South Fraser Perimeter Road/Highway 17 Extension | Completed

[Pennywise604]

The bog...

I'm quite sure that's the exact reason, let's save the environment, rather than build a project that makes perfect sense, and should of been made 15 years ago...
I live right beside the bog, and of course love it. It's one of Metro Vancouver's most beautiful natural gems, but who really cares when traffic is backed up at a light every single day during both rush hours. It doesn't make any sense to me, only a few hundred trees would be cut down, it sounds like a lot, but keep in mind the bog ends in Tilbury to the North... It's massive, why would a small project like getting rid of the light really make a difference, I don't get it at all. I am stuck in the traffic jam 4 times a week... It gets frustrating, since I know if it's 4pm monday-friday, I have to crawl to 72nd from 64th, no matter what.

[Zassk]

^ It sure looks like there is enough space to shift 91 eastward and build an overpass without using up any more bog to the west... a lot of the necessary space was already cleared when the highway was built. Anyway, when you look at the area on google maps, it is obvious that the entire region of bog used to be farmed, and is not in the least bit pristine. Also, 72nd interchange might only need ramps northward, we don't necessarily need cloverleafs to accomodate both directions.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_...22.927957&spn=0.016736,0.038838&t=h&z=15

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ I'm confused by the 72nd situation. What say does Delta have in a provincial highway upgrade?

Good question. I have had e-mails sent from MoT pr folk years ago giving the "Delta" explanation. But it doesn't make any sense as MoT has full jurisdiction over the interchange and surrounding area. Delta would not have much say in the matter - a similar situation exists with the Hwy 1 rebuild through Burnaby. Burnaby doesn't have much say either.

IIRC, the design was for Hwy 91 to become elevated (akin to Howes St. and Hwy 91A),with a right free-flowing 72nd Ave. exit underneath Hwy 91.

I really don't know what gives about that intersection and the REAL reason for the upgrade delay.

[finalcoolman]

Looks like the demolition of the two old Pitt River bridges begins this Monday, November 16th! Not in the New Year as I've seen in media reports!

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/prb-mary...eclosure_20091116/notice_to_shipping.pdf

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Maple Ridge is full of retarded speed limits. There is a 1km section of the Lougheed that runs up the hill just north of Kanaka Way, here it is a 4 lane highway with no driveways and a median running along the middle with a 50kmh speed limit!

No driveways and a median, even if with at-grade intersections, would normally warrant at least a 70 km/h speed limit (80 km/h if the intersections are decently spaced).

Looking at that section on Google Earth, I would personally post it at 70 km/h. The parkland setting, sidewalks and at-grade entrances are enough to preclude 80. It should drop from 70 to 50 at Burnett Street (storefronts in the central section warrant a 50 km/h limit).

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Good question. I have had e-mails sent from MoT pr folk years ago giving the "Delta" explanation. But it doesn't make any sense as MoT has full jurisdiction over the interchange and surrounding area. Delta would not have much say in the matter - a similar situation exists with the Hwy 1 rebuild through Burnaby. Burnaby doesn't have much say either.

IIRC, the design was for Hwy 91 to become elevated (akin to Howes St. and Hwy 91A),with a right free-flowing 72nd Ave. exit underneath Hwy 91.

I really don't know what gives about that intersection and the REAL reason for the upgrade delay.

What really sucks about it is now that the Border Infrastructure Improvement Program has come and gone, gateway is likely sucking up much of the region's allocated highway improvements money. I doubt we're going to see 72nd "fixed" anytime soon.

It makes me wonder why they didn't try to revive it as part of the economic stimulus investment projects... seems that a funding boost from the feds might have helped.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

No driveways and a median, even if with at-grade intersections, would normally warrant at least a 70 km/h speed limit (80 km/h if the intersections are decently spaced).

Looking at that section on Google Earth, I would personally post it at 70 km/h. The parkland setting, sidewalks and at-grade entrances are enough to preclude 80. It should drop from 70 to 50 at Burnett Street (storefronts in the central section warrant a 50 km/h limit).

