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)

craner Dec 22, 2011 6:37 AM

^ Yeah - now we just need to be able to say that between Vancouver & Calgary, and Calgary & Vernon. Maybe in 30 years if we're lucky. ;)

nname Jan 1, 2012 12:44 AM

Monte Creek to Pritchard map:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayproje..._Lidar_Map.pdf

Warning: Long pdf...

I wonder if they're going to number the at-grade intersections like what they've done with Highway 17 and 19 on the island... If that's the case, Bostock Road would be exit 403 and Martin Prairie Road (Pritchard) would be exit 410...

Metro-One Jan 1, 2012 1:23 AM

:previous:Bostock road is fine being at grade, but why is Pritchard not being built as an interchange, especially with how the new highway is being built to bow outwards.

Stingray2004 Jan 1, 2012 6:45 PM

Would have been nice if the entire section had a depressed grass median. Only two sections within have same. In addition, back in September, MoT agreed to a Hwy 1 overpass at Pritchard with on/off ramps:

Quote:

Province agrees to Pritchard underpass
September 27, 2011

By Cam Fortems
Daily News Staff Reporter

Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Blair Lekstrom committed Tuesday to building improvements at Pritchard that will allow residents to safely enter and cross the Trans-Canada Highway.

Ron Anderson, a village councillor from Chase, was one of a number of local politicians who met with Minister Blair Lekstrom at the Union of B.C. Municipalities annual meeting in Vancouver. The goal was to pressure the province to design safety improvements at Pritchard, as part of four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway, so that residents no longer have to cross without an underpass or overpass.

"This will solve problems with people trying to get across the highway," said Anderson.

Pritchard residents warned four-laning the highway without provision for safe crossing will make an already unsafe situation worse.
http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2...hard-underpass

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayproje...ookingeast.jpg

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayproje...ookingwest.jpg

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayproje..._frombluff.jpg

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayproje...ookingwest.jpg

Source: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayproje...reek/index.htm

nname Jan 1, 2012 7:13 PM

The eastern section got a glass median because its actually split-grade.

Calebb Jan 3, 2012 3:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 5517156)
Some fresh construction pics of the new divided highway 97 alignment between Winfield and Oyama:



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6...2938723b_z.jpg

Cool housing development up on the ridge there. Anyone know where they would be on google maps?

osirisboy Jan 3, 2012 6:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname (Post 5533768)
Monte Creek to Pritchard map:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayproje..._Lidar_Map.pdf

Warning: Long pdf...

I wonder if they're going to number the at-grade intersections like what they've done with Highway 17 and 19 on the island... If that's the case, Bostock Road would be exit 403 and Martin Prairie Road (Pritchard) would be exit 410...

This is option 3, do you have links to the other options? which option did they go with?

bulliver Jan 4, 2012 2:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calebb (Post 5535253)
Cool housing development up on the ridge there. Anyone know where they would be on google maps?

Guessing...but I think it is this: http://g.co/maps/d4rfk

The development has grown considerably since the last google maps update. You can see it better here: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/okanaganvall...infield-oyama/

Open the one called "Highway Design- South". It's centre right.

Daguy Jan 9, 2012 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy (Post 5535793)
This is option 3, do you have links to the other options? which option did they go with?

This is the only one posted on the ministry website so I'd assume it is the one they've selected. Does anyone know if the interchange at Pritchard is going to be built during phase 2 construction, or is it planned for a later date?

Daguy Feb 25, 2012 3:29 AM

It seems that design of Monte Creek to Pritchard Phase 2 has changed somewhat, as seen in the new maps posted in the "Open House Presentation" section of the webpage. (http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayproje...reek/index.htm)

Sheet 2 of 3 shows that the alignment is no longer split grade west of Pritchard, and now has a paved centre median like the rest of the alignment. Sheet 3 shows that the planned interchange is now part of the design. I guess that concerns expressed from locals were heard, and reducing the needed ROW will help control the increased costs of providing the interchange earlier.

I don't have a problem with the paved median, but it's rediculous that a median barrier is not being put in place right away. Increased capacity can't be the only priority of the ministry. Complete controlled access is not necessary along this segment, but dividing the highway to reduce the risk of head on collisions is a no brainer imo.

Metro-One Feb 26, 2012 6:08 PM

:previous:Thanks for the update, good to see that they actually are building an interchange there now.

But they are not installing dividers? Honestly, the median shoulder width they are building is designed for centre barriers, why not just put them in now how hard is that?

Daguy Mar 31, 2012 5:25 PM

:previous:

All of the recently completed sections of highway 97 are undivided with 2.6 metre medians. My guess is the traffic count isn't considered high enough to divide them yet, and it saves $$$.

