HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 7:20 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,963
It probably won't happen, too much opposition to building things in that area. It's already too developed. Unless there is a serious traffic problem, residents in the area will probably fight a highway expansion as hard as they can.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 7:23 AM
mersar's Avatar
mersar mersar is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 10,089
I'd imagine that #1 through Banff would probably be done before #16 through Jasper, and I wouldn't count on seeing either done probably in my lifetime.

One other segment, although its not officially designated as TCH (yet), that will make a major difference to the overall system is the ring road around Calgary. The northern part should be complete late next year, allowing for traffic to loop around the north side of the city instead of having to go through the city, part of which is a 50km/h undivided road. I wouldn't be surprised if the ring road (highway 201) is added once its done, similar to how highway 100 around the south side of Winnipeg was given TCH designation.
__________________

Live or work in the Beltline? Check out the Official Beltline web site here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 7:35 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,963
They've also designated a route going through Winnipeg. Having the Trans Canada go through urban areas gives it sort of a Route 66 feeling, or something. It is basically our equivalent of Route 66.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 8:20 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is online now
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,805
Additional lanes and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge for Highway 1/Trans-Canada in Metro Vancouver:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
Previous Gateway thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=97491&page=20


The $3-Billion Transportation Plan for Metro Vancouver



The Gateway Program is a $3.0 billion regional transportation project for Greater Vancouver that is being run by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation. On January 31, 2005 the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation introduced the Gateway Program as a means to address growing congestion. The scope of the Gateway Project includes building a second bridge to double the capacity of the Port Mann Bridge.

$300 million of the project is a dedicated contingency in case it goes out of budget.

Completion: 2012








Port Mann Bridge/Highway 1
- $1.5 billion

The program includes a plan for the Port Mann Bridge to be expanded from 4 lanes to 8 lanes to alleviate congestion and frequent delays. Currently, the Port Mann Bridge is congested 90% of the time between the hours of 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.; the definition of "congested" has not been specified. Since 1985, traffic on the bridge has increased 65% from 77,000 vehicles per day to 127,000.

Two of the new bridge lanes would be for HOV as part of the BC Ministry of Transportation's goal to expand Greater Vancouver's HOV network from the McGill Street to 216th street in Langley, a distance of 37 kilometres. Upgrades to interchanges are intended to increase safety, improve connections between municpalities, and reduce backups onto local streets. The Gateway Program also includes a $50 million investment in cycling infrastructure including separated cycling lanes across the Port Mann Bridge.

The new bridge is designed to be able to accommodate LRT in the future. In addition, the Port Man twinned bridges may be tolled to help pay construction costs.














South Fraser Perimeter Road
- $800 million

A new 4 lane highway approximately 40-km long, 80km/h route along the south side of the Fraser River extends from Highway 17 in southwest Delta to meet up with the Golden Ears Bridge connector road. It would help the rapidly growing port facilities, rail and industiral yards.

Opponents argue that this route will increase pollution near residential neighbourhoods and schools; destroy the hydrology of Burn's Bog, a threatened and sensitve ecosystem; and pave over valuable farmland.












North Fraser Perimeter Road/Pitt River Bridge and Marry Hill Interchange
- $400 million

The North Fraser Perimeter Road is a set of proposed improvements to existing roads along the north shore of the Fraser River, to provide an efficient, continuous route between the Queensborough Bridge in New Westminster and TransLink’s new Golden Ears Bridge in Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows. Proposed upgrades would improve safety and reliability along this key goods movement corridor and better serve growing communities in the northeast sector of Greater Vancouver.

The Pitt River Bridge and Mary Hill Interchange Project includes a new bridge to replace the existing swing bridges and an interchange to replace the existing Lougheed Highway and the Mary Hill Bypass intersection. The project is a stand-alone component of the North Fraser Perimeter Road Project.

The new cable-stayed bridge will be located between the existing bridges and will have 3 lanes of westbound traffic and 4 lanes of eastbound traffic on opening day. It will also provide up to 16 metres of vertical marine clearance, as well as providing facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. The bridge will be designed to accommodate different lane allocations and future light rapid transit.

