SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Alberta & British Columbia (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=127)
-   -   BC Highway Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=187593)

Yahoo Oct 1, 2012 8:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy (Post 5850685)
And you think its a good idea to go cycling along a friggin highway that congested and decaying with your 2 10 year old kids??? Seriously, am I the only one that thinks this is asinine when people go take their family cycling on one of the most dangerous highways???

They need to ban cyclists on the major highways!

I know along the TCH in Banff they build a cycle/walking path off the highway. I'm not sure who funded it - but that's the way to do it. I agree that bikes shouldn't be allowed on main roads or highways. At least no ones with narrow shoulders. Some of the bridges in BC have virtually no shoulders so it would be extremely reckless to cycle there.

I'm not sure what many cyclists are thinking. When I bike I stay off main roads at all costs. The way I figure it - if I wouldn't walk somewhere I certainly wouldn't ride a bike.

Some cycle group recently petitioned the Alberta government to add a cycle lane to a highway (I forget the details). They were politely told that highways aren't the place for cyclists and they should try raising money to build a cycle path. Seriously I wish they'd do the same in Calgary. There are far too many green initiatives and anti-car movements - and that just makes it dangerous for cyclists and traffic. The place for bikes is off road.

Sorry about all the AB references I make. I live in Alberta but I have a cabin in the Shuswap and travel a lot in BC so I'm well aware of the road issues in BC.

Anyway - isn't there a trans-Canada trail being built? I'm not sure if it follows the TCH. That seems like a much safer way to cycle.

Yahoo Oct 1, 2012 9:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt (Post 5850898)
Very few people actually drive between those two points though.

I understand why highways in BC are the way they area. Actually kind of like the fact that they are under developed. Best way to ruin a beautiful area is to make it accessible.

Just because you don't drive the TCH in eastern BC that hardly means few people actually drive it. Come on! It's a busy dangerous narrow congested roadway.

The TCH isn't some remote road out in the middle of nowhere. It's the main road link to the rest of Canada. It's heavily used and is the lifeblood of much of BC. Yes, to someone in Vancouver or Victoria it's out of the way. But that's the same frustration we have with someone in Ottawa thinking Western Canada is out of the way. It simply isn't true.

The reason they have to focus on the dangerous sections and bridges first is that most of the bridges are long past their lifespan and the dangerous sections have been almost completely ignored. I wish the premier would drive to Calgary and back for her meeting with Alberta's premier. She'd see how bad the highway is compared to Alberta. And yes - even in Alberta the TCH leading to BC is out of the way for most people (but heavily used by tourists and truckers). Not that Alberta has much to brag about - it took 40 years to twin the highway once they decided to go ahead.

BC is unfortunately on the 200 year plan. And politicians seem quite adept at claiming they're upgrading the highway. They're careful not to release a plan or schedule. Even now I don't think she announced anything that wasn't announced before. Sure - they've fixed a few horrible sections. But that's hardly something to be proud about yet - given how little is actually being fixed and no schedule or plan is in place. I wish we had a politician who would commit to twinning it by a certain date - say 2025. The politicians of old never would have finished the initial highway if they were as unfocused as modern politicians.

Check with environmental groups about the highway in Banff. Many of them were shocked at how much better the highway is for wildlife after the upgrade. They took the opportunity to correct old mistakes with rivers & fish habitat, bridge heights for ducks, fencing and over/underpasses for animals etc. Hey, even look at Golden & the animal over/underpasses they just built. It's cool seeing Big Horn sheep actually living on the highway - but hardly what we should be allowing in BC. This road isn't just some park though. It's a vital transportation link - even in the remote sections since these remote sections lead to the rest of the country.

240glt Oct 2, 2012 2:27 PM

^ LOL... I grew up in the remote inner regions of BC. I know all about the highways. The TCH is a busy highway yes but most don't drive all the way from Van to Alberta... as suggested earlier in the thread. I drive into the Okanagan at least five or six times a year from Edmonton... Sometimes down the Yellowhead, sometimes on the # 1, yes it is busy, no it is not disastrous.

Seems like 4 laning just allows the idiots to drive like idiots anyways .... I think the biggest problem has always been that Albertans' can't drive in BC! :D

Quote:

Anyway - isn't there a trans-Canada trail being built? I'm not sure if it follows the TCH. That seems like a much safer way to cycle.
The trans Canada trail does not necessarily follow the TCH. It is a very nice trail (on the sections I have biked) but it is not a very direct route, nor is it easy terrain for biking in many places

Metro-One Oct 2, 2012 3:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt (Post 5852244)
^ LOL... I grew up in the remote inner regions of BC. I know all about the highways. The TCH is a busy highway yes but most don't drive all the way from Van to Alberta... as suggested earlier in the thread. I drive into the Okanagan at least five or six times a year from Edmonton... Sometimes down the Yellowhead, sometimes on the # 1, yes it is busy, no it is not disastrous.

