it's absolutely not expressway. Then it's 10,000 to Norwood. Very quiet (less than 4,000 to 5,000) to Perth, and rises then to 12,000 at Carleton Place, near where the expressway ends (22,000 on that new expressway).

The 2-way section of Highway 6 that they are planning to replace with expressway from Puslinch to the 401 is 25,000 to 29,000! That's insane for a 2-lane road!

This is the 2021 data from https://www.library.mto.gov.on.ca/SydneyPLUS/TechPubs/Portal/tp/tvSplash.aspx

 

[innsertnamehere]

I can't imagine you'd build one for less than 10,000 AADT, which we've discussed before. Though it's certainly not necessary before 15,000 and that's more likely what I'd expect from MTO unless there's a big push politically.

Looking at the 2021 numbers, it's about 19,000 where the 417 currently ends, dropping to 14,900 at Highway 60 south of Renfrew, which is just before the widening ends. Then just north of Renfrew it's about 14,000 but then not much further at Haley where road to a bridge across the Ottawa River.

From there it oscillates from 7,000 to 10,000 to Deep River, and then falls off the cliff quickly to 3,000 to Mattawa and then steadily picks up from there to about 9,000 when it hits Highway 11.

West of North Bay it's about 9,000 to 10,000 to Sturgeon Falls, where it drops to about 6,500 to 7,500 to Markstay, climbing steadily hitting 10,000 at Nickel Centre, and then rising to about 16,000 when it hits Sudbury's SE Bypass.

The SE Bypass itself is only 11,500 between the old Highway 17 and Highway 69.

To put some perspective though, the 17 expressway from the SW Bypass to Whitefish is only 9,500 dropping to 7,500 where it joins old Highway 17 - but then is a steady 10,000 from there to Espanola (Highway 6). So while the demand on old 17 might well have justified an expressway, a significant amount of traffic is local, and stays on slightly shorter old road.

After Espanola, 17 is as low as 4,000 heading to Sault-St. Marie, and then 1,400 to Highway 11, east of Thunder Bay. Then it's about 2,500 to 3,000 to approaching Manitoba, with a bit higher approaching Dryden and Kenora.

So most of Renfrew to North Bay is a long, long away. My guess would be Sudbury to Nickel Centre. And we'll see Sudbury to Highway 6 done before much of the highway between Renfrew and North Bay.

Looking at other roads, Highway 7 between Guelph and Kitchener, where they are going to build an expressway, is 18,000 to 23,300. Even at Acton it is 15,000 then, 20,000 at Trafalgar Road. Where the Highway 7 expressway around Peterborough ends, it's 26,000 - all the way to Highway 28 - it's 4-lanes of course, but it's absolutely not expressway. Then it's 10,000 to Norwood. Very quiet (less than 4,000 to 5,000) to Perth, and rises then to 12,000 at Carleton Place, near where the expressway ends (22,000 on that new expressway).

The 2-way section of Highway 6 that they are planning to replace with expressway from Puslinch to the 401 is 25,000 to 29,000! That's insane for a 2-lane road!

This is the 2021 data from https://www.library.mto.gov.on.ca/SydneyPLUS/TechPubs/Portal/tp/tvSplash.aspx

Highway 6 is the busiest 2-lane highway in the province. It’s insane that two cities of around 800,000 (including Guelph) only an hour apart are connected by a 2 lane road, to be honest.

Parts of Highway 9 can get incredibly busy on 2-lane stretches as well.

If you ask me the 417 should run to Petawawa and 17 should be twinned through North Bay and Sudbury, with a bypass of Sault Ste Marie. That would put it in pretty good shape for its traffic levels. Maybe build frequent passing lanes on the rest of it.

 

[lenaitch]

Twinning or 2+1, not a full freeway, is a great place to start.

Getting the 417 to Petawawa is fine, but then it could downgrade to a twinned 17 to eventually reach Sault St. Marie. You could maybe have a RIRO style road like 11 or 35/115 between North Bay and Sudbury. The Sault needs a bypass too.

After that, a 2+1 setup seems fine alongside Lake Superior. A lot of the curves/climbs here are already 2+1- they just need a barrier and maybe better shoulders to make it safer, and bypasses of communities along the way to Nipigon. Twinning then comes again from Nipigon to Thunder Bay which is in progress. West of Thunder Bay, you could keep it twinned to where hwy 11 exits again, then a 2+1 to Kenora where the twinning would resume to Manitoba.

I suspect the over cost differential between 'twinning' and full-on 400-series standards is fairly minimal, particularly in areas with limited intersecting roads.

Any of the models depend on what problem they are trying to solve. The way I understand the 2+1 model they are considering, it is essentially a continuous 3-lane road with the directions enjoying the third lane for alternate distances. They are separated by a continuous median barrier. The problem comes with intersecting roads and driveways in northern Ontario. You either break the barrier sufficiently to accommodate turn radii and sightlines, or expect traffic to go in an out-of-way direction, possibly for a considerable distance to some interchange or something. I don't know how the Scandinavians handle it, but there are some very longs stretches of both Hwy 11 and 17 with no intersecting roads, and a continuous barrier would have a detrimental impact on emergency responders.

