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


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.