Regional Boards > Canada

British Columbia's Highways

<< < (7/11) > >>

TXtoNJ:

--- Quote from: jakeroot on August 20, 2021, 08:16:52 PM ---Shadows and light would have been part of the environmental review. Not sure it would have actually been a big problem for at least a couple reasons: (1) long shadows are not a significant issue during the primary growing seasons (spring, summer, early fall); as well, (2) the bridge would have cast most of its shadows on Deas Island and the river, not farmland (I suspect the affected farmland would have been small portions south of the River Rd/60 Ave junction in Delta, and small portions of property north of Rice Mill Rd east of Hwy 99 in Richmond).

--- End quote ---

Not a big problem for the public, sure. For the property holder, though? From my understanding, the cities of Delta and Richmond were the primary block on the bridge plan. That suggests property owners (specifically, the Country Vines Winery that would have been impacted by an extended elevated structure) didn't agree with the environmental review.

dmuzika:
I recently drove between Calgary and Victoria. The need for the Trans-Canada Highway to be twinned through the Interior has been well documented, so I was wanted to talk distance signage. Overall, it’s pretty good but I think some improvements that can be made east of Kamloops, especially when compared with other highways in through the province.

Westbound TCH 1
Generally, BC does a pretty good job of signing westbound communities. Kamloops is the control city west of Golden and there are 2-3 towns listed. The only (minor) improvement is that between Revelstoke and Sicamous, there’s inconsistency between Sicamous/Vernon/Kamloops and Salmon Arm/Vernon/Kamloops. There’s room for an argument that Vernon doesn’t need to be listed, but it’s also signed on Hwy 23 south of Revelstoke (the alternate route), so maybe four locations should be listed – Sicamous/Salmon Arm/Vernon/Kamloops. Alberta only lists Canmore/Banff west of Calgary, and there might be a case to have a second sign that lists some major BC destinations, such as at the Hwy 22 junction.

Eastbound TCH 1
I think this could use some work. According to BCMoT’s Manual of Standard Traffic Signs & Pavement Markings (2000), Calgary should be a control city along the Trans Canada Highway east of Kamloops (see page 141 of the pdf); however, it’s not listed at all except for east of Field which is under Parks Canada jurisdiction. Banff is used sporadically east of Kamloops, despite being used as the control city at the Hwy 5 north jct., and consistently east of Revelstoke. Further to that, there’s usually only two locations listed, and the control city is simply the next location. Field, which is used as a control city for westbound traffic within the national parks, is never mentioned – at best it should be listed east of Golden. BC should consider having a minimum of three locations listed on its eastbound signage, with Calgary being the control city. East of Monte Creek, there could even be two signs – Chase/Salmon Arm/Revelstoke and Banff/Calgary. BC uses out of province control cities on other routes, such as Whitehorse on the Alaska Highway and Jasper on the Yellowhead Highways (both 5 & 16), and even uses two Alberta locations where appropriate, such as Grande Prairie/Edmonton on Hwy 2 east of Pouce Coupe and Jasper/Edmonton TCH 16 east of Tete Jaune Cache.

Banff/Yoho (both directions)
This needs its own category. Parks Canada does not sign the locations beyond the national parks well in either direction, especially when compared to TCH 16 in Jasper National Park. They replaced the signage in Banff a few years ago and went with two locations – the next two locations, which is great for tourists but not so great for travelers heading beyond the parks. For example, beyond Banff, it’s Lake Louise/Field, Field/Golden past Lake Louise, and only Golden past Field. Compare that the TCH 16 west of Jasper, which uses Kamloops and Prince George. Parks Canada installed a three-location sign for eastbound traffic at Field, and that standard should be adopted in both directions through the park, with Kamloops and Calgary being the respective control cities. While we’re at it, they could also continue the exit numbers in Banff National Park. Once the Kicking Horse Canyon is completed, that would be a good time to upgrade the signage.

traffic.lights.vancouver:
Hey there, I'm new to this forum, I was just curious if we could post traffic signals from BC here, or do we have to create a new section/topic?

cbeach40:

--- Quote from: traffic.lights.vancouver on September 27, 2021, 03:14:14 AM ---Hey there, I'm new to this forum, I was just curious if we could post traffic signals from BC here, or do we have to create a new section/topic?

--- End quote ---

I'm not a mod, but my own 2 cents is that seems like a large enough topic to warrant its own thread. BC has some interesting signal treatments so that would be cool to see them together like that.

jakeroot:
I would have quite a few contributions to a "BC Traffic Signals" thread.


--- Quote from: cbeach40 on September 27, 2021, 10:48:34 AM ---BC has some interesting signal treatments so that would be cool to see them together like that.

--- End quote ---

I agree with this. There are so many unusual things in BC that it almost certainly warrants its own discussion.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version