--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Perez" <rickperezpe@...> wrote:
>
> Up until now, I was unfamiliar with the man, but comparing your description of
him to Wikipedia's makes you sound just as extremist.  Perhaps Canadian
sensibilities on land use and transportation planning are more accepting of
paternalistic government policies.  The transit planners I work with would be
rather surprised to hear my sentiments described as "anti-transit", not to
mention other epithets used, but I suspect I'd agree with him in a number of
transport policy positions.  Every mode of transportation involves some level of
public subsidy - the question is which mix of investments in various modes has
the highest value.  But when I see proposals for a light rail system that costs
$200 million per mile to move 28,000 riders a day (south corridor in Seattle),
my immediate thought is that I could build 5 times as much 5-lane arterial to
move that many people and have a much lower operating and maintenance cost as
well.  And given that transportation wants and needs, regardless of mode,
invariably exceed available revenues by huge factors, why invest huge sums of
scarce taxpayer dollars in less-than-optimal modes?
>
> Rick Perez, P.E.
>

I largely agree with Rick, but I just want to add that - as with a road system -
sometimes you have to think about transit as a network, rather than simply
looking at the ridership of a particular line.  In my Toronto example I
commented on how the subway system falls short of a lot of destinations.  If you
extend an LRT to tie more people into the whole LRT/subway system, you might get
an unexpected surge in ridership, as the system will become much more convenient
for an additional large number of people.

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "flowersongbird06" <flowersongbird06@...>
wrote:
>
> It appears it will be signed as Highway 69 as long as it is discontinuous from
the 400 southern part.
>
> The section around Nobel is supposed to open next year (or maybe in early
2011). My guess on how that will be signed:
>
> Nobel Bypass - Signed as Highway 400 (only)
>
> Current Highway 69 through Nobel, from 124 to 559 - Signed as Highway 69
(otherwise would require an extra-long multiplex to be downgraded to a township
road)
>
> I'm not sure about the others, but the Gladu Road/Estaire Road interchange
does NOT have an exit number. That is in the 4 lane undivided section, so maybe
that is going to be part of Regional Road 46 in the final alignment (when
Highway 69/400 turns to meet Highway 17)?
>

At this point I would probably just renumber the whole thing 400.  The 406, for
instance, still has a 2-lane section in Welland, and there have been other
substandard 400-series highways in the past (like when 427 had traffic lights
north of the 401 in the 1980s and early 1990s), so there's not really much
reason to hold on to the 69 designation.

It appears it will be signed as Highway 69 as long as it is discontinuous from
the 400 southern part.

The section around Nobel is supposed to open next year (or maybe in early 2011).
My guess on how that will be signed:

Nobel Bypass - Signed as Highway 400 (only)

Current Highway 69 through Nobel, from 124 to 559 - Signed as Highway 69
(otherwise would require an extra-long multiplex to be downgraded to a township
road)

I'm not sure about the others, but the Gladu Road/Estaire Road interchange does
NOT have an exit number. That is in the 4 lane undivided section, so maybe that
is going to be part of Regional Road 46 in the final alignment (when Highway
69/400 turns to meet Highway 17)?

The bypass for the infamous "S-curve" south of Highway 637 is currently being
constructed, it is supposed to open next year with 2 lanes with twinning later
as a larger project.

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "captainbeowulf" <beowulfr@...> wrote:
>
>
http://news.ontario.ca/mndmf/en/2009/11/highway-69-expanded-between-sudbury-and-\
estaire.html
>
> Highway 69 Expanded Between Sudbury and Estaire
>
> November 12, 2009 3:00 PM
> Governments Building Stronger Roads, Boosting The Northern Economy
>
> Ontario created over 1,300 jobs and improved road safety by upgrading Highway
69 between Sudbury and Estaire, which officially opened today.
>
> A 20-kilometre section of Highway 69 was widened from two to four lanes. This
is the first stretch of four-laned highway to be completed on the Sudbury/Parry
Sound corridor. Construction of this stretch of road began in 2005.
>

Here's another RAQS that we missed: looks like we should see an EA site coming
up soon for a new highway 17 freeway westwards to around Espanola.  It's still
cached on Google:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:gFOMRcy-5Y8J:https://www.raqsa.mto.gov.on.ca\
/LOGIN/RAQS.nsf/English/text/viewAssignments/D982431FA01068B685257615006AAF19%3F\
OpenDocument+highway+17+4+laning+sudbury+tesr&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

History:
Revised By: Date Revised:
Anne Taylor
Anne Taylor 08/17/2009
08/18/2009

Revision Comments:


EOI Submission Due Date: September 2, 2009
EOI Submission Due Time: 01:30 PM


1 Month Posting


1. Consultant Agreement #:
	 Assignment #: 5009-E-0026


2. MTO Project Manager & Phone #:
	 Ron Turcotte (705) 497-6945 (Note #12 for submission requirements. Please DO
NOT SEND directly to Project Manager.)


3. Issuing Office or Section:
	 Section: Planning and Environmental
	 Region: Northeastern


4. Project WP#:
	 GWP 5032-09-00


5. MTO District/Highway/Bridge Site #:
	 District: Sudbury
	 Highway: 17
	 Bridge Site #:
	 Other:


6. Project Length/Location:
	 .
Highway 17 from 4.0 km west of Highway 6 to 4.3 km west of the west junction of
Sudbury Regional Road 55, approximately 34.6 km.
.