The province is planning a 2+1 trial on a stretch of Hwy 11 north of North Bay. I'm not sure the criteria was for choosing that section; it doesn't strike me as being particularly dangerous but I don't know the data. I would not expect any other 2+1 areas for quite a while after this. Although obviously cheaper that full twinning, 2+1is still a fairly expensive upgrade.

The only communities Hwy 17 actually goes through between SSM and TBay are Schreiber and Terrace Bay. I agree that SSM needs a bypass. That was the plan when they bypassed Garden River FNT but the way I hear it, negotiations with Rankin FN became an impasse.

What traffic level justifies twinning from Sudbury to Ottawa? I can see some twinning and 2 + 1 from Sudbury to NB, and then additional passing lanes to Renfrew to meet up with the eventual, announced, planned extension of the 417, but beyond that……?

Sudbury to North Bay is probably one of the few areas that has the traffic counts to justify widening; especially between Sturgeon Falls and North Bay, but that particularly stretch impinges on several FNs which always complicate things. Otherwise, you are right that the traffic data simply doesn't justify twinning. A more relaxed drive for sure, but if you drive on I-75 north of the Saginaw area, or I-95 in northern Maine, you certainly get the sense of 'overkill'.

I can't imagine you'd build one for less than 10,000 AADT, which we've discussed before. Though it's certainly not necessary before 15,000 and that's more likely what I'd expect from MTO unless there's a big push politically.

Looking at the 2021 numbers, it's about 19,000 where the 417 currently ends, dropping to 14,900 at Highway 60 south of Renfrew, which is just before the widening ends. Then just north of Renfrew it's about 14,000 but then not much further at Haley where road to a bridge across the Ottawa River.

From there it oscillates from 7,000 to 10,000 to Deep River, and then falls off the cliff quickly to 3,000 to Mattawa and then steadily picks up from there to about 9,000 when it hits Highway 11.

West of North Bay it's about 9,000 to 10,000 to Sturgeon Falls, where it drops to about 6,500 to 7,500 to Markstay, climbing steadily hitting 10,000 at Nickel Centre, and then rising to about 16,000 when it hits Sudbury's SE Bypass.

The SE Bypass itself is only 11,500 between the old Highway 17 and Highway 69.

To put some perspective though, the 17 expressway from the SW Bypass to Whitefish is only 9,500 dropping to 7,500 where it joins old Highway 17 - but then is a steady 10,000 from there to Espanola (Highway 6). So while the demand on old 17 might well have justified an expressway, a significant amount of traffic is local, and stays on slightly shorter old road.

After Espanola, 17 is as low as 4,000 heading to Sault-St. Marie, and then 1,400 to Highway 11, east of Thunder Bay. Then it's about 2,500 to 3,000 to approaching Manitoba, with a bit higher approaching Dryden and Kenora.

So most of Renfrew to North Bay is a long, long away. My guess would be Sudbury to Nickel Centre. And we'll see Sudbury to Highway 6 done before much of the highway between Renfrew and North Bay.

Looking at other roads, Highway 7 between Guelph and Kitchener, where they are going to build an expressway, is 18,000 to 23,300. Even at Acton it is 15,000 then, 20,000 at Trafalgar Road. Where the Highway 7 expressway around Peterborough ends, it's 26,000 - all the way to Highway 28 - it's 4-lanes of course, but it's absolutely not expressway. Then it's 10,000 to Norwood. Very quiet (less than 4,000 to 5,000) to Perth, and rises then to 12,000 at Carleton Place, near where the expressway ends (22,000 on that new expressway).

The 2-way section of Highway 6 that they are planning to replace with expressway from Puslinch to the 401 is 25,000 to 29,000! That's insane for a 2-lane road!

This is the 2021 data from https://www.library.mto.gov.on.ca/SydneyPLUS/TechPubs/Portal/tp/tvSplash.aspx

I can never understand why they built the Hwy 17 Sudbury bypass as two-lanes.

 

[Fritter]

I can never understand why they built the Hwy 17 Sudbury bypass as two-lanes.

I believe that the RoW is wide enough for dual carriageway, and it is somewhat noticeable at the Long Lake Rd. Interchange.

 

[Jonathan's Junction]

Highway 6 is the busiest 2-lane highway in the province. It’s insane that two cities of around 800,000 (including Guelph) only an hour apart are connected by a 2 lane road, to be honest.

The 424 (or upgrading 6 to a full freeway) of some sorts is probably one of the most underrated projects right now. IMO it should have been higher priority on the list than the Bradford Bypass. (For the record it's worth exploring the viability of a new GO line between the two cities, but I suspect a decent amount of the traffic is going beyond either end or is trucks).

