News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Quebec's Highways

Started by Stojko, February 04, 2010, 06:56:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

compdude787

Wow, what a colossal waste of money!! Unbelievable!  :verymad:


xcellntbuy


cu2010

Quote from: vdeane on October 26, 2016, 01:30:52 PM
When they replaced the Seaway bridge, they build everything out really nice for the new bridge... and then proceded to rip some of it up just a couple months later for the temporary traffic pattern (and toll booth) to demolish the old bridge.  Not only did they rip up brand new infrastructure, the toll booths and permanent roadway are situated in such a way that there will be a permanent kink in the road where the old bridge pier was.  What they should have done is build the new bridge with the temporary connecting road and toll booth and built the permanent connections after the bridge pier was demolished (also, I would have built the booths on the other side of customs, so that people going from the US to Cornwall Island could make the trip without paying two bridge tolls, as used to be possible before customs was moved off the island).  It's as if someone designed the bridge not realizing that it would need to be built around the old bridge until they were nearly done.

To be fair, the "permanent" setup in Cornwall hasn't been determined yet. The Port of Entry remains an interim one.
This is cu2010, reminding you, help control the ugly sign population, don't have your shields spayed or neutered.

vdeane

I would expect that the tolls booths would be permanent though, and that "interim" booth doesn't seem so temporary to me.  I get the impression that Canada (and Ontario) is happy where it is now, and they'd have to reconstruct the road to remove it.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

tdindy88

Hearing about this, it's a good thing I got to drive on this Autoroute 15 bridge while it was up when I was in Montreal last June. On that note, it's a good thing I got to drive along 720 as well as I guess I'm hearing they are getting rid of that expressway.

AsphaltPlanet

they aren't getting rid of the 720.  It's being renumbered as 136, and it's being realigned as part of the Turcot construction, but it's basically just being replaced with a new expressway on a slightly different alignment.
AsphaltPlanet.ca  Youtube -- Opinions expressed reflect the viewpoints of others.

compdude787

Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on October 26, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
they aren't getting rid of the 720.  It's being renumbered as 136, and it's being realigned as part of the Turcot construction, but it's basically just being replaced with a new expressway on a slightly different alignment.

How come they decided to renumber it from an autoroute to a provincial highway?

AsphaltPlanet

AsphaltPlanet.ca  Youtube -- Opinions expressed reflect the viewpoints of others.

cbeach40

Quote from: compdude787 on October 27, 2016, 12:33:42 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on October 26, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
they aren't getting rid of the 720.  It's being renumbered as 136, and it's being realigned as part of the Turcot construction, but it's basically just being replaced with a new expressway on a slightly different alignment.

How come they decided to renumber it from an autoroute to a provincial highway?

Lane width on the new 136 will be 3.5 m, minimum for an Autoroute is 3.75 m.
and waterrrrrrr!

vdeane

I think it's interesting that they're removing the autoroute status for lanes being a little narrow (in US units: 11.5' instead of 12') while A-19, A-55, and A-955 have at-grades and traffic lights (why is A-955 still an autoroute?  Just make it QC 2xx!  Ditto for A-19).  I think there are a few at-grades lurking in other places too.  And quite a few autoroute-autoroute interchanges that go through service roads with no access control, including to stay on A-15 and A-20 near the Champlain Bridge.

And they really should use a number that isn't duplicated somewhere.  Especially after they JUST started signing QC 136 in Quebec City.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

AsphaltPlanet

#285
Quote from: cbeach40 on October 27, 2016, 09:43:24 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on October 27, 2016, 12:33:42 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on October 26, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
they aren't getting rid of the 720.  It's being renumbered as 136, and it's being realigned as part of the Turcot construction, but it's basically just being replaced with a new expressway on a slightly different alignment.

How come they decided to renumber it from an autoroute to a provincial highway?

Lane width on the new 136 will be 3.5 m, minimum for an Autoroute is 3.75 m.

Is there a source for that online?
AsphaltPlanet.ca  Youtube -- Opinions expressed reflect the viewpoints of others.