7. Project Type (Category):

	 Bridge Engineering
Drainage And Hydrology Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Engineering Materials Testing And Evaluation
Environmental
Environmental Planning
Foundations Engineering
Highway Engineering
Highway Planning
Pavement Engineering
Surveying
Traffic Engineering


8. Specialties Required:

	 Design & Evaluation - Complex Structures (multi-span)
Drainage and Hydrology Design for Highways
Major Electrical Work
Soil and Rock Including Testing for Foundation Engineering - Medium Complexity
Testing
Acoustics & Vibration
Air Quality Assessment
Archaeology/Heritage
Contaminant/Waste Management
Fisheries Assessment
Natural Sciences
Socio-economics/Agriculture
Class Environmental Assessment Process
Geotechnical (Structures and Embankments) - Medium Complexity
Value Engineering
Functional Planning & Design Studies
Route Selection Studies
Pavement Design - Medium Complexity
Soils and Pavement Investigations - Routine
Photogrammetric Mapping
Traffic Operations Studies


9. Description of Project:
	 .
The Ministry of Transportation, Northeastern Region, is inviting Expressions of
Interest for the Planning, Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment (EA)
Services for Highway 17 from 4 km west of Highway 6 to 4.3 km west of the west
junction of Sudbury Regional Road 55, approximately 34.6 km. This project is to
plan a new four-lane controlled access highway route for Highway 17 within the
study area. The design speed is expected to be 120 km/h and several interchanges
will be required to provide access to existing communities. The successful
Consultant will develop preliminary drawings and cost estimates for the most
suitable alignment, interchange locations and interchange type for the site.
.
The successful Consultant will perform the alignment alternatives selection and
evaluation using route optimization technology.
.
This assignment will include the design of multiple structures including those
for interchanges, overpasses, underpasses, water crossings, and possibly trail
and wildlife crossings.
.
This project is categorized as a Group `A' undertaking under the Class
Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities (2000). Up to
three (3) Public Information Centres will be held for this planning and
preliminary design project prior to submission of a Transportation Environmental
Study Report (TESR) for public review and to obtain EA approval.
.
Please note that for a consultant to be considered for this assignment, a
qualified Fisheries Assessment specialist must be designated to comply with the
requirements of the MTO/DFO/MNR Protocol for Protecting Fish and Fish Habitat on
Provincial Transportation Undertakings (2006) as specified in the RAQS Fisheries
Assessment specialty.
.
Expertise is required in conducting a preliminary foundation investigation and
design for proposed bridge structures, culverts, retaining structures,
embankment stability, rock cut slope stability, materials sampling and testing
and experience in preparation of foundation design reports.
.
Foundation and Pavement Engineering components will generally consist of a
desktop study (review of existing information), visual site reconnaissance, and
providing input through all phases of the project. Exploratory boreholes will be
required at the proposed location of each structure.
.
The Pavement Engineering component will include an assessment of alternatives
from a geotechnical perspective. The preparation of an Alternative Route
Geotechnical Assessment Report will be required. The actual pavement design of
the new highway is not part of this assignment.
.
The successful Consultant will carry out the title search - last registered
owner; provide a full property request and the preliminary site screening
report.
.
Under the Highway Engineering category, the work will include a combined Cost
Risk Assessment and Value Engineering Workshop.
.
The successful Consultant will be responsible for conducting and documenting a
detailed traffic analysis report within the study limits, and determine and
analyze required staging and detour alternatives.
.
The successful Consultant will be responsible for the preliminary design and the
environmental assessment for this project and the preparation of all associated
reports. The preparation and presentation of a Preliminary Design Report will be
part of this assignment.
.
PLEASE NOTE THE MINISTRY REQUIRES THAT FOR A CONSULTANT TO BE CONSIDERED AS A
PRIME CONSULTANT, THE CONSULTANT MUST BE REGISTERED IN THE PRIME SPECIALTY
IDENTIFIED IN THIS ASSIGNMENT.
.
The Prime Specialty for this assignment is Highway Planning – Route Selection
Studies.
.


10. Assignment approximate start and completion dates:
	 Pre-contract engineering phase: June 2010 to May 2012
	 Construction administration phase: (tentative timing) N/A


11. Method of Acquisition:
	 Request for Proposal (TPM)


12. Submit 4 copies of EOI by Mail or Courier to:
	 Name: Ministry of Transportation
	 Address: 447 McKeown Avenue, Suite 301
Tender Drop Box (Reception), 3rd Floor
North Bay, Ontario P1B 9S9
	 Phone #: (705) 497-5461


