HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2012, 10:43 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,804
I believe the road through Yoho Park is a Federal responsibility. It actually annoys me that the entire stretch through Banff National Park has been upgraded to full freeway standards while our stretch through Yoho National has been given 0 attention. The Federal Government does have a long term plan to do so, we will see when that happens.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2012, 5:19 AM
craneSpotter's Avatar
craneSpotter craneSpotter is offline
is watching.
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Greater Victoria
Posts: 3,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahoo View Post
I always chuckle crossing the border and seeing the arrogant "Best place on earth" welcome to BC sign. The road in Banff is being doubled, yet the "best place" is a crumbling narrow 1 lane road. And unfortunately they're fixing the narrow bridges in Yoho park - which is a pretty good indication there are no plans to actually twin the road like the BC government says they will. I mean - you don't fix an old bridge if you're going to replace it or if you're about to expand it.

BINGO! Don't you get it? It just not a high priority for BC. The majority of BC taxpayers live on the coast and that's where the infrastructure $$ are going. The Feds are free to do what they wish, build a freeway thru a 'wilderness' park lol. People on the BC coast don't really care about that remote part of the province, nor should we! Its not a go-to destination

The fact is: the traffic numbers on the #1 thru the BC Rockies (west of Salmon Arm) are insignificantly small compared to the many highways in the Okanagan, LM and Vancouver Island. Plus, our tourism is from the states (I-5/Air/Cruise Ship) and Asia (air) - not from the east (road from Alberta).

BC is about to get an NDP government too, and that gov will be supported from VI and the LM - good luck with much happening out on there in the fringes for 10 or more years! After the gateway program is done, the next focus will be VI.

Cheers.

Last edited by craneSpotter; Sep 27, 2012 at 5:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2012, 7:00 PM
Mazrim's Avatar
Mazrim Mazrim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,407
Likely they're following their mantra for the Trans Canada. Any improvements they make will always be 4 laning, so that eventually they can 4-lane the whole thing. Makes economic sense to 4 lane instead of adding a passing lane as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2012, 7:50 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim View Post
Likely they're following their mantra for the Trans Canada. Any improvements they make will always be 4 laning, so that eventually they can 4-lane the whole thing. Makes economic sense to 4 lane instead of adding a passing lane as well.
However, they redid some bridge structures further west in Manning Park, (these were whole bridge replacements) and they constructed those with only 2 lanes total.

I know one segment is through a provincial park, while this is just surrounded by empty Crown Land, it's a different mantra in both cases.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2012, 8:49 PM
Yahoo Yahoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 198
It's too bad - they just had a 50th anniversary ceremony for the Trans-Canada, http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=696139 but no announcement of any Federal funding to fix it up in BC. That would have been the perfect time to announce new projects. So it's obvious we're going into the usual 5 year waiting period between batches of upgrades. And they're not done the last batch so it could be 6-7 years. (Man, I hope I'm wrong - there are still far too many dangerous areas being ignored).

Sadly, I think the announcements will be politically timed and will only occur when it makes them (prov & feds) look good when an election is coming. I think if we had elections every year we'd be done the road lol.

I recently emailed Infrastructure Canada about the schedule for twinning the highway in BC - at least in the National Parks and they told me the highway was a provincial responsibility and it was up to BC to request funding. When I pointed out that the National Parks are federal they corrected themselves. I think that speaks volumes. They're so busy waiting for provincial requests they aren't even looking at federal roads in the national parks. Hopefully complaints like mine will trigger some action.

I'm pretty sure Alberta started off the Banff upgrade plans by kicking in $50M - but perhaps I was thinking about something else. I know in Alberta they started removing the signs beside construction projects because the Feds complained. Lol, usually because it was "95% provincial, 3% local, and 2% federal" funding. So now it's often hard to tell who paid for what, but in the end it's Canadian citizens who paid 100%.

In any case, it makes no sense to upgrade the Alberta side and not the BC side - the traffic in that area between Banff & Yoho is the same at the border. Since the Feds should be focusing on federal roads they really need to have a plan for Yoho & Glacier - even if it's just a "design phase - awaiting funding" plan.

