Trans Canada Highway Twinning: Segments U/C

[Marshal]

Why does this conversation never progress?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

"but major community access points and junctions such as through Chase here need to be interchanges"

How do we then explain the T-protected intersection with Highway 95 by Golden? Or is that on B.C. MTI? Or do we even need to worry about that being brought up? I am also wondering if there's a way to get these 3 to explain this publicly. Everyone deserves to know. Also, in general, my fear is that, if we don't have good evidence, we may look like the very special-interest group we're denouncing.

Why not use a better example - Where highway 5 meets 16 near Jasper. It is a T junction, but, look closer.. I have driven it, and it is nice.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The vast distances and terrain in BC is a challenge and the lack of a real federal highway program adds to that challenge (because while the province needs to build highways near Vancouver and other populated areas, it also needs to upgrade and maintain all the other highways to tiny villages such as highway 20 to Bella Coola, which does drain funds.

That said, at a minimum highway 17 should be full freeway grade, from Victoria to Langley. Highway 1 should be full freeway between Victoria and Nanaimo. Highway 97 should be full freeway between Penticton to Salmon Arm. And of course the #1 should be 4 lanes through the entire province, with interchanges through towns and protected Ts in the very rural areas (no lights).

That is the base BC should already have or at the very least aiming to build.

Tired of the single interchange and / or 2 or 3 KM at a time upgrades.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

"Tired of the single interchange and / or 2 or 3 KM at a time upgrades."

Yep. Be like Ontario, doing 35 km in one go with 5(?) concurrent contracts (between Thunder Bay and Pass Lake).

The problem is that BC is trying to do more than it can, and so it does things half done. At least Ontario is doing things as it should be done, but that is because it has learned from a lot of poorly designed highways. Remember, Ontario has 3 times the population. That can make a difference with traffic accidents. Look at Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. The first 2 cities look similar with freeways, whereas Vancouver looks empty of them. They are playing catch up, and it is going to be expensive.

[Marshal]

I'm not going to defend BC's highway network. It is inadequate. I also think everyone's take on what improvements are needed across the province are pretty bang on.

I will however point out to the arm chair professionals that their anger over the premium for building through the mountains is a red herring or worse. The difference between armchair highway engineers and actual highway engineers is that the real ones know all the relevant engineering information and what is required to deal with it. The issue with BC is not so much its mountainous surface, but the subsurface consequences of that kind of terrain. The geological mess that exists beneath this province is astounding. Nowhere else in Canada comes remotely close. The stability, structural capacity, drainage requirements . . . can changer 4 or 5 times along a couple of kilometer's stretch. This requires the design to alternate between all kinds of different solutions throughout the majority of any major construction. And that's not the biggest problem. Every time an engineering solution changes to another, the two must be designed so that the 'joint' between them is stable with each meeting the other through a zone where different conditions must be made to act in the same way. Then think of doing that a few hundred times and you begin to understand. Building a modern highway is much much more than a grading exercise.

It's easy to bitch, but when uninformed, like thinking hills are the same everywhere, and costs cannot be justified because of surface conditions, you need to remember you may just be missing something in your own grumpiness. BC's valleys can almost be as complex/expensive as full on mountainsides, and neither pale even compared to all the bridges and tunnels.

Like I said, I think we should have a better highway system. I also get frustrated with freeways with dangerous dips, light controlled intersections, old narrow bridges, endless 2 lanes of excessive tight windiness - but the argument is in the priorities and budget numbers of both British Columbians and their governments. Flaming out about the geological implications of our land, especially if you are ignoring or completely missing their reality, is a waste of time.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I'm not going to defend BC's highway network. It is inadequate. I also think everyone's take on what improvements are needed across the province are pretty bang on.

I will however point out to the arm chair professionals that their anger over the premium for building through the mountains is a red herring or worse. The difference between armchair highway engineers and actual highway engineers is that the real ones know all the relevant engineering information and what is required to deal with it. The issue with BC is not so much its mountainous surface, but the subsurface consequences of that kind of terrain. The geological mess that exists beneath this province is astounding. Nowhere else in Canada comes remotely close. The stability, structural capacity, drainage requirements . . . can changer 4 or 5 times along a couple of kilometer's stretch. This requires the design to alternate between all kinds of different solutions throughout the majority of any major construction. And that's not the biggest problem. Every time an engineering solution changes to another, the two must be designed so that the 'joint' between them is stable with each meeting the other through a zone where different conditions must be made to act in the same way. Then think of doing that a few hundred times and you begin to understand. Building a modern highway is much much more than a grading exercise.

