Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AsphaltPlanet]

No.  A four lane road with opposing left turn lanes would not need to be protected.
http://goo.gl/XJshcP

But any road that's wider than that (or if the left turns weren't opposing on a four lane road), the left turns would be protected.
http://goo.gl/G8nNjw

The left turns on Hwy 7 through central York Region were generally all fully protected when the MTO controlled the intersections on that section of road as well.  It wasn't until York Region assumed control of the road that they allowed permissive left turns along Hwy 7.

You can see the former intersection configuration at Bathurst Street in this 2006 photo:
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_7_images/7_cl_299_east_24x16.jpg

[vdeane]

According to Travel Mapping: ON 66 is Kirkland Lake; ON 17/11 is Voyageur; ON 17A is Kenora; ON 11 is indeed Northern Ontario.

Travel Mapping using Kirkland Lake for QC 117/A-15 and Main for A-40/A-25/A-20/A-85/QC 185.

TM, and its predecessor Clinched Highway Mapping, generally use city names to distinguish between different route segments within a province. No attempt to follow official names.

I'm guessing that's how the ones for Quebec were done, but the Ontario ones appear to use the official names.  The other official names are used as such in Travel Mapping; wouldn't they otherwise be things like "Ottawa", "Peterborough", "Fort Frances", etc.?

I was wondering if anyone knew the names of the different segments of the Trans-Canada Highway in Ontario?  I have a partial list:

• Hwy 17 (Nipagon-Sault Ste Marie) - Lake Superior Route
• Hwy 17 (North Bay-east) - Ottawa Valley Route
• Hwy 69/400 - Georgian Bay Route
• Hwy 7/12 - Central Ontario Route
• Hwy 11 (North Bay - Nigagon) - Northern Ontario Route (?)
• Hwy 66 - ???
• [Quebec] Hwy 15/117 - Laurentian Route (?)
• Others?

Best to have ON-17/417 as TCH-1!

That would violate Ontario's numbering scheme on ON 417, since the 400 series number denotes freeways, and if only done over ON 17, would probably be more confusing.  Plus Ontario and Quebec don't put the number in the shield anyways.

[jakeroot]

While we're talking about permissive lefts - New Jersey's policy is it can only cross two lanes of oncoming traffic. If you have to look across 3 or more lanes, including left-turn or right-turn bays, the turn has to be protected. I would imagine the same goes for rail lines. We don't have much in the way of narrow medians but in general you won't find a permissive left turn from the right side of the median - it has to be cut in.

Hang on, while I'll be honest and say I haven't spent much time in NJ, let me get one thing straight, are you saying that if there's for instance one opposing left turn lane and two regular lanes at an intersection that the intersection will need to be protected?

  I just asked this question, almost verbatim:

While we're talking about permissive lefts - New Jersey's policy is it can only cross two lanes of oncoming traffic. If you have to look across 3 or more lanes, including left-turn or right-turn bays, the turn has to be protected.

Look across or yield to? If the former, wouldn't that eliminate any permissive left where there's two through lanes and a left turn lane?

As AsphaltPlanet already said (as did Steve on the last page), the answer is "yes" if the left turn lanes are not directly opposite each other. If they are directly opposite, permissive is okay.

[dmuzika]

Best to have ON-17/417 as TCH-1!

Agreed!  But I don't think it'll ever happen.

That would violate Ontario's numbering scheme on ON 417, since the 400 series number denotes freeways, and if only done over ON 17, would probably be more confusing.  Plus Ontario and Quebec don't put the number in the shield anyways.

There are freeways/expressways that are outside the 400 series; Hwys 7/8 in Kitchener and Hwy 11 between Barrie and North Bay come to mind, so it's not impossible to have Hwys 17 & 417 combined into on route.  With Hwy 17 being downloaded east of Ottawa, Hwy 17 & 417 operate as a continuous route so I don't think it would be confusing.

As a bit of trivia, I was reading on Wikipedia that BC 97 is the longest continually numbered route within a single province at 2,081 km; if Hwy 417 and 17 were combined (and for the sake of argument, became TCH 1 or ON 1), it would be 2,151 km.

[SignGeek101]

I was wondering if anyone knew the names of the different segments of the Trans-Canada Highway in Ontario?  I have a partial list:

• Hwy 17 (Nipagon-Sault Ste Marie) - Lake Superior Route
• Hwy 17 (North Bay-east) - Ottawa Valley Route
• Hwy 69/400 - Georgian Bay Route
• Hwy 7/12 - Central Ontario Route
• Hwy 11 (North Bay - Nigagon) - Northern Ontario Route (?)
• Hwy 66 - ???
• [Quebec] Hwy 15/117 - Laurentian Route (?)
• Others?