Seems like 4 laning just allows the idiots to drive like idiots anyways .... I think the biggest problem has always been that Albertans' can't drive in BC! :D



The trans Canada trail does not necessarily follow the TCH. It is a very nice trail (on the sections I have biked) but it is not a very direct route, nor is it easy terrain for biking in many places

OMG thankyou!!!! I did not want to say it but you did. I cannot count how many times I have been stuck behind a family minivan with Albertan plates driving at a snail's pace around corners / up and down hills, it is as if they are scared! Every time I drive the Crowsnest / Sea to Sky / #1 through the canyon, etc...

osirisboy Oct 2, 2012 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 5850870)
The kids understand the safety risk. We always hit the road at sunrise and stopped by around 11 to avoid traffic. .

I really dont think this is much of an argument, I mean just because they understand the risks its ok? If they understood the risks of smoking would you be fine with them doing that activity as well? Sorry but you arent going to win this one. Totally reckless! Its one thing for you to want to do it but as a parent putting your kids in that kind of danger is inexcusable. There are sections of the TCH that are unsafe for cars to travel on let a lone cyclists who are trying to share that space with cars/transport trucks. as it has already been mentioned cyclists/pedestrians dont belong on major highways, There are just certain roads that arent meant to be shared. We should follow Ontario for example and make it illegal for bikes/pedestrians/and vehicles unable to go a certain speed from using major highways.

*edit... Im just blown away by peoples short sightedness. just thinking back on the last time I drove it and seeing cars that had swerved out or the countless tires that have blown out or even all the rocks that have flown up chipped and cracked my windshield.... so many hazards that could end so badly!

240glt Oct 2, 2012 7:30 PM

Quote:

There are sections of the TCH that are unsafe for cars to travel on
Oh Please... dramatize much ? The worst hazards on the TCH through BC are the weather, and other bad drivers. There is nothing that is inherently "unsafe".. or at least less safe on the TCH than on other two lane highways.

I probably wouldn't bike on the TCH, but know tots who have... for the most part the route seems pretty good. You'd want to be on your game though

osirisboy Oct 2, 2012 7:38 PM

Blah blah blah.... It would only take one dick to go speeding around a corner, loose control and wipe out then your happy little bike ride is over

Personally I dont think bikes should be on any highway but for sure high mountain highways with sudden weather changes, sharp corners, no shoulders.

its one thing if someone wants to take a risk and do something idiotic but for a parent to put their kids in that situation is reckless!

240glt Oct 2, 2012 7:57 PM

^ The world is full of risks. You could get run down by a bus tomorrow. Or a pre-cast panel could fall off a building and crush you. I prefer to enjoy experiences rather than worrying all the time

Good cyclists understand risks and make calculated decisions. They're also always on the defensive. I've enjoyed many highway rides throughout BC and Alberta... never had a problem. Biking in the city is far more dangerous IMO

Daveography Oct 2, 2012 8:01 PM

^ Without looking at statistics, I'm reasonably certain one's chance of dying in the highway is far greater in a motor vehicle than on a bike.

osirisboy Oct 2, 2012 8:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt (Post 5852758)
^ The world is full of risks. You could get run down by a bus tomorrow. Or a pre-cast panel could fall off a building and crush you. IMO

Well those seem to be things that are out of your control. Sticking your 10 year old kids on bikes along side 18 wheel transport trucks travelling around sharp cornered highways seem to be reasonably preventable to me.

edit I agree cycling in the city is also very dangerous.... I would also have issue with a parent allowing their kids biking down granville or broadway etc... go find a friggin bike path instead

If you guys want to take the risk thats one thing... my point was taking your 10 y/o kids through the TCH on bikes is reckless... and that just bc "they are aware of the risks" isnt much of an argument

Stingray2004 Oct 3, 2012 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo (Post 5851452)
The reason they have to focus on the dangerous sections and bridges first is that most of the bridges are long past their lifespan and the dangerous sections have been almost completely ignored.

I wish we had a politician who would commit to twinning it by a certain date - say 2025. The politicians of old never would have finished the initial highway if they were as unfocused as modern politicians.

If we are talking expressway or freeeway standards with a 100 km/hour + design speed it would take roughly $7 - 8 billion IMHO to complete twinning between Kamloops and the AB border. That's big coin.

That said, it looks like upgrade projects will continue from hereon in.

Some of the projects:

1. Monte Creek/Pritchard/Hoffmans Bluff;
2. Phase 4 of Kicking Horse Canyon;

And some others that BC MoT mentioned today:

3. Replacement of Malakwa Bridge and associated twinning;
4. Replacement of North Fork Bridge and associated twinning;
(both of these projects are west of Revelstoke)
5. Twinning east of Donald to Golden;

Doug Oct 3, 2012 3:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt (Post 5852758)
^ The world is full of risks. You could get run down by a bus tomorrow. Or a pre-cast panel could fall off a building and crush you. I prefer to enjoy experiences rather than worrying all the time

Good cyclists understand risks and make calculated decisions. They're also always on the defensive. I've enjoyed many highway rides throughout BC and Alberta... never had a problem. Biking in the city is far more dangerous IMO

Exactly. The easiest way to ride safely if to do it as early in the morning as possible while the drivers are still alert and the traffic relatively light. I always bring up the rear when riding with the kids.

Daguy Oct 3, 2012 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 5853147)
If we are talking expressway or freeeway standards with a 100 km/hour + design speed it would take roughly $7 - 8 billion IMHO to complete twinning between Kamloops and the AB border. That's big coin.

