Roads Fantasy Thread

[bulliver]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

A simple fix for our money woes:
Off Shore Drilling.

Good lord please not. If we've learned nothing else we've learned that big oil companies don't give two shites about anything but the bottom line, and that means safety and prudence goes out the window.

Tearing the hell out of a large swath of northern Alberta nothingness is one thing, but the BC coast is nice...OK...I'd like it to stay that way.

[Stingray2004]

Allan Kuan -thanks for your effort. Your vision is certainly plausible over the next 50-year time frame.

Originally Posted by jsbertram

A simple fix for our money woes:
Off Shore Drilling.

We could be the new 'blue-eyed arabs' of North America, although Alberta wouldn't willingly give up this title - some still use this as their rallying cry against 'those eastern bums and creeps'

Not necessarily. Alberta's provincial resource revenues are derived mostly from natural gas - not oil.

But the good news is that the Montney/Horn River/Cordova Embayment tight gas/shale plays in NE BC are world class in terms of production potential and the players (Exxon Mobil, Shell, Encana, Apache, Nexen, Quicksilver, etc., etc.) with major entities from China, India, and South Korea also strategically partnering up with the majors. NE BC could potentially have the largest combined natural gas fields in North America.

And once these fields (esp. Horn River) start entering/ramping-up production post-2012, with a concurrent rise in price, BC might very well be the envy of the country in terms of being awash in $billions$ in additional annual revenue.

To put things into perspective, between 2001 and 2009, $38 billion was invested by the natural gas industry in BC.

The BC provincial treasury took in $17 billion in terms of royalties, land bonuses and taxes during the same time period.

In comparison, Alberta's provincial treasury raked in $42.6 billion during the same rough time frame (2000 - 2007) from natural gas royalties, land bonuses, and taxes.

And with BC 'potentially' moving toward rivaling Alberta in terms of natural gas production in another decade or so - with that additional cash-flow it ain't too hard to figure out the financial viability of additional major transportation infrastructure.

The potentially large but relatively unexplored Bowser and Nechako basins in north central BC, as well as the Queen Charlotte basin, will be the future icing on the cake several decades down the road.

[WarrenC12]

Everybody loves to hate on oil, but the sad fact is that energy is the lifeblood of the modern economy, and oil is the biggest chunk of that.

To see the power it brings you only have to look at Alberta's rock-star economy, 0% PST, recently paid down debt to $0 (not back to about $1b), not to mention the highest paid nurses and teachers in the country.

All this while they fork over tons of cash to the rest of the "have not" provinces.

[trofirhen]

What you say may be very true, but I think Bulliver was thinking of the monstrous ecological impact it would have on BC, already evident in huge swaths of Alberta, under the Oil Sands.

The countryside has been desecrated and poisoned (contaminated fish, dead forests) for huge areas hundreds of miles across. And the whole thing is the size of the state of Florida!!!!

What environmental horrors lie ahead for Northern Alberta?!?!

[bulliver]

^^ Having lived in Edmonton for a good chunk of my life I can say that not much benefit trickles down to the common joe on a day to day level. You might get paid a few more bucks an hour at your crap job but that's it. In fact, due to the historic Conservative government monopoly, social services are orders of magnitude poorer than they are here despite all Alberta's 'wealth'. The top 10% get uber-wealthy, the bottom 90% stays pretty much the same.

@trofirhen:

I am certainly no eco-hippy, I am rather pragmatic and agree with resource exploration to a point, but our coast here is waaaaaay too beautiful and sensitive to take chances IMO.

[Yume-sama]

Alberta is not a place for the bleeding hearts, but the one thing all bleeding hearts have in common is mountains of unsustainable debt

And there are (probably not serious) rumblings of a possible PST. But, nothing would paint Alberta red faster, from its spotted shades of blue~

[bulliver]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Alberta is not a place for the bleeding hearts, but the one thing all bleeding hearts have in common is mountains of unsustainable debt

And there are (probably not serious) rumblings of a possible PST. But, nothing would paint Alberta red faster, from its spotted shades of blue~

Well again, I am pragmatic. I don't endorse a free ride for lazy people, but if someone is homeless and starving, yeah, maybe a couple of oil bucks could be earmarked to help 'em out a bit.

