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 Sep 7, 2019 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzzyCalgary (Post 8680547)
Awesome, thanks! That is a pretty good looking design overall.

If the Federal government was smart (.....) they would plan to do significant upgrades to the two-lane sections in Yoho National Park during the same periods of lane closure. At the very least, they could complete a lot of the preparatory work required to finish 4-laning to the border.

Yes - I think I mentioned this a few pages back - would totally make sense.
But I fear the feds won't pony-up the cash.

BTW - here is the website for that project.
http://https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/bc/yoho/gestion-mgmt/ie-ei/rtc-tch

dmuzika Sep 9, 2019 6:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt (Post 8679527)
Yup that's going to be mayhem, especially from the viewpoint down to the Radium townsite. Going to avoid that area at all costs until the work on the TCH is complete

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glacier (Post 8679659)
The provincial government is stupid. They decided that the bypass is not needed, and is willing to give up the land set aside for over 30 years and just go with at grade traffic lights through Valleyview. Yes, they are that short sighted.

Speaking of cancelled interchanges/bypasses, does anyone know what's happening at the Hwy 95 intersection in Golden. IIRC, part of the Kicking Horse Project had an interchange at Hwy 1/95, currently an uncontrolled intersection at the bottom of the hill (with an interchange further up), but those plans are no longer posted. Are there any plans for improvements, even lights?

Metro-One Sep 10, 2019 12:50 AM

Also wondered this myself. Really hope it isn’t cancelled. Again we should contact them.

Dengler Avenue Sep 10, 2019 1:16 AM

Is the T-protected intersection between TCH and 95 no longer safe?

If anything, I wanna see the 2 lights on TCH through Golden Service Area right before 95 replaced by one single interchange (preferably at the intersection farthest from 95), then the T-protected intersection by another interchange later on. It's a bummer feeling when you pass through an interchange just to hit a light almost immediately. :shrug:

Of course, I wanna also see TCH at least 4-laned between Donald and Golden, period...

Mazrim Sep 10, 2019 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue (Post 8682480)
Is the T-protected intersection between TCH and 95 no longer safe?

If anything, I wanna see the 2 lights on TCH through Golden Service Area right before 95 replaced by one single interchange (preferably at the intersection farthest from 95), then the T-protected intersection by another interchange later on. It's a bummer feeling when you pass through an interchange just to hit a light almost immediately. :shrug:

Of course, I wanna also see TCH at least 4-laned between Donald and Golden, period...

I'd say 4-laning the TCH outside Golden is a way higher priority than getting rid of some traffic lights. I get that everyone loves to have free-flowing traffic whenever possible but those intersections in Golden are not a big delay compared to the huge platoons of traffic you always get between Golden and Donald.

OzzyCalgary Sep 10, 2019 7:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazrim (Post 8683025)
I'd say 4-laning the TCH outside Golden is a way higher priority than getting rid of some traffic lights. I get that everyone loves to have free-flowing traffic whenever possible but those intersections in Golden are not a big delay compared to the huge platoons of traffic you always get between Golden and Donald.

100% agree with this. A fair amount of traffic stops in Golden, so a few traffic lights currently make sense. I expect to slow down for a minute or two coming into Golden. I would rather money be spent 4-laning to Donald so I don't get stuck behind the inevitable person doing 90 on one of the straightest and flattest roads through the area.

milomilo Sep 10, 2019 8:58 PM

Agreed too, but it is depressing that it might be decades before we even get four laning all the way through, then we still have lights. At least this will be the last really awful section gone.

OzzyCalgary Sep 10, 2019 9:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo (Post 8683365)
Agreed too, but it is depressing that it might be decades before we even get four laning all the way through, then we still have lights. At least this will be the last really awful section gone.

Absolutely. I can't believe twinning of Yoho/Banff started in 1981 and in 38 years we have only done 83km. That puts the last 40km (of just Yoho) to be done in another 20 years.

Metro-One Sep 11, 2019 3:04 AM

I can understand people wishing to have more twinning done over interchanges in Golden.

That said, it looks as if two basic diamond interchanges would be relatively cheap to implement through Golden (replacing the series of lights) given that that stretch already has proper frontage roads in place and the land is available.

Also, any major highway twinning project should properly grade separate / build interchanges as much as possible regarding any related intersections involved within said upgrade. Best to build it once, not twice. Perfect example of this mistake is the twinning plan of the 97 through Peachland that involves retaining traffic lights instead of interchanges.

milomilo Sep 11, 2019 4:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 8683696)
I can understand people wishing to have more twinning done over interchanges in Golden.

That said, it looks as if two basic diamond interchanges would be relatively cheap to implement through Golden (replacing the series of lights) given that that stretch already has proper frontage roads in place and the land is available.

