BC Highway Construction

[Metro-One]

Yeah, waiting for more details myself on that on too. I hope it also includes closing a few direct access points to the highway as well.

Would be nice to see the planned interchanges at Sannich go through.

In all honesty the entire highway 17 on the island should get a single project upgrade to freeway standard. It really wouldn’t take that much, it already has 6 interchanges and about 80% is already built with limited access and frontage roads.

[Dengler Avenue]

While we are at it, we should do the same with 17 on the mainland too.
I have proposed stuff for the mess near Pacific Highway and TCH. Just look through the thread about SFPR.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Slide 12 shows a traffic light at Field Access Road, mainly because of the trail. To me, it’s absurd to make cross country traffic stop just because 1 or 2 people wanna cross the street. It should be a diamond interchange there. No space? Then get rid of the median barrier so that part of TCH will be like a super 4.

I suspect the high turning volumes for vehicles are the reason for the traffic light moreso than the pedestrian crossing. If it was in fact for pedestrians, then they could do a pedestrian-activated flashing signal and leave the rest as a free-for-all. In my experience going to Field (it's the usual spot I stop for a bathroom break on my way to BC from Alberta), there's enough left turns going into Field that makes it tough to left turn out of there too. It's only going to continue to get more difficult to get in and out of there.

I also noticed in all their plans for the new intersections, they did not have slotted/protected left turns but instead a more traditional left turning situation with a wide opening at the intersection. I suspect this is for emergency situations more than anything. This allows them to shift traffic to one side of the highway in case of a closure, whereas a protected or slotted left turn - while better for regular traffic operations - is worse for moving traffic in strange ways such as in an emergency or road closure which I'm sure happens with a higher frequency in Yoho.

[Dengler Avenue]

Thanks for the insight, Mazrim. The point against traffic light stands, nonetheless. Just as with AB and MB, they say that they will turn them into interchanges down the road, but it will just never happen (unless it's Victoria or Metro Vancouver).

Ps: This technically belongs in the AB Highway thread, but that traffic light on TCH & 100 Street NE right outside of Calgary's Ring Road is such an eyesore...

[craner]

^GGGRRRRR - don’t remind me Dengler, and the one just west of the Ring Road at 68th St. too.

[craner]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I suspect the high turning volumes for vehicles are the reason for the traffic light moreso than the pedestrian crossing. If it was in fact for pedestrians, then they could do a pedestrian-activated flashing signal and leave the rest as a free-for-all. In my experience going to Field (it's the usual spot I stop for a bathroom break on my way to BC from Alberta), there's enough left turns going into Field that makes it tough to left turn out of there too. It's only going to continue to get more difficult to get in and out of there.

I also noticed in all their plans for the new intersections, they did not have slotted/protected left turns but instead a more traditional left turning situation with a wide opening at the intersection. I suspect this is for emergency situations more than anything. This allows them to shift traffic to one side of the highway in case of a closure, whereas a protected or slotted left turn - while better for regular traffic operations - is worse for moving traffic in strange ways such as in an emergency or road closure which I'm sure happens with a higher frequency in Yoho.

So lets build a simple interchange and keep lights off the TCH.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

^GGGRRRRR - don’t remind me Dengler, and the one just west of the Ring Road at 68th St. too.

Aren't both of those sets of lights thanks to the stupidity of the City?

[craner]

^Well 68th St. is a City road for sure.
Not sure about the one just east of the RR.
(Sorry - shouldn’t be discussing this here “we now return to BC Highway Construction”).

[Apey]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Most importantly, this: https://www.pc.gc.ca/-/media/pn-np/b...526.1581079983

Slide 12 shows a traffic light at Field Access Road, mainly because of the trail. To me, it’s absurd to make cross country traffic stop just because 1 or 2 people wanna cross the street. It should be a diamond interchange there. No space? Then get rid of the median barrier so that part of TCH will be like a super 4.

Edit: https://parks-parcs.simplesurvey.com...C-8CEF2CF7C910

Fill out the survey here. I’ve voiced my concern.

Thanks for the first link! It gives great information on what's going on/being purposed with the project going forward! Most insightful!

[Dengler Avenue]

Depending on your view of that extra traffic light at Field Access Road, you may wanna fill out the survey in the second link...

[Metro-One]

Here are the options for Lake Country

I think option A2 or A3 are the best.

Also enough with the interim nonsense, just do the full build from the get go.

Option A1

A1 by Ian, on Flickr

Option A2

A2 by Ian, on Flickr

Option A3

A3 by Ian, on Flickr

And Option B1

B1Interim by Ian, on Flickr

B1Final by Ian, on Flickr

[Dengler Avenue]

Since I’ve been focusing almost exclusively on TCH, I haven’t thought much about B.C.-97. That said, I can only offer general comments like “It should be twinned and grade-separated all the way from Monte Creek (TCH Exit 399) to the border”, to the border because, who knows, maybe Washington State wanna twin U.S.-97 in the super long term too (all the way to Ellensburg, where I-82 sort of takes over). In addition, a 4-lane realignment of Crowsnest Highway will go north and east of Osoyoos Lake and have a completely free-flowing interchange with 4 lanes of B.C.-97.

