Print

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

[ghYHZ]

The existing Rotary on the Trans Canada Highway at Port Hastings, Nova Scotia will be reconstructed as a new Roundabout.

https://novascotia.ca/tran/highways/port-hastings-roundabout.asp

Currently TCH104 traffic entering the Rotary (from the left below) and TCH105 (from the upper right) has the right-of-way and traffic already in the rotary must yield to the TCH traffic. In the new configuration.....all traffic entering the new Roundabout will now yield.










Photo #1


Photo #2


Photo #3


Photo #4


Photo #5



They also plan to construct a storage/holding-lane between the new Roundabout and the Canso Causeway Swing-Bridge just to the west. Currently when the bridge is open traffic backs up through the rotary impeding other traffic not intending to cross the bridge.

Wonder how they intend to fill/empty the storage/holding-lane? Will it be a passing lane with traffic jumping ahead of those already stopped..... then trying to merge back in when the bridge reopens? I can see road-rage happening! 


Below, Photo #6.....the storage/holding-lane will be added on the left.....westbound, downhill toward the swing-bridge.

[froggie]

Currently when the bridge is open traffic backs up through the rotary impeding other traffic not intending to cross the bridge.

Despite the "road rage" potential, this is probably why they're building the storage lane...so that bridge openings don't back traffic up into the roundabout.

[ghYHZ]

Currently when the bridge is open traffic backs up through the rotary impeding other traffic not intending to cross the bridge.

Despite the "road rage" potential, this is probably why they're building the storage lane...so that bridge openings don't back traffic up into the roundabout.

That's exactly why they're doing it and discussed in the video in the link above. A considerable amount of traffic can build when the bridge is open.....usually for about 15 minutes but can extend to 30. (I get caught quite often!)

And you can get a string of traffic entering the rotary from TCH105 westbound that have managed to stay together since arriving on the Newfoundland Ferry a hour & a half away.......450 cars/trucks/RVs and only a few passing lanes! 

[Rothman]

All for it.  The current layout is a mess and is confusing (having been through it now a couple of times).  Signage is in a desperate need of updating for clarity.

[yakra]

Pity that right turn movement near Lovers Ln will become something much less direct.

[froggie]

Has the province ever considered a high level fixed bridge to replace the swing bridge?  Or would there be too many impacts from such?

[paulthemapguy]

Has the province ever considered a high level fixed bridge to replace the swing bridge?  Or would there be too many impacts from such?

The roadway is so close to the water that I doubt you'd have enough width to build a stable embankment leading up to the elevated bridge...unless you make the whole thing into a big tall (expensive) flyover ramp.

[cbeach40]

Has the province ever considered a high level fixed bridge to replace the swing bridge?  Or would there be too many impacts from such?

The roadway is so close to the water that I doubt you'd have enough width to build a stable embankment leading up to the elevated bridge...unless you make the whole thing into a big tall (expensive) flyover ramp.

In a scenario like that the embankment may well be more expensive than having it be almost entirely structural. Tunneling may be a better option, though having no idea as to the geology, hydrology, etc there not sure how technically feasible that may be.

In any event, the design here seems to scream that they're trying to save money and minimize local property impacts. Doing anything like that, or doing this junction up as something that would perform better like and interchange, seems beyond what they're willing or able to do here.

[ghYHZ]

Has the province ever considered a high level fixed bridge to replace the swing bridge?  Or would there be too many impacts from such?

The roadway is so close to the water that I doubt you'd have enough width to build a stable embankment leading up to the elevated bridge...unless you make the whole thing into a big tall (expensive) flyover ramp.

In a scenario like that the embankment may well be more expensive than having it be almost entirely structural. Tunneling may be a better option, though having no idea as to the geology, hydrology, etc there not sure how technically feasible that may be.

It would be a deep tunnel! The Causeway base is 65m (213') deep in the centre of the Strait.

A Cantilever Bridge was proposed in 1903.....50 years before the Causeway.