The problem I have is that I've watched a fully loaded slow moving semi turn east from the west bound RIRO at white creek frontage road between Tappen and Blind Bay. I was coming around the bend from Blind Bay heading to Salmon Arm in the fast lane and nearly had to swerve to avoid collision. Had a median barrier been in place that idiot couldn't have made a highly dangerous and illegal turn.

Daguy Apr 15, 2012 1:38 AM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bcgovphotos/6928051614/

Premier Announces Phase Two of the Cariboo Connector Expansion

Premier Christy Clark today announced an additional investment to the Cariboo Connector expansion, to widen 30 km of Highway 97 to four lanes between Prince George and Cache Creek. The provincial government is investing $200 million over the next five years for Phase Two of Cariboo Connector. It is a key part of the new Transportation Sectoral Strategy that commits $700 million over the next five years to increase capacity on key provincial highways and railways to support trade and economic growth.

go_leafs_go02 Aug 13, 2012 10:45 PM

The MOT is widening about 3.5km of Highway 3 approximately 15-20 km south of Princeton towards Manning Park.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/BCHighways/c...23159-0002.htm

Quite surprised by this, as I thought the Ministry had no plans to ever upgrade Highway 3 minus some safety improvements in a few of the tight corners and stuff.

Daguy Aug 14, 2012 5:37 AM

:previous:

Wow I'm very surprised by this as well. I was one of the first to quickly shoot down any four laning on highway 3 for at least 20 years, so maybe the thought is the area needs passing lanes, so might as well four lane it. In any case more 4 lane highway is never a bad thing.

go_leafs_go02 Aug 14, 2012 4:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daguy (Post 5797803)
:previous:

Wow I'm very surprised by this as well. I was one of the first to quickly shoot down any four laning on highway 3 for at least 20 years, so maybe the thought is the area needs passing lanes, so might as well four lane it. In any case more 4 lane highway is never a bad thing.

Yep - I travel the Hope-Princeton several times a year for recreational purposes, and never seen any traffic problems through there (and I do most travelling on summer holiday weekends)

It involves some minor realignment of the highway, and increasing the design speed and speed limit up to 100 km/h.

Wonder if they'll ever tackle any major bridge crossings over some creeks and rivers to remove some tight corners...

Mazrim Aug 14, 2012 7:00 PM

Likely they're following their mantra for the Trans Canada. Any improvements they make will always be 4 laning, so that eventually they can 4-lane the whole thing. Makes economic sense to 4 lane instead of adding a passing lane as well.

go_leafs_go02 Aug 14, 2012 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazrim (Post 5798348)
Likely they're following their mantra for the Trans Canada. Any improvements they make will always be 4 laning, so that eventually they can 4-lane the whole thing. Makes economic sense to 4 lane instead of adding a passing lane as well.

However, they redid some bridge structures further west in Manning Park, (these were whole bridge replacements) and they constructed those with only 2 lanes total.

I know one segment is through a provincial park, while this is just surrounded by empty Crown Land, it's a different mantra in both cases.

Daguy Aug 14, 2012 8:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 (Post 5798147)
Yep - I travel the Hope-Princeton several times a year for recreational purposes, and never seen any traffic problems through there (and I do most travelling on summer holiday weekends)

It involves some minor realignment of the highway, and increasing the design speed and speed limit up to 100 km/h.

Wonder if they'll ever tackle any major bridge crossings over some creeks and rivers to remove some tight corners...

Yeah there are some spots that could definitely use realignment, but as for traffic I think the same. I drove through Manning Park during the summer a couple years ago and it was very quiet. The four lane sections seemed overkill, though they would have been built before the connector when it was the main route to Kelowna.

Stingray2004 Aug 15, 2012 6:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 (Post 5797389)
The MOT is widening about 3.5km of Highway 3 approximately 15-20 km south of Princeton towards Manning Park.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/BCHighways/c...23159-0002.htm

Quite surprised by this, as I thought the Ministry had no plans to ever upgrade Highway 3 minus some safety improvements in a few of the tight corners and stuff.

That section looks like it's just west of the Princeton copper mine and isn't that expensive to upgrade to a 100 km/hr design standard.

The winding Whipsaw Creek section, further west of there, has been identified for major upgrades since as early as 1988. Again, last year, mayors representing 23 communities along Hwy 3 identified their highest priority to be a Hwy 3 realignment from Sunday Summit to Whipsaw Creek.

That section is highly substandard late 1940's engineering. And I've been stuck crawling behind a slow-moving tractor trailer there too oft to mention. To bring that up to a 100 km/hr design speed would require big, big bucks and numerous bridges as well as massive earthworks.

With so many other expensive priorities, I can't see that happening for a long, long time.