I know that B.C. is too short-sighted for something this grand, but what’s everyone’s thought on the bolded part? (I know that some wanna see B.C.-97 left as is south of Penticton to preserve the view/vibe, not that it’s a bad thing.) Sorry for the digression.

[2009]

It should be twinned and grade-separated all the way from Monte Creek (TCH Exit 399) to the border

I live in the Okanagan and there really is very little density and not much traffic south of Penticton in both Canada and even moreso on the US side. The largest towns (Osoyoos, Oliver and Omak) each only have around 4-5k people and Okanogan county only has a population of 40k. Its not about preserving the vibe, there really isn't a need for grade seperation and the money is better spent elsewhere in BC (and elsewhere in Washington state)

There definitely should be an investment on completely 4 laning and grade seperating the 97 north of Penticton though, the route is quite busy

[Dengler Avenue]

Good to know, thanks for the input. I just thought that Cariboo Highway (B.C.-97) is an important trade route so I assumed that there would be a decent amount of border-crossing truck traffic.

[2009]

I just thought that Cariboo Highway (B.C.-97) is an important trade route so I assumed that there would be a decent amount of border-crossing truck traffic.

Traffic is usally pretty smooth down to Osoyoos, you can usually drive 80-100kph and there aren't many light. Eventual 4 laning would probably be enough for the area imo unless they have a great deal of growth or the americans substantially updgrade the highway on their side

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Here are the options for Lake Country

I think option A2 or A3 are the best.

Also enough with the interim nonsense, just do the full build from the get go.


And Option B1

B1Interim by Ian, on Flickr

B1Final by Ian, on Flickr

Lol at them even thinking it's ok to add an extra light let alone not get rid of the first 3. Like come on is the NDP really that dumb, cheap and short-sided. What are they smoking? Why is not getting rid of lights on a highway like that even considered?

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Lol at them even thinking it's ok to add an extra light let alone not get rid of the first 3. Like come on is the NDP really that dumb, cheap and short-sided. What are they smoking? Why is not getting rid of lights on a highway like that even considered?

Look again at the built up Option B1. They are taking out all the lights and replacing them RIROs, creating one underpass to replace them all and an interchange to the south.

I agree with Metro-One though that they shouldn't even think of interim stuff, just go ahead and build it.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Here are the options for Lake Country

I think option A2 or A3 are the best.

Also enough with the interim nonsense, just do the full build from the get go.

The Lake Country residents want Option A1 so we have to make more noise.

Originally Posted by 2009

Traffic is usally pretty smooth down to Osoyoos, you can usually drive 80-100kph and there aren't many light. Eventual 4 laning would probably be enough for the area imo unless they have a great deal of growth or the americans substantially updgrade the highway on their side

Unless it's RV season, then you're following one at 60-80 km/h, oblivious to the lineup they've created behind them. I wish B.C. had the same pull over if more than 5 vehicles are behind you to allow traffic to pass law that Washington State has.

[Dengler Avenue]

“ I wish B.C. had the same pull over if more than 5 vehicles are behind you to allow traffic to pass law that Washington State has.”
We do have that in B.C., at least for Highway 4 on the island. In fact, the threshold is 4 not 5.

[Metro-One]

Really?? They like A1 the best?

Option A2 and A3 essentially gives them 2 interchanges instead of one with the overpass and right in right out access points near the Jammery.

Going to send my support for those options tonight and the need to skip any interim stages.

And yes, south of Penticton freeway grade is definitely not needed. Between Penticton and Salmon Arm, yes.

Phase one should focus on upgrading the sections between Penticton to West Kelowna and UBC to Vernon to freeway standards.

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by 2009

I live in the Okanagan and there really is very little density and not much traffic south of Penticton in both Canada and even moreso on the US side. The largest towns (Osoyoos, Oliver and Omak) each only have around 4-5k people and Okanogan county only has a population of 40k. Its not about preserving the vibe, there really isn't a need for grade seperation and the money is better spent elsewhere in BC (and elsewhere in Washington state)

There definitely should be an investment on completely 4 laning and grade seperating the 97 north of Penticton though, the route is quite busy

Further to that point, Hwy 97 between Swan Lake (Vernon) and Monte Creek has lighter traffic volumes as well and is the only part of Hwy 97 that's not part of the National Highway System. There would be better case for making Hwy 97A & 97B four lanes between Swan Lake and Salmon Arm, and I agree with some sort of four lane, limited access highway between the Trans Canada Highway and Penticton.