The existing intersection at Lougheed Highway and Mary Hill Bypass will be replaced with a grade-separated interchange with on and off ramps that would allow for free-flow of traffic, while also providing for future connection to the Fremont Extension, to support development in Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam.

Combined with the new bridge, these improvements will allow for the elimination of the current counterflow system.

The project is being funded by the federal and provincial governments. As part of its recent Asia-Pacific Gateway & Corridor Initiative, the Government of Canada has committed $90 million in funding for costs associated with the construction of the bridge and a new grade-separated interchange at Lougheed Highway and Mary Hill Bypass. The Province is providing $108 million.






Official website: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 1:49 PM
Greco Roman Greco Roman is offline
Movin' on up
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,449
Vancouver has some of the worst traffic congestion problems I've seen in Canada.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 4:27 PM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by mersar View Post
I'd imagine that #1 through Banff would probably be done before #16 through Jasper, and I wouldn't count on seeing either done probably in my lifetime.
I'm not sure how old you are mersar but I would hope we see the remaining km's through Banff National Park twinned in your lifetime. Although at the pace the feds have been going in the past I understand why you say this. As for the BC/Alta border to Kamloops we can only dream and hope.
This "National Highway" really is a national embarrassment as far as I'm concerned, not to mention dangerous. Reading these posts one realizes a simple little thing like consistent numbering of the highway is non-existant.
The Feds really need to step up here and get this thing up to standard.
end rant
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 5:02 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smevo View Post
Most who say that twinning beyond Truro is not necessary do not drive the highway very often. As someone who drives quite often to both Sydney and Halifax, I can say it is necessary to twin as far as the Canso Causeway, and upgrade from there to Sydney with sections closer to the city needing to be twinned.
Since im Halgonian i've only been on the TCH past Truro a few times. I do agree that it does need to be twinned on the mainland. What i meant by less importance was the gov' cares mostly about vehicles being able to get to HRM efficiently and safely via the 104/102 corridor. Since this is basically complete they will probably begin focusing on the remaining mainland route. The only bad spot left on the corridor is the interchange of 102/104. Currently you slow from 110 to 50 go around a tight corner then random lanes pop up and end then you speed back up to 110 in a VERY short merge lane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 7:16 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is online now
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greco Roman View Post
Vancouver has some of the worst traffic congestion problems I've seen in Canada.
....which is good in a way, as it helps to curb sprawl and promote more density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 7:21 PM
eemy's Avatar
eemy eemy is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
I'm not sure how old you are mersar but I would hope we see the remaining km's through Banff National Park twinned in your lifetime. Although at the pace the feds have been going in the past I understand why you say this. As for the BC/Alta border to Kamloops we can only dream and hope.
This "National Highway" really is a national embarrassment as far as I'm concerned, not to mention dangerous. Reading these posts one realizes a simple little thing like consistent numbering of the highway is non-existant.
The Feds really need to step up here and get this thing up to standard.
end rant
What would you propose the federal government should do? The provinces wouldn't take to kindly to having their toes stepped on, and I can assure you that the courts would probably agree with them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 9:18 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
This "National Highway" really is a national embarrassment as far as I'm concerned, not to mention dangerous. Reading these posts one realizes a simple little thing like consistent numbering of the highway is non-existant.
"Consistent numbering of the highway" would be very hard and costly to do. The TCH splits in many areas and each province has a different system of numbering highways making this very hard. For example, take NS (104/105) and NB (2). If the number 2 was used nationally NS would have to renumber a historic and important trunk highway from Hali to Amherst (the current #2), along with 400km+ of TCH and it wouldn't fit in with our numbering system;

#1-99 are trunk highways, local main roads and collectors for the expressways.

#100-199 are expressways, or roads proposed for upgrading to expressway style, used mainly for inter-regional/provincial and truck traffic.

#200+ are secondary highways, roads connecting to less travelled areas.