Daguy Aug 15, 2012 7:27 AM

I'm surprized there havn't been any new HWY 1 tenders for four laning announced this summer. After the government announced $200 million for HWY 97, I thought they would pretty quickly. I know that there have been problems dealing with the Niskonlith between Monte Creek and Chase, but there are plenty of other areas which could use immediate widening as well.

On a great note though paving has started today on Phase 1 of the Monte Creek to Pritchard 4 laning project:

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

I drive through every week so I'm excited!

Yahoo Sep 12, 2012 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daguy (Post 5799043)
I'm surprized there havn't been any new HWY 1 tenders for four laning announced this summer. After the government announced $200 million for HWY 97, I thought they would pretty quickly. I know that there have been problems dealing with the Niskonlith between Monte Creek and Chase, but there are plenty of other areas which could use immediate widening as well.

On a great note though paving has started today on Phase 1 of the Monte Creek to Pritchard 4 laning project:

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

I drive through every week so I'm excited!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets excited when new roads open.

It's pretty frustrating trying to find information about future projects or timelines for the #1 upgrade in BC. There seems to be no information.

With twinning something like 12km over 5 years it is hardly going to get that road twinned in our lifetimes. Or in the lifetime of a newborn! The road needs serious attention all the way from Kamloops to Alberta. The newest sections (and they're all way too short) just highlight how bad the current road is.

I always chuckle crossing the border and seeing the arrogant "Best place on earth" welcome to BC sign. The road in Banff is being doubled, yet the "best place" is a crumbling narrow 1 lane road. And unfortunately they're fixing the narrow bridges in Yoho park - which is a pretty good indication there are no plans to actually twin the road like the BC government says they will. I mean - you don't fix an old bridge if you're going to replace it or if you're about to expand it.

Metro-One Sep 12, 2012 10:43 PM

:previous:I believe the road through Yoho Park is a Federal responsibility. It actually annoys me that the entire stretch through Banff National Park has been upgraded to full freeway standards while our stretch through Yoho National has been given 0 attention. The Federal Government does have a long term plan to do so, we will see when that happens.

Yahoo Sep 17, 2012 7:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 5829288)
:previous:I believe the road through Yoho Park is a Federal responsibility. It actually annoys me that the entire stretch through Banff National Park has been upgraded to full freeway standards while our stretch through Yoho National has been given 0 attention. The Federal Government does have a long term plan to do so, we will see when that happens.

It seems strange that the powers that be think it's okay to forget about the roads within Yoho. They're okay with no animal protection along the highway except in Banff, and no safe roads except in Banff. The road is double divided with animal fencing and overpasses to the east and west of Yoho, but they're fine with leaving the road unsafe within Yoho.

Yes, the roads through the national parks are federal. But I believe the provinces involved also help pay for it, much in the same way the feds help pay for provincial roads. If it wasn't for the Alberta government kicking in for the road through Banff it would still be as bad as in Yoho (and let's not forget about Glacier which is also single lane and in really need of an upgrade in BC). It's obvious no funding is planned since they're doing repairs on the pathetic bridges within the park - which you don't do if you're serious about ever upgrading the road.

The thing that really bothers me is that political parties in BC always state that if their party is elected they'll twin the road from Kamloops to Alberta. The latest winners even put up signs. But that's their whole plan. Put up signs and hope someone gives them some money someday. Until the people of BC actually demand some action on these promises nothing will happen. Timetables need to be set - even though we know they'll be decades late at least they'll have a plan.

It's strange - they increased gasoline taxes to pay for the roads. They admit that good roads are a huge boost to the economy - (efficiency, productivity, tourism, jobs), it also cuts pollution and saves a lot in terms of accidents, injuries, & deaths for people and animals. You'd think the number of road closures alone would prompt some action, but they seem fine with it.

One good thing about BC over Alberta though. In Alberta jobs tend to take a lot longer - crews seem to work in slow motion. Actually this last section in Banff is moving along nicely, but the first parts were built as slowly as possible. It's unfortunate though that the fancy new highway in Banff - the best in Alberta - is still set at 90 kph. It's 90 in unfenced narrow 1 lane highways, so the speed limit needs to be adjusted to 100 or 110 since that's what everyone drives anyway - including workers & police cars that aren't set up for traps.

It also bothers me when they fix a section outside the parks and don't divide the highway - like near Salmon Arm. Sure, they can add barriers later, but when a government says they'll do something later that tends to mean never - or perhaps in the next century when the death toll starts adding up.

Metro-One Sep 17, 2012 8:57 PM

:previous:Yeah, they keep chipping away at it so slowly, at least they are adding a decent section east of Kamloops now, with an interchange at Pritchard instead of the original planned intersection.

