Pipelines

[foresterab]

until you get caught behind an Airstream. the twinning is a fantastic idea and long overdue; could certainly use that extra lane on the grades. The notion expressed above re: a single corridor carrying rail, road, and pipeline makes a lot of sense except the most direct route would bypass everything between Sudbury and Kenora and leave those towns hanging out to dry

Ah yes...the fun of the one slow vehicle you follow for the next three hours...in a convoy...due to lack of passing lanes, pulloffs, and towns. Even worse when you fill up and don't beat them out of the station and repeat the process.

What is the right route? Not really sure...Kenora to Thunder Bay makes sense. From there to Sault Ste. Marie also makes some sense.

It's the Sault Ste. Marie east that makes me think of a split line - via Sudbury then south and a second towards Timmons/Clay Belt/Ottawa.

To be fair I haven't drove out there in about 20 years but have not heard of any major large scale improvements. If I look at the Kicking Horse Pass twinning in BC (Kamloops to Banff) or Highway 63 (towards Fort Mac) we're talking a solid 5-10 years construction work under current rules for each ~250 km segment. So this is can be started but will need multiple construction kick-off points if you want it done fast.

 

[GK .Dundas]

And as much as I want East/West pipelines across the country...start in Ontario with a bypass plan for Line 5 so that they are not economically dependent upon Michigan pipeline routes.

Heck use the opportunity to twin the TransCanada highway starting from Manitoba. Fire up the dynamite factories and get blasting because it will take a long time to get through the shield country. Anything that reduces the bottleneck of E/W Canada travel and provides viable long term options instead of the US is a positive.

For those that haven't drove it the TransCanada via Highway 11/17 at 90km/hr is about a 1,600 km trip from North Bay to Kenora. Or about 18 hours at posted limits. If the road was upgraded to a 110 km like most of the rest of the TransCanada Highway that same trip is 14.5 hours..a 20% improvement that adds up fast on every semi load.

By the way, that's the new Trans Canada Highway. The old one if you're driving towards Kenora from Winnipeg is your right hand side.
It's a single lane of asphalt poured on the ground with little hillocks every 40 to 50 feet. It resembles nothing so much as a 1930's to 40s cartoonist's idea of a road. Or a paved roller coaster.
When I was kid my old man used to hate driving to Toronto to visit my Mom's side of the family because of that stretch of road. He much preferred the train or even later flying.
It was replaced in the late 70's and widened in the mid 90's .
But still needs a lot to actually make it worthy of the title of a National Highway.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Japan is really only interested in premium grade wood. Maybe #1 grade or Japanese Grade. Interest in the Chinese market varies in part due to availability of wood (legal and illegal harvest) out of Russia...some of which is different dimensions again.

For comparison most of what I see in Canadian stores is #3 grade. Occasionally #2. And the sad reality is you don't need many mills going to supply Canadian demand compared to the US. Exports to Europe get talked about a bunch but between European production (who are also exporting to the US) and different certifications (they don't like Canadian production methods, we don't like theirs. For different valid reasons) it's tough to crack markets. South America, Australia/New Zealand, and Indonesia are all exporters...leaves the Middle East and India?

But if tariffs are added to the existing softwood tariffs I can easily see more mills shutting down...and it doesn't take long before the labour force has moved on/sold off the equipment fleets/relocated as tradespeople. So once they're down it's really tough to re-start. I have a mental list of mills just in Alberta and it's about 20% just due higher cost facilities/higher transportation costs. So that pool of wood being exported in future I expect to see dropping again within a couple of years...and this is due to reasons outside of the current US tariff talk.