And yes, sadly it's 90 in Banff - even though it's easily the best highway in Alberta. The only justification I can see is that animals like bears can climb the fencing. But when you have such a sweet highway, and people are on 6-12 hr road trips it just doesn't make sense for people to slow down when the highway gets better. It's unsafe actually because there is such a mixture of speeds. People following the speed limit and people going 110 (including police when they aren't setting up traps right as you leave the park). Sure, the areas around the Banff townsite should likely slow to 90, but the road from Calgary to Banff is 110 - and it's not nearly as good at the 90 section within most of the park (some of the older parts are better suited to 90 - especially for all the tourist traffic in those older narrower areas - which by the way should also be upgraded)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2012, 2:41 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: YEG -> -> -> Nelson BC
Posts: 11,297
Quote:
People on the BC coast don't really care about that remote part of the province, nor should we!
Wow. what a jerk.
__________________
Short term pain for long term gain
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2012, 6:20 PM
lubicon's Avatar
lubicon lubicon is offline
Suburban dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary - our road planners are as bad as yours Edmonton
Posts: 5,047
Trouble with this arguement is that while the TCH may not see a lot of traffic (volume wise) a very large percentage of that traffic is commercial as it is only one of 3 E-W routes limking BC with the rest of Canada. As such it is a highly important route economically. A few years back I recall being told by one of the rangers in Kootenay Park that the cost to the economy of closing the TCH was in the order of $1 million/hour. That's why the focus when it comes to fires/avalanches etc. is to get the road open as quickly as possible at any cost. Upgrading the road to 4 lanes would have a very quick pay back in terms of economic value- just from the time savings alone in driving the route.
__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2012, 9:45 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,804
And again he point seems to have been missed that it is really up to the Feds when it comes to the #1 through Yoho and other national parks in BC, and so far they have essentially given us the finger haha!

Thats also why some in BC may feel a little disjointed with the rest of Canada.

People always seem to forget that building highways through BC is not like building them through the prairies, they are insanely expensive. This is not an excuse not to do so, but it does make the process far more difficult. this is why I wish highways in general were a federal program like in the US.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2012, 11:13 PM
Yahoo Yahoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 198
[QUOTE=Yahoo;5847298]When I asked the feds about it they unofficially indicated that they were waiting for BC to make the request. They've been upgrading the road through Banff for ~40 years. I hope that Yoho hasn't been ignored simply because the folks in BC haven't bothered to ask. Most of the road through Banff serves no other purpose than connecting to BC so I can't see the logic in not continuing the upgrades.

You do notice one thing driving through BC - the old national park roads were always built to a higher standard than the provincial parts of the highway. Wider shoulders etc. I realize it's super expensive to upgrade the highway - but even in places where it would be relatively cheap like Golden to Donald they haven't touched it.

Someone in BC put up the signs indicating the road would be twinned from Kamloops to Alberta. But that's about all the information you can find. My take on it is that it's a political ploy from a government with no actual plan. They're just hoping by putting up signs the voters will be happy and assume it's underway. And for the most part I think many people assume there is a plan and a schedule simply because there are signs.

I'm hoping that there are a bunch of backroom secret negotiations going on. If I was a BC politician I would have complained bitterly by now. BC joined confederation because of the railroad - yet seemed all to happy to leave it at that. The powers that be need to complain about how far BC is falling behind on the national highway. Many provinces are almost completely twinned yet BC has barely started.

As an Albertan I'd certainly support more federal transfer payments to fix up the roads in BC. Although from what I've heard - some of the worst roads in Alberta are around the tar sands projects which is pretty shocking considering how important the area is to Canada's pocketbook. I know a guy who works in Ft Mac and he says the traffic is a nightmare - as in worse than NYC. Man, tar + sand, isn't that one of the main ingredients in asphalt?

Last edited by Yahoo; Sep 27, 2012 at 11:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2012, 8:15 PM
Yahoo Yahoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 198
Premier Announces Investments in Capital Projects, Transportation Infrastructure
For Immediate Release
2012PREM0118-001456
Sept. 28, 2012
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...118-001456.htm

It sounds good - but is short on any specific details. $650M over 10 years ($509M in addition to 3 year service plan). That's less than they have been spending so that's always a concern. And if you consider the kicking horse phase 4 will cost about $650M then we might only see another ~4 km upgraded in the next 10 years - which would be really unfortunate. I can only hope the $650M is in addition to matching federal funds so we might actually see some significant progress. But who knows if the feds will match anything.

And hopefully "3 year service plan" isn't a nice way to say "we're done with any further projects for the next 3 years". Given how many projects get delayed by a couple years at a time (see Hilltop Road or the Kicking horse phases) this could mean further feet dragging. And since there is still no schedule or project announcements I have to wonder if there are actually going to announce anything within the next 5 years. They could just be planning to spend it in 10 years - with projects not starting for many years after that.

