News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Antigonish By-Pass - 2012 Update

Started by ghYHZ, June 15, 2012, 06:00:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ghYHZ

Quote from: ghYHZ on June 13, 2012, 07:27:46 PM
Twinning of the remaining 4KM section of TCH104 from Pine Tree (east of New Glasgow, NS) to Sutherlands River is nearing completion and will open this year.


Now let's head 37 KM east where construction continues on the new TCH104 Antigonish By-pass......it begins about 1.5 km west of the new structure at Addington Forks Road. The 8KM first phase will open this year. (This short section of road in photo #3 will soon be routed onto the new structure)








Here's the new structure over Trunk 7/Lochaber Road with a temporary road in the foreground.......Traffic started using the new roundabouts todays.





Structure at Church Street Extension provides access to several farm lanes.......and looking east from Church St to the West River bridges and Beech Hill Rd. beyond.








A short temporary connection is being built down from the new By-pass (@ top of hill) to the existing TCH104 while construction continues on the by-pass through to Taylors Road in Lower South River.








ghYHZ


I've had a view of the construction at Beech Hill Road from my office over the past 3 years.

-Summer 2009
-Winter 2010
-This afternoon.....complete.





Stephane Dumas


AsphaltPlanet

I am just looking at my 2009 Atlantic Canada road atlas at Antigonish.  It looks to me as if the alignment of Trunk 4 is itself a bypass.

For the sections of road where Hwy 104 simply overlays Trunk 4 are the routes cosigned, or is Trunk 4 simply discontinuous?
AsphaltPlanet.ca  Youtube -- Opinions expressed reflect the viewpoints of others.

Alps

Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on June 17, 2012, 09:41:02 AM
I am just looking at my 2009 Atlantic Canada road atlas at Antigonish.  It looks to me as if the alignment of Trunk 4 is itself a bypass.

For the sections of road where Hwy 104 simply overlays Trunk 4 are the routes cosigned, or is Trunk 4 simply discontinuous?
4 is basically never cosigned. I say basically because there may be one spot where it is.

ghYHZ


Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on June 17, 2012, 09:41:02 AM
I am just looking at my 2009 Atlantic Canada road atlas at Antigonish.  It looks to me as if the alignment of Trunk 4 is itself a bypass.

For the sections of road where Hwy 104 simply overlays Trunk 4 are the routes cosigned, or is Trunk 4 simply discontinuous?

The current 5km TCH104 Antigonish By-pass was constructed in the 1960s between Exits 31 and 34. (It's a four lane boulevard between 31 & 33)

There's a gap of about 2.2km in Trunk 4 from the at grade intersection with TCH104 at Exit 31A to Exit 31 at James St. Then through the town........Trunk 4  follows: James St., West St., St. Ninian St., Main St.,  St. Andrews St., and South River Rd. back to an at grade intersection with TCH104 at Exit 34......There's another 14.2km gap in Trunk 4 to Heatherton.

But this should all change with the completion of the new By-pass this summer and I'm assuming the 2.2 km gap at Exit 31A will become Trunk 4. At James St. it could continue to follow town streets or head straight for Exit 34 on the 104. Eventually when the new By-pass is fully complete to Taylors Road in Lower South River.....Trunk 4 will follow the current TCH104 alignment.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now let's back-track to Sutherlands River: With the opening of this short section of new TCH104.......Trunk 4 will be continuous once again from Exit 27 to Exit 29 at Barney's River (24 km)

*There's no Exit 28......possibly intended to be inserted at French River or Broadway in the future.

yakra

QuoteEventually when the new By-pass is fully complete to Taylors Road in Lower South River.....Trunk 4 will follow the current TCH104 alignment.
Does this include the segment from Exit 31 to Exit 34?
This would seem to make sense rather than to leave the 4-lane blvd unnumbered, and to have the single {4} designation go straight on the thru road at each end.

If that happens -- What of the current Trunk 4?
It makes sense IMO to have James, West, St Ninian, & Main become a southwesterly extension of Route 337, and Main,  St Andrews, & S River a southeasterly extension of Route 245.
What do you think the odds are of this happening?
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

ghYHZ

#7
Quote from: yakra on June 26, 2012, 12:39:34 AM
QuoteEventually when the new By-pass is fully complete to Taylors Road in Lower South River.....Trunk 4 will follow the current TCH104 alignment.
Does this include the segment from Exit 31 to Exit 34?
This would seem to make sense rather than to leave the 4-lane blvd unnumbered, and to have the single {4} designation go straight on the thru road at each end.

