nfitz
Superstar
Why? Numbers don't warrant.
And there's other roads with much higher usage that need widening?
|
|
|
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
And there's other roads with much higher usage that need widening?
crs1026
Superstar
For that amount of money, one could relay the OVR, raise speeds to HFR quality, run three daily passenger trains Ottawa-SSM, plus three Falcon/Laser/Chunnel style piggyback trains (with driver accommodation) and likely take more trucks and cars off the highway than twinning it would add.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
Even if some would quibble with the claims in this post, it's representative of how market forces will be driving (pun intended) this. The cost of endlessly laying 'more roads' increases every time 'more roads' are built. It's like feeding the cockroaches. More will breed and then more food is needed.
For many instances, well-designed two lane highways are more than adequate. We have to start looking at *the savings from not building more roads* and finding better...and *cheaper* ways of moving people and goods without it being by car or truck in every case.
In some cases, more highway is warranted. In many cases, it isn't. Given the alternative, many in other parts of the world, and *even in the US!* people are looking for alternatives to driving everywhere.
BurlOak
Senior Member
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?). Could say the same about the Quebec route through Noranda).
I hate the Peterborough to Coldwater portion of the TC highway - many times you have to switch roads, and highways, just to stay on the TC.
Trans-Canada should be:
Thunder Bay - highway 11/17 to Nipigon - highway 11 to North Bay - Highway 11 to highway 400 - Highway 400 to highway 401 - Highway 401 to Autoroute 20 (Quebec border) - Autoroute 30 to Autoroute 40 - Autoroute 25 (montreal tunnel) to Autoroute 20.
Thunder Bay - highway 11/17 to Nipigon - highway 17 to North Bay - Highway 17 to highway 417 - Highway 417 to Autoroute 40 (Quebec border).
Kitsune
Senior Member
Part Federal Mandate - part politics. There is a federal mandate that the trans canada should be four lanes. That is why 17 in northernwest ontario and the 400 extension is getting so much federal dollars toward it. You cant twin 17 between Nipigon and Soo, and the highway is so bendy and runs through a provincial park its best to shift that traffic onto highway 11... there are already calls to four lane 11 to Latchford or even further north upto Temiskaming Shores. With Fedeli having such a key role now those calls are going to get really loud. Of course, directing that traffic is going to result in a huge protest from Soo and Sudbury. You buy them off by extending the 417 to I-75, although I do admit not really sure what is the best way to connect a hyptothectical 417 to I-75 is.
crs1026
Superstar
My recollection is that much of the two-lane has fairly frequent and effective 3-lane passing stretches.
Unless someone has a vehicle count that points to congestion, I don't understand why we would build long stretches of 4-lane divided roads without a necessity. Especially if gas taxes are being reduced.
- Paul
Unless someone has a vehicle count that points to congestion, I don't understand why we would build long stretches of 4-lane divided roads without a necessity. Especially if gas taxes are being reduced.
- Paul
I have travelled 11 and 17 frequently over the years. I love the 4 laning of 11 to North Bay - it saved me a lot of time when I drove it regularly. However, I don’t think it needs 4 laning beyond there and with the rock bed up there it would cost a small fortune.
Last edited:
MisterF
Senior Member
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.
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.
steveintoronto
Superstar
And the Americans can't afford them either!
They were built primarily for military purposes, but since the fifties, transportation of heavy strike and defensive forces has become airborne with some moving by rail. Today, the cost of maintaining the Interstates and infrastructure is a heavy burden on the states, thus the proliferation of toll roads.
Meantime:
https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-n...to-full-four-lane-trans-canada-highway-921709
This was of course after the escalator to the Moon was announced...
lenaitch
Senior Member
I have driven most northern highways fairly extensively in the past and continue to travel certain sections frequently. Other than around urban centres, I have yet to consider any stretch congested or anywhere near capacity. Quite frankly, I-75 north of the Saginaw Bay area is a waste of a highway given its volumes. I just got back from the Maritimes and the TC through New Brunswick is controlled-access twinned for its entirety (no doubt with an awful lot of federal money). While it is nice to drive, it struck me that it was a massive expenditure given the traffic volumes I observed. Twinning and realignment can save travel time versus routes through towns along the older routes, but that is not a significant issue in much of northern Ontario. Twinning seemingly for its own sake or to make us feel like the big leagues strikes me as a misplaced priority.
nfitz
Superstar
Misplaced priorities seems to sum up the not very progressive or conservative Progressive Conservative platform, and those that shill for them, quite adeptly!
BurlOak
Senior Member
Let me get this straight.
Post #1943 says it was Liberal campaign was to twin TC highway through Northern Ontario.
Post #1944 says is was a dumb idea.
Post #1945 says that it's an example of bad PC policies.
nfitz
Superstar
I don't think that's what post 1945 says at all!
kEiThZ
Superstar
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.
BurlOak
Senior Member
n=n-1I don't think that's what post 1945 says at all!