🍁 Trade Corridors

Carboy15

https://www.sudbury.com/local-news/northern-leaders-want-highways-11-17-made-into-21-corridors-10972038

Carboy15

https://winnipegsun.com/opinion/klein-kinew-walked-away-from-progress-and-manitobans-are-right-to-call-him-out

You know how many opportunities this could open? He's missing them all.

MonctonBad

brainstorm that would be pretty amazing (supersonic jets)

Carboy15

https://www.sudbury.com/local-news/ontario-is-the-costly-weak-link-in-the-trans-canada-highway-group-says-11122882

Carboy15

Well, at least they're now labelling TCH as a nation building project. But instead of a 2+1 they should make it 2 lanes per direction and add a steel or cable barrier in between the opposing lanes

Acajacques

Carboy15 Well, at least they're now labelling TCH as a nation building project. But instead of a 2+1 they should make it 2 lanes per direction and add a steel or cable barrier in between the opposing lanes

I would love that but I don't think it's realistic. AADTs are still way too low on so many segments of the TCH in Northern Ontario. If we had unlimited money - sure. Of if we were highway-obsessed like some other countries. But neither is the case. 2+1s with steel/cable barriers would be fine I think for most stretches, with only the busiest ones upgraded into 4-lane divided highways. Just doing one route (ON-17 to North Bay and then ON-11 to Thunder Bay and Manitoba) is over 2100 km. With probably only 200 km that is 4-lane divided at the moment.

Carboy15

Acajacques

I prioritized ON-11 from North Bay to Thunder Bay over ON-17 because if we are thinking of a cross-country trade corridor and the best transportation route it's the best choice. It is flatter so it will present way fewer geo-engineerring challenges. Plus it is further away from unpredictable big lake weather than (admittedly way more scenic) ON-17. East-west trucks already favour ON-11 by a wide margin when travelling across the country. (I think the flatter terrain also consumes less fuel.)

lio45

Acajacques I prioritized ON-11 from North Bay to Thunder Bay over ON-17 because if we are thinking of a cross-country trade corridor and the best transportation route it's the best choice. It is flatter so it will present way fewer geo-engineerring challenges. Plus it is further away from unpredictable big lake weather than (admittedly way more scenic) ON-17. East-west trucks already favour ON-11 by a wide margin when travelling across the country. (I think the flatter terrain also consumes less fuel.)

I tried both with a few months in between (going to Vancouver and back) and I was curious to compare the two with no preconceived bias nor any dog in the fight, and my unbiased view as someone who'd never gone to the West Coast without using American interstates (it's the fault of Covid that I had to use ON-11 / ON-17 that year! 😛) is that Highway 11 is the superior route, no question. I'd actually strip the 17 of its TCH designation and funnel all through traffic through the 11, I think... (if I were in charge)

lio45

Speaking of removing the TCH designation, it's always been a peeve of mine that there's more than one route. By definition, there should only be one! Or at the very least, the exceptions should be that, exceptions (interstate 35 in the DFW area being an example of a tolerable exception).

I'd remove the designation from Route 117 in Quebec for sure... anyone wants to follow the TCH through Quebec, that'll be the 20 to Montreal then to Ottawa and North Bay (and then ideally, only the 11...)

Acajacques

lio45 Speaking of removing the TCH designation, it's always been a peeve of mine that there's more than one route. By definition, there should only be one! Or at the very least, the exceptions should be that, exceptions (interstate 35 in the DFW area being an example of a tolerable exception).

I'd remove the designation from Route 117 in Quebec for sure... anyone wants to follow the TCH through Quebec, that'll be the 20 to Montreal then to Ottawa and North Bay (and then ideally, only the 11...)

Yes, QC-117 most definitely should not have a TCH designation. I wonder how that happened? Maybe a savvy local politician lobbied for it so they'd get more money for his region's highways. That's always been my theory.

Acajacques

The obvious disadvantage of the ON-11 route is that it does not serve two of Northern Ontario's biggest cities: Sudbury and Sault Ste-Marie. Though I think this is a less important consideration than linking the east and west of the country via a better highway. In the case of Sudbury, it is only 125 km to North Bay (and ON-11) and this is a semi-priority for twinning by MTO anyway. Plus Sudbury will eventually be linked by ON Hwy 400 to Toronto and the rest of southern Ontario and North America's expressway network. My guess is that both of these improvements will happen before any major improvements are done to ON-11 as a TCH route.