13. Comments:
.
When submitting EOI, send by courier and clearly mark on outer envelope:
.
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (CONFIDENTIAL TENDER), AGREEMENT NUMBER 5009-E-0026, GWP
5032-09-00, HIGHWAY 17
.
Failure to submit by the date and time indicated, or failure to submit the
required copies in the required format will result in disqualification of this
EOI.
.
Maximum number of pages for Attachments 1 and 2 of this Long Form EOI is 25
pages in total. The font size shall be no less than 12 pts, margins no less than
one inch.
.
Submit 4 HARDCOPIES and 6 ELECTRONIC (CD) COPIES of the EOI.
.
For this EOI submission, proponents must use the EOI LONG FORM for PLANNING /
ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSIGNMENTS, which may be downloaded from the ministry's
website at http://www.raqs.mto.gov.on.ca. Proponents are to include in their
submission, the number and type of similar MTO projects that staff have worked
on in the past.
.
An EOI submitted for this assignment must include the completed RAQS Declaration
Form. An original signature and date is required on this form.
.
Only the firms registered in RAQS in the Prime Specialty "Route Selection
Studies" identified in this Notice will be considered as candidates for the
Prime Consultant position on this assignment.
.
Submitted EOI's using the above LONG FORM will be evaluated on a weighting of
50% for Technical Score and 50% for Past Performance (a firm's Corporate
Performance Rating-CPR). Depending on an assignment, appropriate CPR will apply
for the purposes of short-listing.
.
Effective July 2, 2002, a firm's overall CPR will be split into separate CPR for
Planning, Engineering and Construction Administration. Depending on an
assignment, appropriate CPR will apply for the purposes of shortlisting.
.
Companies preparing submissions are advised to refer to "Specialty Criteria"
located on the government's website for the specific requirements of the
identified "Specialties". (www.raqs.mto.gov.on.ca).
.
For a firm to be considered for EOI for this assignment, the firm must have for
minimum, the prior registration of their Core Plan and the Generic Category Plan
for the Category where the Prime Specialty is located.
.
Disclosure of information relative to the acquisition process will be provided
in writing at the award stage to all submitters.
.
Draft proposal documents are not available for viewing.
.
The Proponent alone bears the responsibility for ensuring delivery of the
submissions to the above address by the stipulated closing date and time. The
ministry will not be responsible for submissions delivered to the mailroom,
security or any other ministry location and which arrive at the specified
address after the closing date and time.
.
When assessing submissions from companies interested in performing this work,
the ministry will assign weights to the required engineering services
specialties according to the following distribution:
.
TPM and Highway Planning - 38%
Environmental & Environmental Planning – 22%
Bridge Engineering - 7%
Drainage and Hydrology - 2%
Electrical Engineering - 3%
Foundations Engineering (inc. Eng. Mat. Test.) - 7%
Highway Engineering (Value Engineering) - 8%
Pavement Engineering - 3%
Surveying - 5%
Traffic Engineering - 5%
.
A Transmittal Letter must be included indicating the firm's intention to bid on
the project and indicating the name, title, address and telephone number of the
Principal who will serve as the contact for the project. The letter must be
signed by the Key Contact or an Alternate Contact who is listed in RAQS, and who
is empowered to sign a Legal Agreement with the ministry and make decisions for
the firm on contractual matters.

http://news.ontario.ca/mndmf/en/2009/11/highway-69-expanded-between-sudbury-and-\
estaire.html

Highway 69 Expanded Between Sudbury and Estaire

November 12, 2009 3:00 PM
Governments Building Stronger Roads, Boosting The Northern Economy

Ontario created over 1,300 jobs and improved road safety by upgrading Highway 69
between Sudbury and Estaire, which officially opened today.

A 20-kilometre section of Highway 69 was widened from two to four lanes. This is
the first stretch of four-laned highway to be completed on the Sudbury/Parry
Sound corridor. Construction of this stretch of road began in 2005.

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "gofastrrr" <GuyPOlsen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, i42 <interchange42@> wrote:
> >
> > Uh, Wendell Cox is a rabid pro-car anti-planning anti-transit anti-
> > social-responsibility nutcase who is a master of twisting numbers to
> > create "statistics" that further his ultra-right-wing-lunatic
> > principles. His claptrap often flies in the US, but hillbillies tend
> > to have less influence north of the border, even with Harper in power.
> > That's why.
> >
> > I think Wikipedia puts it in more flowery language.
>
> And a lot less bitter, biased language:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Cox
>
> I'm not a fan of right-wing politics, but I would have to say that I agree
with him more than I disagree with him on transportation issues.
>
> I remember a study he did calling for expansion of the Interstate system, ie,
new and extended routes.  It was spot-on.  IMPO, as long as population and
employment grows and/or shifts, the idea that the system is complete is absurd.
>
> Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
>
>
>

I agree with Guy here - and I think in part you get guys on the right like
Wendel Cox because various people on the left have been stridently pushing the
idea that no new roads should ever be built and building new roads just
generates more traffic.

As with so many things, a reasonable approach falls in the middle.  You need a
balanced transportation system of high-speed roads and various types of public
transit.  IMO many Canadian cities have suffered from a lack of both types of
transportation investment.

Take Toronto, for instance.  I fully understand resistance to the mid-1960s and
even the late 1960s Spadina Expressway plans.  If you want to build a highway an
area, you have to avoid being overly disruptive.  As has been done in Australia
and parts of Europe, you can tunnel... I would have seen a triple bore from
Eglinton to Bloor as acceptable: the central tunnel bore for the subway, and the
ones on either side for 2 lanes each way.  3 lanes each way wasn't/isn't really
necessary, as traffic moves slowly downtown anyway.  But shunting traffic
through a tunnel up to what is now the Allen would remove it from Bathurst,
Avenue Rd., and other roads.

Beyond that, Toronto should have had the Eglinton line built years ago, as a
full-fledged subway, not an LRT, and connecting to the airport in the west and
Toronto Zoo in the east.  The Bloor line should go into Sherway Gardens.  The
University/Spadina/Allen line should have gone to York university years ago. 
The "downtown relief line" running under Queen Street and swinging up to connect
to the Bloor/Danforth line at Victoria Park in the east and High Park in the
west should also have been built, to reduce overcrowding on the existing
sections of subway downtown.  Doing those projects would have meant that the
vast majority of major destinations in Toronto would be easily reachable by the
subway system, which would significantly reduce the need to drive.  But today,
the subway stops short of many places you want to go, and bus service sucks
because it is stuck on the same roads as all the other vehicles.

If you don't build either of the systems (road or transit) properly, then of
course you can point and say "oh look, we built these roads like the 12 lane 401
and they all filled up with traffic, we shouldn't build anymore".  They filled
up with traffic because Toronto went from being a city of about 1 million people
with maybe a few hundred thousand people in nearby communities in the 1950s to
the GTA of today with 5 million or more people.  They're going to try to get
around somehow.  I'm not sure what the alternative to building roads and subways
would have been - have everyone living in crowded 19th century style tenements
in the urbanized area of 1955?