Perhaps an elevated structure would work.....following the s-curve of the causeway...... climbing and reaching it's highest point above canal. It would then land up on the cliff on the Cape Breton side roughly at the new roundabout. There is also a railway on the causeway so a swing-bridge would still be required under a  new structure. (Below.... this gives an idea of the width and alignment of the causeway)



And watching the video in the link above....it sounds like these are stop-gap improvements on a fixed budget until they make a long term decision on the swing bridge. 

[webny99]

Currently when the bridge is open traffic backs up through the rotary impeding other traffic not intending to cross the bridge.

Despite the "road rage" potential, this is probably why they're building the storage lane...so that bridge openings don't back traffic up into the roundabout.

That's exactly why they're doing it and discussed in the video in the link above. A considerable amount of traffic can build when the bridge is open.....usually for about 15 minutes but can extend to 30. (I get caught quite often!)

And you can get a string of traffic entering the rotary from TCH105 westbound that have managed to stay together since arriving on the Newfoundland Ferry a hour & a half away.......450 cars/trucks/RVs and only a few passing lanes!

With proper signage, I wouldn't think road rage should be an issue. If traffic backs up in both lanes, as it should, drivers will just have to get used to alternating once the bridge opens back up.

The bigger issue might be that traffic could still back up into the roundabout even with another lane... as it presumably does now with the existing rotary.

[jeffandnicole]

Currently when the bridge is open traffic backs up through the rotary impeding other traffic not intending to cross the bridge.

Despite the "road rage" potential, this is probably why they're building the storage lane...so that bridge openings don't back traffic up into the roundabout.

That's exactly why they're doing it and discussed in the video in the link above. A considerable amount of traffic can build when the bridge is open.....usually for about 15 minutes but can extend to 30. (I get caught quite often!)

And you can get a string of traffic entering the rotary from TCH105 westbound that have managed to stay together since arriving on the Newfoundland Ferry a hour & a half away.......450 cars/trucks/RVs and only a few passing lanes!

With proper signage, I wouldn't think road rage should be an issue. If traffic backs up in both lanes, as it should, drivers will just have to get used to alternating once the bridge opens back up.

The bigger issue might be that traffic could still back up into the roundabout even with another lane... as it presumably does now with the existing rotary.

The road rage comes from sitting there while the bridge is open.

[cbeach40]

It would be a deep tunnel! The Causeway base is 65m (213') deep in the centre of the Strait.

  That would be deep 

Perhaps an elevated structure would work.....following the s-curve of the causeway...... climbing and reaching it's highest point above canal. It would then land up on the cliff on the Cape Breton side roughly at the new roundabout. There is also a railway on the causeway so a swing-bridge would still be required under a  new structure. (Below.... this gives an idea of the width and alignment of the causeway)



And watching the video in the link above....it sounds like these are stop-gap improvements on a fixed budget until they make a long term decision on the swing bridge. 

Here's an idea - build a second opening bridge on the west side of the lock. Would be a pretty low speed as to avoid having to expand the banks too much. But at least one bridge could remain open to auto traffic at a time.

[ghYHZ]

Here's an idea - build a second opening bridge on the west side of the lock. Would be a pretty low speed as to avoid having to expand the banks too much. But at least one bridge could remain open to auto traffic at a time.

Now that's an idea!.....and similar to the diversion for both road and rail traffic around the St. Lambert Lock at the Victoria Bridge in Montreal.


https://goo.gl/maps/LGs9bUiXB4aWFTHR7

[1995hoo]

Here's an idea - build a second opening bridge on the west side of the lock. Would be a pretty low speed as to avoid having to expand the banks too much. But at least one bridge could remain open to auto traffic at a time.

Are you thinking of something similar to the east end of the Pont Victoria in Montreal where there are two bridges over the St. Lawrence Seaway in order to keep traffic moving when one has to be raised for a passing ship? The structures for the overhead power lines, and the lighthouse next to those, might make that difficult at the Canso Causeway unless they were to dump more fill to expand the area immediately south of the canal to accommodate the roadway.