Alps

Quote from: cbeach40 on October 27, 2016, 09:43:24 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on October 27, 2016, 12:33:42 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on October 26, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
they aren't getting rid of the 720.  It's being renumbered as 136, and it's being realigned as part of the Turcot construction, but it's basically just being replaced with a new expressway on a slightly different alignment.

How come they decided to renumber it from an autoroute to a provincial highway?

Lane width on the new 136 will be 3.5 m, minimum for an Autoroute is 3.75 m.
I feel like that's the cart leading the horse. They decided they wanted to downgrade it before they set about justifying it geometrically. The idea is just to calm traffic on that leg, which was originally constructed as a through highway.

Stephane Dumas

Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2016, 01:28:18 PM
I think it's interesting that they're removing the autoroute status for lanes being a little narrow (in US units: 11.5' instead of 12') while A-19, A-55, and A-955 have at-grades and traffic lights (why is A-955 still an autoroute?  Just make it QC 2xx!  Ditto for A-19).  I think there are a few at-grades lurking in other places too.  And quite a few autoroute-autoroute interchanges that go through service roads with no access control, including to stay on A-15 and A-20 near the Champlain Bridge.

And they really should use a number that isn't duplicated somewhere.  Especially after they JUST started signing QC 136 in Quebec City.

Since the missing gap of A-55 was done between St-Celestin and TCH-20, it created a latent demand and traffic had raised on A-955 and looks like the push for a 4-lanes will be push from what I saw on this French articles.
http://www.lanouvelle.net/actualites/politique/2016/10/12/doublement-de-la-55-955---le-depute-rayes-offre-son-appui.html 
http://www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/actualites/201603/24/01-4964140-doublement-de-lautoroute-55-force-nouvelle-au-dossier.php

ATLRedSoxFan

That's Quebec. Somehow, someway, somebody was on the take for that.

Alps

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on October 27, 2016, 07:40:47 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2016, 01:28:18 PM
I think it's interesting that they're removing the autoroute status for lanes being a little narrow (in US units: 11.5' instead of 12') while A-19, A-55, and A-955 have at-grades and traffic lights (why is A-955 still an autoroute?  Just make it QC 2xx!  Ditto for A-19).  I think there are a few at-grades lurking in other places too.  And quite a few autoroute-autoroute interchanges that go through service roads with no access control, including to stay on A-15 and A-20 near the Champlain Bridge.

And they really should use a number that isn't duplicated somewhere.  Especially after they JUST started signing QC 136 in Quebec City.

Since the missing gap of A-55 was done between St-Celestin and TCH-20, it created a latent demand and traffic had raised on A-955 and looks like the push for a 4-lanes will be push from what I saw on this French articles.
http://www.lanouvelle.net/actualites/politique/2016/10/12/doublement-de-la-55-955---le-depute-rayes-offre-son-appui.html 
http://www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/actualites/201603/24/01-4964140-doublement-de-lautoroute-55-force-nouvelle-au-dossier.php
That's ridiculous. Traffic isn't nearly that high on 955. I certainly agree with twinning A-55.

cbeach40

Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on October 27, 2016, 05:28:33 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on October 27, 2016, 09:43:24 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on October 27, 2016, 12:33:42 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on October 26, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
they aren't getting rid of the 720.  It's being renumbered as 136, and it's being realigned as part of the Turcot construction, but it's basically just being replaced with a new expressway on a slightly different alignment.

How come they decided to renumber it from an autoroute to a provincial highway?

Lane width on the new 136 will be 3.5 m, minimum for an Autoroute is 3.75 m.

Is there a source for that online?

Only one I could find, in French:
http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2011/02/20110208-173721.html
and waterrrrrrr!

webfil

Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2016, 10:33:10 PM
That's ridiculous. Traffic isn't nearly that high on 955. I certainly agree with twinning A-55.

I do not share your opinion on the ridiculousness of the proposition of upgrading 955.

