Highways in Canada

[jmt18325]

If it becomes a problem, you can easily add a centre median.

[craner]

It better at least have a center barrier from the start !
Although we know how BC has been known to build without.

[Innsertnamehere]

Who says it won't have a central median barrier?

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Who says it won't have a central median barrier?

None of the other similar constructions do. Honestly, it's about 300% better than what's there now. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.

[millerman]

There will be a central median barrier, where dividing with a grass median is not feasible. Most of these two sections of Hwy 1 upgrade by Chase are going to be constructed into the mountainside. Building a four lane divided highway with a wide grass median on the side of Turtle Mountain would require a lot more rock cut and fill and is not feasible due to a wider corridor width required. In BC, where hillsides are very steep in some areas, or land purchase is expensive, 4-laning with a central median barrier is the method of choice by MoTI, in order to minimize the corridor width and hence the volume of rock drill/blast, hauling and placement (fill) or land purchase. I'm currently working on these portions of highway upgrade.

[craner]

^That's good to hear millerman, thanks for confirming.
I'm curious as to why the widening of hwy 97 did not include a center barrier ?

[speedog]

Originally Posted by millerman

There will be a central median barrier, where dividing with a grass median is not feasible. Most of these two sections of Hwy 1 upgrade by Chase are going to be constructed into the mountainside. Building a four lane divided highway with a wide grass median on the side of Turtle Mountain would require a lot more rock cut and fill and is not feasible due to a wider corridor width required. In BC, where hillsides are very steep in some areas, or land purchase is expensive, 4-laning with a central median barrier is the method of choice by MoTI, in order to minimize the corridor width and hence the volume of rock drill/blast, hauling and placement (fill) or land purchase. I'm currently working on these portions of highway upgrade.

So Three Valley Lake - what would be your idea for a four lane solution there? Extremely narrow valley combined with mountainsides that rise at a steeper rate than almost any other area along the TransCanada. In fact, the whole section from just west of Revelstoke to just west of Three Valley Lake appears to be a challenge like no other, even worse then the Kicking Horse above Golden.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by millerman

There will be a central median barrier, where dividing with a grass median is not feasible. Most of these two sections of Hwy 1 upgrade by Chase are going to be constructed into the mountainside. Building a four lane divided highway with a wide grass median on the side of Turtle Mountain would require a lot more rock cut and fill and is not feasible due to a wider corridor width required. In BC, where hillsides are very steep in some areas, or land purchase is expensive, 4-laning with a central median barrier is the method of choice by MoTI, in order to minimize the corridor width and hence the volume of rock drill/blast, hauling and placement (fill) or land purchase. I'm currently working on these portions of highway upgrade.

I just don't understand how it's "not feasible" when Ontario builds their northern highways with a divided median in what's essentially the same terrain (Canadian shield)

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

It is obvious that you don't know how to read schematics.

Between the south end of Oak Street Bridge and the southern end of the project at the 91 T interchange the only portions that will have only 4 general purpose lanes plus 2 HOV will be a 500 meter stretch in the middle of the Richmond 91/99 interchange (which makes sense given the add/drops with the ramps) and a 1km stretch on the extreme southern end of the project. Everywhere else the project ranges from 6 to 10 general purpose through lanes plus 2 HOV/Bus lanes.

So, including the HOV/Bus lanes, from north to south, the general through lane counts are as follows:

Oak Street Bridge south to the Richmond 91 interchange: 8 lanes.
Middle of 91 Interchange: 6 lanes
91 Interchange south to Steveston Interchange: 10 to 12 lanes.
Middle of Steveston Interchange: 8 lanes
The bridge itself to the 17A Interchange: 10 lanes
17A Interchange to SFPR Interchange: 12 lanes
Middle of SFPR Interchange: 8 lanes
SFPR to BCR overpass: 8 lanes
Final km from BCR overpass to 91 Interchange: 6 lanes.

End of project.

From there it will remain 4 lanes plus a bus shoulder to White Rock. I have never experienced a traffic jam or delay on this section of highway so expansion is not really required for now. With that said I do wish that this project did extend the proper HOV/Bus lane to King George Interchange with a Bus ramp.

It is fine to have gripes with highway projects in BC, but when you fabricate lies or completely exaggerate a situation it only weakens your point.

You may also have been looking at old diagrams, the section between Oak Street Bridge and the Richmond 91 Interchange has had a new updated design posted a couple months back.

Do you have a link by any chance?

[srperrycgy]

Originally Posted by libtard

I just don't understand how it's "not feasible" when Ontario builds their northern highways with a divided median in what's essentially the same terrain (Canadian shield)

The average driver will not care if there is a grassy median, as long as the road is 4-lanes, and the speed limit is appropriate, they are good to go. If Ontario wants to spend more money on more rock cuts, so be it. That's their decision based on their standards. If BC wants to reduce costs and build more km of 4-lane road to their standard, thats good too.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by libtard

I just don't understand how it's "not feasible" when Ontario builds their northern highways with a divided median in what's essentially the same terrain (Canadian shield)

The terrain is much steeper in BC, that makes it more expensive.



The red areas have to be blasted/removed in order to create a flat road surface. And the remaining hillside needs to be secured and reinforced on the left. All of this is expensive.

