I support this general concept without knowing the exact locations as of yet, but the concept is sound IMO.

The only problem is I see it as a half measure... I would much rather have it two lanes if it also meant the north south bi-pass was done at the same time, otherwise we should be talking $400 million fed/prov dollars to get the entire job done right from the start so as to realize the full benefits of logistics as well as the much needed potential for industrial land access to the northeast of the city.

This proposal does provide a much needed southern bi-pass that will met future logistics needs on that side of town while alleviating the Pedin Hill stretch of highway. I hope they can design it to also avoid the needless elevation climb through college heights to the Black Water turn off. The best location for it would be to connect from the petrocan in Beaverly to the Willow Cale so as to have the elevations differential negligible for the next 100 years+ of fuel cost savings.

This proposal however does not address the air quality concern in regards to access to appropriate industrial lands in proximity to the city for industrial expansion in the future. This location (for industry) is constricted by what direction the wind blows in 90% of the time, and therefore, logic dictated by nature says we must have access for industrial expansion to the NorthEast of the city to facilitate the natural wind... and therefore any $200 million spent on a southern bi-pass should also keep this into consideration in regards to connectability for future expansion for that purpose as well as the cost of ignoring that important aspect to any project of this magnitude.

In the end though for the short term this is great news for the loggers who can convert over to road building for a few years while forestry is slow and avoid losing their shirt waiting out the US housing market.

AIMHO

Good post Eagleone.
I agree with the idea of building the whole route with two lanes rather than part way with four lanes and have to wait many years for the completion of the rest...like the Ospika extension.

Eagleone
This is just a note on another story.
I was to late to comment on your post regarding the "pet" bears in your area.
Your perceived knowledge about bears, Black and Grizzly is far from what the facts are in reality. You need to take a look at what you wrote. Amongst the bologna in your perceived knowledge that you have posted, you state untrue information regarding bear caused human deaths in north america and untrue behavioural activities. Before you post information such as you have done, you need to do some real research so as not to mislead people, false info can kill.

Perhaps do a google search and you will even see the story about the bear that killed two people at Liard River hotsprings only s few years ago amongst many others. Dozens of others.

Lotsofaith, I stand behind everything I posted and I think you need to do some research. Healthy black bears do not hunt and kill humans unprovoked. Most conflicts involve people trying to feed a bear or crowding a bear out of its natural habitat where the feeding is good for the bear and most conflicts the human walks away with a story to tell that makes big news.

Steve Herrero is the worlds leading expert on black bear attacks and according to his research there are approximately 900,000 black bears in North America, with approximately 121,000 in BC. Every year people have millions of interactions with black bears and yet between 1900 and 2005 there were only 57 people killed by a black bear in North America. That is the equivalent of the amount of people killed by bees in a single year or domestic dogs in three years. In fact you could almost come up with any other cause of death and it would likely be better odds than being killed by a black bear. (Living With Bears - A Practical Guide to Bear Country)


The real killers are the grizzly bear. Almost every bear killing human story I have ever heard of before was a grizzly killing a human and not a black bear killing a human.

Sorry sir I stand by what I have said. In fact I have past your story around to a number of very experienced people and asked for their opinions on what you are saying, only because I didn't agree with most of it.
The responses I have received are overwhelmingly against your thoughts on the subject. Again sir do some more research and you will change your beliefs on what your spreading around the internet.

Regards

In fact Beagleone check this one out.

http://fishbcforum.com/index.php?showtopic=50824

I just read some of Mr Herrero.
He doesn't have to much to say about bear attacks and the results of those attacks when humans come out on the losing end. He does however have a lot to say regarding bears when they come out on the losing end of encounters with humans. Lots of figures and percentages.
I got the distinct impression Mr Herrero is no more than a bearhugger.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. What I have a problem with is when wrong information regarding bears is submitted to the public to help ones agenda.