Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698
Eliminating the lower-cost options would increase the cost of building road projects and therefore either delay them from being built sooner (best case) or eliminate them altogether (worst case).
Which would you rather have, an 80km road today or a 100km road 10 years down the line?
|
Unfortunately, that's not how "it" works. Again, off the bat, BC has 3 separate divided highway functional designs:
1. RFD (Rural Freeway Divided)
2. RED (Rural Expressway Divided)
-same design as RFD but has signalized intersections upgradable to interchanges.
- design speed for both is minimal 100 km/hr up to 120 km/hr.
3. RAD (Rural Arterial Divided)
- typically 80 km/hr but can also be 100 km/hr
- driveway access not uncommon
- basically the inferior/least safe option;
Ontario, for example, does not have a similar RAD design on its books. All 400-series highways have an RFD design with design speeds up to 120 km/hr.
Alberta also does not have similar RAD design on its books. All new divided highways are mostly RFD. For example, the SW leg of Calgary's Stoney Trail will initially be between 6 - 8 lanes. The ROW as well as all overpass structures will permit future expansion to between 14 - 16 lanes (collector/express system).
Back to BC.
Hwy 1/Hwy 19 between Victoria and Campbell River is a mish-mash of 3 functional designs - RFD, RED, and RAD. Such a corridor should have "consistency" - IOW either RFD or RED functional design along its entire length. Throwing RAD into the mix makes the corridor less safe. And I have not brought the 3-lane Goldstream park section into the mix.
Back to the SFPR.
It is a RAD functional design with a 80 km/hr design speed - plan dating back from the 1990's. Had it been designed RED with 100 km/hr design speed:
1. Would have wider paved median/shoulders;
2. Would have smoother/gentler curves with longer sight-lines;
3. Would have super-elevation (banking) on curves as well as on/off ramps (read Hwy 99 interchange here);
4. Would have larger current interchanges in terms of both future clearance for new lanes as well as on/off ramp super-elevation;
As a result of this inferior RAD design, the SFPR is one of the most-accident prone highways in Metro Vancouver due to "driver expectation". Truck rollovers are also common. Ergo, major "operational" costs resulting thereto.
Had the SFPR been a RED functional design with at least a 100 km/hr design speed, these numerous traffic "incidents" would likely not occur. The additional CAPEX would only have been perhaps between 5% - 10% as the corridor is mostly just flat terrain.
Not only that, but the SFPR will never be expandable to 6-lanes or more. Would require demolishing all over/underpasses along entire corridor (BTW, in RAD functional design lexicon, the existing "interchanges" are actually known as "mini-changes"). Just ain't gonna happen. As a result, just hastens, down the road, the future construction of either the Serpentine Fwy or Southern Fwy corridors (both are RFD functional designs). Not "cost-effective" approach IMHO.
OTOH, we come to the past upgrades to Hwy 99 between Horseshoe Bay to Whistler - again RAD functional design (for the 4-lane parts) with an 80 km/hr design speed. Overall CAPEX thereto was ~$600 million. Unlike other corridors, Hwy 99 N could be construed as a "secondary" corridor v. a primary/strategic corridor IMHO.
Had just the section between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish been completed as RFD with a 100 km/hr design speed, that section alone would have cost $billions:
1. Hills with less than 5% grade;
2. Major rock cuts;
3. Viaducts;
4. Tunnels;
Unlike the SFPR, that corridor is curvilinear along mountainous terrain. Very expensive highway construction.
OTOH, upgrades along Hwy 1 between Kamloops and the AB border are both RED/RFD functional design with a 100 km/hr+ design speed. Phase 4 of the Kicking Horse Canyon section of Hwy 1 alone will also be the most expensive rural freeway ever constructed to date - not in only BC, but in all of Canada. ~$450 million for 4 km or just over $100 million/km. Again runs through expensive mountainous terrain and is curvilinear.
With an RAD functional design as well as 80 km/hr design speed, Phase 4 would have been considerably "cheaper" to construct. But consistent functional design/design speed is critical along strategic corridors and, of course, safety concerns as also paramount.
Utilizing your argument, the proposed Broadway subway should be constructed at-grade, along Broadway, as LRT. Would "exponentially" reduce CAPEX. OTOH, I am familiar with traffic (both vehicular & transit) along that corridor as well as future growth nodes. At-grade LRT along Broadway would neither be cost-effective nor in the public interest. Ergo, I have always been a major supporter of the proposed Broadway subway - the considerably (exponentially?) higher CAPEX is cost-effective here.
That old idiom "Penny Wise and Pound Foolish" is certainly apropos in this discussion.