As I recall attempts at building boutique mills catering to specialized clients, was not supported by the MOF or the rest of government, seems government prefers to deal with a few big players, then lot's of small players.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

until you get caught behind an Airstream. the twinning is a fantastic idea and long overdue; could certainly use that extra lane on the grades. The notion expressed above re: a single corridor carrying rail, road, and pipeline makes a lot of sense except the most direct route would bypass everything between Sudbury and Kenora and leave those towns hanging out to dry

The key to twinning a highway is to work on the most traffic troublesome sections first, even if it is a short few kilometres to add a passing lane on a hill. That helps traffic flow for smaller costs. Then spread out contracts to twin the easy sections to do, so companies know they get yearly contracts every season and can go to the bank to get loans for more modern equipment to do the job faster and more efficiently.

 

[lenaitch]

Ah yes...the fun of the one slow vehicle you follow for the next three hours...in a convoy...due to lack of passing lanes, pulloffs, and towns. Even worse when you fill up and don't beat them out of the station and repeat the process.

What is the right route? Not really sure...Kenora to Thunder Bay makes sense. From there to Sault Ste. Marie also makes some sense.

It's the Sault Ste. Marie east that makes me think of a split line - via Sudbury then south and a second towards Timmons/Clay Belt/Ottawa.

To be fair I haven't drove out there in about 20 years but have not heard of any major large scale improvements. If I look at the Kicking Horse Pass twinning in BC (Kamloops to Banff) or Highway 63 (towards Fort Mac) we're talking a solid 5-10 years construction work under current rules for each ~250 km segment. So this is can be started but will need multiple construction kick-off points if you want it done fast.

Ontario is (slowly) twinning the TC portions between the Manitoba border to east of Kenora and Thunder Bay to Nipigon; basically the two stretches where there are no alternatives. There is also a planned Euro-style 2+1 section north of North Bay. Beyond that, there have been a lot of passing lanes added in the past number of years.

The reality is any extensive highway reconstruction would involve twinning an existing highway. Trying to 'greenfield' a corridor to create a straight (ish) line would be horrendously expensive and, after the highway is built, you need people to maintain it, police it, plow it, etc. If anything was end-to-end twinned, it would likely be Hwy 11. It is much flatter and straighter and avoids the grades around Lake Superior.

Although I agree with the annoyance of getting caught behind an RV, semi or VW microbus, the actual traffic volumes don't really support increasing capacity. I picked a random spot of Hwy 17 between TBay and Dryden, fairly remote so little local traffic, and the MTO's Annual Average Daily Traffic count was (2021) only 2300 vehicles; both directions, all types.

Combining corridors has some merit but is likely more appropriate in the prairies. Roads, rail, energy, etc. each have different needs for curvature and grades. Besides, why would a railway, private corporations, spend money (or why would public money fund them) to spend billions for a new ROW when the ones they currently have work just fine.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There is environmental permitting advantages to maintaining and expanding your existing ROW over creating a new one as well. It generally has a lower threshold for studies, consultations, etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ontario is (slowly) twinning the TC portions between the Manitoba border to east of Kenora and Thunder Bay to Nipigon; basically the two stretches where there are no alternatives. There is also a planned Euro-style 2+1 section north of North Bay. Beyond that, there have been a lot of passing lanes added in the past number of years.

The reality is any extensive highway reconstruction would involve twinning an existing highway. Trying to 'greenfield' a corridor to create a straight (ish) line would be horrendously expensive and, after the highway is built, you need people to maintain it, police it, plow it, etc. If anything was end-to-end twinned, it would likely be Hwy 11. It is much flatter and straighter and avoids the grades around Lake Superior.

Although I agree with the annoyance of getting caught behind an RV, semi or VW microbus, the actual traffic volumes don't really support increasing capacity. I picked a random spot of Hwy 17 between TBay and Dryden, fairly remote so little local traffic, and the MTO's Annual Average Daily Traffic count was (2021) only 2300 vehicles; both directions, all types.

Combining corridors has some merit but is likely more appropriate in the prairies. Roads, rail, energy, etc. each have different needs for curvature and grades. Besides, why would a railway, private corporations, spend money (or why would public money fund them) to spend billions for a new ROW when the ones they currently have work just fine.