It's the same reason office towers in St. John's generally don't have basement parking garages. It's solid beadrock, so parking is on the second and third floor instead. Blasting down would easily make the building not feasible - double, triple the cost.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

The terrain is much steeper in BC, that makes it more expensive.



The red areas have to be blasted/removed in order to create a flat road surface. And the remaining hillside needs to be secured and reinforced on the left. All of this is expensive.

It's the same reason office towers in St. John's generally don't have basement parking garages. It's solid beadrock, so parking is on the second and third floor instead. Blasting down would easily make the building not feasible - double, triple the cost.

Thanks for the physics lesson... I was talking about parts of the highways that aren't on the side of the mountain. Obviously the side of a mountain doesn't warrant a divided meridian, even I-90 through the Rockies doesn't have that. But there are many areas in BC where the highway COULD have a divided median but doesn't

[speedog]

The problem in BC is the cuts needed wouldn't be in just solid rock like what the Canadian Shield might be - the land above will become unstable and now landslides become an issue. Three Valley Lake will be especially difficult to punch even a separated 4 lane highway through - sheer cliffs on one side and extremely steep terrain on the other side. There is no valley bottom lands because the lake goes to both edges. I suppose one could blast away even more rock where the existing highway is but the expense would be unreal

[milomilo]

I don't see the issue with not having a grassy centre median. Most highways in Europe don't have them, it's more space efficient and (IMO) looks better.

There are some 4 lane highways in BC that don't even have a concrete divider, however. Just a painted median on the tarmac, which seems odd to me but it's still a cheap upgrade over a two lane highway.

[millerman]

They have looked at splitting the highway on either side of the valley (at Three Valley) but I think at present they are planning to infill the lake. They cannot blast the rock face on the south side of the highway because it rises near vertical (80 degrees) for 3 thousand feet above the valley. In addition there is a number of avalanche paths along this section of highway. It really is a nasty section to get through, and only a few kilometers in length. They even looked at the idea of building a snowshed along this section (2 lanes wide against the cliff), so once four lanes the highway could still stay open. Anyways the likely design for that section is 4-lanes, infill into Three Valley Lake, and center median barrier.
Side: I used to fly with the highways avalanche tech in Revelstoke when I was a teenager to do snow pit analysis near the start zones above Three Valley Gap in the 1980's. I grew up in Revi.

As far as grass medians on Highway 1. Actually the majority Highway 1 upgrades between Kamloops and Hoffman Buff has a nice grassy median. It has center median barrier just past Pritchard because that section was originally a 4-lane passing section before upgrades. Hoffman, Chase west and east are steep and costly as Signal Hill described. Land cost is also a major constraint, especially in the Thompson, Okanagan and Shuswap Lake areas. 5 to 10 acres here is going to cost you in the range of 7 figures with a decent house.

[Loco101]

The Ontario Tall Wall seems to work well.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't see the issue with not having a grassy centre median. Most highways in Europe don't have them, it's more space efficient and (IMO) looks better.

There are some 4 lane highways in BC that don't even have a concrete divider, however. Just a painted median on the tarmac, which seems odd to me but it's still a cheap upgrade over a two lane highway.

Agreed.

Many of the highway 97 upgrades and the Cariboo Connector upgrades don't have median barriers (although they are designed for them). Don't know why they don't just add them.

Luckily all the recent / upcoming highway 1 improvements seem to include them.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't see the issue with not having a grassy centre median. Most highways in Europe don't have them, it's more space efficient and (IMO) looks better.

There are some 4 lane highways in BC that don't even have a concrete divider, however. Just a painted median on the tarmac, which seems odd to me but it's still a cheap upgrade over a two lane highway.

Having a wide grassy median is the safest way to build a highway.

In the even that a vehicle runs off the road while driving next to a concrete wall, the scenario with the highest likelihood of occurring is that the vehicle strikes a wall made of concrete, which involves significant damage to the vehicle, and increases the risk of injury to the occupants of the vehicle.

In the event that a vehicle runs off the road while driving next to a grassy ditch, the scenario with the highest likelihood of occurring is that the vehicle is slowed and stopped by the friction of the ditch, which may not damage the vehicle, and has a much lower risk of injury to the occupants of the vehicle.

That's not to say that concrete (or steel) walls are bad designs by any means, but they aren't as a properly designed grassy ditch.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Having a wide grassy median is the safest way to build a highway.

In the even that a vehicle runs off the road while driving next to a concrete wall, the scenario with the highest likelihood of occurring is that the vehicle strikes a wall made of concrete, which involves significant damage to the vehicle, and increases the risk of injury to the occupants of the vehicle.

In the event that a vehicle runs off the road while driving next to a grassy ditch, the scenario with the highest likelihood of occurring is that the vehicle is slowed and stopped by the friction of the ditch, which may not damage the vehicle, and has a much lower risk of injury to the occupants of the vehicle.

That's not to say that concrete (or steel) walls are bad designs by any means, but they aren't as a properly designed grassy ditch.

I agree it is in theory safer, but I just don't see the big deal of not having one in places where it would be highly expensive to add.

[milomilo]

Personally I'd like BC to upgrade the highway from Grande Prairie to Fort Saint John, that stretch is woefully inadequate with all the industrial traffic going that way. Just a bypass around Dawson Creek and Pouce Coupe would be a massive upgrade.