Best to have ON-17/417 as TCH-1!

Best to have ON-17/417 as TCH-1!

Agreed!  But I don't think it'll ever happen.

+1. But yeah, it will never happen. If nothing else, Ontario I think should do more to sign it on BGS's (even if it makes the signs larger). The federal government should have enacted a rule about this (numbering and shield), similarly to how borders must be bilingual. The shield design should have also been standardized, like the Interstates in the US. Seriously, I've seen at least three or four different shield types for the TCH on the Prairies.

[dmuzika]

+1. But yeah, it will never happen. If nothing else, Ontario I think should do more to sign it on BGS's (even if it makes the signs larger). The federal government should have enacted a rule about this (numbering and shield), similarly to how borders must be bilingual. The shield design should have also been standardized, like the Interstates in the US. Seriously, I've seen at least three or four different shield types for the TCH on the Prairies.

Are you talking about the actual TCH route shield or freeway signage in terms of variations on the prairies?

[vdeane]

I think it's interesting how people in the western provinces are all "the TCH must be one continually signed number, it's criminal Ottawa hasn't forced the provinces to renumber routes to have it all be TCH 1", and the eastern provinces are all "meh, who cares about the TCH".

[SignGeek101]

I think it's interesting how people in the western provinces are all "the TCH must be one continually signed number, it's criminal Ottawa hasn't forced the provinces to renumber routes to have it all be TCH 1", and the eastern provinces are all "meh, who cares about the TCH".

I think it's something to do with the fact that eastern Canada tends to have a more organized and advanced road system with freeways. I used to live in Ontario (Ottawa and Hamilton) so I can see both sides.

[MisterSG1]

I think it's interesting how people in the western provinces are all "the TCH must be one continually signed number, it's criminal Ottawa hasn't forced the provinces to renumber routes to have it all be TCH 1", and the eastern provinces are all "meh, who cares about the TCH".

I think it's something to do with the fact that eastern Canada tends to have a more organized and advanced road system with freeways. I used to live in Ontario (Ottawa and Hamilton) so I can see both sides.

It's very funny in my opinion, the so called TCH, I live in the GTA (the most populated region of Canada) and it's easily a 90 minute drive before I even see any portion of the TCH. (Hwy 12 in Orillia appears to be the closest portion of the TCH to me)

The TCH in my opinion in Ontario is treated as a glorified route, like the Niagara Region "Wine Route". Except the Wine Route is signed much better. 

[Transportfan]

According to Travel Mapping: ON 66 is Kirkland Lake; ON 17/11 is Voyageur; ON 17A is Kenora; ON 11 is indeed Northern Ontario.

Travel Mapping using Kirkland Lake for QC 117/A-15 and Main for A-40/A-25/A-20/A-85/QC 185.

TM, and its predecessor Clinched Highway Mapping, generally use city names to distinguish between different route segments within a province. No attempt to follow official names.

I'm guessing that's how the ones for Quebec were done, but the Ontario ones appear to use the official names.  The other official names are used as such in Travel Mapping; wouldn't they otherwise be things like "Ottawa", "Peterborough", "Fort Frances", etc.?

I was wondering if anyone knew the names of the different segments of the Trans-Canada Highway in Ontario?  I have a partial list:

• Hwy 17 (Nipagon-Sault Ste Marie) - Lake Superior Route
• Hwy 17 (North Bay-east) - Ottawa Valley Route
• Hwy 69/400 - Georgian Bay Route
• Hwy 7/12 - Central Ontario Route
• Hwy 11 (North Bay - Nigagon) - Northern Ontario Route (?)
• Hwy 66 - ???
• [Quebec] Hwy 15/117 - Laurentian Route (?)
• Others?

Best to have ON-17/417 as TCH-1!

That would violate Ontario's numbering scheme on ON 417, since the 400 series number denotes freeways, and if only done over ON 17, would probably be more confusing.  Plus Ontario and Quebec don't put the number in the shield anyways.

But being the TCH, there could and should be an exemption from the standard.

And since Ontario didn't even have an existing Highway 1, and the TCH mainline was built from scratch through the province, there's no excuse not to use 1.

[cbeach40]

But being the TCH, there could and should be an exemption from the standard.

There is nothing explicitly precluding a renumbering of Highways 17, 17A, and 417 to Highway 1. Except...

And since Ontario didn't even have an existing Highway 1, and the TCH mainline was built from scratch through the province, there's no excuse not to use 1.