$7 - $8 billion to widen 240km of highway? Seems pretty high for expressway standard, even for BC. I know that the last 4km in Kicking Horse is over $600 million, but most segments aren't nearly that costly per km. Are you including a bypass of Salmon Arm over Shuswap Lake?

If you mean freeway standard then yeah I wouldn't doubt it would cost a fortune in grade separating many low traffic count intersections.

Metro-One Oct 3, 2012 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 5853147)
If we are talking expressway or freeeway standards with a 100 km/hour + design speed it would take roughly $7 - 8 billion IMHO to complete twinning between Kamloops and the AB border. That's big coin.

That said, it looks like upgrade projects will continue from hereon in.

Some of the projects:

1. Monte Creek/Pritchard/Hoffmans Bluff;
2. Phase 4 of Kicking Horse Canyon;

And some others that BC MoT mentioned today:

3. Replacement of Malakwa Bridge and associated twinning;
4. Replacement of North Fork Bridge and associated twinning;
(both of these projects are west of Revelstoke)
5. Twinning east of Donald to Golden;



Can you show me a link where these were mentioned??

Good to see they are generally targeting bridge structures, therefore making future twinning more accessible.

Metro-One Oct 3, 2012 6:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daguy (Post 5853972)
$7 - $8 billion to widen 240km of highway? Seems pretty high for expressway standard, even for BC. I know that the last 4km in Kicking Horse is over $600 million, but most segments aren't nearly that costly per km. Are you including a bypass of Salmon Arm over Shuswap Lake?

If you mean freeway standard then yeah I wouldn't doubt it would cost a fortune in grade separating many low traffic count intersections.

I honestly think 7-8 billion is a low figure. All the new twined stretches of the #1 are being built to 100 kmh design speeds, doing so in BC's topography crossing countless rivers, running along countless lakes, and going through numerous mountain ranges really adds up fast.

Heck, the SFPR in Metro Vancouver, which primarily runs along much more accessible topography, is only 40km long with a design speed of just 80km h and it is costing nearly 1 billion.

LeftCoaster Oct 3, 2012 9:21 PM

I think a good chunk of that cost would be land appropriations though, lots of private land had to be cut through and infringed onto.

And it's not like the SFPR had a very easy construction area either. Outside of the Tsawassen area its primarily built along river silt which may seem easy but probably needs a fair amount of preloading and extra stability support.

I do agree though, twinning through to the AB border is going to cost many billions.

Yahoo Oct 3, 2012 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 5852387)
OMG thankyou!!!! I did not want to say it but you did. I cannot count how many times I have been stuck behind a family minivan with Albertan plates driving at a snail's pace around corners / up and down hills, it is as if they are scared! Every time I drive the Crowsnest / Sea to Sky / #1 through the canyon, etc...

Hey now - a good number of those slow mini-van's and campers are from BC or other provinces besides Alberta. What really bugs me are the guys who floor it in passing lanes but do 60k on every 1 lane curve. But fair enough - the roads in BC can be pretty intimidating. But if you don't know how to drive then you really shouldn't be.

I know it's a common myth (hahaha) that Albertan's can't drive in BC but for me it's the opposite. Many BC drivers in BC can't drive. Too many BC drivers use the TCH as a local road - and see no need to go the speed limit when they're just heading into town to pick up some supplies.

Bottom line - the highway needs serious attention. I'm glad it's finally on the radar - it's just sad that the pace is so slow. I know it costs a fortune, but really the economic benefits of a good road and the economic benefits of a busy construction industry pay for themselves.

I'm excited to hear more projects were announced. I'll have to go check that out.

Yahoo Oct 3, 2012 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 5853147)

That said, it looks like upgrade projects will continue from hereon in.

Some of the projects:

1. Monte Creek/Pritchard/Hoffmans Bluff;
2. Phase 4 of Kicking Horse Canyon;

And some others that BC MoT mentioned today:

3. Replacement of Malakwa Bridge and associated twinning;
4. Replacement of North Fork Bridge and associated twinning;
(both of these projects are west of Revelstoke)
5. Twinning east of Donald to Golden;

Was this published or just a discussion? I can't find any information about 3-5 on their website.

Stingray2004 Oct 4, 2012 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daguy (Post 5853972)
$7 - $8 billion to widen 240km of highway?

While the Kicking Horse Canyon section is not reflective of the entire corridor, many other sections will have similar cost constraints. The KHC will come it at about $40 million/km over ~25 km when completed.

The actual distance between Kamloops and the AB border is ~450 km (BC MoT - ~350 km + Parks Canada - ~100 km). And many expensive sections therein, including:

1. National Parks;

2. Existing snowshed replacements plus new snowsheds/rocksheds;

3. New bridge structures;

4. Many areas with geotechnical problems;

5. Environmental problems;

Some of these matters are discussed in contemplated segmental studies contained within this old 1996 BC MoT report analyzing the corridor.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/kickinghorse..._mgmt_plan.pdf

Stingray2004 Oct 4, 2012 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 5854050)
Can you show me a link where these were mentioned??

Good to see they are generally targeting bridge structures, therefore making future twinning more accessible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo (Post 5854383)
Was this published or just a discussion? I can't find any information about 3-5 on their website.