If that happens -- What of the current Trunk 4?
It makes sense IMO to have James, West, St Ninian, & Main become a southwesterly extension of Route 337, and Main,  St Andrews, & S River a southeasterly extension of Route 245.
What do you think the odds are of this happening?

I was referring to the segment beyond Exit 34 to Taylors Rd. Anything I've seen still shows {4} passing through town and I've also heard the section between Exits 31 & 33 referred to as "University Boulevard"  It's adjacent to St. Francis Xavier University and once the controlled access designation is removed, could provide a new entrance to the campus.

But what you are proposing with Routes 245 & 337 certainly makes sense........also just continuing {4} through on existing 104.

>>>>>>>>>>

Right now I'm wondering what TIR will do with the 2KM section of existing 104 between Beech Hill Rd (Exit 33A) and Exit 34 for the next two years until the by-pass is fully complete. See Photo #10 above of a temporary connection being built. Westbound traffic would have no problem continuing through on the existing alignment but eastbound traffic would have to cross over the temporary connection. IMO....... I think it will just be barricaded at Beech Hill for now then reopened when the by-pass is complete.     


yakra

Know when exactly this is slated to open?
It has not happened yet, correct?
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

ghYHZ

Quote from: yakra on August 13, 2012, 11:46:11 AM
Know when exactly this is slated to open?
It has not happened yet, correct?

Should be open in about two weeks.......the connections into the existing highway alignment have been paved.






yakra

"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

yakra

#11
K, lemme see if I can figure out what's going on here.


OSM shows the temporary connection tying in here, but I don't think that's quite correct. Judging by the two-lane roadway in the foreground, it looks like it ties in farther south, closer to Frenchy's.
Also, what's up with the construction in the immediate foreground? Looks like they're building a parallel roadway; it doesn't *completely* make sense to me. (A temporary connection/bypass? More on this below...)

I poked around GMSV and found the approximate locations of the last two images ghYHZ posted.
The former image has got to be the temporary connection from the 104 bypass coming down to tie into existing 104. Wow, that's a bit farther south than I was expecting, almost right at Exit 34.
The latter image, that detour where eastbound traffic moves left looks like that new roadway I wondered about above. Near as I can suss out, it's a temporary detour to keep traffic off the existing roadway while the work progresses on tying in the new (temporary) 104 and getting the geometry right. Looks like the sign for Exit 34 has been moved to the south, to the side of the new temporary 104 connection.

Exit numbers:
As part of the Sutherlands River twinning, when Exit 27 was closed, Exit 27A was renumbered to be the new exit 27.
I see the same thing happening here, as there'll no longer be an exit for James St.
Exit 31A becomes the new Exit 31, at Addington Forks Rd. (Trunk 4 will pass through one of the "barbells".)
Exit 32 will still serve Trunk 7.
Exit 33 is now the Beech Hill Rd interchange.
Exit 34 stays put.
BAM! A beautiful, seamless exit number sequence. This makes so much sense I can't imaging it not happening.

And also, the most important bit -- is it open yet? :bigass:
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

brucester4

#12
The new highway is opening tomorrow:

http://www.1015thehawk.com/index.php/2012091858869/Local-News/delays-expected-as-new-section-of-highway-opens-in-antigonish-co.html

Delays expected as new section of highway opens in Antigonish Co.
Tuesday, 18 September 2012 19:58

The newly twinned section of highway in Antigonish Co. is set to open to traffic Wednesday.
You should expect some delays.
The opening will cause some delays at Exit 31A, Addington Forks, Exit 33A, Beechhill and Exit 34, Lower South River.
The Department of Transportation says there will be signs and traffic control people on site.
You should drive with extra caution in those area.

The picture below I took Sunday at the western end of the new section:


New Highway by brucester4, on Flickr




Antigonish by brucester4, on Flickr

Eastern End


East End by brucester4, on Flickr


East Detour by brucester4, on Flickr

brucester4


JREwing78

Wow, speed limits are underposted in Canada. The freeway stretch in some of the States would've been posted for 75 or 80mph.

Doing 62mph by comparison is quite a crawl!

yakra

#15
Quote from: brucester4 on September 18, 2012, 06:39:35 PM
Antigonish by brucester4, on Flickr
This one also makes me  :hmmm:
So, this is on what's now Trunk 4, right? This sign right here, minus a panel?
It seems according to this map that at-grade jct with would be obliterated and that left turn would be routed through the roundabout.
Was this photo taken before they'd quite gotten that far in construction?