Regarding people getting angry at people queuing in the other lane, I've certainly seen that happen elsewhere. The first time I took Amtrak's Auto Train from Virginia to Florida, I lined up in the right-hand of two lines for the car check-in because that line was substantially shorter. Some old man tried to prevent me from merging and was livid when I got in front of him anyway, yelling that I cut him off and that I should watch myself (never mind the multiple Amtrak employees telling him I was in the right, though I doubt I helped matters after that by saying it wasn't my fault he was an idiot). Some people are stupid and are just plain convinced that one particular lane is the "correct" lane that has priority—I suppose, in some ways, it's similar to the "merge early" crowd who insist that thou shalt always get over a mile in advance when a lane ends or is closed. (But let's not start that debate here.)

[kphoger]

[webny99]

^ Yeah, I think it might be too late to keep all the worms in the can...

With proper signage, I wouldn't think road rage should be an issue. If traffic backs up in both lanes, as it should, drivers will just have to get used to alternating once the bridge opens back up.

The bigger issue might be that traffic could still back up into the roundabout even with another lane... as it presumably does now with the existing rotary.

The road rage comes from sitting there while the bridge is open.

I get that, but I don't see how an extra lane makes that worse.

[ghYHZ]

Here's an idea - build a second opening bridge on the west side of the lock. Would be a pretty low speed as to avoid having to expand the banks too much. But at least one bridge could remain open to auto traffic at a time.

Are you thinking of something similar to the east end of the Pont Victoria in Montreal where there are two bridges over the St. Lawrence Seaway in order to keep traffic moving when one has to be raised for a passing ship? The structures for the overhead power lines, and the lighthouse next to those, might make that difficult at the Canso Causeway unless they were to dump more fill to expand the area immediately south of the canal to accommodate the roadway.

Just might work! You'd be dealing with some tight curves on/off the new bridge depending on how much fill is placed.......but no worse than the roundabout radius!

https://goo.gl/maps/4DwjEQSzNBUfs4HdA

[Richard3]

It's been a while since I woke up a sleeping topic...

I looked at Google Maps to see the area, and I figured out that the TCH-104/Trunk 4 interchange (well, let's say "intersection" for now) northeast of Port Hawkesbury was promised to a much bigger project, that could bypass Pt. Hawkesbury and Pt. Hastings as well. Let's imagine that, from west to east.

First, connect back Trunk 4 and the actual TCH-104 east, following the remnants of the ancient road, and start a brand new TCH-104 east, just west of the actual one. Then let it stretch southeast, crossing Tower Rd., passing under the power lines, and crossing Hillside Dr., before turning east, passing south of O'Brien Rd, and crossing Marine Dr. (NS-344), the railway and Trunk 4 (actual TCH-104), before crossing Barrys River/Aulds Cove on a brand new bridge, northwest of the causeway. The new TCH-104 would cross Ceilidh Trail (Trunk 19) just south of the southern end of Fox Rd., would stretch northeast, then curve east just south of the NS Power site, cross TCH-105 and pass under the power lines, before bypassing Hector Lake by the north, and curve southeast, following the power lines, crossing Kings Rd. and Crandall Rd. on its way to connect to actual TCH-104 at the Trunk 4 interchange. Finally, add some interchanges along the way where needed, like at Sunrise Trail (Trunk 4), Ceilidh Trail (Trunk 19), and TCH-105.

The new bridge, crossing Barrys River/Aulds Cove, would be one lane per direction, and be twinned when needed.

That kind of project would be expensive, for sure, but will separate transit and local traffics, and, foremost, definitely put an end to the swing bridge wait.