The connection of A-55 and A-955 really drained traffic onto A-955 for movements with Victoriaville as an origin/destination. A-955 has seen its rates go up by 141 % since 2006 (2,700 VPD/15% truck → 6,000 VPD/20% truck) and traffic on R-122 has doubled since 2000 (3,500 VPD → 7,000 VPD) whilst rates have remained stable on R-161 between A-20 and Victo. Also, combined truck volumes of routes 161 and 122 were under 1000 trucks per day in 1998; freight traffic surely grew as fast as the passenger volumes.

While the roadway itself shows fewer geometrical problems, the volumes compare advantageously to A-5 in Wakefield, A-20 in Rimouski, A-50 in Petite-Nation region, A-85 or R-175 between Québec and Saguenay ― but A-955 would never get a politician as much votes as upgrades on the former highways would nor is it eliglible to federal funding.

MTQ could take advantage of provision for A-18 on route 122 (large ROW, 3,75 m-wide lanes ;-), non-access servitude, no intersection except for Rang 9) to build passing lanes.

Alps

Quote from: webfil on October 28, 2016, 05:55:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2016, 10:33:10 PM
That's ridiculous. Traffic isn't nearly that high on 955. I certainly agree with twinning A-55.

I do not share your opinion on the ridiculousness of the proposition of upgrading 955.

The connection of A-55 and A-955 really drained traffic onto A-955 for movements with Victoriaville as an origin/destination. A-955 has seen its rates go up by 141 % since 2006 (2,700 VPD/15% truck → 6,000 VPD/20% truck) and traffic on R-122 has doubled since 2000 (3,500 VPD → 7,000 VPD) whilst rates have remained stable on R-161 between A-20 and Victo. Also, combined truck volumes of routes 161 and 122 were under 1000 trucks per day in 1998; freight traffic surely grew as fast as the passenger volumes.

While the roadway itself shows fewer geometrical problems, the volumes compare advantageously to A-5 in Wakefield, A-20 in Rimouski, A-50 in Petite-Nation region, A-85 or R-175 between Québec and Saguenay ― but A-955 would never get a politician as much votes as upgrades on the former highways would nor is it eliglible to federal funding.

MTQ could take advantage of provision for A-18 on route 122 (large ROW, 3,75 m-wide lanes ;-), non-access servitude, no intersection except for Rang 9) to build passing lanes.
Even 10,000 VPD is fine for two lanes.

compdude787

Quote from: Alps on October 29, 2016, 12:11:11 PM
Quote from: webfil on October 28, 2016, 05:55:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2016, 10:33:10 PM
That's ridiculous. Traffic isn't nearly that high on 955. I certainly agree with twinning A-55.

I do not share your opinion on the ridiculousness of the proposition of upgrading 955.

The connection of A-55 and A-955 really drained traffic onto A-955 for movements with Victoriaville as an origin/destination. A-955 has seen its rates go up by 141 % since 2006 (2,700 VPD/15% truck → 6,000 VPD/20% truck) and traffic on R-122 has doubled since 2000 (3,500 VPD → 7,000 VPD) whilst rates have remained stable on R-161 between A-20 and Victo. Also, combined truck volumes of routes 161 and 122 were under 1000 trucks per day in 1998; freight traffic surely grew as fast as the passenger volumes.

While the roadway itself shows fewer geometrical problems, the volumes compare advantageously to A-5 in Wakefield, A-20 in Rimouski, A-50 in Petite-Nation region, A-85 or R-175 between Québec and Saguenay ― but A-955 would never get a politician as much votes as upgrades on the former highways would nor is it eliglible to federal funding.

MTQ could take advantage of provision for A-18 on route 122 (large ROW, 3,75 m-wide lanes ;-), non-access servitude, no intersection except for Rang 9) to build passing lanes.
Even 10,000 VPD is fine for two lanes.

Agreed. I think anything over 15,000 VPD is enough to justify widening to four lanes.

Stephane Dumas

Depends how's big is the part of truck traffic.

