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)

SOSS Jan 16, 2015 4:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craneSpotter (Post 6875470)
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?

PPP has lost favour in BC. Here is a great article: http://nupge.ca/content/12041/even-s...zation-schemes

Some key quotes:
"B.C. Auditor General finds P3 privatization scheme borrowing costs 88 per cent higher"
"Numbers manipulated to justify P3 privatization schemes"
"BC government report raises serious concerns about P3 privatization schemes"

Metro-One Jan 21, 2015 1:46 PM

So I just got an e-mail from the BC transportation survey that I took part n (and am sure many of you also received it).

They said that they are going to publish the results early this spring. So I am guessing we will see something around April or May.

gkz Feb 7, 2015 11:58 PM

New report on HWY17 on the island:

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

Metro-One Feb 12, 2015 11:53 AM

Awesome link, thank you! Surprised no one else has bothered to comment on this yet.

Overall great looking concept (which I have taken screen shots of and will post)

Only a couple questions. First, the renderings of the interchanges shown, are these the final options considered / chosen, or did they just post them as samples (many say concept 3 or concept 1, but don't show any of the other concepts).

Also, why isn't this being done as single project as soon as possible? Seriously, this has been studied for decades now, the entire road is 4 lanes wide and half the interchanges are already built.

It shows that there will be good money spent on "interm" solutions to the intersections before their final interchange alignments will be built. Just skip the intermediate and build the dam "long term" interchanges!

Anyways, here are the renders from south to north.

First, the overall concept map. Many of the intersections will be closed (which is the sane thing to do) as the new interchanges are added.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7436/...1fc424b5_c.jpg

First up are two concepts for Haliburton / Claremont.

I think concept 1 is much better than 2

Concept 1

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7282/...ebfd0be7_c.jpg

Concept 2

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7406/...d5fafc32_c.jpg

Up next is Sayward. I think this is a decent design.

I always like the use of round-a-bouts.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7329/...e9c998cb_c.jpg

After that is Concept 1 of having Keating flyovers with an Island View Interchange

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7394/...f9299201_c.jpg

Concept 2 with a Keating Interchange only

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7319/...66377b2d_c.jpg

Concept 3 with an Island View Interchange only.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8677/...54355a89_b.jpg

Tsawout Interchange. This is a very preliminary concept and would be built if the First Nations Band were to build a mega shopping centre that is on their books.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8606/...fece4ae1_c.jpg

Mt Newton Interchange Concept 1 using a diamond interchange.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8602/...abe2a0bc_c.jpg

Mt. Newton Interchange Concept 2 with Loops

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7403/...b00b10aa_c.jpg

And the biggest of them all, the Beacon Ave interchange.
Out of all of the proposed interchanges I believe this one is the most likely to break ground first.
It is noted as a more "immediate" need (although it still has some intermediate BS plan). Fingers crossed that at the bare minimum at least this interchange is part of the 10 billion dollar transportation being announced this spring (and they skip the intermediate step). Again, love the use of round-a-bouts.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7313/...d71eb0e0_b.jpg

Overall, I really like this proposal and having the #17 as a full freeway on the Island is long overdue. It definitely has a more European feel in its design I think.

splashflash Feb 12, 2015 5:39 PM

Doubt if anything comes about from this report
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 6912174)
Awesome link, thank you! Surprised no one else has bothered to comment on this yet.

Also, why isn't this being done as single project as soon as possible? Seriously, this has been studied for decades now, the entire road is 4 lanes wide and half the interchanges are already built

Reason:

Lack of funding partners, as the report itself states.

Unlike with the Highway 1 project, which had building completed almost exclusively in Surrey and Langley, and was funded almost wholly by the Province, the Province won't do the same for the Saanich Peninsula.

The BC Liberals do not have representatives on the southern Island, and the Opposition is doing nothing to promote improvements except alternative transportation, which according to the report, are not cost effective.