The statistics can be twisted by the extremists on either side.  You can twist
the statistics to make it look like building roads generates traffic.  You can
twist the statistics to make it look like roads are superior to transit.  Anyone
who has studied statistics even briefly knows that you can twist them all sorts
of ways depending on what parameters you put on your question.  The reality is
that as population grows, you need new transportation infrastructure.  Some
types of trips can be sustained along set transit lines, some types of trips are
too variable or involve moving goods or things like furniture and so require
roads.

How to build the road and transit systems properly?  IIRC we were just recently
having a discussion about development fees.  Raise proper development levies -
don't subsidize development.  If municipalities subsidize development, sprawl
will outrun the infrastructure.  If you make the developers pay the true costs
of new developments, building rates may be dampened, but you'll have the money
to extend subways, LRTs and freeways into the new areas at a pace consistent
with urbanization.

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, i42 <interchange42@...> wrote:
>
> Uh, Wendell Cox is a rabid pro-car anti-planning anti-transit anti-
> social-responsibility nutcase who is a master of twisting numbers to
> create "statistics" that further his ultra-right-wing-lunatic
> principles. His claptrap often flies in the US, but hillbillies tend
> to have less influence north of the border, even with Harper in power.
> That's why.
>
> I think Wikipedia puts it in more flowery language.
>
> i42
>

Precisely. That's not to say that parts of his 'Autobahn' dream are not good
ideas for Canada, it's just that Cox is fighting his own reputation here. Most
people in Canada with political influence will likely dismiss the entire report
BECAUSE he stamped his name on it. It's sad because there is plenty within the
report that Canada can potentially benefit from.

A lot of the stats that Cox throws out can be twisted to promote the opposite
extreme, such as that Canada has the lowest population to kilometers-of-freeway
ratio in the world (equaling the most freeways per capita). The problem that he
accurately identifies is that (particularly in western Canada), these freeways
don't connect the population effectively enough.

Cox has some other reports out there with titles that make me chuckle a bit...
"Why anti-sprawl movements are killing our economy" ... (???)

-0773|=\

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, i42 <interchange42@...> wrote:
>
> Uh, Wendell Cox is a rabid pro-car anti-planning anti-transit anti-
> social-responsibility nutcase who is a master of twisting numbers to
> create "statistics" that further his ultra-right-wing-lunatic
> principles. His claptrap often flies in the US, but hillbillies tend
> to have less influence north of the border, even with Harper in power.
> That's why.
>
> I think Wikipedia puts it in more flowery language.

And a lot less bitter, biased language:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Cox

I'm not a fan of right-wing politics, but I would have to say that I agree with
him more than I disagree with him on transportation issues.

I remember a study he did calling for expansion of the Interstate system, ie,
new and extended routes.  It was spot-on.  IMPO, as long as population and
employment grows and/or shifts, the idea that the system is complete is absurd.

Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE





> On 16-Nov-09, at 5:51 PM, gofastrrr wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "o773r" <davidattema@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "need" <needbetterroads@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For those of you interested, here is an interesting article
> > about the subject.
> > > >
> > > > http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=2215722
> > > >
> > > > cheers,
> > > >
> > > > ~needbetterroads
> > > >
> > >
> > > Too bad the article is coming from Wendel Cox. Nobody is going to
> > take it seriously.
> >
> > Care to elaborate?
> >
> > Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
>

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "o773r" <davidattema@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "need" <needbetterroads@> wrote:
> >
> > For those of you interested, here is an interesting article about the
subject.
> >
> > http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=2215722
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > ~needbetterroads
> >
>
> Too bad the article is coming from Wendel Cox. Nobody is going to take it
seriously.

Care to elaborate?

Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE

The author has some good ideas, but I agree that because of Canada's
small population density, we can't construct freeways for the sake of
freeways.  There are some routes mentioned where I question whether they
need upgrading.  Take TCH 16 to Prince Rupert, Prince Rupert has stragic
importance being a Pacific port, its only 13,000 people and is 700 km
west of Prince George.  Increased rail capacity and 3-lane controlled
access would be sufficient.  TCH 16 between Saskatoon and Winnipeg is
another example, if SK 11 and TCH 1 were freeflow, especially through
Regina and Brandon, there would be less need to upgrade a parallel
route.  One thing that did surprise me was no mention of BC 5 north of
Kamloops in the report.  I'm not advocating it needs to be made a
freeway, but it is the major route between Vancouver and Edmonton.

I also agree about signage and design standards becoming more
standardized between the provinces.  In terms of signage, Alberta has
become the worst offender for not maintaining standard signage
guidelines throughout the province, even between new projects.  It
seemed like things were reletively standard in the 90's, but things have
become quite sloppy IMO.

>  Too bad the article is coming from Wendel Cox. Nobody is going to
take it seriously.
>
> Personally, I have some reservations towards that report. I don't
think the volumes or truck traffic warrant divided carriageways, but in
sparsely populated areas, a 3-lane controlled access system
(grade-seperated) with a passing lane that alternates every 5 kms or so
would be fiscally responsible, and easier to maintain. Any additional
investment should go into improving/upgrading our freight rail capacity
beyond this point (especially since it is more economical for most other
passengers to fly anyways).
>
> What this report does support (as do I) is that the entire country
should adopt a single 'motorway' design standard. I am NOT talking about
whether we call all of our freeways by a '400' name or give them all an
autoroute shield (besides, we've discussed that topic to death on this
forum)... I mean that we should probably adopt a standard for advance
signage leading up to interchanges, signage templates, overhead signage
(where/when to use it, diagramatic layout, etc...) ramp lengths, lane
widths, shoulder widths, overpass clearances, interchange designs
(Parclo A4 as the norm). This standard, I think, should probably align
most closely with the 400-series highways in Ontario, but it should be
applied to all existing freeways in all other provinces.
>
> -0773|=\
>

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "need" <needbetterroads@...> wrote:
>
> For those of you interested, here is an interesting article about the subject.
>
> http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=2215722
>
> cheers,
>
> ~needbetterroads
>

Too bad the article is coming from Wendel Cox. Nobody is going to take it
seriously.

