Alberta to twin Fort MacMurray highway

[Cowperson]

Probably because they heard the griping here a few months ago in the off-topic forum at Calgarypuck first, the Alberta government has announced it's twinning the road to Fort McMurray.

What in hell took so long?

Next stop . . . . fixing up that beaten-up railway.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

Cowperson

[habernac]

about 25 years too late. When I worked for Greyhound up there, two busses going opposite directions removed each other's mirrors on a narrow stretch near Mariana Lakes.

[Sylvanfan]

The lack of vision when hiways were/are built in this country is laughable. The cheap method always is used. Theres a lot of roads in this province that should be twinned. But the road to Fort Mac is definitely a top priority. Hopefully they actually consider what the traffic demands will be on that road 10-20 years from now because it's far more cost effective and efficient, and likely easier on the environment to overbuild that road right now, than to have to go back and react and keep adding to it in the future.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

The lack of vision when hiways were/are built in this country is laughable. The cheap method always is used. Theres a lot of roads in this province that should be twinned. But the road to Fort Mac is definitely a top priority. Hopefully they actually consider what the traffic demands will be on that road 10-20 years from now because it's far more cost effective and efficient, and likely easier on the environment to overbuild that road right now, than to have to go back and react and keep adding to it in the future.

I think that road might be one of the exceptions to planning study traffic surveys done on almost all Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation projects. In most cases it's easy to determine increases in traffic volumes for 10-20 year periods but the case of Fort Mac is definitely a special one. If anyone in their right minds could have predicted the growth of Oil Sands in that area they would be freaking millionaires by now.

When lice infected, run-down condo's are selling for 300,000+ then you know you are in a situation of unexpected growth. Now the problem with that whole city is that they are way behind in every facet of growth; infrastructure, residential development, commercial development and many others.

It's going to take 30+ years for the growth to catch up to the population in that city and by then the Oil sands operations will have pulled out. That's a long way off though.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Oh don't worry Rhettzky, I think the oilsands operators are there to stay.
You don't invest $10 BILLION to just pack things up after 30 years.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Oh don't worry Rhettzky, I think the oilsands operators are there to stay.
You don't invest $10 BILLION to just pack things up after 30 years.

You would if the government was paying you to depreciate the infrastructure and you were simultaneously pulling out way more the $10 billion over that period.

When the oil is gone, you would have to ask yourself what the purpose of Fort MacMurray would be?

Swamp tours?

Cowperson

[Rhettzky]

I'm working on the latest Oil Sands project for Canadian Natural just north of Fort Mac and the expected life of the project is 30-35 years. And trust me, it cost way more than 10 Billion dollars.

[habernac]

In most cases it's easy to determine increases in traffic volumes for 10-20 year periods but the case of Fort Mac is definitely a special one. If anyone in their right minds could have predicted the growth of Oil Sands in that area they would be freaking millionaires by now.


The current 2 lane highway was woefully inadequate long before the boom of the last 10 years. I lived there from 81-95 when there were 35,000 people there, and it needed to be twinned back then. The situation has been ignored since the 70's, it's not a new problem.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by habernac

The current 2 lane highway was woefully inadequate long before the boom of the last 10 years. I lived there from 81-95 when there were 35,000 people there, and it needed to be twinned back then. The situation has been ignored since the 70's, it's not a new problem.

That's highly unlikely seeing as the population of Fort McMurray in the 70's was under 7,000 people. So ignoring a transportation problem seems a little far fetched.

The boom of population in the early 80's saw the population grow from 30,000 in 1980 to almost 37,000 by 1985. This boom in growth was followed by a sharp decline to under 34,000 people by the end of the decade. When growth of a city like this follows the ups and downs of oil prices so darastically it's almost impossible to get government involved in pouring millions of dollars into infrastructure.

[habernac]

so you drove on highway 63 back in the early 80's then? OK, I'll take your word for it since you're the expert...



The highway was busy and way too narrow, with lots of heavy machinery going up and down it, lots of truck traffic, lots of people escaping for the weekend to shop in Edmonton. It should have been twinned long, long ago.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by habernac

so you drove on highway 63 back in the early 80's then? OK, I'll take your word for it since you're the expert...



The highway was busy and way too narrow, with lots of heavy machinery going up and down it, lots of truck traffic, lots of people escaping for the weekend to shop in Edmonton. It should have been twinned long, long ago.

Yeah, I should have mentioned that they need to consider the type of traffic that will be on that road as much or moreso than the volume of traffic. Fine if everyone driving that road is going to do so in a Toyota Corolla....But when you have that many trucks and heavy machinery going on the road it should be considered. And me saying 20 years is way too short sighted.....Hiways last a long time, should take a minimum 75 year outlook nowadays.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by habernac

so you drove on highway 63 back in the early 80's then? OK, I'll take your word for it since you're the expert...



The highway was busy and way too narrow, with lots of heavy machinery going up and down it, lots of truck traffic, lots of people escaping for the weekend to shop in Edmonton. It should have been twinned long, long ago.

The highway was constructed in the late 60's. The major population boom was in the early 80's. There was a major population decrease in the late 80's. Hence why the freaking road is under-designed. That's all I was saying, there is no need for calling me an expert and rolling your eyes. That's just hurtful.

The major thing to understand is that it takes years to complete planning study's for highways, years to obtain government funding to carry out the work and years to go out for detailed design and tender (and that's not even getting into construction). If there is a sudden boom in population (like Fort Mac) and then a fluctuation in population that puts it on a downward trend for five straight years it is hard to get approvals for any work.

Originally Posted by sylfan

Yeah, I should have mentioned that they need to consider the type of traffic that will be on that road as much or moreso than the volume of traffic. Fine if everyone driving that road is going to do so in a Toyota Corolla....But when you have that many trucks and heavy machinery going on the road it should be considered. And me saying 20 years is way too short sighted.....Hiways last a long time, should take a minimum 75 year outlook nowadays.

In this case if they were to project the population of Fort McMurray to 75 years the design would still be grossly inadequate. Fort Mac was stable at around 1,000 people for over 45 years before that highway was built. So any accurate projections would have had to have been carried out by psychics.

I agree about the type of traffic comment though. In this case it must have been before such standards were in place. They do exist now though, at least for log haul trucks and other train type semi-trailers. When it comes to transporting 10m diameter coke drums then I have no idea if there is a standard in place for that. I highly doubt it as that isn't a provincial wide standard, they should look at doing a special case when they design that stretch though.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

When it comes to transporting 10m diameter coke drums then I have no idea if there is a standard in place for that.

So, is it that they have a drug problem up there, or do they just go through that much pop?

Yes, I know it's neither of those. Just trying to inject some late afternoon humour.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So, is it that they have a drug problem up there, or do they just go through that much pop?

Yes, I know it's neither of those. Just trying to inject some late afternoon humour.

HAHA, a little from column A and a little from column B... actually make that a LOT from column A.