And I think introducing (or even suggesting) PST in Alberta would be the only way to make a conservative riot

[Yume-sama]

One can't argue there are not sufficient social programs in Alberta. That would be an outright lie~ However, most people don't agree with making people dependent on the government as is the case in many welfare states across the USA, and parts of Canada from "over socializing" things. How many thousands of people in Vancouver would you say are completely 100% dependent on the government? That can not be sustained.

However nice it may be, everywhere that has ever tried has failed, and I wouldn't call the DTES a success, despite the MANY social programs.

[bulliver]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

One can't argue there are not sufficient social programs in Alberta. That would be an outright lie~ However, most people don't agree with making people dependent on the government as is the case in many welfare states across the USA, and parts of Canada from "over socializing" things.

However nice it may be, everywhere that has ever tried has failed, and I wouldn't call the DTES a success, despite the MANY social programs.

Well, I don't think I did argue such a thing, I said they are not as developed as they are here...as you said, likely due to the lack of bleeding hearts as there are out here. Anyway, every christmas you hear about the food banks being dangerously short on supplies etc etc...is it really that bad if the gov kicks in a bit of cash to buy kraft dinner for the poor?

Besides social services doesn't just mean free shelter free food and free money for those unwilling or unable to find work. What about subsidizing post secondary education? What about making sure the mentally ill have a place to live and proper medical care so they aren't running around wild on the streets? There are a great many ways a resource rich region can help its people without simply pissing the money away.

"How many thousands of people in Vancouver would you say are completely 100% dependent on the government? That can not be sustained."

I have no idea...how many? I also have no idea how many could be sustained this way. Again...I am not a bleeding heart that you seem to be trying to paint me as. I'm pragmatic...if someone is down on their luck, help 'em out a bit. If they won't use that help to straighten themselves out then you can cut them off. Everyone deserves a chance.

[Yume-sama]

No, I wasn't painting you in any light I personally think "sufficient" is just about as far as the government should go, and nothing more.

The oil bucks certainly do pour in to social programs across Alberta, and Canada... such as cheap university in Quebec, and their daycare programs, etc.~

And back to the original (out of place) discussion, while it would surely NEVER be allowed to happen, due to Canadian regulations, offshore drilling in BC would be invariably safer than in the USA. Canada requires relief wells to be drilled before a well can go in to operation, meaning you don't have to wait 3 - 4 months while oil pours out uncontrollably. I also happen to think Canada would be more capable, and less political, than the USA at controlling such an unlikely leak.

If BC wants to be the social utopia in to the future, it may need to explore this, as unicorn power is not high in demand on the free market. Particularly emerging markets like China & India.

Similarly, if Quebec is somehow successful in shutting down the Oilsands (won't happen), they better ramp up Maple Syrup production to pay for everything.

[bulliver]

Sorry Yume, thought you were addressing me.

And back to the original (out of place) discussion, while it would surely NEVER be allowed to happen, due to Canadian regulations, offshore drilling in BC would be invariably safer than in the USA. Canada requires relief wells to be drilled before a well can go in to operation, meaning you don't have to wait 3 - 4 months while oil pours out uncontrollably. I also happen to think Canada would be more capable, and less political, than the USA at controlling such an unlikely leak.

I hope so....and if there were actually extremely stiff penalties for screwing up...as in make you bankrupt penalties...then perhaps O/G companies would be careful and responsible. Still don't know though, such a huge risk.

I'm interested in these Canadian regulations you mention. Why would offshore be allowed in Newfoundland but not here?

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by bulliver

Sorry Yume, thought you were addressing me.



I hope so....and if there were actually extremely stiff penalties for screwing up...as in make you bankrupt penalties...then perhaps O/G companies would be careful and responsible. Still don't know though, such a huge risk.

I'm interested in these Canadian regulations you mention. Why would offshore be allowed in Newfoundland but not here?

There's nothing preventing it other than the people who live here.