I'm sure there are other provinces that use a system like ours. The only posisble way around this problem is to renumber it using a series not used in Canada (i.e. #999 or something). Even then it would be VERY costly. I think we should keep the numbers up to the provinces. As long as there is an unique marker (green maple leaf) and plenty of signs telling nearby areas of the importance of this roadway the TCH will be a national icon, a source of pride for Canada.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 4:13 AM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greco Roman View Post
Vancouver has some of the worst traffic congestion problems I've seen in Canada.
The motivation for the Gateway Project is more to enhance the competitiveness of the Port of Vancouver rather than reduce congestion. Vancouver is closer to Asia by water than competitors like Seattle-Tacoma and Los Angeles-Long Beach, but it has far worse ground connections. Gateway will be a step towards correcting this deficiency.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 5:58 AM
Smevo's Avatar
Smevo Smevo is offline
Sarcstic Caper in Exile
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ View Post
Since im Halgonian i've only been on the TCH past Truro a few times. I do agree that it does need to be twinned on the mainland. What i meant by less importance was the gov' cares mostly about vehicles being able to get to HRM efficiently and safely via the 104/102 corridor. Since this is basically complete they will probably begin focusing on the remaining mainland route. The only bad spot left on the corridor is the interchange of 102/104. Currently you slow from 110 to 50 go around a tight corner then random lanes pop up and end then you speed back up to 110 in a VERY short merge lane.
Yes, I agree the gov't cares primarily about getting vehicles into/out of HRM. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just that very few of the highway projects have been funded sufficiently to finish them anywhere near the time the need was identified. Also, most are prioritized on a political basis, rather than traffic volumes/safety, unfortunately. NS isn't unique in this though.

There's also an unfortunate "illusion" created by the 104/102 interchange heading east. Looking along the exit to Halifax gives a view of Truro, a relatively built up area, while looking along the 104 marked with a Cape Breton sign gives a view of farmland. Couple that with most of the eastbound traffic north of Truro coming from Halifax and most of the eastbound traffic on the 104 exiting to Halifax, and you get an exaggerated "illusion" of few vehicles continuing on the 104 East. A similar illusion happens in the westbound direction as well at that interchange.

And, yeah, that 50km/hr ramp which changes into a double lane onramp out of nowhere is annoying, to say the least.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2008, 7:25 PM
lubicon's Avatar
lubicon lubicon is offline
Suburban dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary - our road planners are as bad as yours Edmonton
Posts: 4,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed View Post
No, they are not planning to remove all the at grade intersections. Such would be a huge, unneccessary undertaking. They are planning to remove all the at grade intersections with lights.
Current places between Calgary and Regina that have lights or a lower posted speed limit:

Strathmore: 3 lights - 60km/h
Redcliffe - 2 or three lights - 80 km/h
Medicine Hat - about 5 or 6 lights - 50km/h section and a 80km/h section.
Dunmore - no lights - 90? km/h
Irvine - 90 km/h (although this one may have been removed recently).
Ernfold - (Westbound only) - 90 km/h
Moose Jaw & Swift Current - one or two intersections that require you to slow down to 80 km/h I think (no lights)
Regina East End - built a whole bunch of development and lights outside of the ring road, so there is a section of a number of lights and 60 km/h.
I realize this, but it really annoys me that the province is spending all kinds of $$$ to build interchanges on #1, and at the same time Strathmore has been ADDING traffic lights and extending the 60 km/h speed limit zone as the town grows. Take a step forward and another back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy_haak View Post
What would you propose the federal government should do? The provinces wouldn't take to kindly to having their toes stepped on, and I can assure you that the courts would probably agree with them.
For starters they could twin the #1 entirely through all 3 of the national parks (Banff, Yoho, and Glacier). Then they could provice some funding to help the province twin the portion that is not within the park system.

For crying out loud this is the TCH we are talking about, a road that is responsible for millions of dollars in economic activity every single day. It desperately needs upgrading for that reason alone. And if you want, twinning it will help reduce GHG emissions and save on health care costs too.
__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2008, 4:49 AM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,325
Ironic enough... I start this thread because I couldn't easily find any info on the TCH twinning in Saskatchewan... well, I dug a little deeper and found a nice description of a ~9km 4-lane bypass of the town Moosamin under construction, and a completition date estimated at fall 2008.