Another new exit ramp on A-30 will open on November 1 who'll link directly to PQ-229 as a relief route for commuters and travellers who goes to Varennes and have to use Exit 87 who's also got an additionnal share of traffic for commuters who goes to or come from Ste-Julie and St-Amable. http://lecontrecourant.ca/2016/10/28/ouverture-mardi-de-la-nouvelle-bretelle-de-sortie-reliant-lautoroute-30-a-la-route-229-a-varennes/

SignGeek101

Doesn't it say somewhere that, at least for Ontario, freeways are considered as soon as there is a 10 000 AADT for a stretch of roadway?

I'm not sure about Quebec's freeway priorities, but I don't see A-955 as a priority. It doesn't bring any significant economic value to the province, it's AADT is too low IMO, and MTQ is already bogged down with projects like the Turcot interchange, A-85 and (maybe A-35, if that ever gets done). I would even suggest dropping the Autoroute designation altogether from that route. Gosh, I would focus more on connecting A-20, and maybe A-530.

They should four lane A-55 first, and maybe when that's all done, it will be more viable to do A-955.

cbeach40

Quote from: SignGeek101 on October 30, 2016, 08:24:17 PM
Doesn't it say somewhere that, at least for Ontario, freeways are considered as soon as there is a 10 000 AADT for a stretch of roadway?

Not explicitly. Generally speaking if a two lane highway has an AADT of 10K it would probably be prudent to begin thinking of a freeway. But we have plenty of highways that work just fine with volumes well north of that.
and waterrrrrrr!

J N Winkler

Quote from: SignGeek101 on October 30, 2016, 08:24:17 PMDoesn't it say somewhere that, at least for Ontario, freeways are considered as soon as there is a 10 000 AADT for a stretch of roadway?

I don't know about Ontario, but in the US that is a traditional warrant for widening to four-lane divided, not necessarily building a full freeway.  I think it dates from the 1950's.  In actuality, a decision to widen to four-lane divided or to upgrade to freeway would be based partly on a detailed HCM analysis and would be driven in part by corridor development considerations.  In Kansas, for example, we have several rural expressways and freeway bypasses (including several on US 54) with sub-10,000 AADT.

On a rural two-lane road, alignment has a heavy influence on level of service, since the primary determinant of LOS is the percentage of time spent driving with your speed constrained by a vehicle in front of you.  A flat straight road may operate satisfactorily with an AADT north of 10,000; in hilly or mountainous country a road may reach an unsatisfactory LOS at an AADT as low as 7,000 or 5,000 respectively.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

vdeane

Quote from: SignGeek101 on October 30, 2016, 08:24:17 PM
Doesn't it say somewhere that, at least for Ontario, freeways are considered as soon as there is a 10 000 AADT for a stretch of roadway?

I'm not sure about Quebec's freeway priorities, but I don't see A-955 as a priority. It doesn't bring any significant economic value to the province, it's AADT is too low IMO, and MTQ is already bogged down with projects like the Turcot interchange, A-85 and (maybe A-35, if that ever gets done). I would even suggest dropping the Autoroute designation altogether from that route. Gosh, I would focus more on connecting A-20, and maybe A-530.

They should four lane A-55 first, and maybe when that's all done, it will be more viable to do A-955.
I agree.  I don't see any reason for A-955; it pretty much only exists because it's an old alignment of A-55 (before it was rerouted to Drummondville).  My top priority for the A-55 corridor would be to eliminate the remaining at-grade intersections.  For that matter, I'd like to see all the at-grades and breezewoods on the autoroute system removed, and the gaps either filled in or fixed with renumbering/decommissioning (can we please get rid of A-30 near Becancour?  Make it an A-x55 and remove the at-grades or just make it a realignment of QC 132).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

J N Winkler

While diagnosing a downloader that (very unusually) pulled in no new material the last time it was run, I discovered an agency name change:  Ministère des Transports du Québec is now Ministère des Transports, de la Mobilité durable et de l'Électrification des transports.  The name of the contracting office has also changed:  Service de la gestion contractuelle is now Service des contrats de construction et de services.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini



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.