Any of the models depend on what problem they are trying to solve. The way I understand the 2+1 model they are considering, it is essentially a continuous 3-lane road with the directions enjoying the third lane for alternate distances. They are separated by a continuous median barrier. The problem comes with intersecting roads and driveways in northern Ontario. You either break the barrier sufficiently to accommodate turn radii and sightlines, or expect traffic to go in an out-of-way direction, possibly for a considerable distance to some interchange or something. I don't know how the Scandinavians handle it, but there are some very longs stretches of both Hwy 11 and 17 with no intersecting roads, and a continuous barrier would have a detrimental impact on emergency responders.

Presumably there would just be gaps in the median for driveways? And as for emergency responders, there could be specially located gaps in the median at regular intervals.

Sudbury to North Bay is probably one of the few areas that has the traffic counts to justify widening; especially between Sturgeon Falls and North Bay, but that particularly stretch impinges on several FNs which always complicate things. Otherwise, you are right that the traffic data simply doesn't justify twinning. A more relaxed drive for sure, but if you drive on I-75 north of the Saginaw area, or I-95 in northern Maine, you certainly get the sense of 'overkill'.

Yeah Sudbury (including the bypass) to North Bay is where I would prioritize twinning first. Not unlikely the government would announce it as their next big northern Ontario project once the 17 to Kenora is done.

 

[lenaitch]

Presumably there would just be gaps in the median for driveways? And as for emergency responders, there could be specially located gaps in the median at regular intervals.

Perhaps. They would have to be wide enough to permit large trucks to turn, along with the problem of crash protecting the barrier end.

I believe the test stretch they have chosen on Hwy 11 has not a single road or driveway.

 

[ericmacm]

The 424 (or upgrading 6 to a full freeway) of some sorts is probably one of the most underrated projects right now. IMO it should have been higher priority on the list than the Bradford Bypass. (For the record it's worth exploring the viability of a new GO line between the two cities, but I suspect a decent amount of the traffic is going beyond either end or is trucks).

HWY 6 has gotten busy enough that it should probably be a full freeway from Woodlawn Road to Upper James. The AADT across the entire corridor has more than enough traffic to justify a freeway in the 2021 data, and I am sure it is far worse now. I have appreciated that the province has been initiating movement on the planning of some sections of this corridor, but I have not appreciated how slow they have been taking it. The interchange at HWY 5/6 is finally supposed to start this spring, and we have had no updates on the Morriston Bypass, HWY 6 twinning from HWY 403 to Upper James, or the other Hanlon Expressway work that has been in planning.

This all being said, though, I found that the HWY 5/6 interchange project is currently under call with bidding opening up end of April with a maximum workload rating of $114M.

Additionally, and interestingly, an RFP currently appears to be out for engineering services to provide support for planning, preliminary design, detail design, environmental assessment, and contract preparation during tendering/construction for a Highway 6 Marden Bypass Planning Study, HWY 6 Woodlawn Road Interchange Detail Design, HWY 7 Preliminary Design/EA from Elmira Road to Woodlawn Road, and HWY 6 Hanlon Expressway Freeway Upgrade Preliminary Design/EA from Woodlawn Road to Wellington Street with a contract year of 2029. Note that this section of the Hanlon is separate from the southern section of the Hanlon that is currently undergoing a separate engineering design process for freeway conversion from Maltby Road to Wellington Street, with the last update being from 2023.

 

[ericmacm]

Apologies for double post, but digging around on the same website, I was able to come across a new project that is in the works. MTO is now studying HWY 3 from St. Thomas to Aylmer, and it appears that they will be studying both an extension on a new alignment, and improvements on the old alignment, with preliminary design work being awarded in the fall. This is in the same region that MTO removed the corridor designation from a few years ago. That being said, a lot of the work would have probably needed to be redone anyway given how long ago that corridor was designated.

 

[innsertnamehere]

HWY 6 has gotten busy enough that it should probably be a full freeway from Woodlawn Road to Upper James. The AADT across the entire corridor has more than enough traffic to justify a freeway in the 2021 data, and I am sure it is far worse now. I have appreciated that the province has been initiating movement on the planning of some sections of this corridor, but I have not appreciated how slow they have been taking it. The interchange at HWY 5/6 is finally supposed to start this spring, and we have had no updates on the Morriston Bypass, HWY 6 twinning from HWY 403 to Upper James, or the other Hanlon Expressway work that has been in planning.

This all being said, though, I found that the HWY 5/6 interchange project is currently under call with bidding opening up end of April with a maximum workload rating of $114M.

Additionally, and interestingly, an RFP currently appears to be out for engineering services to provide support for planning, preliminary design, detail design, environmental assessment, and contract preparation during tendering/construction for a Highway 6 Marden Bypass Planning Study, HWY 6 Woodlawn Road Interchange Detail Design, HWY 7 Preliminary Design/EA from Elmira Road to Woodlawn Road, and HWY 6 Hanlon Expressway Freeway Upgrade Preliminary Design/EA from Woodlawn Road to Wellington Street with a contract year of 2029. Note that this section of the Hanlon is separate from the southern section of the Hanlon that is currently undergoing a separate engineering design process for freeway conversion from Maltby Road to Wellington Street, with the last update being from 2023.

First time I’ve heard of a marden bypass - really a direct connection from the northern part of 6 to the Hanlon / new 7.