The new stretch through Yoho Canyon is pretty impressive and has its divider in place, and the final phase will be really amazing, so at least that will be another full 30km up to freeway standard.

Really, the Banff speed limit is only 90km?? Even the new highway 1 sections through BC are all 100km.

Daguy Sep 18, 2012 3:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 5834737)
:previous:Yeah, they keep chipping away at it so slowly, at least they are adding a decent section east of Kamloops now, with an interchange at Pritchard instead of the original planned intersection.

The new stretch through Yoho Canyon is pretty impressive and has its divider in place, and the final phase will be really amazing, so at least that will be another full 30km up to freeway standard.

Really, the Banff speed limit is only 90km?? Even the new highway 1 sections through BC are all 100km.

Yes that is because the speed limit in national parks is 90km/hr throughout Canada. I drive to Calgary a few times a year, and it is easily drivable at 110km/hr in most sections, and 100km/hr in the tighter areas. It doesn't seem to be heavily enforced, and most people from Alberta seems to do 100-110 anyway.

I wondered about this myself as the new sections have fencing and wildlife overpasses so why not 110? Apparently the noise from higher speeds disrupts mating patterns of some of the animals, according to my cousin from Alberta.

Even though I want and expected funding for Yoho, there are sections that are a bigger priority. I'd love to see it twinned too, but comparing it to more winding areas between Kamloops and Sorrento, such as Hoffman's Bluff and along Shuswap Lake, it's not bad. Plus there are twinned sections on either side of the park, so typically one doesn't get stuck that long except on really busy days. I'd rather see Kamloops to Revelstoke finished first (plus the nasty last few kms of Kicking Horse) and I know that's a little biased given I live in Salmon Arm, but I drive the other sections too on occasion, and honestly they're straighter and often in better condition.

craner Sep 22, 2012 6:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo (Post 5834611)
Yes, the roads through the national parks are federal. But I believe the provinces involved also help pay for it, much in the same way the feds help pay for provincial roads. If it wasn't for the Alberta government kicking in for the road through Banff it would still be as bad as in Yoho (and let's not forget about Glacier which is also single lane and in really need of an upgrade in BC). It's obvious no funding is planned since they're doing repairs on the pathetic bridges within the park - which you don't do if you're serious about ever upgrading the road.

I don't beleive this is true, at least in the case of Banff (i.e. I think the highway twinning was 100% funded by the Feds). In fact, I have heard it would have been done much sooner had the it been up to the province of AB but they didn't have any juristiction.

I too find it incredibly frustrating the lack of priority given to upgrading the TCH. I blame the Feds for the most part as I think the TCH should be part of a national highway system. As mentioned - there isn't even a real plan/timeframe for completing the twinning through BC. It's a total joke and incredibly infuriating.:hell:

Daguy Sep 23, 2012 6:14 PM

:previous:
Yeah on the one hand there are bigger priorities than Yoho, but on the other if the feds agreed to twin all segments in Mt. Revelstoke, Glacier, and Yoho National Parks, that would be around 100km of twining, and would considerably shorten the drive time.

Daguy Sep 23, 2012 6:15 PM

Double post deleted.

Yahoo Sep 24, 2012 8:49 PM

It's too bad - they just had a 50th anniversary ceremony for the Trans-Canada, http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=696139 but no announcement of any Federal funding to fix it up in BC. That would have been the perfect time to announce new projects. So it's obvious we're going into the usual 5 year waiting period between batches of upgrades. And they're not done the last batch so it could be 6-7 years. (Man, I hope I'm wrong - there are still far too many dangerous areas being ignored).

Sadly, I think the announcements will be politically timed and will only occur when it makes them (prov & feds) look good when an election is coming. I think if we had elections every year we'd be done the road lol.

I recently emailed Infrastructure Canada about the schedule for twinning the highway in BC - at least in the National Parks and they told me the highway was a provincial responsibility and it was up to BC to request funding. When I pointed out that the National Parks are federal they corrected themselves. I think that speaks volumes. They're so busy waiting for provincial requests they aren't even looking at federal roads in the national parks. Hopefully complaints like mine will trigger some action.

I'm pretty sure Alberta started off the Banff upgrade plans by kicking in $50M - but perhaps I was thinking about something else. I know in Alberta they started removing the signs beside construction projects because the Feds complained. Lol, usually because it was "95% provincial, 3% local, and 2% federal" funding. So now it's often hard to tell who paid for what, but in the end it's Canadian citizens who paid 100%.

In any case, it makes no sense to upgrade the Alberta side and not the BC side - the traffic in that area between Banff & Yoho is the same at the border. Since the Feds should be focusing on federal roads they really need to have a plan for Yoho & Glacier - even if it's just a "design phase - awaiting funding" plan.