I also found some interesting info pertaining to the TCH in Regina.
Theres a new southeast ring-road planned, designed to bypass the current stretch where the TCH turns off and runs along the big-box strip along Victoria Avenue. There was also a $16.0M funding commitment towards a new interchange at Lewvan Drive, hopefully to begin construction next year.

(I kinda thought it was wierd how Regina has a freeway semi-ring road, yet theres an at-grade intersection with no traffic lights with a 4-lane expressway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2008, 3:04 AM
big W big W is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: E-Town
Posts: 5,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy_haak View Post
What would you propose the federal government should do? The provinces wouldn't take to kindly to having their toes stepped on, and I can assure you that the courts would probably agree with them.
Yes but the portions they were talking about in Banff and Jasper National Parks in Alberta are actually in areas that fall under Federal jurisdiction due to the status for them being national parks..
__________________
SHOFEAR- "The other goalie should have to turn in his man card. What a sorry display that was." - March 24, 2008
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2008, 3:33 AM
0773|=\ 0773|=\ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,256
It's old news that the TCH will be twinned through Banff National Park, there is already a new 30 km stretch towards Lake Louise that is being worked on. That will DEFINITELY happen in our lifetime. It will not, however, have full freeway status, there will be a few at-grade crossings to access hiking trails west of Banff.

There are a few more kms of twinning that will happen along TCH 16 between Hinton and the Jasper N.P. boundary, but no time-frame on that, just an announcement.

I've always hoped for the Feds to do what the US did and build a national freeway network for more efficient intercity travel (while avoiding urban freeways where possible)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2008, 4:56 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 6,858
Is the NB completly 4lanes all the way thru and are there any stop lights?

Also what is the TCH like in NFLD? There must be some 4 lane sections there, especialy in the Avalon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2008, 5:09 AM
You Need A Thneed's Avatar
You Need A Thneed You Need A Thneed is offline
Construction Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Castleridge, NE Calgary
Posts: 5,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mininari View Post
Ironic enough... I start this thread because I couldn't easily find any info on the TCH twinning in Saskatchewan... well, I dug a little deeper and found a nice description of a ~9km 4-lane bypass of the town Moosamin under construction, and a completition date estimated at fall 2008.
Saskatchewan actually did a bunch of work in the eastern half of the province not only to twin the highway, but to make the corners gentler. In quite a few corners, they rebuilt both sides of the highway. I think there was a few other towns too that got bypassed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2008, 10:06 AM
Smevo's Avatar
Smevo Smevo is offline
Sarcstic Caper in Exile
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Is the NB completly 4lanes all the way thru and are there any stop lights?

Also what is the TCH like in NFLD? There must be some 4 lane sections there, especialy in the Avalon.
The NB section is all 4 lanes from the NS border to the QC border with no traffic lights. There are two at grade rail crossings in Moncton, but outside of that, it's completely free-flow between the two borders with 110km/hr posted speed limit. The only non-twinned highways that remain an issue in NB now are Hwy 7 which connects the TCH to Saint John, and Hwy 1 between Saint John and the US border, though the latter looks like it will be twinned much sooner than Hwy 7.

As for NL, I think there is some wider/twinned sections around Saint John, but I'm pretty sure most of the TCH is still 2-lane. It's been a long time since I've been in a car on the island though, so I'm just going by people I know in Fredericton from NL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2008, 7:26 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,080
=Bedford_DJ;3585753]"Consistent numbering of the highway"

Quote:
I'm sure there are other provinces that use a system like ours. The only posisble way around this problem is to renumber it using a series not used in Canada (i.e. #999 or something).
This would work. They seem to manage consistent numbering with the Interstate system in the US from coast to coast. We wouldn't have nearly the number of TCH routes (compared to US Interstates) to worry about.

Quote:
the TCH will be a national icon, a source of pride for Canada.
Have you driven the TCH through BC ?? It sure isn't a source of pride to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts

Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:47 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.