North side of Nanaimo, not the interchange on the south side.

Yeah, my super dream is for the entire #1 / Malahat to be upgraded to freeway standards from Victoria to Nanaimo. This could be built as a distance based toll way though.

Isn't the terrain to the east of Big White quite mountainous? Would the road follow the Kettle River (not West Kettle River) valley part of the way and join with highway 6, at least in the medium/long term until bridging the South Arrow Lake occurred? Also, I read that some want the dam near Castlegar removed, and that would drop the level of the lake,allowing for a more cost effective bridge.

I always wondered if a Needles to South Slogan highway would be built, bypassing Nakusp and the circuitous loop, but with the stagnant population, I doubt it would happen.

Hey Splash. Locally there hasn't been any talk regarding removing the Hugh Keenleyside Dam here. Especially with the demand for electricity ever climbing.
As far as the route being mountainous, almost every highway in BC has faced this and gone through anyways. Im not sure if the route has been surveyed out yet but straight west to the Arrow is what ive heard. The Coq is no stranger to mountainous routes haha.

Gotcha. Admirals Road, 19A/19, and Ware Road could be limited to the single interchange.
Actually, the whole road from Parksville to Victoria is pretty substandard, with one of the worst portions at Northwest Road in Nanoose Bay where the speed limit drops to 60 km/hr. When accidents occur between Lantzville and Nanoose Bay, and the highway is closed, traffic cannot get around. A bypass tollway between Parksville and Nanaimo Parkway would be welcome.

Instead of upgrading the existing route, which has some space constraints, wouldn't it make more sense to build an entirely new inland route, as was done past Parksville?

That way, the current highway could serve it's current local traffic role, without all the extra through traffic. And it would provide an alternate, slower route for those who aren't keen on paying a toll.

You are quite right, as I must have read an article at the beginning of the series in the Nelson paper:
http://thenelsondaily.com/news/hugh-...9#.VDXA0NtlCpY

Later in the series, reasoning is made why the dam should be kept.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the proposed route, if it was developed with some hope of it getting built, not just a campaign promise like the Needles ferry replacement with a bridge about a decade ago.

^^^ That would be awesome and also I've heard rumours to replace 2 of the ferries in Arrow Lake. Needles/Foquier and Galena Bay/Shelter Bay.

Actually, BC MoTI conducted a study of the Malahat through Goldstream Prov. Park back in 2007 with several options. Back then, even with a "Rural Arterial Standard" design and 80 km/hr design speed they were looking at roughly $300 - 400 million.

With an "Expressway Standard" design and a 100 km/hr design speed, today perhaps $600 million+.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/malahat/fina...t-July2007.pdf

And the Pat Bay Hwy upgrades were also studied last in 2007. Costs unknown.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...r_Strategy.pdf

Top three transportation priorities in BC

Hwy 1 - Kamloops to Alberta four-laning with interchanges at key locations.

Hwy 1 - Malahat corridor four-laning

Hwy 97 - Peachland area four-laning on current alignment, not a bypass, freeway not necessary

The Malahat should be done to freeway standards.

Also, Peachland needs to be a new bypass similar to what was done near Oyama just a couple years ago. Having the current alignment widened to 4 lanes will pretty much kill al of Peachland's charm and will likely involve massive amounts of property acquisition / demolition. Not worth it at all.

Actually, my dream dream for the Malahat is similar to what others have said here about building a new entire route and leaving the old one as a local access road.

The only difference is my plan would skip much of the Malahat altogether.

In one big project, I would love to see the Patricia Bay highway converted into a full freeway. Then, just before the highway 17A interchange a new 4 lane tolled expressway would branch of and begin. It would then cross the Saanich Inlet on a bridge and meet up with the original alignment of the Island Highway near Dougan Lake. From there north many sections of the original highway could be upgraded to freeway standards, but with the toll way bypassing around cities such as Duncan and Ladysmith.

Heading to the cottage in the Central Caribou from Edmonton tomorrow via 5/16. There were a bunch of widening projects going on during the summer.. I hope they're all wrapped up.

Going to be testing the limits of my poor little Toyota Tacoma on this one... got a 27HP garden tractor strapped onto a new boat trailer (loading that was fun) , along with an apartment size washer/dryer stacker and a new fridge, plus 1000SF of engineered hardwood and slate and a new IKEA kitchen loaded in the back.

I'm not too worried until the big hill at Little Fort. But that is going to be a slow drive up methinks

Yes, thanks, I have read that study. I was ONLY really talking about doing from Leigh Road interchange to just past the Goldstream park entrance as being urgent - needed right now - a relatively short stretch compared to the proposals in that Stantec report, so much less $$ :) I think they could do the lone interchange @ Westshore PKWY along with 4-5km of road widening (much of it already 3 lane) for ~100 million. The Westshore Parkway will be connected through to the Langford Parkway within the next 3 years.