Although I agree with the annoyance of getting caught behind an RV, semi or VW microbus, the actual traffic volumes don't really support increasing capacity.

I arrived up on the prairies 40 odd years ago. I was a travelling salesman and I travelled with my boss and mentor for a while. One of the first lessons he taught me about prairie road etiquette was that if I was being crowded by a vehicle from behind then ease over onto the shoulder a bit and give them room to pass, effectively creating a third lane.

How I have wished that those tourists in their RVs had got the same advice.

 

[RangerRay]

I arrived up on the prairies 40 odd years ago. I was a travelling salesman and I travelled with my boss and mentor for a while. One of the first lessons he taught me about prairie road etiquette was that if I was being crowded by a vehicle from behind then ease over onto the shoulder a bit and give them room to pass, effectively creating a third lane.

How I have wished that those tourists in their RVs had got the same advice.

That only works in Alberta where the shoulders are hard and as wide as an extra lane of traffic.

If you try that in Manitoba, you’ll be ass-over-tea-kettle in the ditch!

 

[Kirkhill]

That only works in Alberta where the shoulders are hard and as wide as an extra lane of traffic.

If you try that in Manitoba, you’ll be ass-over-tea-kettle in the ditch!

I spent about as much time on the road with Lorne in Manitoba and Saskatchewan as Alberta (New Bothwell, Steinbach, Winkler, Brandon and Dauphin along with Winnipeg were all regular ports of call).

 

[lenaitch]

I arrived up on the prairies 40 odd years ago. I was a travelling salesman and I travelled with my boss and mentor for a while. One of the first lessons he taught me about prairie road etiquette was that if I was being crowded by a vehicle from behind then ease over onto the shoulder a bit and give them room to pass, effectively creating a third lane.

How I have wished that those tourists in their RVs had got the same advice.

That would require paved shoulders which Ontario is too cheap to provide on 2-lane highways.

 

[RangerRay]

I spent about as much time on the road with Lorne in Manitoba and Saskatchewan as Alberta (New Bothwell, Steinbach, Winkler, Brandon and Dauphin along with Winnipeg were all regular ports of call).

And then you’d know that shoulders on Manitoba highways are non-existent! Definitely not the luxuriously wide and paved shoulders found in Alberta.

 

[Kirkhill]

And then you’d know that shoulders on Manitoba highways are non-existent! Definitely not the luxuriously wide and paved shoulders found in Alberta.

No, just learned how to keep her steady with one wheel hanging over the line. And put up with all that concrete.

 

[foresterab]

Ontario is (slowly) twinning the TC portions between the Manitoba border to east of Kenora and Thunder Bay to Nipigon; basically the two stretches where there are no alternatives. There is also a planned Euro-style 2+1 section north of North Bay. Beyond that, there have been a lot of passing lanes added in the past number of years.

The reality is any extensive highway reconstruction would involve twinning an existing highway. Trying to 'greenfield' a corridor to create a straight (ish) line would be horrendously expensive and, after the highway is built, you need people to maintain it, police it, plow it, etc. If anything was end-to-end twinned, it would likely be Hwy 11. It is much flatter and straighter and avoids the grades around Lake Superior.

Although I agree with the annoyance of getting caught behind an RV, semi or VW microbus, the actual traffic volumes don't really support increasing capacity. I picked a random spot of Hwy 17 between TBay and Dryden, fairly remote so little local traffic, and the MTO's Annual Average Daily Traffic count was (2021) only 2300 vehicles; both directions, all types.

Combining corridors has some merit but is likely more appropriate in the prairies. Roads, rail, energy, etc. each have different needs for curvature and grades. Besides, why would a railway, private corporations, spend money (or why would public money fund them) to spend billions for a new ROW when the ones they currently have work just fine.

Thanks for the updates re: north Ontario. Haven't been out there for 6 years and that was North Bay area so different world.