And yes, sadly it's 90 in Banff - even though it's easily the best highway in Alberta. The only justification I can see is that animals like bears can climb the fencing. But when you have such a sweet highway, and people are on 6-12 hr road trips it just doesn't make sense for people to slow down when the highway gets better. It's unsafe actually because there is such a mixture of speeds. People following the speed limit and people going 110 (including police when they aren't setting up traps right as you leave the park). Sure, the areas around the Banff townsite should likely slow to 90, but the road from Calgary to Banff is 110 - and it's not nearly as good at the 90 section within most of the park (some of the older parts are better suited to 90 - especially for all the tourist traffic in those older narrower areas - which by the way should also be upgraded)

Yahoo Sep 24, 2012 9:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daguy (Post 5841676)
:previous:
Yeah on the one hand there are bigger priorities than Yoho, but on the other if the feds agreed to twin all segments in Mt. Revelstoke, Glacier, and Yoho National Parks, that would be around 100km of twining, and would considerably shorten the drive time.

I don't see that there are bigger priorities than Yoho - at least for the Feds, since that's their part of the road. There are definitely a lot worse sections within BC, but they're provincial sections.

What do people consider priorities? If it was up to me:

1. Aging narrow bridges (I think there are still 2 or 3 like the Clanwilliam bridge - which had to be the scariest of the bridges to cross).

Yes!, they just diverted traffic off the old Clanwilliam if you check out the highway cam)
http://wcs.pbaeng.com/projects/R2-Hwy1-Rev

2. Areas that are particularly dangerous & narrow (as shown by accident statistics). Like for example along Shuswap west of Sicamous.

3. Areas that should be relatively easy to upgrade in long stretches - such as west of Golden which should have been done years ago. A long stretch of good highway can make the bad parts tolerable.

4. Sections that are super expensive like phase 4 of the kicking horse project. I realize it's awful, has 40kph sections, it's narrow, and has continual problems with rocks and animals on the highway - we'd get more bang for the buck spending the $600M+ on the rest first. I like seeing the Big-Horns and if everything else is done it makes it easier to bite the bullet and just fund the last part.

Anyone care to speculate on the next sections to be upgraded? (Me thinks it will be the two or three remaining bridges that look like the Clanwilliam design). They really seem like the temporary bridges our troops carried across Europe in WW2 rather than permanent structures.

Daguy Sep 25, 2012 7:19 PM

:previous:

Phase 2 of twinning between Monte Creek and Pritchard is supposed to go to tender this year, but the negotiations with the Shuswap Bands are still ongoing. Twinning as far as Hoffman's Bluff is scheduled for completion by 2017; whether that actually happens is largely dependant on the negotiations.

I agree about the bridges. There is another overhead west of Clanwilliam, and a narrow rail underpass that should be replaced as soon as possible. They would probably join up with the Clanwilliam project, so I see those among the next sections announced.

The Kicking Horse Canyon Project site mentions that Phase 4 can be implemented in phases, and given the cost, that's probably what will happen. I'd expect at least one of the phase 4 bridges to be announced soon, and maybe a project between Donald and Golden as well. It would be cool to see a third interchange planned at the westernmost intersection in Golden, allowing the TCH to be a freeway through the town.

craneSpotter Sep 27, 2012 5:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo (Post 5829241)
I always chuckle crossing the border and seeing the arrogant "Best place on earth" welcome to BC sign. The road in Banff is being doubled, yet the "best place" is a crumbling narrow 1 lane road. And unfortunately they're fixing the narrow bridges in Yoho park - which is a pretty good indication there are no plans to actually twin the road like the BC government says they will. I mean - you don't fix an old bridge if you're going to replace it or if you're about to expand it.


BINGO! Don't you get it? It just not a high priority for BC. The majority of BC taxpayers live on the coast and that's where the infrastructure $$ are going. The Feds are free to do what they wish, build a freeway thru a 'wilderness' park lol. People on the BC coast don't really care about that remote part of the province, nor should we! Its not a go-to destination :)

The fact is: the traffic numbers on the #1 thru the BC Rockies (west of Salmon Arm) are insignificantly small compared to the many highways in the Okanagan, LM and Vancouver Island. Plus, our tourism is from the states (I-5/Air/Cruise Ship) and Asia (air) - not from the east (road from Alberta).

BC is about to get an NDP government too, and that gov will be supported from VI and the LM - good luck with much happening out on there in the fringes for 10 or more years! After the gateway program is done, the next focus will be VI.

Cheers.