It's easy to bitch, but when uninformed, like thinking hills are the same everywhere, and costs cannot be justified because of surface conditions, you need to remember you may just be missing something in your own grumpiness. BC's valleys can almost be as complex/expensive as full on mountainsides, and neither pale even compared to all the bridges and tunnels.

Like I said, I think we should have a better highway system. I also get frustrated with freeways with dangerous dips, light controlled intersections, old narrow bridges, endless 2 lanes of excessive tight windiness - but the argument is in the priorities and budget numbers of both British Columbians and their governments. Flaming out about the geological implications of our land, especially if you are ignoring or completely missing their reality, is a waste of time.

Lol I'm definitely one right now, but if I can acquire the stuff to help me probe mountains (i.e. slope stability, hardness of rock), that may be a game-changer. I've been trying to design the Ontario portion of TCH freeway.

Why does this conversation never progress?

Tbh, I'm fine with just 4 lanes as long as future upgrade to freeway is possible (without having to expropriate properties en masse).

[Metro-One]

I understand what you are saying Marshal, I ain’t a complete dummy in this aspect (my degree and qualifications is all in geography, forest ecology, and GIS) though I won’t claim to be an expert either, which is why I acknowledge the challenges BC has for highway construction, that said I feel overall more can be done.

The cancellation of the GMB project and the downgrade of this interchange to two protected T intersections, apparently due to community concern, not budget or geotechnical challenges, are examples of where we are failing.

[Marshal]

.

[Marshal]

Dengler Avenue, if you mean the TCH, yes, four lanes coast to coast would be a start. But BC needs several lengths of 4, 6 and 8 lanes in the three dense areas: Okanagan, Lower Mainland, Victoria/Nanaimo.

[Metro-One]

So, Todd Stone has recapped the project pretty well.

End up being the NDP did put it on hold after entering office, and now this is what we get:

“What we’re seeing here today is a dramatic reduction in scope, we’re getting less highway, three years late, for $61 million more than what the original budget had cost.”

https://cfjctoday.com/2020/05/02/cos...tion-minister/

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I understand what you are saying Marshal, I ain’t a complete dummy in this aspect (my degree and qualifications is all in geography, forest ecology, and GIS) though I won’t claim to be an expert either, which is why I acknowledge the challenges BC has for highway construction, that said I feel overall more can be done.

The cancellation of the GMB project and the downgrade of this interchange to two protected T intersections, apparently due to community concern, not budget or geotechnical challenges, are examples of where we are failing.

I'm with you on that, so long as we note that the original 10 lane GMB made it easier to mess around with than if they had put forward a more reasonable proposal. This, to me, is part of the priorities issue. I know many argued in favour of the ten lane mega bridge with two gigantic interchanges, but if priorities were better balanced, they could have built an eight lane with reasonable interchanges, and USED THE REST of that money to properly finish the SFPR . . . or six lanes to Chilliwack . . . or, . . .

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Dengler Avenue, if you mean the TCH, yes, four lanes coast to coast would be a start. But BC needs several lengths of 4, 6 and 8 lanes in the three dense areas: Okanagan, Lower Mainland, Victoria/Nanaimo.

That is the problem, so much is needed everywhere.

[Metro-One]

I long said it should have simply been reduced to 8 lanes, but I do think the large interchanges were needed to allow the true rapid bus component. They did a piss poor job selling the actually great transit component of the project. Also the southern end interchange wasn’t over engineered or that large at all (and ironically these interchanges would have had smaller footprints than the current ones...).

But getting off topic here, the main issue of today is the disaster that has happened with the Chase project, and how the reduction in scope wasn’t even revealed until awarding the contract...

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Dengler Avenue, if you mean the TCH, yes, four lanes coast to coast would be a start. But BC needs several lengths of 4, 6 and 8 lanes in the three dense areas: Okanagan, Lower Mainland, Victoria/Nanaimo.