I know that's how they work things in Calgary. They approved an interchange in 1984 - and keep announcing it every 5 years. It was to be done before the 1988 Olympics. The latest information is that it'll be done in 2010 (not a typo). Which would be amazing since they haven't started yet. But their capital budget now indicates 2017. Other road upgrades were actually designed in the 1970s and are still awaiting funding even though politicians and surveys indicate it's a priority.

Last edited by Yahoo; Sep 28, 2012 at 8:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 12:37 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahoo View Post
It sounds good - but is short on any specific details. $650M over 10 years ($509M in addition to 3 year service plan). That's less than they have been spending so that's always a concern.
Yeah. The feds provide matching funds on these projects so we are looking at ~$1.3 billion over the next ten years.

But when you consider that nothing was really done between Kamloops and the AB border until the early 2000's (aside from the Malakwa twinning east of Sicamous circa 1985) with ~$700 million spent to date.

It seems that continuous projects will continue henceforth. $Billions$ are still required. It's moving along, not quite as fast as we would like it, but still moving forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 4:15 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,287
Donald bridge looks good.
I was excited about the $650 million until I kept reading Yahoo's post. Now I'm just depressed. Man it's frustrating the slow pace and lack of commitment on the TCH.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 7:42 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,804
It depends where they spend it, if they focus on the easiest sections you could potentially get a lot of KMs out of that money, but I have a feeling they are going for the more difficult sections first, as they have been doing over the last 5 years with the Kicking Horse canyon and several bridge structures.

The improvements on BCs highways over the last 5 years has actually been really impressive. People here also have to remember that the TCH is not the only major route in BC.

All the highways in the Okanagan have been getting major overhauls / improvements at the same time recently, along with the Cariboo highway projects and all the major highway projects in Metro Vancouver.

Remember, over the last 10 years:

New Seat to Sky highway
Kicking Horse Canyon + other projects along TCH
Border program (twinning highway 10 and 15)
All the highway upgrades in the Okanagan, especially the major ones between Penticton and Vernon (including the new 4 lane section around Oyama)
All the new twinning segments of the Cariboo Connector.
SFPR
Gateway (35 km of the #1 major upgrades + new Port Mann Bridge)
New Pitt River Bridge
New Okanagan Bridge in Kelowna
Twinning of Simon Fraser Bridge in Prince George
New highway interchanges on the Island
etc....

So, BC's highways have been going through a major upgrade throughout the province, and every year are continuing to get better.

If all that money was dumped into one highway, such as the #1, it probably could be full freeway from Van to Calgary now, but sadly, there are so many regions and connections that need expansion / work that without a Federal program, the #1 is going to have to have its one piece at a time upgrades.

And obviously the western half of the province (Okanagan west) has far superior highways than east of the Okanagan, simply because that is where the major bulk of BC's population resides. The same reason why the highways in southern Ontario are far better than those in northern and central Ontario.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2012, 2:03 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,046
Given the Federal government's focus on trade with Asia, the probability of matching funds is very high. Would the NDP walk away from TCH twinning if it meant losing the Federal dollars?

As an aside, I cycling from Calgary to Vancouver when my two 10 year old sons back in June. You get a real sense of not only the high traffic on the TCG but also the decay. Sections between Golden and Kamloops have eroded shoulders and exposed rebar on bridges.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2012, 5:07 PM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
As an aside, I cycling from Calgary to Vancouver when my two 10 year old sons back in June. You get a real sense of not only the high traffic on the TCH but also the decay. Sections between Golden and Kamloops have eroded shoulders and exposed rebar on bridges.
Yep!
That's the embarrassing state of the national highway between the two largest centres in western Canada.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2012, 2:27 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: YEG -> -> -> Nelson BC
Posts: 11,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
Yep!
That's the embarrassing state of the national highway between the two largest centres in western Canada.
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.



^ I bike the Baja in '98. What a blast. Terrifying too.
__________________
Short term pain for long term gain
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2012, 9:27 PM
Yahoo Yahoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by 240glt View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2012, 2:27 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: YEG -> -> -> Nelson BC
Posts: 11,297
^ 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!

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
__________________
Short term pain for long term gain
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2012, 12:54 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahoo View Post
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;
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2012, 4:10 AM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post

As an aside, I cycling from Calgary to Vancouver when my two 10 year old sons back in June. You get a real sense of not only the high traffic on the TCG but also the decay. Sections between Golden and Kamloops have eroded shoulders and exposed rebar on bridges.
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!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:36 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.