Sorry about that. Here it is:

Quote:

A spokesperson for the province’s Ministry of Transportation said $141 million is already allocated in the government’s three-year service plan with another $509 million to be allocated over the next 10 years.

Projects that will be developed include replacement of the Malakwa and North Fork Bridges west of Revelstoke and expanding the roadway around those bridges to four lanes, as well as expanding the roadway east of Donald, near Golden.

The spokesperson said the remaining projects will be identified through consultations with communities and stakeholders.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ada-doubt.html

Metro-One Oct 4, 2012 1:44 AM

Awesome, thank you.

And yes, I hope the long term plan has the entire Salmon Arm area bypassed.

Much of the highway can be upgraded properly via twinning, but there are a few sections where entirely new alignments should be done.

craner Oct 4, 2012 3:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 5853147)

Some of the projects:

1. Monte Creek/Pritchard/Hoffmans Bluff;
2. Phase 4 of Kicking Horse Canyon;

And some others that BC MoT mentioned today:

3. Replacement of Malakwa Bridge and associated twinning;
4. Replacement of North Fork Bridge and associated twinning;
(both of these projects are west of Revelstoke)
5. Twinning east of Donald to Golden;

This is great news - I especially like #5, I can't understand why it hasn't been done already as it is one of the easier sections (relatively speaking).

I would hope the Feds match these funds at the very least as this is a national highway.

Daguy Oct 4, 2012 3:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 5854478)
While the Kicking Horse Canyon section is not reflective of the entire corridor, many other sections will have similar cost constraints. The KHC will come it at about $40 million/km over ~25 km when completed.

The actual distance between Kamloops and the AB border is ~450 km (BC MoT - ~350 km + Parks Canada - ~100 km). And many expensive sections therein, including:

1. National Parks;

2. Existing snowshed replacements plus new snowsheds/rocksheds;

3. New bridge structures;

4. Many areas with geotechnical problems;

5. Environmental problems;

Some of these matters are discussed in contemplated segmental studies contained within this old 1996 BC MoT report analyzing the corridor.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/kickinghorse..._mgmt_plan.pdf

I believe the remaining distance to be twinned between Kamloops and Alberta, excluding the parks and currently planned projects, is 240km. That's all I was referring to because the parks are not part of the cost for the province. The article is found here:

http://www.revelstoketimesreview.com...ml?mobile=true

As for a Salmon Arm bypass, that's decades away even if they select it as the preferred option given the extreme cost. I seem to recall the alternative as a single lane bridge with an 80km/hr speed limit connecting west of Canoe.

Stingray2004 Oct 4, 2012 4:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daguy (Post 5854752)
I believe the remaining distance to be twinned between Kamloops and Alberta, excluding the parks and currently planned projects, is 240km. That's all I was referring to because the parks are not part of the cost for the province. The article is found here:

http://www.revelstoketimesreview.com...ml?mobile=true

As for a Salmon Arm bypass, that's decades away even if they select it as the preferred option given the extreme cost. I seem to recall the alternative as a single lane bridge with an 80km/hr speed limit connecting west of Canoe.

Alot of the provincial sections also will be quite expensive in terms of bringing to a 100km/hr+ standard. Three Valley Gap and near Chase, for example, are top of mind.

I was also including the 100 km in the National Parks. While National Parks upgrading will be 100% federal dollars, they are still federal dollars that must be taken from BC's overall federal infrastructure allocation, which takes away from other areas.

That's what also happened with the Banff twinning in terms of AB's federal infrastructure share.

BTW, after Banff is completed to the AB/BC border, look to the feds to continue westward into Yoho NP. At least to Field as a first phase and down the road eventually connecting to the KHC making a continuous 4-lane divided highway past Golden to Donald.

The Shuswap Lake Crossing between Ford and Canoe will be one of the last projects on the list IMHO and will probably be 4 lanes when undertaken.

craner Oct 4, 2012 4:33 AM

I agree with your assessments stingray.

Yahoo Oct 4, 2012 4:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 5854798)
BTW, after Banff is completed to the AB/BC border, look to the feds to continue westward into Yoho NP. At least to Field as a first phase and down the road eventually connecting to the KHC making a continuous 4-lane divided highway past Golden to Donald.

Banff will be completed this year except for a bit of landscaping. It seems strange that they'd be fixing the old bridges in Yoho near Field right now if they were planning to twin the highway anytime soon. My guess is it'll be a few decades for Yoho unless the politicians change focus. Hopefully I'm wrong and the bridge fixes are just emergency repairs.

Yahoo Oct 4, 2012 4:58 PM

Does anyone know why they didn't just continue the Coquihalla all the way to Alberta? I know it wasn't part of the project but it seems like a natural extension that could really speed up the trip and have better alignments than the TCH. A reasonable toll road could be built in 10 years couldn't it? (I still think the TCH should be twinned, but another highway wouldn't hurt).

Perhaps there were just too many parks on the way to Alberta?

Daguy Oct 4, 2012 5:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 5854798)
Alot of the provincial sections also will be quite expensive in terms of bringing to a 100km/hr+ standard. Three Valley Gap and near Chase, for example, are top of mind.

I was also including the 100 km in the National Parks. While National Parks upgrading will be 100% federal dollars, they are still federal dollars that must be taken from BC's overall federal infrastructure allocation, which takes away from other areas.