To bring the Pat Bay up to freeway/expressway standards we are looking at big $$$ Probably similar in cost to the SFPR...

My dream for the Malahat? TUNNELS!

As much as I would like to see a magnificent suspension bridge over Saanich Inlet (or Finlayson arm) I recall land acquisition/access as being an issue with most of the previous proposals...in addition to the extreme cost of just the bridge :(

So for Vancouver Island I see the four most pressing transportation needs being:

The McKenzie Interchange! (forgot the first time LOL)

1. The Malahat Corridor (Leigh Rd to Bamberton - at least to expressway standard)

2/3/4. The Pat Bay Highway - to freeway

2/3/4. BC ferry service to/from the LM - lets not forget Tswassen-Swartz Bay is part of the TCH!

2/3/4. Nanaimo Parkway North

I will be curious to see what British Columbians in the Lower Mainland and Okanagan Valley will identify as their highest priorities. These will/should become the Provincial priorities over the next 10 years...hopefully. I think the needs of these three regions will hold the most weight, with of course most of the votes in the LM. The Island has been forgotten for two long! And 97 in the Valley needs some more $$ and the LM can always use a billion here or there - like for the Massey Tunnel replacement etc. ;)

You're probably right.

The bypass route being proposed is overkill in my opinion. It would be much cheaper to four lane. The current route already bypasses the town and adding two more lanes would do nothing to divide the town. As for property acquisition, if you look at satellite images there's only about 20 structures at the most that would need to be acquired. They plans are already in place, they just need to build it.
Edit: This map shows the highway as a four lane roadway: http://www.peachland.ca/cms/wpattach...326atID880.pdf

I use to think tunnels as well, but they seem even more expensive in Canada than bridges.

Also, building a bridge over the north end of the Saanich inlet would also be able to kill two birds with one stone, since highway 17 would be upgraded to freeway standards in my proposal. It just seems like a more logical direct route for Nanaimo / North Island to and from Victoria travel.

It also gives the ability to create a tollway easier while keeping the current route toll free.

Hmm, I see what you are saying, but I still feel this would be a golden opportunity to connect Peachland better with its waterfront.

I agree re: the bridge. It is a very logical choice, which is why it's proposed every few years - since I've lived here.

However it won't happen ... at least not in my lifetime. You see the property owners that live on either side of the inlet DON't want it .. too much traffic to disrupt their idyllic life you see :( Maybe they could strike a deal with the native bands on both sides of the inlet.... of course they'd want the toll ;)

I just dream of swiss-like tunnels :) We'd need another million people on the Island to justify the cost...

Unless you mean the metre wide strip south of downtown, I can't imagine being any more connected to the waterfront.

Another downside to the bypass that I'm hesitant to post as I'm unsure where I heard it, is that it would be too steep for trucks and they would need to go through town anyway. Take that with a grain of salt.

But a bypass could be Peachland's chance to take back their waterfront. If it is 4 lanned then that will seal its fate, also it is much more difficult to cross 4 lanes than 2 if going to the beach.

If you are on the Cariboo connector please snap some pics of the widening projects if you get a chance.

Good luck up the hill near Little Fort as well!

Galena/Shelter Bay Ferry
 

Here is a link to the Galena Bay/Shelter Bay fixed link: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...CostEst-R4.pdf. It is recently updated.

I see that a new ferry will soon arrive to service the route: http://www.arrowlakesnews.com/news/248467751.html, so maybe the fixed link is now dead.

Thanks for the Links Splash. Not only does the Galena Bay plan being updated make it look like a bridge is a go but I was there this summer and they are working on what seems to be overkill regarding the ferry approach from the Nakusp side. Just like the Big White turnoff seems way too big for what is currently there. Hmmmmm

A bypass leaves lots of potential for rezoning along the old route. There is some prime real estate for neat little shops or medium density residences.
And without all the through traffic, the road has wider shoulders than it needs, which could be switched to bike lanes, walkways, parking, or anything really.
It could almost be turned into a continuation of beach avenue in certain spots.

The possibilities are endless.
I think it would give the town a huge boost.

Also a bypass is more future proof. We can't know for sure that in a hundred years the okanagan won't have 2 million people. I like the idea planning for the future rather than the present.

I wonder what the results of the study will be. Hopefully bypassing West Kelowna too. That one way couplet downtown is ridiculous. If they could at least establish and protect ROW for the future road that would be great. 100 km standard at least. This would be far more progressive that Vernon saying NO to a bypass route.

On another note, where do people think the BC government 10 year plan is going to see investments? I for one would like to see the Kicking Horse Canyon have the final phase completed. I know it would be a very big chunk of change shared by the Feds and province. They've also already tackled many of the bridges between Kamloops and the Alberta border. With some good investment they could actually realize 4 lane completion from Kamloops to the AB border. It fits right into their mandate to keep BC moving.