And we know how they can get lol

Mr. Robertson is aiming (over and above his control) to ban *oil tankers*, the things that transport the oil in small finite loads. Imagine an actual functioning well here. It's unthinkable.

[deasine]

I can't imagine the traffic choke points that tunnel will produce.

[Millennium2002]

Are you talking about my curving tunnel or the one that jsbertram made?

For mine, the ramp entrances could be adjusted somewhat to make the traffic flow smoother. Of course, I'm no traffic scientist or geologist, so this alignment will probably change by the time someone comes by to build it, whenever that occurs. =S

The curving of the tunnels to follow the surface is mainly to address the fact that tunnels with any kind of cars in them need ventilation shafts. Locating them near roads makes building them (and some emergency exits along with it) much easier.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by bulliver

^^ Having lived in Edmonton for a good chunk of my life I can say that not much benefit trickles down to the common joe on a day to day level. You might get paid a few more bucks an hour at your crap job but that's it. In fact, due to the historic Conservative government monopoly, social services are orders of magnitude poorer than they are here despite all Alberta's 'wealth'. The top 10% get uber-wealthy, the bottom 90% stays pretty much the same.

@trofirhen:

I am certainly no eco-hippy, I am rather pragmatic and agree with resource exploration to a point, but our coast here is waaaaaay too beautiful and sensitive to take chances IMO.

I hear ya. And all this is amplified by the Gulf leak, no doubt!! (Anyway, I don't think there's all that much oil right under the BC continental shelf anyway; or if there it, it is oil shale, which is hard to extract, although less polluting than liquid crude, of course)

[Zassk]

Can we get back to H99?

I finally noticed that work is being done on both northbound and southbound "shoulder-lanes". The Cambie Road overpass is getting an extra lane outside of the supports in the southbound direction. It may be that the Shell Road exit traffic will be routed through that lane as well. This seems to be a general strategy for the current project - utilize the outer overpass spans that were being wasted since 1959.

[wrenegade]

Seriously, can the mods move the past 3 pages of this discussion to the Transit Fantasies Thread? It would make much more sense there...and we can probably the delete the bickering about Alberta's government/social services system. Take that to the political threads.

A couple notes on Allan's maps (I anticipate my comments will be moved as well).

Metro Vancouver Map:

Why re-align Highway 15 through Surrey? It's almost perfectly straight now and runs between ALR (with the exception of Cloverdale). Why re-route it to meet Highway 10 in the middle of nowhere?

Is a tunnel from North Rd in Burquitlam to the Barnet really necessary? It seems like overkill to connect those routes. Most people in the area are using the North Rd to get TO Port Moody/Coquitlam, not away from it. If they were, wouldn't they just go south to Highway 1? On that point though, a tunnel under St. Johns would make it a much nicer, more local type street.

I am unsure of your tunnel plans through Burnaby but don't really know the area well enough to accurately comment. If it were my choice, I would tunnel from the NW bridgehead of the (new, re-aligned) Patullo Bridge, underneath McBride Avenue to connect with Highway 1 somewhere in the Burnaby Lake stretch. I'd also look at tunnelling underneath New Westminster (SW corner to NE corner) to allow Royal and Columbia to be more local traffic. Again though, this isn't my neighbourhood and don't know it all that well.

I think a full interchange at 200th and Highway to connect to the Golden Ears Bridge is important. Not everyone will be approaching from Golden Ears Way (especially those coming from Abbotsford/Chilliwack).

I have to say a big dig type project from Granville/Oak under Downtown to Taylor Way/Highway 1 is a HORRIBLE idea. First of all, how in god's name do you plan to have a portal at Granville at 12th? Secondly, having tunnel portals off Granville on local streets would decimate the neighbourhood. Same goes for all those portals on the edge of the West End. The only places they would kinda work would be at the south end of the Granville Street Bridge, and even still the idea is dubious. The tunnel portals on the West Van side are easier to deal with, and the Highway 1 interchange doesn't look too bad (provided it's underground, otherwise that is a lot of neighbourhood to destroy). All that being said I don't think we can do a big dig in Vancouver because we wouldn't be connecting interstates (highways) on either end, we would be connecting arterial roads (key word being road).