240glt Sep 27, 2012 2:41 PM

Quote:

People on the BC coast don't really care about that remote part of the province, nor should we!
Wow. what a jerk.

lubicon Sep 27, 2012 6:20 PM

Trouble with this arguement is that while the TCH may not see a lot of traffic (volume wise) a very large percentage of that traffic is commercial as it is only one of 3 E-W routes limking BC with the rest of Canada. As such it is a highly important route economically. A few years back I recall being told by one of the rangers in Kootenay Park that the cost to the economy of closing the TCH was in the order of $1 million/hour. That's why the focus when it comes to fires/avalanches etc. is to get the road open as quickly as possible at any cost. Upgrading the road to 4 lanes would have a very quick pay back in terms of economic value- just from the time savings alone in driving the route.

Yahoo Sep 27, 2012 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craneSpotter (Post 5846383)
BINGO! Don't you get it? It just not a high priority for BC. The majority of BC taxpayers live on the coast and that's where the infrastructure $$ are going. The Feds are free to do what they wish, build a freeway thru a 'wilderness' park lol. People on the BC coast don't really care about that remote part of the province, nor should we! Its not a go-to destination :)

The fact is: the traffic numbers on the #1 thru the BC Rockies (west of Salmon Arm) are insignificantly small compared to the many highways in the Okanagan, LM and Vancouver Island. Plus, our tourism is from the states (I-5/Air/Cruise Ship) and Asia (air) - not from the east (road from Alberta).

BC is about to get an NDP government too, and that gov will be supported from VI and the LM - good luck with much happening out on there in the fringes for 10 or more years! After the gateway program is done, the next focus will be VI.

Cheers.

At first I thought you were being sarcastic, but I think you really are a Vancouver centric individual who thinks the world revolves around them. BC is a large province and the trans-Canada highway links it to the rest of our country. If you think that's insignificant then that's sad for you.

The BC gov website indicates a billion $ a year goes over the Donald bridge. Hardly chump change. And a lot more would go through BC if they had decent transportation networks.

I think the interior cities and citizens would disagree with you regarding tourism. Although BC has done a lot lately to really hurt tourism such as charging for parking at Prov parks. They finally removed that but I know many Albertan's that have found new destinations outside of BC because of it and similar anti-tourism initiatives.

BC spends a fortune advertizing for tourism, but given your "nor should we" comment I now get the arrogant "BC is better than where you're from" sign welcoming people to the province.

As for the comment about building a freeway through wilderness park... there was a lot of opposition to twining the highway through Banff from environmental groups and various people that feel parks shouldn't be for humans. Now that it's done many of these groups are amazed that they did it right. They made it safer for humans and for people. The Banff park animal overpasses and underpasses are being copied worldwide in areas where animals must be protected from highways. You see - we can have it all - progress & environmental protection. I just wish the Feds would hurry up and fix the highways in Yoho and Glacier - since they're vital transportation links to Canada. You know... the remote areas outside of Vancouver.

Metro-One Sep 27, 2012 9:45 PM

And again he point seems to have been missed that it is really up to the Feds when it comes to the #1 through Yoho and other national parks in BC, and so far they have essentially given us the finger haha!

Thats also why some in BC may feel a little disjointed with the rest of Canada.

People always seem to forget that building highways through BC is not like building them through the prairies, they are insanely expensive. This is not an excuse not to do so, but it does make the process far more difficult. this is why I wish highways in general were a federal program like in the US.

Yahoo Sep 27, 2012 11:13 PM

[QUOTE=Yahoo;5847298]When I asked the feds about it they unofficially indicated that they were waiting for BC to make the request. They've been upgrading the road through Banff for ~40 years. I hope that Yoho hasn't been ignored simply because the folks in BC haven't bothered to ask. Most of the road through Banff serves no other purpose than connecting to BC so I can't see the logic in not continuing the upgrades.

You do notice one thing driving through BC - the old national park roads were always built to a higher standard than the provincial parts of the highway. Wider shoulders etc. I realize it's super expensive to upgrade the highway - but even in places where it would be relatively cheap like Golden to Donald they haven't touched it.

Someone in BC put up the signs indicating the road would be twinned from Kamloops to Alberta. But that's about all the information you can find. My take on it is that it's a political ploy from a government with no actual plan. They're just hoping by putting up signs the voters will be happy and assume it's underway. And for the most part I think many people assume there is a plan and a schedule simply because there are signs.

I'm hoping that there are a bunch of backroom secret negotiations going on. If I was a BC politician I would have complained bitterly by now. BC joined confederation because of the railroad - yet seemed all to happy to leave it at that. The powers that be need to complain about how far BC is falling behind on the national highway. Many provinces are almost completely twinned yet BC has barely started.