4 lanes from Kamloops to AB would be great - I hope to see it completed in my lifetime.

Growing up in the south Okanagan and making countless trips to Alberta I am glad to see the improvements already made. The completed sections in the Kicking Horse Canyon area are a vast improvement to the previous goat trail. I wish that back in the day governments committed, say 200-250 000 in today's dollars annually to improve the Kamloops-Alberta section of Hwy 1. If they started that in the 80s or 90s the whole section would have been 4 laned outside of the canyon. I think that last phase is estimated to be a billion dollar fix.

^Anything new to report on the Kicking Horse Canyon project?
It's been quiet for a couple of years it seems.

I suspect nothing will be announced until the results of the 10-year infrastructure survey are released.

I remember traveling on that goat-trail as a kid. The upgrades that have happened are fantastic. Too bad the last section still remains and is the most expensive section to upgrade.

Why would they wait for the survey to be released? This has nothing to do with that. And does the last phase still include the interchange

As much as I would love to see the Kicking Horse project keep moving ahead, and hopefully it does, I still don't understand why they BC Gov't has not four laned the road west of Golden to Donald or even further. It's flat, follows the river bottom and seems to me like it would provide th biggest bang for thg buck in terms of km's of road vs. cost.

^Yes, I've wondered the same. :shrug:

Yes, I completely agree that they could get a lot more bang for their buck (or should I say our loon) if they worked on other sections and not Kicking Horse Canyon. I think the estimate for the remaining of KHC is around the $1 billion mark between various new bridges and tunnels. For that amount of $ they could potentially 4 lane all that is outstanding from Kamloops to the Alberta border less that section. They have already upgraded most of the bridges of that route. I think the biggest kicker is that if we're speaking from a safety perspective, I think that short section is the least safe. Hence why the governments continue to upgrade it.

A bit old, but this report from 2005 has some recommendations for improvements to the highway through Duncan.
 
I thought this proposal for a bypass was interesting.
 
Other options are increasing the existing road from four to six lanes, or using another road to make two, one-way roads through the city centre.
 
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...Report_all.pdf
 
http://gingert.net/images/duncan-hig...ssproposal.jpg

At a quick glance, West-Long seems like the best long-term solution. I assume its likely the most expensive solution and has the largest negative effect on agricultural land too.

The province really needs to put a moratorium on one-way couplets through urban cores. Haven't we learned anything from communities like West Kelowna? If municipalities want to take it upon themselves, well, that's there prerogative, but the province shouldn't support that type of infrastructure.

My thoughts exactly. Splitting a highway up into two one way streets through a town core is the worst idea...ever...for road planning.

West Long followed by East Long are the two best options. If ever built, which I highly doubt it will (add this to the list of bypasses we will never see: Vernon, Salmon Arm, Kelowna) I hope its built to full freeway standards. Interchanges only.

The only bypass that I think we may see (even possibly in the new 10 billion dollar announcement I hope) is the Peachland bypass.

10 Year Plan:

I too have little hope for Vernon bypass (one of their previous councils ensured that).

Maybe a Salmon Arm alignment study...? If anything.

Kelowna already has a preferred route with exception of Gordon to the lake connecting to a second bridge crossing.

I wonder with the Peachland/West Kelowna study if the preferred alignment will bypass both communities. I don't see the building of any new bridge (and associated West Kelowna/Kelowna alignment) until the 20+ year horizon - given favorable provincial governments. But I could be happily surprised, especially since Christy is there. If Peachland got their way they wouldn't have to build the West Kelowna bypass concurrently since it would connect to 97C near Trepanier. Its likely too late now, but I recall a very old study that had a Westbank bypass that basically veered 97 along Paynter then Butt reconnecting to the existing alignment. That would have been the shortest and cheapest realignment but is highly unlikely since all the development in the area.

I don't see any possibility of a Salmon Arm bypass, unless you are meaning a potential bridge over the lake connecting Tappen/Sunnybrae with Canoe. The current plan includes upgrading the existing alignment to four lanes; the bridge option won't be considered for a couple decades most likely.

Probably due to the low traffic counts. AADT for that section of #1 is just over 5000 vehicles a day. With a max of just over 11,000 in August, dropping off quickly to just over 3000 in winter. The capacity must be in the range of 25,000 AADT. Maybe 22,000 adjusted for heavy vehicles.

Maybe they could reduce the speed limit and add truck-climb/passing lanes first. Our tax dollars are better spent elsewhere these days ;)

Sorry, my point was really about getting better bang for their buck on the TCH by four laning the easier parts first which would result in more kilometereage of 4 lane road for the same cost. This highway is about more then just traffic count too. Considering the value of goods moving on it every day the economic return of having the entire road four lane is huge and makes this highway a higher priority than almost any other in BC.

