Highway 1 Improvements, 216th to 264th | U/C
 

I predicted that the new announcement, was going to be, just the old announcement.

Did... you forget to post an article?

Got a link to your old prediction? :rolleyes:

Nothing new for government.

He did:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=4260

Can you post it to the OP please?

All in all, that seems like the way BC’s going about highway improvements. Unfortunately, expanding the lanes up to Aldergrove (Highway 13, 264th Street) won’t do much.

By the way, climbing lanes can indeed count as a 3rd lane. In Ontario immediately west of Kingston, the westbound lanes of ON-401 has that. In some extreme cases, MTO requires that all trucks keep to the right lane on some uphill sections of the 401.

HOV lanes are outdated and under utilized. Can't believe we're going to dedicate 1/3 of the capacity for this new highway section to an HOV lane which in metro van is only used 11% by commuters which means its even less used overall

Wow 11%? That's a little high for how how we do business around these parts. Usually the infrastructure projects that get the most money are ones used less than 10% by the population.That's how we role.

The rest of the funds are used to cook up homemade BS "studies" that are designed to spread propaganda to the population.

However, with that being said, don't know if I would characterize HOV lanes as being "outdated" by any means. I think its actually one of the rare instances where the region takes a practical approach to managing traffic WITHOUT hurting other modes of transportation.

In all fairness, the HOV lanes will also be used by buses, motorcycles, taxis, emergency vehicles, as well as electric cars with decals -- They are permitted in HOV lanes, and the province is going all-in getting the fleet shifting towards electric.

Besides, if its a 2+ HOV lane, either you find a buddy to ride to work with you, or maybe find a daycare close to your work and take your kids for the ride. They'll operate at capacity during long-weekend rushes when there are many families on the road.

The HOV users headed to Abbotsford in the PM will also queue-jump the new chokepoint that is simply being moved to 264th.

:sly:
https://lao.ca.gov/2000/010700_hov/0...hov_lanes.html
"On average, California's HOV lanes carry 2,518 persons per hour during peak hours--substantially more people than a congested mixed-flow lane and roughly the same number of people as a typical mixed-flow lane operating at maximum capacity.
In terms of vehicles carried, however, California's HOV lanes are operating at only two-thirds of their capacity.
Regional data indicate that HOV lanes do induce people to carpool, but the statewide impact on carpooling is unknown due to lack of data. "

Note that HOV lanes also improve express bus services. It's the same idea as transit in general- HOV lanes are higher capacity despite being less used by vehicles because each vehicle carries more people. BC transit wants to provide rapid bus services to and in Abbotsford, along with BRT on South Fraser Way: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BdM3XbcZmZ...re-Transit.png

Ideally this would be anchored by 2 Carvloth-style exchanges in Abbotsford where the BRT line hits Hwy 1.

I take 264 exit daily, so im excited about this but worried there will be a backup daily around 248 st due to mergers at 264 st

To be fair though, people in the Valley (and BC in general) do not know how to properly drive on a multi-lane highway. There is no keep right except to pass in BC; it's right lane is for slow losers.

On the Trans Canada through Burnaby, where it's 4 lanes and 3 are general purpose, for most of the day people avoid the right most lane. Even in rush hour, probably only around 11% of vehicles in the General Purpose lanes are in the right most lane (it is definitely not an even 1/3 across all lanes).

So I think judging road space effectiveness by pure vehicle volume is not looking at the whole picture. I think it is proper to reward (and thus encourage) people who travel travel together or sustainably.

:tup:

Should be at least extended to the McCallum Rd exit. It should also be 4 lanes each way because of all the development there.

i think there should be a 3+1 configuration all the way to Sumas Way ideally. but that could be a little to pie-in-the-sky for most.

then you can avoid doing any highway improvements for 50 years again, just like they did the first time.

HOV was to be extended to Whatcom back when the Liberals were still in power. That's the problem. 216-264 was basically neigh-confirmed due to the fact pre-construction had already begun on that section. The Liberals had been on the largest highway-expansion/construction frenzy in Vancouver since the olden days of the 60s and 70s.
3+1?

3 general-purpose lanes (including climbing lanes for trucks) + 1 HOV lane, per direction

That’s a drop in the bucket. Literally a negligible amount of vehicles compared to overall traffic. We currently have some 3 lane sections of general purpose between 216 and 264. If what they’re saying is true, and the new configuration will be 2 general purpose plus 1 HOV that is a huge mistake. HOV lanes are severely under utilized and archaic.

There's induced demand, though.

Proof? The GVRD doesn't keep statistics on HOV utilization. Also, most of those 3 lane sections are pretty short/temporary.

It's also a long-term measure, to extend the period where buses can continue operating on HWY1. Even the HOV lanes on 99, despite congestion on the GMT and general purpose during rush hour, still flow at a consistent speed.

That, and express buses are pretty much the only economical way to extend rapid transit into the Valley in the meantime.

Statcan logs the data. You can find it here

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...016029-eng.pdf

According to Statistics Canada, the share of commuting using carpool in Vancouver is 11.2%. However commuting makes up a minority in highway travel overall, so the real share of carpooling among all traffic is much lower than 11%, making carpool lanes either underused or not used as intended (most carpoolers are family members who would travel together regardless of carpool lanes, so they don't actually reduce vehicle travel).