However, on the other side of the North Shore, your interchange design for the north end of the Ironworkers Memorial is absolutely perfect. I don't think I would change a single thing. For it to work best I think we'd need an 8 lane highway standard bridge, but I'm guessing you took that to be a given.

[city-dweller]

Couldn't have said it better.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by awvan

Seriously, can the mods move the past 3 pages of this discussion to the Transit Fantasies Thread? It would make much more sense there...and we can probably the delete the bickering about Alberta's government/social services system. Take that to the political threads.

A couple notes on Allan's maps (I anticipate my comments will be moved as well).

Metro Vancouver Map:

Why re-align Highway 15 through Surrey? It's almost perfectly straight now and runs between ALR (with the exception of Cloverdale). Why re-route it to meet Highway 10 in the middle of nowhere?

Is a tunnel from North Rd in Burquitlam to the Barnet really necessary? It seems like overkill to connect those routes. Most people in the area are using the North Rd to get TO Port Moody/Coquitlam, not away from it. If they were, wouldn't they just go south to Highway 1? On that point though, a tunnel under St. Johns would make it a much nicer, more local type street.

I am unsure of your tunnel plans through Burnaby but don't really know the area well enough to accurately comment. If it were my choice, I would tunnel from the NW bridgehead of the (new, re-aligned) Patullo Bridge, underneath McBride Avenue to connect with Highway 1 somewhere in the Burnaby Lake stretch. I'd also look at tunnelling underneath New Westminster (SW corner to NE corner) to allow Royal and Columbia to be more local traffic. Again though, this isn't my neighbourhood and don't know it all that well.

I think a full interchange at 200th and Highway to connect to the Golden Ears Bridge is important. Not everyone will be approaching from Golden Ears Way (especially those coming from Abbotsford/Chilliwack).

I have to say a big dig type project from Granville/Oak under Downtown to Taylor Way/Highway 1 is a HORRIBLE idea. First of all, how in god's name do you plan to have a portal at Granville at 12th? Secondly, having tunnel portals off Granville on local streets would decimate the neighbourhood. Same goes for all those portals on the edge of the West End. The only places they would kinda work would be at the south end of the Granville Street Bridge, and even still the idea is dubious. The tunnel portals on the West Van side are easier to deal with, and the Highway 1 interchange doesn't look too bad (provided it's underground, otherwise that is a lot of neighbourhood to destroy). All that being said I don't think we can do a big dig in Vancouver because we wouldn't be connecting interstates (highways) on either end, we would be connecting arterial roads (key word being road).

However, on the other side of the North Shore, your interchange design for the north end of the Ironworkers Memorial is absolutely perfect. I don't think I would change a single thing. For it to work best I think we'd need an 8 lane highway standard bridge, but I'm guessing you took that to be a given.

re: Pattullo; I was thinking along the same lines a few months ago:



Red line is a new tunnel connecting Gaglardi/Trans Canada interchange to Royal Ave / McBride;
Green line is the new Pattullo bridge alignment
Blue line is the new King George alignment to the new bridge.

Putting all the through traffic into a tunnel lets McBride, Royal, Columbia, 6th, 8th, 10th and 16th Avenues become local streets again with all the Burnaby -to- Surrey traffic being given their own access route.

After the first hundred feet or so of the tunnel portals and the transition from the surface streets, once you are into solid earth the tunnels no longer need to follow the street grids overhead.

[Zassk]

Argh, I didn't want to get dragged into the off-topic discussion, but...

If you're going to align the tunnel in that direction, then why not turn it another 30 degrees to the right and just make it go overland to the Brunette interchange instead, at a huge savings (probably billions of dollars savings) and less physical constrictions to adding lanes in future? What is so special about Gaglardi interchange, aside from the historical footnote of some unfinished ramps, that makes it so important to connect Patullo to it? The whole point is to connect Patullo to Hwy 1, right, not to build a tunnel just for the sake of it.