Personally, I have some reservations towards that report. I don't think the
volumes or truck traffic warrant divided carriageways, but in sparsely populated
areas, a 3-lane controlled access system (grade-seperated) with a passing lane
that alternates every 5 kms or so would be fiscally responsible, and easier to
maintain. Any additional investment should go into improving/upgrading our
freight rail capacity beyond this point (especially since it is more economical
for most other passengers to fly anyways).

What this report does support (as do I) is that the entire country should adopt
a single 'motorway' design standard. I am NOT talking about whether we call all
of our freeways by a '400' name or give them all an autoroute shield (besides,
we've discussed that topic to death on this forum)... I mean that we should
probably adopt a standard for advance signage leading up to interchanges,
signage templates, overhead signage (where/when to use it, diagramatic layout,
etc...) ramp lengths, lane widths, shoulder widths, overpass clearances,
interchange designs (Parclo A4 as the norm). This standard, I think, should
probably align most closely with the 400-series highways in Ontario, but it
should be applied to all existing freeways in all other provinces.

-0773|=\

What is seldom considered in these arguments is that Canada probably has one of
- if not the - lowest population densities of all developed countries (G7, G8,
or G20).  The per capita cost of connecting widely dispersed population centres
across often very difficult terrain probably explains why not all major urban
centres are connected by freeway.

That said, once A-85 is complete in the next few years, everything from Windsor
and Parry Sound over to Halifax will be connected by freeways.  I would say that
many of the roads are as good as German autobahns, they just have
unrealistically low speed limits.

There are exceptions, where corners have been cut - such as 401 at Wilmot Creek
or the Ganaraska river, where bridges weren't replaced during widening so you
get the shoulders pinched away.  Other examples include much of 400 between
Toronto and Barrie, and sections of 401 in Toronto where extra lanes have been
shoehorned onto the express or collector lane corridors without replacing
structures.  Basically, widenings shouldn't be allowed to happen this way - a
135km/h design standard should be rigorously enforced.

Other exceptions include some of Quebec's urban autoroutes, especially on
Montreal Island, which are of a very poor design.  This can be fixed partially
by projects like the Turcot interchange reconstruction, but due to space
limitations the design speed will still be held down to 100km/h or 110km/h. 
However, if bypasses like A-30 are built, the problem is solved: there is a
corridor that is up to spec bypassing the area.

I would like to see a TCH freeway from coast to coast in theory, but it has to
be done logically.  Currently, in Ontario I would:

1.  Extend 417 as a full freeway to just past Deep River
2.  Finish freewayization of the Sudbury southwest bypass
3.  Extend the bypass as a freeway eastwards on a more direct alignment to meet
up with 17 somewhere near Markstay/Hagar
4.  Extend the freeway west to Espanola
5.  Complete the Sault-St.Marie bypass and upgrade it to freeway
6.  Rebuild the TCH through North Bay as a freeway, include a new
freeway-freeway interchange between 17 and 11 including a new 17 freeway
alignment south of the current 17 alignment just east of North Bay
7.  Build a twinned highway the rest of the way between Sault-St.Marie and Deep
River - this would be most twinning the current alignment between Deep River and
North Bay with things like a Mattawa bypass, and mostly new alignment westwards
to the current twinned section west of Desbarats.  It would have ROW for a
freeway with interchanges.  Interchanges would be built where current or near
future traffic volumes would otherwise necessitate traffic lights.  Other grade
separations with minor roads would only be built if it made sense in terms of
ultimate alignment (ie. the twinned highway is on a higher grade than an
intersecting road and naturally passes over it - cheaper to just build the
separation to start with).
8.  Freewayize the Thunder Bay Expressway, build the whole Shabaqua highway as a
freeway, pursue the current twinning plans from Thunder Bay to Nipigon and
Kenora to Manitoba.  Again, build interchanges where you would otherwise need
traffic signals, otherwise at-grades will do.
9.  Twin the remainder from Shabaqua Corners to Kenora, including the Kenora
bypass.  Things like the Dryden bypass would happen.  Again, interchanges only
if warranted.  Gradually acquire ROW for service roads, but direct accesses are
probably OK for now.
10. Interchanges on the TCH in the Prairies where there are currently traffic
lights.  All rail crossings replaced by grade separations.  This includes a
thorough Winnipeg ring road upgrade.  It also includes a completed Calgary ring
road and the new Regina bypass that has been discussed.
11. Twinned TCH between Kamloops and Banff.  This should include some new
freeway sections, such as a freeway along Turtle Valley from Chase to northwest
of Salmon Arm, and then a high-level suspension bridge across Shuswap Lake to
bypass Salmon Arm.  It should also include the freeway Valleyview bypass just
east of Kamloops.  The rest can be divided express with some interchanges, like
what is currently being built from Golden up through Kicking Horse Pass.
12. In Nova Scotia a full freeway should extend from New Glasgow through to
Antigonish (basically connecting the two freeway segments currently being built
at Sutherlands River and Antigonish).  Upgrade the alignment slightly and get
rid of the remaining at-grade intersections east of Antigonish.  Do the planned
upgrades through Canso Causeway area (rotary replaced with interchange, 104 port
Hawkesbury bypass built).  Complete 104 super-2 between St. Peters and Sydney
(it would probably meet NS-125 at the Sydport Access Rd interchange).
13. Build the Malahat bypass on Vancouver Island.