Also, any major highway twinning project should properly grade separate / build interchanges as much as possible regarding any related intersections involved within said upgrade. Best to build it once, not twice. Perfect example of this mistake is the twinning plan of the 97 through Peachland that involves retaining traffic lights instead of interchanges.

I don't mind them building at grade stuff if future grade separation is planned for and can be done relatively easily. But if they have to completely rebuild everything then I agree - I'm not sure how common or not that is though. Some of the 4 laning they do in BC looks ever so slightly too narrow to turn into a divided highway easily later.

kev_427 Sep 11, 2019 5:09 AM

Busiest highways in BC with <4 lanes:

99 – North Vancouver 60 400
1 – Malahat 24 700
7 – Maple Ridge 24 500
7 – Mission 23 100
10 – Langley 22 700
97 – Peachland 20 500
99 – Whistler 19 100
14 – Sooke 17 700
13 – Aldergrove 17 500
1 – Salmon Arm 14 600
97 – Quesnel 14 300

in AB:

1A – Cochrane 15 200
22 – Cochrane 14 300

sources:
https://prdoas3.pub-apps.th.gov.bc.ca/tsg/
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/mapping/

speedog Sep 11, 2019 5:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kev_427 (Post 8683796)
Busiest highways in BC with <4 lanes:

99 – North Vancouver 60 400
1 – Malahat 24 700
7 – Maple Ridge 24 500
7 – Mission 23 100
10 – Langley 22 700
97 – Peachland 20 500
99 – Whistler 19 100
14 – Sooke 17 700
13 – Aldergrove 17 500
1 – Salmon Arm 14 600
97 – Quesnel 14 300

in AB:

1A – Cochrane 15 200
22 – Cochrane 14 300

sources:
https://prdoas3.pub-apps.th.gov.bc.ca/tsg/
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/mapping/

Highway 1A between Calgary and Chestermere appears to have much larger numbers then the 2 Cochrane highways although I may be interpreting the data incorrectly.

kev_427 Sep 11, 2019 5:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedog (Post 8683817)
Highway 1A between Calgary and Chestermere appears to have much larger numbers then the 2 Cochrane highways although I may be interpreting the data incorrectly.

That section is no longer a provincial highway as of 2013 which is why it isn't included.

Dengler Avenue Sep 11, 2019 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo (Post 8683756)
I don't mind them building at grade stuff if future grade separation is planned for and can be done relatively easily. But if they have to completely rebuild everything then I agree - I'm not sure how common or not that is though. Some of the 4 laning they do in BC looks ever so slightly too narrow to turn into a divided highway easily later.

They can always turn those intersections into RIRO and link an underpass somewhere near. The beginning section of Coquihalla Pass has those.

Airboy Sep 11, 2019 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedog (Post 8683817)
Highway 1A between Calgary and Chestermere appears to have much larger numbers then the 2 Cochrane highways although I may be interpreting the data incorrectly.

16 from Spruce Grove to Edmonton is higher I believe.
And QE2 between Leduc and Airdrie is way up as well. other than a couple of sections this is 90% 4 lanes.

craner Sep 12, 2019 4:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airboy (Post 8684002)
16 from Spruce Grove to Edmonton is higher I believe.
And QE2 between Leduc and Airdrie is way up as well. other than a couple of sections this is 90% 4 lanes.

YES - let's get #2 up to 6 lanes already - it's overdue.

#1 west of Calgary could be 6 lanes as well.
:superwhip

Dengler Avenue Sep 12, 2019 1:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner (Post 8684872)
YES - let's get #2 up to 6 lanes already - it's overdue.

#1 west of Calgary could be 6 lanes as well.
:superwhip

Only if people know to keep right except to pass though. From what I’ve heard, the rightmost lane is the effective passing lane right now.

Also, what about rail service for the corridor? Is it impossible to implement HFR there?

milomilo Sep 12, 2019 1:27 PM

Yeah people don't know how to use 2 lanes so building 3 won't achieve that much. For the most part between Calgary and Edmonton, traffic is not bad anyway, Red Deer for sure though could justify it.

As for Highway 2 to Banff, it certainly gets busy on weekends, but do we really want more cars going to the mountains? Any extra capacity will be eaten up in a few years and then the problem is worse. Spend that money on transit instead.

craner Sep 12, 2019 11:35 PM

^well you're no fun milomilo. :(

milomilo Sep 12, 2019 11:48 PM

If we're going to spend money on roads, there are plenty of substandard interchanges and grade intersections to get get rid of first. The ones on the TCH right outside of Calgary would be high on my list. They even have reduced the speed limit to 80km/h by Chestermere where one of the uncontrolled intersections is, rather than fix the problem.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:22 AM.

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