Except that:

• It was not built from scratch. A lot of it incorporated pre-existing provincial highways that had long been known by another number
• In terms of use there is not a dedicated "mainline" route. Highway 17-17A-417 is the shortest route, by Hwy 11 is often preferred due to its more forgiving terrain and winter weather. What little "through" traffic there is often uses 11 more than 17.
• The people who actually use the road and live and work along it refer to it by the number, not as the TCH. Changing the designation is counter to its actual use
• Renumbering 2000+ km of highway is not a cheap proposition. In terms of changing the signage, regulations, titles, compensating businesses for expenses of changing their address, and other administrative and physical costs, is well into the millions of dollars. For something that, per point 3, actually makes navigation worse.

Add in the fact that doing the same renumbering to TCH-1 in Quebec, New Bruswick, and Nova Scotia and you have a whole pile of money being spent on something that doesn't have any actual benefit at all.

[cl94]

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the TCH often signed quite poorly in Ontario outside of the expressway system? How many people don't even know that the TCH is the TCH? That would make renumbering even more counter-productive.

Additionally, how many people even use the TCH unless they want to avoid crossing international borders? It's faster to cut through the States if going from the GTA to Winnipeg or west and the same if going from Montreal to west of Calgary.

[Rothman]

Additionally, how many people even use the TCH unless they want to avoid crossing international borders? It's faster to cut through the States if going from the GTA to Winnipeg or west and the same if going from Montreal to west of Calgary.

But...

[cbeach40]

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the TCH often signed quite poorly in Ontario outside of the expressway system? How many people don't even know that the TCH is the TCH? That would make renumbering even more counter-productive.

It's not well signed at all on any route, just added on assurance markers, not junctions. A handful of junction signs were added in 2014 by me unilaterally in Simcoe County, just because I figured it couldn't hurt and I could tack them onto a larger project. But overall it cannot actually be followed.

Additionally, how many people even use the TCH unless they want to avoid crossing international borders? It's faster to cut through the States if going from the GTA to Winnipeg or west and the same if going from Montreal to west of Calgary.

The number of people who actually traverse Ontario via the TCH is pretty well next to zero. Perishable goods and tourists are just about the only thing that goes via truck instead of rail. So we may have upwards of DOZENS of people on a single day!   

People have been able to find their way without problem for the last several decades. It ain't broke, don't break it.

[noelbotevera]

TCH does pass through the GTA, if you count Peterborough as part of the GTA...(eh, Niagara Falls is counted as part of the GTA, and that's upwards of an hour in no traffic).

If you really want a GTA branch of the TCH, I would route it as Highway 400 to Cookstown, Highway 89 to Highway 10 in Shelburne, then Highway 10/410 to Highway 401 in Mississauga.

[AsphaltPlanet]

neither Peterborough or Niagara Falls are considered part of the GTA.

[dmuzika]

I think it's interesting how people in the western provinces are all "the TCH must be one continually signed number, it's criminal Ottawa hasn't forced the provinces to renumber routes to have it all be TCH 1", and the eastern provinces are all "meh, who cares about the TCH".

It’s interesting.  An observation I have regarding Ontario is that, signage aside, in Northern Ontario every major road is signed as the Trans-Canada, while in Southern Ontario the Trans-Canada is largely relegated to second-tier highways and irrelevant.  I wonder if the old Interprovincial Highway 2 between Windsor and Halifax was maintained and incorporated into a branch of the Trans-Canada (specificially in Ontario) might have changed things?

• It was not built from scratch. A lot of it incorporated pre-existing provincial highways that had long been known by another number

The same could be said for most other provinces.  Alberta renumbered their section from Hwy 2 to Hwy 1 and I think other prairie provinces did so as well.

• In terms of use there is not a dedicated "mainline" route. Highway 17-17A-417 is the shortest route, by Hwy 11 is often preferred due to its more forgiving terrain and winter weather. What little "through" traffic there is often uses 11 more than 17.

Even if Hwy 11 is the preferred route due to its distance and terrain, would that ever change Hwy 17 was upgraded due to it going through more major population centres?  Hwy 17/417 is the only route that goes from Manitoba to Quebec.  If Hwy 17 was divided, would Hwy 11 still be used as a cross-country route?

• The people who actually use the road and live and work along it refer to it by the number, not as the TCH. Changing the designation is counter to its actual use
• Renumbering 2000+ km of highway is not a cheap proposition. In terms of changing the signage, regulations, titles, compensating businesses for expenses of changing their address, and other administrative and physical costs, is well into the millions of dollars. For something that, per point 3, actually makes navigation worse.