That's what also happened with the Banff twinning in terms of AB's federal infrastructure share.

BTW, after Banff is completed to the AB/BC border, look to the feds to continue westward into Yoho NP. At least to Field as a first phase and down the road eventually connecting to the KHC making a continuous 4-lane divided highway past Golden to Donald.

The Shuswap Lake Crossing between Ford and Canoe will be one of the last projects on the list IMHO and will probably be 4 lanes when undertaken.


Three valley Gap is brutal, I see them filling in part of the water along there, cause BC doesn't build tunnels unless the alternative is literally impossible.

I read on the Banff website that they've been talking about twinning to field for awhile. The website says that a short transition zone of four laning into Yoho (like less than 1 km from what I gather) is supposed to be part of current twinning under a proposed amendment.

The Shuswap lake crossing will be a mess too because Salmon Arm is the Nimbiest place I have ever seen lol. The area around Canoe beach is relatively secluded at this point, and I'm sure the locals will be up in arms.

The Malakwa and North Fork Bridge projects have been posted on the MoT website, so I guess it's official!

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayprojects/Hwy1/index.htm

nname Oct 4, 2012 9:59 PM

Seems like BC MoT is really going on the cheap side.

- The twinning will feature 5 at-grade intersections in total - which is not surprising.
- No grass median and again, no median barrier. The existing grass median will immediately taper and disappear at the transition into project zone.
- Total twinning is 6.1km, although the gap between the two segment is only 4km.. I wonder how much they save by building two transition zones instead of just finishing it all at once.

Metro-One Oct 4, 2012 10:50 PM

ok, honestly, 4 of those intersections could easily be built as 2 diamond interchanges instead, or even the really cheap interchange where the is an offset off and on ramp on both sides of the highway connected by a small 2 lane underpass / overpass in between.

Daguy Oct 5, 2012 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname (Post 5855794)
Seems like BC MoT is really going on the cheap side.

- The twinning will feature 5 at-grade intersections in total - which is not surprising.
- No grass median and again, no median barrier. The existing grass median will immediately taper and disappear at the transition into project zone.
- Total twinning is 6.1km, although the gap between the two segment is only 4km.. I wonder how much they save by building two transition zones instead of just finishing it all at once.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 5855869)
ok, honestly, 4 of those intersections could easily be built as 2 diamond interchanges instead, or even the really cheap interchange where the is an offset off and on ramp on both sides of the highway connected by a small 2 lane underpass / overpass in between.

Definitely agree with the points of no median barrier and lack of grade separation. Safety has to be a bigger priority on these projects. I will say that the Malakwa bridge segment would be tough to divide with a grass median even if funds were available because the rail tracks are on the north side of the highway, and the south side has housing that would have to be expropriated.

240glt Oct 9, 2012 5:16 PM

I''ve noticed over the past few trips to BC, the sheer amount of freight being shipped to Edmonton and points north may necessitate the twinning of the Yellowhead from Hinton to the Hwy16/Hwy5 junction just north of Valemount. As the Prince Rupert port takes shape, the highway between this port and the industrial heartland will become a critical link, and the obvious bottleneck is the highway through Robson and Jasper parks.

Shinook Oct 11, 2012 3:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daguy (Post 5855409)
Three valley Gap is brutal, I see them filling in part of the water along there, cause BC doesn't build tunnels unless the alternative is literally impossible.

Seriously doubt this. I have conducted environmental work in conjunction with DFO within the Three Valley Gap area, and they (DFO) are fiercly protective of the natural features it contains. BCMOT will most likely have to find another alternative.

Calgarian Oct 11, 2012 5:50 PM

Raised highway through there?

Daguy Oct 12, 2012 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shinook (Post 5863031)
Seriously doubt this. I have conducted environmental work in conjunction with DFO within the Three Valley Gap area, and they (DFO) are fiercly protective of the natural features it contains. BCMOT will most likely have to find another alternative.

I'm glad to hear that cause it's a beautiful area. Just gonna be expensive whatever the alternative is.

Looks like traffic has moved onto the new Donald Bridge and Overhead today:

http://wcs.pbaeng.com/projects/R2-Hwy1-Donald

Stingray2004 Oct 12, 2012 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shinook (Post 5863031)
Seriously doubt this. I have conducted environmental work in conjunction with DFO within the Three Valley Gap area, and they (DFO) are fiercly protective of the natural features it contains. BCMOT will most likely have to find another alternative.

~20 years ago, back in 1993, BC MoT undertook preliminary design and considered 6 separate options for the 7.5 km Three Valley Gap segment albeit no mention of the shoreline:

Quote:

STATUS REPORT - THREE VALLEY LAKE PROJECT
PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Highway Engineering Branch, Kootenays Region, May 1993

Six options were developed to increase the capacity and decrease closures due to avalanches in the Three Valley Lake segment of the Trans-Canada Highway, along a length of 7.5 kilometres. All options considered a 4 lane freeway configuration.

Options were developed for design speeds of both 90 km/h and 110 km/h. The estimated construction costs, excluding right-of-way, range from $100 million to $145 million.

Environmental, social, and some engineering issues [largely associated with geotechnical considerations] remain to be addressed.