In regards to corridor planning roads and pipelines are very similar unless you get tons of tight curves in your highways. But a pipeline can connect and cut the middle (over ground or tunnel under at very high cost) to reconnect with your route.

Rail...that's a whole different kettle of fish due to both alignment differences for a 2 mile long train at speed and gradients involved.

 

[lenaitch]

Thanks for the updates re: north Ontario. Haven't been out there for 6 years and that was North Bay area so different world.

In regards to corridor planning roads and pipelines are very similar unless you get tons of tight curves in your highways. But a pipeline can connect and cut the middle (over ground or tunnel under at very high cost) to reconnect with your route.

Rail...that's a whole different kettle of fish due to both alignment differences for a 2 mile long train at speed and gradients involved.

That was one of the reasons why the Trans-Canada Pipeline parallels Hwy 11. It is much flatter and straighter with, in areas, more overburden (although still mostly blasted). That and Hwy 17 was not yet completed around Lake Superior.

 

[foresterab]

That was one of the reasons why the Trans-Canada Pipeline parallels Hwy 11. It is much flatter and straighter with, in areas, more overburden (although still mostly blasted). That and Hwy 17 was not yet completed around Lake Superior.

History you learn that makes alot of sense. I just know I don't like driving either of them in November storms at night trying to cross Ontario on a timeline.

 

[Furniture]

Ontario is (slowly) twinning the TC portions between the Manitoba border to east of Kenora and Thunder Bay to Nipigon; basically the two stretches where there are no alternatives. There is also a planned Euro-style 2+1 section north of North Bay. Beyond that, there have been a lot of passing lanes added in the past number of years.

The reality is any extensive highway reconstruction would involve twinning an existing highway. Trying to 'greenfield' a corridor to create a straight (ish) line would be horrendously expensive and, after the highway is built, you need people to maintain it, police it, plow it, etc. If anything was end-to-end twinned, it would likely be Hwy 11. It is much flatter and straighter and avoids the grades around Lake Superior.

Although I agree with the annoyance of getting caught behind an RV, semi or VW microbus, the actual traffic volumes don't really support increasing capacity. I picked a random spot of Hwy 17 between TBay and Dryden, fairly remote so little local traffic, and the MTO's Annual Average Daily Traffic count was (2021) only 2300 vehicles; both directions, all types.

Combining corridors has some merit but is likely more appropriate in the prairies. Roads, rail, energy, etc. each have different needs for curvature and grades. Besides, why would a railway, private corporations, spend money (or why would public money fund them) to spend billions for a new ROW when the ones they currently have work just fine.

My counterpoint to the low traffic volumes is that lots of traffic goes south because 11 and 17 are so bad for RVs in the summer, and prone to closures due to accidents. If one or both were twinned it would allow more traffic to stay in Canada, and and prevent the lengthy closures due to accidents.

 

[Kirkhill]

My counterpoint to the low traffic volumes is that lots of traffic goes south because 11 and 17 are so bad for RVs in the summer, and prone to closures due to accidents. If one or both were twinned it would allow more traffic to stay in Canada, and and prevent the lengthy closures due to accidents.

It is faster to get from Toronto to Calgary by way of Iowa.

 

[Furniture]

It is faster to get from Toronto to Calgary by way of Iowa.

True, there are some things that can't be fixed by twinning the roads, but twinning them makes it a more appealing route. More appealing routes get used more often. Montreal to Calgary can be quicker if the roads in Canada are better.

 

[lenaitch]

True, there are some things that can't be fixed by twinning the roads, but twinning them makes it a more appealing route. More appealing routes get used more often. Montreal to Calgary can be quicker if the roads in Canada are better.

Agree. The traffic volumes on I-95 north of Bangor, I-75 north of Saginaw or I-35 north of Bloomington are very low for the type of highway. Regardless, even if the feds showered Ontario with money, it would not get done in the lifetime of anybody on here.

 

[Kirkhill]

That were then. This is now.