As for Sault Ste. Marie, it is linked to North America's freeway network via Interstate 75 which is right across the border. Not great for connectivity to the rest of Ontario (except the SW) or Canada, but still not bad from an economic development perspective. I also think that once ON-17 between Sudbury and North Bay, they will probably look at twinning ON-17 to the Soo. But this is in the fairly long term. I can't see much twinning at all ever being done on ON-17 between the Soo and Nipigon.

lio45

Acajacques The obvious disadvantage of the ON-11 route is that it does not serve two of Northern Ontario's biggest cities: Sudbury and Sault Ste-Marie.

True, and of course it's a factor... but as you say, it's a matter of balance between serving every single city, and efficiency (same logic as with bus routes -- you don't want to stop too often, but you also have to stop once in a while).

The other extreme is also bad -- imagine a straight line TCH freeway from Edmundston to Nipigon that doesn't serve Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal -- so obviously that's also not what we want, but I think bypassing Sudbury and the Soo is an acceptable compromise (truck traffic already does it, and tourists will be free to hug the lakeshore if that's what they want).

brainstorm

Acajacques

Ya man, check this post from farther up on the Sudbury/Soo topic. Valid dilemma.

https://maplecivvy.freeflarum.com/d/22-trade-corridors/16

Also agree Hwy 17 (Wawa Rte) should not be twinned. It's way too rocky. Go all in on Hwy 11 (Kapuskasing Rte). Twin Hwy11 at 130km/h+ design speed to really connect the East and West.

Acajacques

Sort of like this isolated 5-km divided section of QC-148 west of Gatineau: https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.5254927,-75.9968654,3a,75y,8.74h,95.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smWIDAJHwpVA1gUhA1lt9tg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-5.38858476718184%26panoid%3DmWIDAJHwpVA1gUhA1lt9tg%26yaw%3D8.740412851943688!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDgxOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

It's been there for a couple of decades.

Did someone owe someone a paving contract back then?

Acajacques

Thanks, I hadn't seen that.

In terms of the Sudbury area, Highway 400N could extend from Estaire Rd to the south of Sudbury to join up with a twinned ON-17 east of the city. Then a 4-lane ON-17 could wrap around the north side of North Bay and link up with an improved ON-11, and then continue east to link up with ON-17 east of the city to run towards Mattawa and Ottawa.

Note also that ON-11 already runs directly to Toronto from North Bay via an entirely 4-laned (but not fully limited access route) that also joins with the 400 eventually.

brainstorm

A good point about a James Bay Port was raised:

Shallow water depth.

Here's the bathymetry map. It's in fathoms.
1 fathom = 6 feet.

For perspective, Rotterdam is about 14 fathoms deep.
James Bay has a lot of 7's and 8's.

So there's a definite challenge getting big ships into James Bay. Dredging out a channel isn't as easy as it seems either because of surface ice flows. It's a lot harder for a ship to stay within that dredged channel, when it's also trying to stay within an icebroken pathway on the surface. One that can move all the time. Unsure of solutions or limits (haven't got that far yet lol).

Global depth chart map:
https://fishing-app.gpsnauticalcharts.com/i-boating-fishing-web-app/fishing-marine-charts-navigation.html#9.43/52.0088/-80.3465

brainstorm

Basically everything we've been saying.
Huge divide between East and West.
Literally, and metaphorically.

Also the need to occupy the north.

brainstorm

Leaked list of 32 projects includes

Twinning Trans Canada (but where)?
Northwest Oil Pipeline
Alto HSR
Port Churchill (should be Port Nelson)

Concerningly, this does not include a single Nat Gas pipeline or twinned rail line westbound. And this Grey's Bay obsession confounds me.

https://thedeepdive.ca/internal-list-32-projects-pipeline/

Acajacques

Yeah, I'd be really interested in knowing what parts of the TCH would be twinned. Especailly since the feds have a very limited role in highway transportation. Barely at all in fact.

So in order to make this happen they'd have to pick the segments they want done and have discussions with the affected provinces to get them on board, and then lay out the cash.

Unless they are talking about segments of the TCH under federal jurisdiction. Which AFAIK would only be some segments through the mountains between Calgary and Vancouver, through national parks.

Still would be good to get that done, but it's a drop in the bucket relative all that's neeeded.

brainstorm

Acajacques Nailed it man. For $6B, they ain't twinning much.

TCH just needs to be nationalized already. It can't be the province's responsibility to build and maintain the national highway.

« Previous Page