Preferred Option F affords the most protection from avalanches, and is estimated to be the least expensive. This option necessitates the acquisition of the existing motel complex at the east end of the lake. The comparable option to avoid the motel is estimated to cost $7 million additional. A design speed of 110 km/h is estimated to increase the cost by approximately $10 million over a 90 km/h alignment. A phased construction program is feasible.

Daguy Oct 12, 2012 2:04 AM

:previous:

What sucks is that the Ministry doesn't follow those recommendations. In the file with that report they mention the west bench realignment of the highway at Donald, realigning the highway through the Turtle Valley, realigning the highway through the Kicking Horse Canyon to the south side, etc.

The Ministry doesn't seem to care what the previous studies recommend, they just care about cost. Most of the studies recommend freeway alignments with design speeds of 110 and 120 km/hr where feasible, which definitely won't happen.

Yahoo Oct 15, 2012 7:54 PM

I drove from Sorrento to Calgary yesterday and observed the following along the busy highway (surprisingly busy to me for October)

- As mentioned earlier the Donald bridge and new railway bridges are open to traffic. It's still 1 lane in each direction but the construction seems to be on schedule for a fall wrap up. They are already starting the demolition of the old railway bridge.

- Ditto for the Clanwilliam overhead. Almost ready for twinned traffic.

- I hope when they mentioned roadwork between Donald and Golden they were referring to twinning all the way between Donald and Golden. I'm afraid they may just be referring to the short 1k between the railway bridge and truck weigh-station since no announcement was made. That still leaves about 32km of relatively straight and easy highway untwinned. Man - it was brutal on the 35km stretch by Donald to Golden. About 40 cars and semi's (that I could see) were stuck in a convoy behind a semi doing 80kph & 60kph on corners. The traffic was so heavy in the opposite direction - as per usual - there was no way to pass the scared trucker. For 35 km!

- The wall they're building to twin the highway 4k east of Golden for about 1k+ seems to be proceeding. I couldn't see it very well but it seems like the roadway elevation will be dropped quite a bit (unless of course what I saw was just the base or mid section - in which case they have a pretty substantial amount of work left to raise the new roadway to the same elevation as the current road).

- The Golden hill improvements are done. It's a shame the shoulder is tiny on the hill since you wouldn't want to be beside someone on that section since there is little room for error in places. I can see why the shoulder is tiny (avoiding the cost of a retaining wall) - and unfortunately I can see them fixing it again when money becomes available since it's an obvious slow spot & choke point. Still though - a twinned road is nice even if it's built to a lower standard.

- Some of the newer sections of the highway near the huge bridge they built east of Golden obviously still have rock-slide issues. It's a shame since it seems like they tried to do it correctly. There are 2 huge piles of rocks leaning on the barriers (I can't tell if they made it onto the roadway - but I suspect they must have and been cleared, as was the case last year). There is also a comically gigantic round bolder right at the edge of the roadway. Too bad I couldn't get a picture. It looks like something Wiley Coyote pushed to squish the roadrunner. I can only imagine the look on people's faces when that came down lol. If it had rolled onto the highway it would flatten a semi (or roadrunner) like a pancake.

- Someone had asked earlier about why the don't just 4 lane between Malakwa and North Fork when they replace those overheads. There are 2 bridges in between them. One is fairly new - but is only 1 lane in each direction so it'll require another new bridge. Given the short distance it would be nice if they just completed the whole section but that would likely double or triple the cost. (given their commitment to twin the highway though it seems strange they don't just go for it while they're working in the area. I would assume you'd save money by doing it all at once). But using the cash to fix up some of the more dangerous bridges that are left may save some lives and be better spent elsewhere for now.

- They've cleared trees in Glacier right by Banff - so it looks like they definitely plan on extending the twinning into Glacier for a bit. Given the amount cleared though it looks like it's only about 500m. Hopefully they can just make use of the current construction crews and save some time and money on the extension.

- The roadway and bridge railings in most of the BC National Parks are in pretty bad shape. As in - they had to put up temporary concrete barriers on many of the 60 year old bridges because the guardrails are breaking apart. They are resurfacing some pavement in Mt Revy park - which was well needed. Hopefully their delays in resurfacing the other parks and fixing their bridges is an indication that they are waiting to do that as part of a twinning project.

- The bridge work by Field has wrapped up (after 2 years?). (no roadway improvements - likely just maintenance work)

- The traffic in Banff has been routed onto the new roadway. There is still a lot of paving and some bridgework to do in Banff but if the weather holds it looks to me like the Banff twinning could be done this year aside from next years planned landscaping.

Daguy Oct 15, 2012 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo (Post 5867497)
I drove from Sorrento to Calgary yesterday and observed the following along the busy highway (surprisingly busy to me for October)

- They've cleared trees in Glacier right by Banff - so it looks like they definitely plan on extending the twinning into Glacier for a bit. Given the amount cleared though it looks like it's only about 500m. Hopefully they can just make use of the current construction crews and save some time and money on the extension.

Yeah the December 2010 update for the project mentions that Parks Canada was pursuing an amendment to the 2004 environmental assessment (Phase IIIB) to allow a short transition zone to be constructed within Yoho, so 500m is probably right.