As an Albertan I'd certainly support more federal transfer payments to fix up the roads in BC. Although from what I've heard - some of the worst roads in Alberta are around the tar sands projects which is pretty shocking considering how important the area is to Canada's pocketbook. I know a guy who works in Ft Mac and he says the traffic is a nightmare - as in worse than NYC. Man, tar + sand, isn't that one of the main ingredients in asphalt? :haha:

Daguy Sep 28, 2012 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craneSpotter (Post 5846383)
BINGO! Don't you get it? It just not a high priority for BC. The majority of BC taxpayers live on the coast and that's where the infrastructure $$ are going. The Feds are free to do what they wish, build a freeway thru a 'wilderness' park lol. People on the BC coast don't really care about that remote part of the province, nor should we! Its not a go-to destination :)

The fact is: the traffic numbers on the #1 thru the BC Rockies (west of Salmon Arm) are insignificantly small compared to the many highways in the Okanagan, LM and Vancouver Island. Plus, our tourism is from the states (I-5/Air/Cruise Ship) and Asia (air) - not from the east (road from Alberta).

BC is about to get an NDP government too, and that gov will be supported from VI and the LM - good luck with much happening out on there in the fringes for 10 or more years! After the gateway program is done, the next focus will be VI.

Cheers.

Do you mean east of Salmon Arm? West of it AADT is around ~8000, and summer is ~12000, which is well within the range for twinning a highway. I'll agree that winter traffic doesn't usually seem heavy, but summer time traffic is quite heavy in all segments of the highway east of Kamloops, with plenty of holiday traffic from Alberta, as well as truck traffic. If you don't think traffic is significant from Alberta, I'd like you to explain how I saw 14 straight vehicles from Alberta when I was heading between Revelstoke and Malakwa this August. There's tons of holiday traffic from Alberta, sometimes 2/3s of the traffic on the road is from Alberta, you just don't see it because they mostly holiday around Mara Lake, Sicamous, Salmon Arm, Scotch Creek, and Kelowna. If they want to see a city they go to Calgary or Edmonton.

The growth has been very significant in the past few years, so if you havn't driven the route recently (or at all) you are maybe unaware of it.

Stingray2004 Sep 28, 2012 5:11 AM

The new Donald Bridge, on Hwy 1 between Revelstoke and Golden, with another 3.5 km of twinning. Shot was taken last Friday, Sept. 21./12:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8182/8...9266af23_b.jpg

Source: Flickr/TranBC

Yahoo Sep 28, 2012 7:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 5847669)
The new Donald Bridge, on Hwy 1 between Revelstoke and Golden, with another 3.5 km of twinning. Shot was taken last Friday, Sept. 21./12:

Cool picture! I'll be driving there for Thanksgiving. I'm really hoping that I can take the bridge, but I think the railroad bridge still has a ways to go. I know traffic is now diverted off the old Clanwilliam bridge. Both of those bridges were pretty scary to drive. It seems like every time I drove over the old Donald another section of guardrail was gone. I assume because someone ran into it - hopefully not while flying through the air into the river.

Hopefully they'll be putting up center line barriers. They cheaped out west of Salmon Arm. I know they can always add them later - but lets face it "later" is political talk for "never". It's a safety issue and can't be that expensive so I don't know why they don't just do it correctly right away.

I'm not sure what changes we will see by the Donald weigh-station. Hopefully that will see a serious redesign of the roadways. The lanes there force traffic to do lane changes and slow down for trucks. If it was properly designed the highway traffic wouldn't/shouldn't even notice the weight scales - at least not have to slow down for them.

I sure hope they announce Donald-Golden twinning now that the bridge is done - since 3.5 km is nice, but when they've got something like 300 km to go at this pace they'll be building the replacement bridge in 2062 and the road still won't be twinned.

I know the politicians in Golden and Revelstoke really want fast action on the horrible roads - I just hope they have the political power to get something done. Having the main highway closed at least 1 month every year is unacceptable and must really hurt the economy of interior BC.

Yahoo Sep 28, 2012 8:15 PM

Premier Announces Investments in Capital Projects, Transportation Infrastructure
For Immediate Release
2012PREM0118-001456
Sept. 28, 2012
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...118-001456.htm

It sounds good - but is short on any specific details. $650M over 10 years ($509M in addition to 3 year service plan). That's less than they have been spending so that's always a concern. And if you consider the kicking horse phase 4 will cost about $650M then we might only see another ~4 km upgraded in the next 10 years - which would be really unfortunate. I can only hope the $650M is in addition to matching federal funds so we might actually see some significant progress. But who knows if the feds will match anything.

And hopefully "3 year service plan" isn't a nice way to say "we're done with any further projects for the next 3 years". Given how many projects get delayed by a couple years at a time (see Hilltop Road or the Kicking horse phases) this could mean further feet dragging. And since there is still no schedule or project announcements I have to wonder if there are actually going to announce anything within the next 5 years. They could just be planning to spend it in 10 years - with projects not starting for many years after that.