Long-term would include twinning 17 around the north of lake superior, twinning
the remainder of the highway east of Antigonish, twinning the highway in
Newfoundland, building interchanges, service roads, overpasses, etc.  We would
have to see if population densities/traffic volumes ever justify those ultimate
upgrades.

Long-term might also include a ROW set aside for a new twinned highway between
Raith and Nipigon, and a design/ROW for a 4-lane "Ontario bypass" along highways
11/66/117.  Such a route would be more direct between Montreal and the Maritimes
and the West.  However, it probably won't be necessary until we reach a
population of at least 60 million people, probably more like 80 or 90 million.

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "need" <needbetterroads@...> wrote:
>
> For those of you interested, here is an interesting article about the subject.
>
> http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=2215722
>
> cheers,
>
> ~needbetterroads
>

For those of you interested, here is an interesting article about the subject.

http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=2215722

cheers,

~needbetterroads

You win some, you lose some.  No southwest Calgary ring road... but the A-73
extension goes through.

When you look at the work going on in Quebec right now, you could almost be
mistaken that you were back in the 1960s:

1.  A-50 super-2 between Hull and Mirabel
2.  A-5 extension north of Hull
3.  A-20 freewayization through Dorion and Ile Perrot
4.  A-30 around the southwest of Montreal
5.  A-25 completion between Montreal and Laval
6.  Modernization of Rue Notre-Dame (urban boulevard/expressway)
7.  Turcot interchange reconstruction
8.  Dorval/A-20/A-520 interchange reconstruction
9.  A-15/A-640 interchange reconstruction
10. R-175 twinning, including upgrade of the southernmost portion to A-73
freeway
11. A-73 extension south to St. Georges
12. A-85 between R.D.-du-Loup and New Brunswick
13. A-35 between Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu and I-89

And recently completed:

14. A-55 super-2 between Trois Rivieres and A-20
15. A-55 twinning between A-20 and Sherbrooke
16. Taschereau interchange reconstruction
17. L'Acadie interchange reconstruction on the Metropolitain
18. A-20 super-2 in the Rimouski - Mont-Joli area
19. A-70 Jonquiere bypass
20. Conversion of part of R-117 to full freeway near Mont-Tremblant
21. Urban Boulevard through Hull along the A-50 ROW

And then, of course, replacement of dozens of other 1960s-era overpasses and
underpasses on the autoroutes.

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "zayre88" <lesspat@...> wrote:
>
> A miracle occured, the government finally decided to impose a decree putting
an end to the endless appeals by opponents in Beauceville putting part of the
project on hold.
>
> The entire project is now on track.  Meanwhile, deforestation was started in
Saint-Georges a few days ago.  This is huge news for this long awaited project.
>

According to the CTV Ottawa news, the first section of the 417 widening is open,
including the new HOV lane.  The news story stated that the remainder to highway
7 should be done next year - I'll have to double-check the Southern Ontario
Highways Program to confirm that... not sure whether MTO is guaranteeing it for
next or the year after.

A miracle occured, the government finally decided to impose a decree putting an
end to the endless appeals by opponents in Beauceville putting part of the
project on hold.

The entire project is now on track.  Meanwhile, deforestation was started in
Saint-Georges a few days ago.  This is huge news for this long awaited project.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:45 AM, gofastrrr <GuyPOlsen@...> wrote:

[Snip]

>  As is proposed in Calgary, this anomolous design was apparently intended to
avoid ROW taking, specifically, a large car dealership.  Check it out:
>
>
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Wayne,+NJ&sll=37.062\
5,-95.677068&sspn=30.737461,62.929687&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wayne,+Passaic,+New+Jers\
ey&ll=40.946454,-74.274101&spn=0.007147,0.023539&t=h&z=16
>
> IIRC, within a month after completion (part of a larger widening,
circle-removing project), that car dealer lost inventory to a fiery crash when a
tanker truck failed to properly negotiate those curves.
>
> Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE

And how do you spell "irony"?

Andrew in Renfrew

> >>--- In canroads@yahoogroup s.com, "need" <needbetterroads@ ...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Looks like there are many articles in the news about alternatives for the
SW Ring Road in Calgary:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.cbc. ca/canada/ calgary/story/ 2009/11/09/ calgary-ring-
road-southwest- 37th-speed- limit.html
> >>>
> >>> http://calgary. ctv.ca/servlet/ an/local/ CTVNews/20091109 /CGY_Southwest_
RingRoad_ 091109/20091109/ ?hub=CalgaryHome
> >>>
> >>> http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/11/10/11694436-sun.html
> >>>
> >>> The big change is that they are now willing to concede to an 80km/hr speed
limit along the route so that less land is required.
> >>>
> >
> >>A TERRIBLE idea, IMPO.
> >
> >>Driver expectancy is to be able to drive at 100-120 kph on freeways. 
Therefore, design speeds below 100 kph should be off the table.  Period.
> >
> >>The province and city should bite the more expensive bullet and do the job
right the first time -- even if it delays the start of construction.
> >
> >>Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
> >
> >
> Say Guy, you wouldn't happen to be basing this on any particular recent
freeway project closer to home, would you?  Not one right smack in the middle of
NJ?  Say, one built as an abortive bypass of a much longer plan?
>

Actually, no -- I was not thinking of NJ-133 aka, the Hightstown Bypass.  My
comment was based solely on principle.

But since you brought it up...

With the exception of the tight curves near the termini, NJ-133 was built to a
100 km/hr (that's right, metric) design speed.  The rather low speed limit (now
50 mph; raised from an absurdly low 45) was at the behest of neighboring
municipalities.  They thought that a lower limit would reduce usage, and thus
the impacts on Cty Rte 571 west of the bypass.  There was even talk (initially)
about striping the road for 1-lane in each direction -- while constructing for 2
-- similar to the eastern section of the NJ-33 Freehold bypass.