Stingray2004 Oct 16, 2012 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo (Post 5867497)
I hope when they mentioned roadwork between Donald and Golden they were referring to twinning all the way between Donald and Golden. I'm afraid they may just be referring to the short 1k between the railway bridge and truck weigh-station since no announcement was made.

BC MoT hasn't made any announcements yet on twinning between Donald and Golden.

Quote:

The Golden hill improvements are done. It's a shame the shoulder is tiny on the hill since you wouldn't want to be beside someone on that section since there is little room for error in places. I can see why the shoulder is tiny (avoiding the cost of a retaining wall) - and unfortunately I can see them fixing it again when money becomes available since it's an obvious slow spot & choke point. Still though - a twinned road is nice even if it's built to a lower standard.
I understand some of that is temporary. When the new Hwy 95 interchange is constructed at the bottom of the hill, Hwy 1 will be re-aligned moving up the hill as well.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/kickinghorse.../Segment_1.pdf

Yahoo Oct 22, 2012 7:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 5867823)
BC MoT hasn't made any announcements yet on twinning between Donald and Golden.

I know;) - I was just basing it on what someone here mentioned earlier (a page or 2 ago). They mentioned the 3 new projects and 2 were announced shortly afterwards so I was hoping they had inside information. The third project referred to twinning between Golden and Donald - but my concern is that they may be be referring to the short distance from the Donald bridge to the scales, which very much needs an upgrade but is trivial in length and leaves 30 km+ of relatively easy terrain untwinned with no passing lanes.

Doug Oct 22, 2012 7:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo (Post 5855321)
Does anyone know why they didn't just continue the Coquihalla all the way to Alberta? I know it wasn't part of the project but it seems like a natural extension that could really speed up the trip and have better alignments than the TCH. A reasonable toll road could be built in 10 years couldn't it? (I still think the TCH should be twinned, but another highway wouldn't hurt).

Perhaps there were just too many parks on the way to Alberta?

Cost and politics. The Coquihalla began construction in the 70s as a push to open the Interior up to economic development. Construction stopped around 1980 due to massive cost over runs, a BC budget crisis and the political reality of the Lower Mainland holding far more votes than the Interior. Expo 86 was the impetus to resume construction and the tight deadline caused even more overruns. The Okanagan connector did not open until the early 90s.

Yahoo Oct 22, 2012 7:45 PM

Highway 63 twinning announced in Alberta. Mentioning it here since I believe it's about the same distance as remains on the Kamloops to Alberta border section (240km). Note that they are NOT awaiting federal funding. I think BC could learn something here. Ask for federal help on the provincial areas of the TCH for sure (called "Canada's main street" on the BC MoT website) - but put the big pressure on the feds to fund the upgrades in the national parks first. That's purely Federal - and if they see BC doing the right thing on the rest of the highway that'll be added pressure to fix up the park sections. As it is they see BC as relatively uninterested in completing the twinning anytime soon - so why should they care to fund their sections?
(provincial funding is actually decreasing over the next decade if what I've read is true ~710 in the past and ~650 now, but to be fair that could include federal money in the past - I don't know)

I realize 63 is over relatively easy terrain compared to in BC but BC isn't even doing the easy sections of the TCH. Alberta plans to twin 240 km in 4 years - but in BC the plan is to twin an additional what - 4.5 km or something over the next 4-5 years? And I'm not talking the massively expensive Kicking Horse section - I'm talking 4.5 km as part of 2 small bridge replacements that are urgently need of replacement anyway. And there are some big differences here. Alberta announced a schedule and budget, where in BC they made promises during an election but never announced a schedule (I guess voters will fall for anything). They even put up signs and reaffirm their intentions from time to time - carefully avoiding a schedule or full scale plans.

Looks like the bad press and death toll got to them...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ighway-63.html
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/po...605/story.html

Another bad accident closed the TCH highway in Rogers pass on Friday. 12 year old boy dead this time. Accidents will always happen but a double divided national highway will prevent all these head on collisions.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/dea...028/story.html

Someone accused me of only caring about the roads I drive. Strange since I was only commenting in the forums relating to those roads - so obviously those are the roads I'd comment on. As far as the whole highway - I think it should be twinned nationally - except perhaps at the very ends if it doesn't make sense locally. I know there are parts of Ontario etc that don't get used much - but I think a lot of that has to do with the poor condition of the highway. People take the faster and safer USA route to drive across Canada (plus gas is cheaper). How sad is it that we have to rely on another country for our roads. I'm not suggesting the remote parts of Ontario should be done first, but they should at least be done once the rest of the highway is twinned. When you think about the old rail line across Canada or even the original TCH it could easily be argued that it wasn't needed yet (at the time). As we see - big projects like this really open up the country and with our big country we need effective transportation networks.

Yahoo Oct 22, 2012 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 5875408)
Cost and politics.

I guess it always comes down to cost and politics. :haha:

Do you know if the entire Coquihalla highway costs were eventually fully paid for by the tolls?

I'm not a fan of toll roads unless there is a free public alternative and the toll is removed once the initial investment is paid off (as happened here I assume). It seems to me like twinning the TCH from the left coast to Kamloops could be paid for by tolls now that there is a free alternative highway.

