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)

lubicon Dec 18, 2014 7:41 PM

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.

craner Dec 19, 2014 1:28 AM

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

SOSS Dec 19, 2014 2:54 AM

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.

Dylan Leblanc Jan 6, 2015 8:54 AM

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

SOSS Jan 6, 2015 4:38 PM

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.

Metro-One Jan 7, 2015 4:18 AM

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.

SOSS Jan 7, 2015 5:42 AM

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.

Daguy Jan 13, 2015 3:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOSS (Post 6865925)
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.

craneSpotter Jan 14, 2015 9:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon (Post 6849376)
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.

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 ;)

lubicon Jan 14, 2015 9:51 PM

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.

splashflash Jan 14, 2015 10:15 PM

Trucks on TCH east of Revelstoke
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon (Post 6874790)
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.

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.

craneSpotter Jan 14, 2015 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon (Post 6874790)
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.

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:
Quote:

B.C. premier Christy Clark today (Sep 2012) promised an additional $509 million over 10 years to continue four-lane improvements to the Trans-Canada highway between Kamloops and the Alberta border...

...Ralston said the $509 million funding announcement for Trans-Canada twinning was "outside the scope" of the capital projects plan. “So while the improvement is undoubtedly necessary, this isn’t so much a plan as it is a vague intention to come up with a plan."
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!

Procrastinational Jan 14, 2015 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craneSpotter (Post 6874868)
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 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.

craneSpotter Jan 15, 2015 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Procrastinational (Post 6874893)
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.

splashflash Jan 15, 2015 2:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craneSpotter (Post 6875046)

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.

Procrastinational Jan 15, 2015 8:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splashflash (Post 6875191)
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.

craneSpotter Jan 15, 2015 8:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splashflash (Post 6875191)
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.

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

craneSpotter Jan 15, 2015 8:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Procrastinational (Post 6875448)
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.

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.

craneSpotter Jan 15, 2015 9:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc (Post 6864870)
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.
 

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:

craneSpotter Jan 15, 2015 9:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splashflash (Post 6874826)
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.

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?


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:53 AM.

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