Add in the fact that doing the same renumbering to TCH-1 in Quebec, New Bruswick, and Nova Scotia and you have a whole pile of money being spent on something that doesn't have any actual benefit at all.

In terms of cost to the general public, how would renumbering Hwy 17 to TCH 1 compare to downloading? I can see that downloading saved MTO money, but I'm wondering if the general public still have to absorb the costs listed above.

[cbeach40]

• In terms of use there is not a dedicated "mainline" route. Highway 17-17A-417 is the shortest route, by Hwy 11 is often preferred due to its more forgiving terrain and winter weather. What little "through" traffic there is often uses 11 more than 17.

Even if Hwy 11 is the preferred route due to its distance and terrain, would that ever change Hwy 17 was upgraded due to it going through more major population centres?  Hwy 17/417 is the only route that goes from Manitoba to Quebec.  If Hwy 17 was divided, would Hwy 11 still be used as a cross-country route?

Certainly lessening the grades and improving the highway would make 17 more attractive between North Bay and Nipigon in the summer months. But it still would get blasted by winter storms off of Lake Superior constantly. Time-sensitive travel would still be attracted to the more reliable Hwy 11.

In terms of cost to the general public, how would renumbering Hwy 17 to TCH 1 compare to downloading? I can see that downloading saved MTO money, but I'm wondering if the general public still have to absorb the costs listed above.

In terms of the administrative costs of absorbing the highways, the initial gross cost was likely on par. But since then the operating cost of a municipal roadway vs a provincial highway is far lower (2-5 times less per lane-km). In terms of construction though, the benefit is far more apparent. Under provincial law, MTO can only get developers to cover the cost of improvements directly associated with the development. Whereas municipalities can both require improvements, and they collect development fees. So if you have a road like, say, Highway 7 in Peel Region, the province would only be able to get developers to pay for piecemeal improvements, while the balance is paid for out of taxpayers' pockets. Whereas with it as a municipal road, the improvements are all associated with the development along that corridor. So the net benefit to the province as a whole is definitely there.*


* - Regionally there are some places that did not benefit as much, and to that end increased payments from the province and/or re-assumption of services may be desirable. But again, we're talking about the net benefit here.

[cl94]

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the TCH often signed quite poorly in Ontario outside of the expressway system? How many people don't even know that the TCH is the TCH? That would make renumbering even more counter-productive.

It's not well signed at all on any route, just added on assurance markers, not junctions. A handful of junction signs were added in 2014 by me unilaterally in Simcoe County, just because I figured it couldn't hurt and I could tack them onto a larger project. But overall it cannot actually be followed.

Additionally, how many people even use the TCH unless they want to avoid crossing international borders? It's faster to cut through the States if going from the GTA to Winnipeg or west and the same if going from Montreal to west of Calgary.

The number of people who actually traverse Ontario via the TCH is pretty well next to zero. Perishable goods and tourists are just about the only thing that goes via truck instead of rail. So we may have upwards of DOZENS of people on a single day!   

People have been able to find their way without problem for the last several decades. It ain't broke, don't break it.

That's what I thought and the quick look on GSV before I posted last night only showed signs in Simcoe County and on 417. Whole bunch of nothing along the TCH in Ontario.

[rickmastfan67]

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the TCH often signed quite poorly in Ontario outside of the expressway system? How many people don't even know that the TCH is the TCH? That would make renumbering even more counter-productive.

It's not well signed at all on any route, just added on assurance markers, not junctions. A handful of junction signs were added in 2014 by me unilaterally in Simcoe County, just because I figured it couldn't hurt and I could tack them onto a larger project. But overall it cannot actually be followed.

So then, any update when {3} will get a few shields once again between the Ambassador Bridge & the E. C. Row Expressway?   Or has it since StreetView was last there?

[dmuzika]

• Renumbering 2000+ km of highway is not a cheap proposition. In terms of changing the signage, regulations, titles, compensating businesses for expenses of changing their address, and other administrative and physical costs, is well into the millions of dollars. For something that, per point 3, actually makes navigation worse.

In terms of cost to the general public, how would renumbering Hwy 17 to TCH 1 compare to downloading? I can see that downloading saved MTO money, but I'm wondering if the general public still have to absorb the costs listed above.