A somewhat more analogous situation might be the S-curve on NJ-23 at US-202 /
Black Oak Ridge Rd / Ratzer Rd -- one with which I suspect you are quite
familiar.  For those who are not, this 40 mph (initially advisory, now posted
limit) set of curves, is located between fairly straight 55 and 50 mph posted
sections of a 6-lane, barrier-divided, principal arterial.  Topping that, there
is even a signal about 200m beyond the northerly curve.  As is proposed in
Calgary, this anomolous design was apparently intended to avoid ROW taking,
specifically, a large car dealership.  Check it out:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Wayne,+NJ&sll=37.062\
5,-95.677068&sspn=30.737461,62.929687&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wayne,+Passaic,+New+Jers\
ey&ll=40.946454,-74.274101&spn=0.007147,0.023539&t=h&z=16

IIRC, within a month after completion (part of a larger widening,
circle-removing project), that car dealer lost inventory to a fiery crash when a
tanker truck failed to properly negotiate those curves.

Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE

>
>From: gofastrrr <GuyPOlsen@...>
>To: canroads@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 5:33:45 PM
>Subject: [canroads] Re: Calgary SW Ring Road alternatives
>
>  >
>>
>
>
>
>>--- In canroads@yahoogroup s.com, "need" <needbetterroads@ ...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looks like there are many articles in the news about alternatives for the SW
Ring Road in Calgary:
>>>
>>> http://www.cbc. ca/canada/ calgary/story/ 2009/11/09/ calgary-ring-
road-southwest- 37th-speed- limit.html
>>>
>>> http://calgary. ctv.ca/servlet/ an/local/ CTVNews/20091109 /CGY_Southwest_
RingRoad_ 091109/20091109/ ?hub=CalgaryHome
>>>
>>> http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/11/10/11694436-sun.html
>>>
>>> The big change is that they are now willing to concede to an 80km/hr speed
limit along the route so that less land is required.
>>>
>
>>A TERRIBLE idea, IMPO.
>
>>Driver expectancy is to be able to drive at 100-120 kph on freeways. 
Therefore, design speeds below 100 kph should be off the table.  Period.
>
>>The province and city should bite the more expensive bullet and do the job
right the first time -- even if it delays the start of construction.
>
>>Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
>
>
Say Guy, you wouldn't happen to be basing this on any particular recent freeway
project closer to home, would you?  Not one right smack in the middle of NJ? 
Say, one built as an abortive bypass of a much longer plan?

  Steve A.
http://www.alpsroads.net

I agree. The incremental cost of doing something like this is insignificant when compared to the cost of rebuilding it properly in the future or bypassing it with a proper route down the road.

Steve

On Nov 10, 2009 5:33 PM, "gofastrrr" <GuyPOlsen@...> wrote:

 

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "need" <needbetterroads@...> wrote: >

> Looks like there are many articles in the news about alternatives for the SW Ring Road in Calgary:...

A TERRIBLE idea, IMPO.

Driver expectancy is to be able to drive at 100-120 kph on freeways. Therefore, design speeds below 100 kph should be off the table. Period.

The province and city should bite the more expensive bullet and do the job right the first time -- even if it delays the start of construction.

Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "need" <needbetterroads@...> wrote:
>
> Looks like there are many articles in the news about alternatives for the SW
Ring Road in Calgary:
>
>
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/11/09/calgary-ring-road-southwest-37\
th-speed-limit.html
>
>
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091109/CGY_Southwest_RingRoad_0\
91109/20091109/?hub=CalgaryHome
>
> http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/11/10/11694436-sun.html
>
> The big change is that they are now willing to concede to an 80km/hr speed
limit along the route so that less land is required.
>

A TERRIBLE idea, IMPO.

Driver expectancy is to be able to drive at 100-120 kph on freeways.  Therefore,
design speeds below 100 kph should be off the table.  Period.

The province and city should bite the more expensive bullet and do the job right
the first time -- even if it delays the start of construction.

Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE

Does anyone know how much a tunnel underneath Weaselhead Park would cost?

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "flowersongbird06" <flowersongbird06@...>
wrote:
>
> The only section really that would need to be reduced speed-wise would be
north of 66th Avenue if a bridge option is recommended, or north of 90th Avenue
if a tunnel option is recommended. Any 37th Street alignment would be
dead-straight, so the issue is setting up for a tighter interchange at Glenmore
Trail and entering the 80 km/h section along Glenmore, and a 66th Avenue
interchange (necessary for Lakeview) would be a tight squeeze.
>
> Running it along Crowchild Trail with a diagonal tunnel would also work, but
that would take out a part of the North Glenmore Park.
>
> --- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "need" <needbetterroads@> wrote:
> >
> > Looks like there are many articles in the news about alternatives for the SW
Ring Road in Calgary:
> >
> >
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/11/09/calgary-ring-road-southwest-37\
th-speed-limit.html
> >
> >
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091109/CGY_Southwest_RingRoad_0\
91109/20091109/?hub=CalgaryHome
> >
> > http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/11/10/11694436-sun.html
> >
> > The big change is that they are now willing to concede to an 80km/hr speed
limit along the route so that less land is required.
> >
> > ~needbetterroads
> >
>

The only section really that would need to be reduced speed-wise would be north
of 66th Avenue if a bridge option is recommended, or north of 90th Avenue if a
tunnel option is recommended. Any 37th Street alignment would be dead-straight,
so the issue is setting up for a tighter interchange at Glenmore Trail and
entering the 80 km/h section along Glenmore, and a 66th Avenue interchange
(necessary for Lakeview) would be a tight squeeze.

Running it along Crowchild Trail with a diagonal tunnel would also work, but
that would take out a part of the North Glenmore Park.

