I agree with the idea of implementing a toll for TCH upgrades but not west of Revelstoke. The toll should be at Glacier, between Revelstoke and Golden, so that smaller communities don't get cut off from larger centres. The toll can fund upgrades along the route from Kamloops to the AB border.

The assumption is that the current segment through T-V-G will not be abandoned, but retained as an EDR (emergency detour route).

I thought that was implied but now I had to state it explicitly. :frog:

It remains to be seen whether or not Parks Canada’s down to tunneling through national parks. But darn it that’ll have meant BC upgraded TCH around Donald (and possibly Golden too) for nothing. :(

^ what’s the point of just adressing the issues at TVG though? There are numerous places along the route that need significant upgrades. I’d prefer the whole stretch from Kamloops to AB be adressed wholistically and funded (in part) by a toll

By all means TVG has issues but it’s not the only spot

That’s a good point. Thanks for bringing that up.

I can still see it being broken into a few mega parts though, especially now that twinning has been done east of Kamloops, around Balmoral, around Malakwa and around Golden, so this is how I see it:
Kamloops: remove all at-grade intersections, all of it;
Balmoral: a tolled freeway from there to Malakwa;
T-V-G to Revelstoke: a tolled tunnel;
Revelstoke to Golden: another tolled tunnel.

Everyone here has for sure discussed this before. It isn’t anything new. The main thing that’s lacking is the stupid political will.
Also should I be afraid that the 2 tolls together will render TCH less competitive than I-90??

Most of the Trans-Canada can be twinned in BC without major bypasses. I don't think there would be any appetite for major tunnel bypasses. I was referring more just to Three Valley Gap being tunneled around than the whole stretch. My reference to the Japanese tolls was to show how expensive it'll get if you do those major tunneling bypasses. I don't think there's any jurisdiction in North America who would be willing to set those kind of tolls you see in Japan.

They've found a way to avoid tunnels near Golden, so I'm sure they can do the same for many other parts of the highway.

Good point. It’s pretty crazy that both levels of government are willing to chip in $450M for ~4 km in KHC 4. Even if BC’s only putting in $235M, that’s still a lot of money.

So, just like what milomilo said elsewhere, joint funding’s the way to go? :D

A toll would effectively be joint funding.. all those Albertans vacationing in BC would be paying for a significant amount of the upgrades :)

In an alternative reality, I'd have liked the entire TCH network to be tolled from the start, with the proceeds of the toll funding improvements network wide. Since it's a national highway, in my view it's fairest that the cost of the whole thing is split between all users. I personally don't think it is fair that the greatest cost is instead portioned out to those with the harshest geography. The proceeds of the toll could then have much more quickly built a comprehensive high quality network.

This would be fairly hard to implement now though, as someone in Canmore will balk at being forced to pay a toll when they already have a fully built freeway. But now if we put in tolls just on a few expensive sections, that forces a disproportionate cost on the locals there when everyone else got their roads for 'free'.

One snag with tolls though is that it would require ANPR, but that will be basically useless when it snows. You could put in booths, but yuck, that would be pretty backwards.

In an alternate reality, tolls on Coquihalla Pass should have stayed, since most people would have bitten the bullet and used it anyway. ;)

It's actually the same standard as in Banff except the use of barriers rather than grass median for obvious reason. All the major intersections are interchanges, while the smaller access roads are still left with at-grade crossings.

For example, this:
https://goo.gl/maps/9FfrdzAeMPD2

I don’t want this question to be ignored. Which one? The proposed replacement of the bridge leading into Sicamous? The ones leading into Yoho from Golden?

@nname IIRC that’s the only at-grade intersection in Banff National Park though. I’d suppose that, once the usage gets too high, Parks Canada has to build a service road from the nearby interchange and permanently close that intersection.

That's the biggest one, but there are other access to buildings, parking lots, trails, etc that are at-grade intersections.

What I wonder, and I imagine others might too, is why it seems that in the rest of the world tunneling actually appears to be the easier option, whereas our choice is always blasting channels through mountains. Yes we have found a way down Kicking Horse pass, but it is the most expensive piece of road in BC. If blasting is cheaper here, then it logically should be cheaper in Europe too, so why the difference? Are we just lucky enough to have routings that don't need tunnels, or maybe the geology of the rock is different?

When was the last time you drove through BNP? There really aren't many at all, although they get more frequent closer to Lake Louise, which is the point heading west where the road quality significantly worsens.

Could it be labour cost, not least because BC has mandated union wage again?

This one (Sicamous) with 5 lanes proposed, the new bridge in Kelowna with 5 lanes, the Lions Gate in Vancouver with 3 lanes, the Pitt River Bridge between Coquitlam and Pitt Meadows with 7 lanes... there are more I was looking at but can't recall right now. I get a 3 lane bridge on parts of the #1 or #3 where there are passing lanes included, but the others make no sense, just have it even.

Drove through? Never. But I went through there quite a few times, not as a driver though. I did pay very close attention to it by figuring out why it wasn't marked as "freeway" on my map west of Banff.

By quickly looking at streetview, I found 8 spots within Banff NP that's not up to freeway standard and allows left turns, plus numerous others right-in right-out access without proper acceleration/deceleration lanes. Basically all intersections with numbered highway or major town access road have interchange, and every other other ones does not, except for Sunshine Road.

Applying this same criteria, the only intersection in Yoho that would get an interchange would be Field Access Road, and maybe Emerald Lake Road. All other ones are comparable to those in Banff that are treated with left turn lanes.

That's fair. I don't particularly like grade intersections on new built divided highway, but IRT to the Great Divide Lodge not cheaping out would entail something pretty expensive which wouldn't really be worth it.

Good point, but I would be more satisfied with that logic if they were to actually use those savings to 4 lane more KMs in a single project.

All these 4 lanning projects (both provincial and federal) are always a few km at a time, and if they are over 10km in length they are phased over far too long periods. Look at Kicking Horse or the area between Kamloops and Chase. Both segments that reasonably could have been single projects.

The 40km being studied now to continue through Yoho Park for example should be a single phased project, or at most two 20km phases, where the second one starts before the first is complete or immediately afterwards.

For the remainder of Yoho Park, I actually wanna see it done in conjunction with a KHC “phase 6” (if “phase 5” is about converting the traffic lights and Highway 95 T-intersection into interchanges). As for tendering the construction, the max should be 15 km (according to the engineer in the Ontario subforum).