I know that's how they work things in Calgary. They approved an interchange in 1984 - and keep announcing it every 5 years. It was to be done before the 1988 Olympics. The latest information is that it'll be done in 2010 (not a typo). Which would be amazing since they haven't started yet. But their capital budget now indicates 2017. Other road upgrades were actually designed in the 1970s and are still awaiting funding even though politicians and surveys indicate it's a priority.

Stingray2004 Sep 29, 2012 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo (Post 5848327)
It sounds good - but is short on any specific details. $650M over 10 years ($509M in addition to 3 year service plan). That's less than they have been spending so that's always a concern.

Yeah. The feds provide matching funds on these projects so we are looking at ~$1.3 billion over the next ten years.

But when you consider that nothing was really done between Kamloops and the AB border until the early 2000's (aside from the Malakwa twinning east of Sicamous circa 1985) with ~$700 million spent to date.

It seems that continuous projects will continue henceforth. $Billions$ are still required. It's moving along, not quite as fast as we would like it, but still moving forward.

craner Sep 29, 2012 4:15 AM

Donald bridge looks good.
I was excited about the $650 million until I kept reading Yahoo's post. Now I'm just depressed. Man it's frustrating the slow pace and lack of commitment on the TCH.

Metro-One Sep 29, 2012 7:42 AM

It depends where they spend it, if they focus on the easiest sections you could potentially get a lot of KMs out of that money, but I have a feeling they are going for the more difficult sections first, as they have been doing over the last 5 years with the Kicking Horse canyon and several bridge structures.

The improvements on BCs highways over the last 5 years has actually been really impressive. People here also have to remember that the TCH is not the only major route in BC.

All the highways in the Okanagan have been getting major overhauls / improvements at the same time recently, along with the Cariboo highway projects and all the major highway projects in Metro Vancouver.

Remember, over the last 10 years:

New Seat to Sky highway
Kicking Horse Canyon + other projects along TCH
Border program (twinning highway 10 and 15)
All the highway upgrades in the Okanagan, especially the major ones between Penticton and Vernon (including the new 4 lane section around Oyama)
All the new twinning segments of the Cariboo Connector.
SFPR
Gateway (35 km of the #1 major upgrades + new Port Mann Bridge)
New Pitt River Bridge
New Okanagan Bridge in Kelowna
Twinning of Simon Fraser Bridge in Prince George
New highway interchanges on the Island
etc....

So, BC's highways have been going through a major upgrade throughout the province, and every year are continuing to get better.

If all that money was dumped into one highway, such as the #1, it probably could be full freeway from Van to Calgary now, but sadly, there are so many regions and connections that need expansion / work that without a Federal program, the #1 is going to have to have its one piece at a time upgrades.

And obviously the western half of the province (Okanagan west) has far superior highways than east of the Okanagan, simply because that is where the major bulk of BC's population resides. The same reason why the highways in southern Ontario are far better than those in northern and central Ontario.

Doug Sep 29, 2012 2:03 PM

Given the Federal government's focus on trade with Asia, the probability of matching funds is very high. Would the NDP walk away from TCH twinning if it meant losing the Federal dollars?

As an aside, I cycling from Calgary to Vancouver when my two 10 year old sons back in June. You get a real sense of not only the high traffic on the TCG but also the decay. Sections between Golden and Kamloops have eroded shoulders and exposed rebar on bridges.

craner Sep 30, 2012 5:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 5849093)
As an aside, I cycling from Calgary to Vancouver when my two 10 year old sons back in June. You get a real sense of not only the high traffic on the TCH but also the decay. Sections between Golden and Kamloops have eroded shoulders and exposed rebar on bridges.

Yep!
That's the embarrassing state of the national highway between the two largest centres in western Canada.:shrug:

osirisboy Oct 1, 2012 4:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 5849093)

As an aside, I cycling from Calgary to Vancouver when my two 10 year old sons back in June. You get a real sense of not only the high traffic on the TCG but also the decay. Sections between Golden and Kamloops have eroded shoulders and exposed rebar on bridges.

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!

Doug Oct 1, 2012 1:58 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!

The kids understand the safety risk. We always hit the road at sunrise and stopped by around 11 to avoid traffic. They had a great time and there aren't two many 10 year olds who can say they rode 1,000 km in 9 days. There aren't any alternatives for less congested roads along that route. Next year we're going to cycling Baja.

240glt Oct 1, 2012 2:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner (Post 5850090)
Yep!
That's the embarrassing state of the national highway between the two largest centres in western Canada.:shrug:

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.



^ I bike the Baja in '98. What a blast. Terrifying too.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:44 PM.

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