Trucks on TCH east of Revelstoke
 

I doubt that. The benefit of having four lanes versus two lanes or climbing passing lanes east of Revelstoke (or Salmon Arm for that matter) has never been shown in a study that I have seen. The government just makes the claims owing to pressure by trucking and construction firms. Why not study the matter showing the economic benefit and then threaten to impose a toll on the trucks to pay for the improvements? I am quite sure that the cries for 4 lanes would quickly be silenced.

Safety could be improved by four lanes, no doubt, but that is not necessarily economic justification.

Closing of that highway in the winter is common, so improving alternate routes so they could serve that function more efficiently could generate superior economic returns compared to four-laning the highway.

Oh I get that, and if twinning from Salmon Arm to YOHO was a high priority, it does make sense.

But, I disagree with the twinning at all at this point in time using tax dollars. The goods do get through now - most by train. If the feds want to fund twinning the TCH out there just for the sake of it, by all means! Maybe they could also look at increasing the capacity of the rail corridors right now too, if this is mostly about goods (BC estimates only 2 billion worth of goods per year go through on the TCH highway compared to nearly the nearly 200 billion that go through PMV) .

Better for BC to spend our scarce tax dollars getting the goods to/from the ports in metro Vancouver faster, with improved border crossing times to the US and transit times to Kamloops, than arbitrary twinning some section highway that is not near capacity.

I guess we'll see what the new BC transportation plan identifies and where funding actually goes. So far they have just paid mostly lip service to twinning the TCH highway from Salmon Arm to Yoho - saying it is a priority to appease certain groups I guess.

To quote:
However, I am all for a TOLL TCH #1 highway from Revelstoke to YOHO, with locals getting a pass of course. User pay! This may be the new reality, our governments are broke these days!

I agree. Unless the Canadian government finally gets its act together and lays out consistent national highway funding annually, four laning in low traffic corridors shouldn't be a priority. Especially considering upgrades with federal funding are likely to be built to a higher standard than what the BC government can afford (look at the trans Canada through Banff vs the recent highway upgrades from Golden to Yoho to see what I mean).
I'd rather hold off if it's not necessary right now, and eventually have it done right than have it built to a lower standard now.

The BC government's priority for now should be infrastructure projects of local/regional significance, and better access to Northern BC.

Exactly, in the meantime do some inexpensive safety improvements on the TCH east of Salmon Arm like passing lanes.

Now that you mention it...I didn't touch on northern BC, but had it in mind. The province is going to have to do major transportation infrastructure upgrades to/from Prince Rupert/Kitimat as well as Prince George and the Fort St. John area ... especially if they want to develop the NG/LNG industry. Not to mention the Okanagan and Island.

The highways emanating like spokes with Prince George as a hub are in fairly good condition, I think. What projects would you have in mind? Rural road improvements could be useful and some airport improvements could be made, but only so much.

Given that Prince George is comparable in size to Kamloops, I don't think it would be a bad idea to have 97 from Kamloops to PG as a proper freeway like the Coquihalla and Connector. Would probably give the city a boost. Whether the money currently exists for this is another story, but it should be part of long term plans.

To me it's always seemed like the most neglected, relatively major population centre in BC. Making it less isolated from the southern half of the province could be a real boon for development in the region.
That whole region has a lot of potential. The plateau is by far the largest mostly flat part of the province with a hospitable climate. Strikes me it would be one of the easier areas to develop in BC.

On the other hand, highway 16 through BC seems sufficient for now.

The Cariboo Connector for one.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/cariboo_connector/index.htm

Here is the current Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure projects map to 2016:

http://i60.tinypic.com/2lwsmpu.jpg

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/tranprojectsbc/#view=map

Exactly right. But 97 will not be brought to freeway standards, the traffic doesn't warrant, but alternating 3 & 4 lanes. If development in the NE continues at a rapid pace, well then maybe. Yes re: 16 - the Yellowed - except upgrades from Prince Rupert to Terrace if there is an LNG boom.

I think the MoTI has budgeted another 200 million for the Cariboo route (97) in the near term, under the gateway program.

I dunno who these guys are, but it doesn't appear they thought too much about land acquisition ... maybe more of a wish? Not sure they have enough room for six lanes through Duncan along the existing ROW either.

As a south Islander that gets stuck in Duncan traffic on a hot August Friday afternoon going to the resort areas north and west of Nanaimo - I'm all for a Duncan bypass! But a viaduct might be more plausible :haha:

Agreed! The trucking and construction industry (add engineering consultants) were the 'certain' groups I had in mind in my post ... didn't see your's before I posted :haha:

If they do build it one day, I like it to be PPP and toll. Wonder if a PPP group would touch it?