When the Liberals had representatives, they did little to promote grade-separated interchanges. The real push was Gary Lunn, a federal politician. And the Greens and NDP castigated him because of issues with round-abouts on McTavish, and because McKenzie interchange was not built first, and because a light rail system wasn't built between Swartz Bay and Victoria.

So, I don't expect any interchanges except possibly at the far south, if the current Saanich mayor can get his act together.

Jeskin shopping centre looks like it is dead. This development would of course have been required to build an interchange between Island View and Mount Newton Cross Road. http://www.timescolonist.com/busines...sula-1.1745819 Perhaps a new project would require an interchange.

I'm not a big road fan, but a decent network is needed in heavily populated areas, and one would think this could be considered a Gateway project, being the main highway between Victoria and Vancouver.

Metro-One Feb 13, 2015 3:48 AM

Yeah the political will for the area is the largest hurdle.

I have a feeling that the Beacon interchange may get off the ground soon, which would be nice.

Usually Vancouver Island is thrown a random interchange or two during major province wide road / transit upgrade program announcements. I know McKenzie is expected to be upgraded to an interchange on the #1.

In any other developed nation this road would already be full freeflow.

It just seems like such a waste to spend money on intermediate solutions.

Oliver Klozov Feb 13, 2015 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 6913677)
It just seems like such a waste to spend money on intermediate solutions.

It's the Canadian way - build it to only fit the current need, don't foresee any growth and then retrofit stuff in later at 5 times the cost!

gkz Feb 19, 2015 1:01 AM

Re: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...ning_Study.pdf

To find out what will be built, you have to look at the "net present value" - this has to be positive for the project to make sense - that means that the benefits outweigh the costs. You can see a summary on page 6 of the PDF.

The following interchanges have positive NPV:

Halliburton concept 2 (NPV $6.0M):
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7406/...d5fafc32_c.jpg

Sayward ($15.1M):
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7329/...e9c998cb_c.jpg

And both Mt. Newton concepts:
Concept 1 ($6.7):
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8602/...abe2a0bc_c.jpg

Concept 2 ($2.3):
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7403/...b00b10aa_c.jpg

The other interchanges, including Keating, Island View, and Beacon do not have a positive NPV, so their costs outweigh their benefits. This means that they are very unlikely to be built any time soon.


Regarding interm improvements, some of these have the best NPV return, and are likely to be built.

While some are counter to long term plans, others, such as the suggested interim Sayward intersection improvements are beneficial. That improvement actually implements half of the proposed long-term interchange (without the crossing bridge)

craneSpotter Feb 20, 2015 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splashflash (Post 6912666)

The BC Liberals do not have representatives on the southern Island, and the Opposition is doing nothing to promote improvements except alternative transportation, which according to the report, are not cost effective....
...
So, I don't expect any interchanges except possibly at the far south, if the current Saanich mayor can get his act together.

Jeskin shopping centre looks like it is dead. This development would of course have been required to build an interchange between Island View and Mount Newton Cross Road. http://www.timescolonist.com/busines...sula-1.1745819 Perhaps a new project would require an interchange.

Agree ... we need to vote in MLAs from the ruling party from this region! Not sure that will happen anytime soon :(

I do understand that the Beacon Ave. interchange will happen within the next few years...the Victoria airport authority is said to be a funding partner (5 m) along with Sidney. Similar funding as the McTavish interchange...YYJ wants to build a shopping centre along the Pat Bay (north lands) and will need highway access, plus they want to provide better access for their light industrial developments to the north of the airport.

Re: Jeskin... the Native Band gets to retain the GST from sales...just from one Costco that is a significant amount of money per year... something will go there eventually. They just need to be able to deal fairly with developers and retailers. Costco has been searching for a location site for a couple of years now (I heard from land owners)... just a lack of suitable locations/servicing where they want to build (Saanich/Central Saanich). Any land available is a no-go/no suitable or incredibly expensive to develop (like their first site in Langford... 7 months of just blasting and filling to build a rough pad).