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, "need" <needbetterroads@...> wrote:
>
> Looks like there are many articles in the news about alternatives for the SW
Ring Road in Calgary:
>
>
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/11/09/calgary-ring-road-southwest-37\
th-speed-limit.html
>
>
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091109/CGY_Southwest_RingRoad_0\
91109/20091109/?hub=CalgaryHome
>
> http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/11/10/11694436-sun.html
>
> The big change is that they are now willing to concede to an 80km/hr speed
limit along the route so that less land is required.
>
> ~needbetterroads
>

Looks like there are many articles in the news about alternatives for the SW
Ring Road in Calgary:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/11/09/calgary-ring-road-southwest-37\
th-speed-limit.html

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091109/CGY_Southwest_RingRoad_0\
91109/20091109/?hub=CalgaryHome

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/11/10/11694436-sun.html

The big change is that they are now willing to concede to an 80km/hr speed limit
along the route so that less land is required.

~needbetterroads

--- In canroads@yahoogroups.com, Rick Perez <rickperezpe@...> wrote:

> But if the roadway network is already approaching capacity, then that should
be a constraint to new development.

Exactly.

> What the NC study found was that this was true only 7% of the time. 
Similarly, in CA, you have 2-lane roads that reached capacity in the '70's, but
growth continued unabated to the point that they have 2-lane rural roads pushing
close to 40,000 ADT (enough to justify a 6-lane freeway).

Sure, you can still get more sprawl as a 2-lane road moves from 20K 'nominal
capacity' to 40K (bad congestion).  But widen it, and now it can support nearly
80K, and support that much more sprawl.

The problem with the study is that it isn't accounting for the fact that we can
stuff roads well beyond nominal capacity.  But when they reach their higher,
true capacity, then sprawl is by definition contained.  The study used the wrong
frame of reference.

This was a misconception even among 'anti-road' planners.  They too
underestimated how much sprawl roads can support (just not as badly as the rest
of us).  Of course, if the cost of sprawl containment is more dangerous 2-lane
roads, maybe sprawl isn't so bad after all.  But that's another discussion.

BTW, if just 40K AADT justifies SIX lane urban freeways, is it any wonder there
is so much sprawl?  4-lane urban freeways can take 80K with only a narrow
congestion peak.

> So if I understand your line of thinking, the fact that the road exists is the
only salient point.

Not quite.  But I recognize that any road, no matter how small or decrepit,
supports development.  The base line consideration for sprawl is therefore not a
2-lane road, but no road at all.  No roads, no sprawl.  But build a single road,
and you can have sprawl.  And more of it than was once commonly thought.

> My point is that inadequate capacity is supposed to be a deterrent, spawning
the whole anti-road improvement mindset of some urban planners, but it isn't, so
you get sprawl anyway, despite attempts to control it by constraining the supply
of roadway capacity (roadways built within their developments notwithstanding).

If just one more vehicle can fit on the road, it wasn't really at capacity, and
therefore more sprawl is still possible (perhaps inevitable).  The mistake is in
thinking that some level below true capacity would deter much growth.  It does,
but not much (e.g perhaps 7%).  But it deters 100% of growth once you can't fit
another vehicle on the road (ignoring, for now, that you can get people into
higher-density vehicles).

> I suppose a lot of this depends on tax structure and enabling legislation that
would vary by state/province.

Individual distortions, yes.

> I can tell you that in the three states I've lived in, development fees are
prohibited from achieving full cost recovery, even for direct impacts, due to
enabling legislation and/or a desire to remain competitive with other
jurisdictions to new development.  My employer's traffic impact fee, for
instance is $2700 per peak hour trip, when under state legislation, we could
charge as much as $9800, but to get full cost recovery, it would need to be
about $25,000.

That just nuts, a huge distortion, and terribly unfair to the existing tax base.
Even though the subsidy is against the interests of municipalities, and
therefore counter to my earlier argument, such a system is also distorting, in
another way: it creates too much incentive to developers, since they essentially
get a free ride (the subsidy will be eaten by higher-than-otherwise prices
charged by developers).  Developers with this kind of super-incentive will
likely hold outsized clout with local authorities, and to boot, they can better
afford to buy them vis-a-vis other interest groups who are subsidizing the
developers!

> multifamily developments generate the highest demand for services and generate
the least revenue to pay for them.

Interesting.  Where I am, multifamily pay roughly double the rate of
single-family dwellings (although that is falling).

> I've seen data mining to support the first contention, but have never even
heard anyone propose the second.  It's certainly NOT the case anywhere I've ever
lived, so, I'm sorry, the reasons are not obvious, unless you are comparing
backwoods to metro areas.

Certainly, backwoods are part of the continuum.  Areas with higher density are
able to produce a greater variety of educational opportunities, and are located
closer to institutions of higher learning.

> I'm talking about comparing central cities to suburbs.  Here, central city
schools are so bad that those that can afford high-end view condos downtown send
their kids to private schools, and everyone else that can afford to votes with
their feet and moves to the suburbs to get their kids into decent schools.  And
I'm not sure what you mean by disadvantageous public school admin structures,
since the bigger urban school districts are the ones with the worst schools.

That's a result of overly localized financing of schools, which is
disadvantageous. Besides leading to crappy schools, it tends to reduce class
mixing (encourages white flight), and hollow out urban cores.  I can't speak of
the developing world, but many (all?) of the worst OECD examples of school
ghettoization are in the US.

If funding was normalized and/or uniformly regulated at the state or federal
level in the US, variability in schools would be much reduced, largely by
raising the level of most schools to the top.  This is due to inelastic demand
for education in the middle and upper income brackets. Of course, it would take
many decades to reverse the effects of current policies.

Minorroadskill