[brucester4]

Port Hastings roundabout to take 2 years and cost $15 million

from Inverness Oran - by Rankin MacDonald
Representatives from the Nova Scotia Department of Public Works updated the Inverness County Council on Thursday via Zoom, on the latest design for the new roundabout slated for the rotary in Port Hastings.

https://www.invernessoran.ca/top-story/2227-rotary-2years-15million

Picture of the new design posted on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=980020380053241&set=a.128496825205605

I am not sure what t0 think of the new design. It does provide a bypass route to Route 19 which is an improvement, but is that worth $10 million more than the original plan.

I had another thought that it might be cheaper to move the Visitors Centre a mile west to Auld's Cove where the Trans Canada is a regular 2 lane highway, than to add the extra highway lanes and traffic lights just to keep it there.

[cbeach40]

Port Hastings roundabout to take 2 years and cost $15 million

Well, my comment about saving money vs an interchange earlier this thread checks out, think it'd be north of $50M for that.

Given the proverbial rock and a hard place that they find themselves in here (or more literally rock and water  ) plus this being one of the most critical junctions in NS, I think there's no single good option here. Be interesting to see it done however it ends up.

[Richard3]

It's been a while since I woke up a sleeping topic...

I looked at Google Maps to see the area, and I figured out that the TCH-104/Trunk 4 interchange (well, let's say "intersection" for now) northeast of Port Hawkesbury was promised to a much bigger project, that could bypass Pt. Hawkesbury and Pt. Hastings as well. Let's imagine that, from west to east.

First, connect back Trunk 4 and the actual TCH-104 east, following the remnants of the ancient road, and start a brand new TCH-104 east, just west of the actual one. Then let it stretch southeast, crossing Tower Rd., passing under the power lines, and crossing Hillside Dr., before turning east, passing south of O'Brien Rd, and crossing Marine Dr. (NS-344), the railway and Trunk 4 (actual TCH-104), before crossing Barrys River/Aulds Cove on a brand new bridge, northwest of the causeway. The new TCH-104 would cross Ceilidh Trail (Trunk 19) just south of the southern end of Fox Rd., would stretch northeast, then curve east just south of the NS Power site, cross TCH-105 and pass under the power lines, before bypassing Hector Lake by the north, and curve southeast, following the power lines, crossing Kings Rd. and Crandall Rd. on its way to connect to actual TCH-104 at the Trunk 4 interchange. Finally, add some interchanges along the way where needed, like at Sunrise Trail (Trunk 4), Ceilidh Trail (Trunk 19), and TCH-105.

The new bridge, crossing Barrys River/Aulds Cove, would be one lane per direction, and be twinned when needed.

That kind of project would be expensive, for sure, but will separate transit and local traffics, and, foremost, definitely put an end to the swing bridge wait.

UPDATE

Here's an illustration of my solution.  Base image from Google Maps.



Excuse my short talent on Microsoft Print 3D; the lines are very approximatives.  The light blue line, upper left, is the Trunk 4 reconnexion, the red one is the new TCH-104.

As I said in my former post, this project would definitely be expensive, but it will do something to be probably done in 20+ years.  Sometimes, some moves are made in order to be continued in a plus ou less foreseenable future, and I think now is the time.

[yakra]

https://www.invernessoran.ca/top-story/2227-rotary-2years-15million

Picture of the new design posted on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=980020380053241&set=a.128496825205605

I am not sure what t0 think of the new design. It does provide a bypass route to Route 19 which is an improvement, but is that worth $10 million more than the original plan.

The grade separation seems like a kinda heavyweight solution, especially if the two routes still interface in the roundabout at the end of it all. For the 104<->105 and 104<->4 movements, the number of intersections drivers pass thru the the roundabout EB & WB is swapped, so that's a wash. Other than providing access to the church (still no left turn for exiting traffic), the U-turn ramp now serves 105->4 traffic (rather than vice versa) which I guess could be useful as most of Port Hastings is down there. The direct right turn ramp is, back, now serving the 4->105 movement. Is this what you mean by "bypass route to Route 19"?