That will be the day~

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I long said it should have simply been reduced to 8 lanes, but I do think the large interchanges were needed to allow the true rapid bus component. They did a piss poor job selling the actually great transit component of the project. Also the southern end interchange wasn’t over engineered or that large at all (and ironically these interchanges would have had smaller footprints than the current ones...).

But getting off topic here, the main issue of today is the disaster that has happened with the Chase project, and how the reduction in scope wasn’t even revealed until awarding the contract...

Actually, swimmer_spe and I may have an idea why it's changed, but since I've already come so far, I will keep going lol.
@swimmer_spe can't you just tell me who owns the businesses at TCH @ Chase W Road? I'm bad at guessing.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

That will be the day~

Actually, swimmer_spe and I may have an idea why it's changed, but since I've already come so far, I will keep going lol.
@swimmer_spe can't you just tell me who owns the businesses at TCH @ Chase W Road? I'm bad at guessing.

No. You contacted them, you get to struggle with this.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

No. You contacted them, you get to struggle with this.

I was just following Metro-One's lead this whole time.
I thought this would just have been the same with giving feedbacks for the design through Yoho N.P. How was I to know that Mrs. Schimpf would actually write back something this personal?

[Metro-One]

I said contact the local newspaper, not businesses, haha!

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I said contact the local newspaper, not businesses, haha!

@swimmer_spe meant that I contacted Schimpf... Anyway I will write up the email then sleep. (@swimmer_spe and I have been talking about a freeway along Lake Superior Shore for the past hour...)

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I said contact the local newspaper, not businesses, haha!

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I was just following Metro-One's lead this whole time.
I thought this would just have been the same with giving feedbacks for the design through Yoho N.P. How was I to know that Mrs. Schimpf would actually write back something this personal?

See what happens when you just follow someone?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

See what happens when you just follow someone?

Puis je suis dans la marde.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I'm not going to defend BC's highway network. It is inadequate. I also think everyone's take on what improvements are needed across the province are pretty bang on.

I will however point out to the arm chair professionals that their anger over the premium for building through the mountains is a red herring or worse. The difference between armchair highway engineers and actual highway engineers is that the real ones know all the relevant engineering information and what is required to deal with it. The issue with BC is not so much its mountainous surface, but the subsurface consequences of that kind of terrain. The geological mess that exists beneath this province is astounding. Nowhere else in Canada comes remotely close. The stability, structural capacity, drainage requirements . . . can changer 4 or 5 times along a couple of kilometer's stretch. This requires the design to alternate between all kinds of different solutions throughout the majority of any major construction. And that's not the biggest problem. Every time an engineering solution changes to another, the two must be designed so that the 'joint' between them is stable with each meeting the other through a zone where different conditions must be made to act in the same way. Then think of doing that a few hundred times and you begin to understand. Building a modern highway is much much more than a grading exercise.

It's easy to bitch, but when uninformed, like thinking hills are the same everywhere, and costs cannot be justified because of surface conditions, you need to remember you may just be missing something in your own grumpiness. BC's valleys can almost be as complex/expensive as full on mountainsides, and neither pale even compared to all the bridges and tunnels.

Like I said, I think we should have a better highway system. I also get frustrated with freeways with dangerous dips, light controlled intersections, old narrow bridges, endless 2 lanes of excessive tight windiness - but the argument is in the priorities and budget numbers of both British Columbians and their governments. Flaming out about the geological implications of our land, especially if you are ignoring or completely missing their reality, is a waste of time.

What does any of what you said have to do with them completely changing plans? Are you insinuating that the engineers behind the original proposal, which I believe was approved by the last government, are incompetent?

There's lots of places in the world that have much more challenging geology than B.C. and still manage to build freeways. When it comes to highway building B.C. along with Manitoba are do-nothing provinces. We all know that there are certain sections of the #1 in B.C. that involve challenging terrain but most of it is nothing special. B.C. needs to be held to account, not given more excuses to jeopardize the safety of drivers and our economy.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is the problem, so much is needed everywhere.

That's what happens when you do nothing for 60 years.