In terms of the administrative costs of absorbing the highways, the initial gross cost was likely on par. But since then the operating cost of a municipal roadway vs a provincial highway is far lower (2-5 times less per lane-km). In terms of construction though, the benefit is far more apparent. Under provincial law, MTO can only get developers to cover the cost of improvements directly associated with the development. Whereas municipalities can both require improvements, and they collect development fees. So if you have a road like, say, Highway 7 in Peel Region, the province would only be able to get developers to pay for piecemeal improvements, while the balance is paid for out of taxpayers' pockets. Whereas with it as a municipal road, the improvements are all associated with the development along that corridor. So the net benefit to the province as a whole is definitely there.*


* - Regionally there are some places that did not benefit as much, and to that end increased payments from the province and/or re-assumption of services may be desirable. But again, we're talking about the net benefit here.

Sorry, I should clarify my question regarding cost.  You had indicated the renumbering a highway incurs costs in terms of signage, regulations, titles, address changes, etc.  My question is weren't those same costs incurred when downloading occurred?  I guess the benefit was lowered operating costs as outlined above, as opposed to nothing fundamentally changing if Hwy 17/417 was simply renumbered.

[7/8]

Heading home from Ottawa today, I finally took the new 407 extension between Harmony Rd and the 412, so I thought I would share some photos I took. Click on the images for full-size versions.














-------------

Also, I was disappointed with the current setup coming from Durham RR 3. I didn't see signage saying to continue straight onto Columbus Rd E and then make a left onto Harmony Rd to reach the 407. Also, the short stretch of Columbus Rd isn't the best for handling the extra traffic, though thankfully it will only be temporary.

[AsphaltPlanet]

Sorry, I should clarify my question regarding cost.  You had indicated the renumbering a highway incurs costs in terms of signage, regulations, titles, address changes, etc.  My question is weren't those same costs incurred when downloading occurred?  I guess the benefit was lowered operating costs as outlined above, as opposed to nothing fundamentally changing if Hwy 17/417 was simply renumbered.

Ontario has 13 million residents, I'm sure we could afford the cost of switching the signs, but I think the point that cbeach was trying to make was about poor return return on investment.

As was indicated above, provincial highway downloading was done as a measure to remove provincial highway expenditures from the provincial balance sheet.  It was done with little thought on how that would effect transferring the roads, and thereby changing the signs, would have on navigation for the traveling public.  While the sky hasn't fallen since the highways were downloaded, navigation wasn't improved by the transfer of highways.  In many cases, navigation is worse than it was before, as primary route numbers may have changed, and may no longer be consistent at regional boundaries, and there is now less of a hierarchy to the numbering system than there was before.

I'm sure the sky wouldn't fall if Hwy 17 was renumbered to Hwy 1 either, but it wouldn't improve navigation for anyone along the route, and could be confusing for people who choose to call the highway by its former number, or for mapping companies that aren't up to date.  As you know, there is only one road between Ontario and Manitoba, so it's number isn't of great importance as there are no other roads that it could be confused with.  If we were setting up a new route numbering system today, without having a nearly century old system ingrained in our collective minds I'd definitely agree with the merits of numbering 17 as 1.  But as you know, this isn't the case.  Renumbering Hwy 17 to Hwy 1 would look great on a map, but would offer no improvement to the route numbering system for any kind of trip along the highway.  Renumbering it so it looks better on a map would be quite frankly a waste of money.

[AsphaltPlanet]

Also, I was disappointed with the current setup coming from Durham RR 3. I didn't see signage saying to continue straight onto Columbus Rd E and then make a left onto Harmony Rd to reach the 407. Also, the short stretch of Columbus Rd isn't the best for handling the extra traffic, though thankfully it will only be temporary.

Agreed.  Neither Columbus or Harmony north of the 407 aren't awesome as connector roads.  There was quite a backup on Columbus Road approaching the four-way stop at Harmony yesterday afternoon.

They haven't posted any trailblazer signs for either the 412 or the 407 yet.  (There actually still aren't reassurance signs along the 412 yet either).  I'm curious to see what the end up looking like, given the uniqueness of the colour of the 407's route shield.

[cbeach40]

Sorry, I should clarify my question regarding cost.  You had indicated the renumbering a highway incurs costs in terms of signage, regulations, titles, address changes, etc.  My question is weren't those same costs incurred when downloading occurred?  I guess the benefit was lowered operating costs as outlined above, as opposed to nothing fundamentally changing if Hwy 17/417 was simply renumbered.

AsphaltPlanet basically said the same, but yes, the administrative costs of downloading were the same. I'd even argue higher, given how slap-dash it was done and the pile of further work it created (of course, that's what happens when political expediency trumps technical prudence). Again, long term the costs to operate and make improvements to the downloaded roads is a net savings.