section5-02

Throughway Management

Condition of Specific Highways

Highway safety is a joint responsibility of Parks Canada and users of these assets since the Agency does not control all factors affecting safety (e.g., enforcement of speed limits, driver education). Parks Canada contributes to highway safety through its formal and informal inspection, maintenance and recapitalization activities (i.e., issues such as potholes and damaged rail guards are inspected informally, and where possible, these concerns are addressed).

The condition ratings of specific numbered highways in national parks and national historic sites administered by Parks Canada are shown in Table 33. Of the 1000 kilometres of highway 8% are rated good, 27% fair and 65% poor condition.

Table 33: Profile of Highways in National Parks

($1 billion estimated replacement value (1998) or about 14% of Parks Canada’s asset portfolio)

National Park of Canada		Total Km	Asset Condition Rating Km
			G	F	P
1	Pacific Rim	21.4			21.4
2	Mt. Revelstoke	13.7		13.7
3	Glacier	44.7		20.5	24.2
4	Banff	149.43*		86.5	62.93
5	Jasper	120.3		43.4	76.9
6	Kootenay	93.5		37.52	55.98
7	Yoho	42.1			42.1
8	Waterton	32.15	14.35		17.8
9	Riding Mountain	83.6			83.6
10	Prince Albert	21.7
11	Forillon	10.7			10.7
12	Cape Breton	80.6	11.2	9.7	59.7
13	Kouchibouguac	24.1			24.1
14	Fundy	19			19
15	Gros Morne	98.1	46.1	14.7	37.2
16	Terra Nova	53.9	1	12.3	40.6
17	Wood Buffalo	114.2
National Historic Site of Canada		0
18	18. L’Anse aux Meadows	2.4
Source: Internal Parks Canada data * Divided portions of the Trans-Canada Highway are counted twice, reflecting the fact they are four-lane highways. Condition ratings were last updated in 1999. The Agency is currently updating its assessments but the asset inventory is large and the limited funding available will be directed to identifying and addressing the most urgent safety items. As new ratings become available Parks Canada will report changes and improvements. there is no data available for the highway through L’Anse aux Meadows NHS, Wood Buffalo NP or Prince Albert NP. The number of kilometres of highway is greater than previously reported. A recent asset review revealed that Highway 5 in Wood Buffalo National Park had been omitted.

Highway condition may be rated:

1. Good – No deterioration or loss of stability.
2. Fair - Minor asset deterioration with some loss of stability and/or performance that will worsen if corrective work is not carried out, on average, within three to five years.
3. Poor - Significant asset deterioration with major loss of stability and/or performance and a high risk of accelerated deterioration or failure if corrective work is not carried out, on average, within one to two years.

No urgent health and safety concerns that threaten public safety, or situations where an asset was in immediate danger of collapse were identified in the 2006-2007 inspections. Indicators of Parks Canada’s contribution to highway safety include the ratings of the condition of the assets and the level of investments to maintain or recapitalize the assets.

Between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010, $33.8 M will be allocated to highway recapitalization in western Canada and $6.1M in eastern Canada.

In addition, supplementary funding to address service level increases such as highway twinning have been provided to Parks Canada including Infrastructure Canada Strategic Funding of $50M over four years announced in 2004-2005 and a further $37M over 5 years from the Asia Pacific Corridor initiative.

Within the Agency, a general asset condition rating of bridges was also completed and the results are shown in Table 34. Detailed engineering assessments have been completed on all bridges in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Québec. In Ontario, staff capacity issues have been a factor in not having secondary inspections completed.

Table 34: Overall Condition Rating – Bridges in Eastern Canada

Condition Rating	Number	Percentage
Good	79	34 %
Fair	112	49 %
Poor	16	7 %
Closure	2	18 %
Unknown	21	9 %
Total:	230	100 %

* Twenty-one structures were not inspected by PWGSC as they were not considered bridges. They are low risk/significance culverts or bridges on park service roads and were inspected in September 2006.

< Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  | Next Page  >