I think as far as interchanges go: McKenzie/TCH, Sayward/Pat Bay, Beacon/Pat Bay and Westshore PKWY/TCH are the highest priority.

Metro-One Feb 21, 2015 4:13 PM

Yeah, that is my guess as well. The political will is more present for those 4 interchanges. Pat Bay will become a strange road if the Beacon interchange is built, then it will be a highway with two freeway sections bookending it.

SOSS Mar 1, 2015 5:59 AM

What are the chances that the provinces 10 year plan will involve finishing the Kicking Horse Canyon project?

craner Mar 6, 2015 5:38 AM

^Man I sure hope so. Would be nice if they could finish it in 5 years.

Metro-One Mar 7, 2015 3:41 AM

I hope so too, but that project will need some help from the feds.

I would also love to see the highway twinning continue into BC's federal parks by the feds...

craner Mar 7, 2015 6:22 AM

^Agreed, the condition of the highway through those NP's is shameful.
Has there been any hint of doing anything from the Feds?

SOSS Mar 7, 2015 7:44 AM

the feds injected money into the their infrastructure Canada fund (I think that's the name) where I'm sure these funds would come from. I think the feds would be up for contributing to these projects as long as the province came up with their share.

Stingray2004 Mar 7, 2015 5:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner (Post 6941468)
^Agreed, the condition of the highway through those NP's is shameful.
Has there been any hint of doing anything from the Feds?

Of course Hwy 1, through the 3 BC NPs, is under Parks Canada (the feds) complete jurisdiction. Suspect that any future twinning would continue, piecemeal, westward from the AB/BC boundary.

As an aside, just a few weeks ago, the local MP gave an indication of the costs involved just for the 3 NPs:

Quote:

Alex Cooper - Revelstoke Times Review
posted Feb 17, 2015 at 11:00 AM

MP David Wilks put in a $5 billion request to twin the Trans-Canada through the national parks in his riding, he told council.

“That cost, so that everyone knows, is the cost just to do twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway through the national parks, not including any provincial portion of the highway,” he said.

He said twinning the highway through Yoho National Park would cost $1 billion, Glacier National Park would cost $2.5 billion and Mount Revelstoke National Park would cost $800-900 million.

Those are 2012 dollars.
http://www.revelstoketimesreview.com...292248511.html

Of course, it's election time coming up and it ain't gonna happen in the mid-term.

splashflash Mar 7, 2015 6:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 6941756)
Of course Hwy 1, through the 3 BC NPs, is under Parks Canada (the feds) complete jurisdiction. Suspect that any future twinning would continue, piecemeal, westward from the AB/BC boundary.

As an aside, just a few weeks ago, the local MP gave an indication of the costs involved just for the 3 NPs:



http://www.revelstoketimesreview.com...292248511.html

Of course, it's election time coming up and it ain't gonna happen in the mid-term.

Sounds astronomically high to me,but if it does cost that much, a thirty year timeline seems appropriate.

craner Mar 9, 2015 4:48 AM

^Well that is depressing. :(

Metro-One Mar 9, 2015 12:21 PM

Seeing how many years it took them to twin the stretch through Banff national Park, 30 years to complete twinning through BC's 3 Federal Parks (in arguably much more difficult terrain) doesn't seem unrealistic at all sadly...

Oliver Klozov Mar 9, 2015 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 6943357)
Seeing how many years it took them to twin the stretch through Banff national Park,

the reasons for which are ...
a) most of that time was under a Lieberal regime which has shown many times that they detest spending money in Alberta
b) the enviro-weenies fought against any twinning in Banff for a long, long time

There was even one guy who put forward a plan to rather than twin the highway reduce the speed limit to 60 kph the whole way through all 4 NPs and put Jersey barriers down the centerline to prevent passing!


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:28 PM.

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