Edit:
And that YouTube video was awesome; thanks!
It looks like:
* New 104 neatly peels away from Old 104 starting right at Exit 34.
* ghYHZ was correct upthread: " I think it will just be barricaded at Beech Hill for now then reopened when the by-pass is complete." (aside from access for that one farm along the way, however that's done). Near Frenchy's at 3:33, that just looks like a temporary entrance used during construction or something. There's no break in the centerline, no signage...
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

yakra

I'm working on the Nova Scotia Trunk Routes for the Clinched Highway Mapping project.
Is this a pretty accurate picture of what NS4 presently looks like in the area? (Also: Here's NS7.)

I've made a few assumptions I want to be sure are correct:
* NS4 has stayed on its existing alignment.
* The bypassed sections of NS104 that aren't now part of NS4 are now called University Blvd.
* No nasty surprises like NS7 getting truncated.
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

vdeane

It would likely be 55 or 65 if it were in the northeast US, but yes, Canada posts limits that are way lower than what you'd see here.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

ghYHZ

Quote from: deanej on September 20, 2012, 11:30:11 AM
It would likely be 55 or 65 if it were in the northeast US, but yes, Canada posts limits that are way lower than what you'd see here.

The new Antigonish By-pass is 100 (62mph) 

In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.....generally:
Four-Lane Rural Freeways: 110 (68mph)
Four-Lane Urban Freeways: 100 (62mph)
Two-Lane "Super Two" : 100 (62mph)

oscar

Except for 75mph on I-95 in northern Maine, the 110km/h limit in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is higher than New York, anywhere in New England, or anywhere in the Mid-Atlantic north of the Virginias.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

brucester4

I am not sure what is happening where that picture was taken.  I think there will be a roundabout built at some point.  Trunk 4 is on a new (temporary?) alignment to the north of where that picture was taken, and the west bound ramp will be approximately where that picture was taken.  I should be in the area again on the weekend to see what is happening here.

There was suppose to be a detour to Trunk 4, but the plans were changed and the traffic was detoured to the new lanes instead, I am guessing the final plan is going to be as drawn on the map below.

Trunk 4 now routed as drawn on the map, Addington Forks Rd was detoured from Addington Lane to the overpass when I was there last week.  I am not sure how the ramps on the north side of the highway here are presently configured.

http://www.104antigonish.ca/documents/WestEndDetour.pdf

Quote from: yakra on September 19, 2012, 10:29:02 PM
Quote from: brucester4 on September 18, 2012, 06:39:35 PM
Antigonish by brucester4, on Flickr
This one also makes me  :hmmm:
So, this is on what's now Trunk 4, right? This sign right here, minus a panel?
It seems according to this map that at-grade jct with would be obliterated and that left turn would be routed through the roundabout.
Was this photo taken before they'd quite gotten that far in construction?

Edit:
And that YouTube video was awesome; thanks!



yakra

Thanks.
So, that leaves the downtown routing of Trunk 4 as what I need to get sorted out now.
Is it still...
Quote from: ghYHZthrough the town........Trunk 4  follows: James St., West St., St. Ninian St., Main St.,  St. Andrews St., and South River Rd. back to an at grade intersection with TCH104 at Exit 34......
?
Is old 104, east of James St, now known as University Blvd?
Is this a pretty accurate picture of what NS4 presently looks like in the area?
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

vdeane

Quote from: oscar on September 20, 2012, 07:27:49 PM
Except for 75mph on I-95 in northern Maine, the 110km/h limit in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is higher than New York, anywhere in New England, or anywhere in the Mid-Atlantic north of the Virginias.
And everywhere else in Canada.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

1995hoo

Quote from: deanej on September 21, 2012, 11:32:02 AM
Quote from: oscar on September 20, 2012, 07:27:49 PM
Except for 75mph on I-95 in northern Maine, the 110km/h limit in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is higher than New York, anywhere in New England, or anywhere in the Mid-Atlantic north of the Virginias.
And everywhere else in Canada.

I can't confirm from personal experience, but I thought I read that Alberta also had some roads posted at 110.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

oscar

Quote from: deanej on September 21, 2012, 11:32:02 AM
Quote from: oscar on September 20, 2012, 07:27:49 PM
Except for 75mph on I-95 in northern Maine, the 110km/h limit in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is higher than New York, anywhere in New England, or anywhere in the Mid-Atlantic north of the Virginias.
And everywhere else in Canada.
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and maybe Manitoba have highways (not just freeways) posted at 110km/h.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.