Do some re-designation of the Coquihalla as highway TCH 1B or something (kind of like the Yellowhead highway is called the TCH too I believe to make people happy).

Given the tough road conditions in BC - particularly in the winter it seems like a case could be made to twin the entire BC TCH rather than just the eastern areas.

Phil McAvity Oct 23, 2012 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo (Post 5875447)
Do you know if the entire Coquihalla highway costs were eventually fully paid for by the tolls?

That's a good question, especially coming from some yahoo. :D

I recall hearing years ago that the government kept the tolls long after the Coquihalla was paid for but I couldn't find any proof of that but what I did find was that the highway cost $848 million and the provincial Liberals announced that the tolls would be removed after they, and previous governments, had collected $845 million, so they basically stuck to their word.

I also agree with you about having a toll/toll-free option on our roads and highways. Why this isn't standard procedure these days just baffles me.

Daguy Oct 23, 2012 6:49 PM

On a happy note, the first phase of Monte Creek to Pritchard is nearing completion. I drove through a few days ago and line painting was mostly completed. I am happy to see on the web cam today that they are installing a median barrier!

http://wcs.pbaeng.com/projects/R2-Hwy1-Monte

http://wcs.pbaeng.com/httphandlers/q...0483&mode=prev

nname Oct 23, 2012 9:05 PM

I wonder if they will call that intersection "Exit 403" :D

Doug Oct 23, 2012 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity (Post 5875803)
That's a good question, especially coming from some yahoo. :D

I recall hearing years ago that the government kept the tolls long after the Coquihalla was paid for but I couldn't find any proof of that but what I did find was that the highway cost $848 million and the provincial Liberals announced that the tolls would be removed after they, and previous governments, had collected $845 million, so they basically stuck to their word.

I also agree with you about having a toll/toll-free option on our roads and highways. Why this isn't standard procedure these days just baffles me.

The Coquihalla toll made sense because the $10/car was cheaper than paying for the additional gas to take the non-tolled alternatives. I suspect the maintenance costs on the Coquihalla are high due to the elevations.

Doug Oct 23, 2012 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo (Post 5875415)
Highway 63 twinning announced in Alberta. Mentioning it here since I believe it's about the same distance as remains on the Kamloops to Alberta border section (240km). Note that they are NOT awaiting federal funding. I think BC could learn something here. Ask for federal help on the provincial areas of the TCH for sure (called "Canada's main street" on the BC MoT website) - but put the big pressure on the feds to fund the upgrades in the national parks first. That's purely Federal - and if they see BC doing the right thing on the rest of the highway that'll be added pressure to fix up the park sections. As it is they see BC as relatively uninterested in completing the twinning anytime soon - so why should they care to fund their sections?
(provincial funding is actually decreasing over the next decade if what I've read is true ~710 in the past and ~650 now, but to be fair that could include federal money in the past - I don't know)

I realize 63 is over relatively easy terrain compared to in BC but BC isn't even doing the easy sections of the TCH. Alberta plans to twin 240 km in 4 years - but in BC the plan is to twin an additional what - 4.5 km or something over the next 4-5 years? And I'm not talking the massively expensive Kicking Horse section - I'm talking 4.5 km as part of 2 small bridge replacements that are urgently need of replacement anyway. And there are some big differences here. Alberta announced a schedule and budget, where in BC they made promises during an election but never announced a schedule (I guess voters will fall for anything). They even put up signs and reaffirm their intentions from time to time - carefully avoiding a schedule or full scale plans.

Looks like the bad press and death toll got to them...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ighway-63.html
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/po...605/story.html

Another bad accident closed the TCH highway in Rogers pass on Friday. 12 year old boy dead this time. Accidents will always happen but a double divided national highway will prevent all these head on collisions.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/dea...028/story.html

Someone accused me of only caring about the roads I drive. Strange since I was only commenting in the forums relating to those roads - so obviously those are the roads I'd comment on. As far as the whole highway - I think it should be twinned nationally - except perhaps at the very ends if it doesn't make sense locally. I know there are parts of Ontario etc that don't get used much - but I think a lot of that has to do with the poor condition of the highway. People take the faster and safer USA route to drive across Canada (plus gas is cheaper). How sad is it that we have to rely on another country for our roads. I'm not suggesting the remote parts of Ontario should be done first, but they should at least be done once the rest of the highway is twinned. When you think about the old rail line across Canada or even the original TCH it could easily be argued that it wasn't needed yet (at the time). As we see - big projects like this really open up the country and with our big country we need effective transportation networks.

Alberta twined the TCH from Calgary to the Banff Park Gate in the mid 60s in expectation that the Feds would twin through the park. They did...20-45 years later.

Twinning to Ft McMurray is not trivial engineering. While probably still less expensive than building through mountain valleys, twinning AB 63 past Grasslands is mostly through muskeg.

240glt Oct 24, 2012 2:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 5877075)
The Coquihalla toll made sense because the $10/car was cheaper than paying for the additional gas to take the non-tolled alternatives. I suspect the maintenance costs on the Coquihalla are high due to the elevations.

Less about gas and more about time. Vernon to the coast via the canyon was about a 7 hour trip. Via the connector it's about 4.5

The canyon is still well travelled though.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.