Outside the lower mainland there are plenty of roads that have 80km/h speed limit and lights. They all have advance warning lights though. Even in Victoria the Pat Bay gets up to 90km/h in an area with lights AND unsignaled left turns across the highway.

The highway to Lake Cowichan is 100km/h (used to be higher too) and while there are no lights, there are plenty of uncontrolled intersections and a few driveways.

I just don't think they have any faith in the skill of drivers in the lower mainland (and deservedly so sometimes).

[Pennywise604]

I decided to whatch the Delta Chamber of Commerce report on the effects of the SFPR, here are the key points I was able to hear:

• Project will impact only 12 acres of the bog, and the Province is paying the City of Delta to re-imburse the enviromental impact.
• The farmers who are affected by the project, are okay with the SFPR, as long as their irrigation systems are greatly improved.
• Highway 17, once the SFPR is completed, will be downgraded to a local Rd. from Deltaport Way, to Ladner Trunk Rd.
• River Rd will be downgraded to a local Rd. between Nordel Way, and Elevator Rd.
• BC Ferries are expecting a large increase in truck traffic over the next few decades, so this project is an absolute necessity.
• The light at 56th is a major concern once the SFPR is completed, they are not changing it until it is necessary to become a full interchange.
• They said something about having a light at 80th St until demand is needed for a full interchange... (I thought it was suppose to be an interchange )
• The intersection of 57B @ Deltaport will be improved, as well as Arthur Dr. Due to the fact that accidents that shut down Arthur Dr. force traffic onto 57B, and those cars must turn onto Deltaport, which is a very dangerous, and uncontrolled intersection.
• They mentioned that if this project is not made, that traffic EB on River Rd. will be chaos every single day. They said in 10 years traffic in the afternoon EB, will be backed up from River Rd @ 90th, basically to Hwy 99 every single day of the week...
• The sound barriers will be state of the art, and above standards to reduce noise to residents/farmers.
• The SFPR will allow traffic to flow considerably better. Trucking companies waste millions of dollars a year, by having trucks backed up along River Rd. everyday. Idling trucks emit lots of pollution, and companies who pay truckers by the hour lose so much money when they are stuck in traffic.
• City of Delta, has absolutely no say what so ever, when it comes to a Provincial Highway project.

That was it, I only caught the last 30 minutes . But the City of Delta is really supportive of the project.

[Mininari]

And on your last point, I ask again why the Ministry shelved the 72nd / 91A interchange due to disagreements with the city of Delta.

[DKaz]

Cities can withhold building permits even on provincial projects and some federal projects. (Canada Place for example is exempt, Surrey Tax Centre is not)

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Pennywise604

They said something about having a light at 80th St until demand is needed for a full interchange... (I thought it was suppose to be an interchange

There will be an over-pass at 72nd St., 80th St. will be blocked off, and an interchange will be situate slightly further east - "the Tilbury interchange". Pre-loading for that interchange has been completed.

City of Delta, has absolutely no say what so ever, when it comes to a Provincial Highway project.

That's because the ROW is owned by the province and building permits/development premits are not required AFAIK.

[Pennywise604]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

There will be an over-pass at 72nd St., 80th St. will be blocked off, and an interchange will be situate slightly further east - "the Tilbury interchange". Pre-loading for that interchange has been completed.

Ah I get it, they did say though that if an interchange is needed at 80th, it will be made... If there's one very close by than I'm very confused, because I didn't hear wrong, they definetly said 80th St.

The thing that bugs me though is them downgrading Hwy 17... ugh! why not just forbid cars to travel on the SFPR between Deltaport - Hwy 99. Like why get rid of a good highway... Traffic is very busy when ferries unload, this way car traffic can go to Hwy 17 @ Hwy 10, where as truck traffic is diverted to SFPR and doesn't plug up the intersection anymore. In rush hour in the mornings they need Hwy 17 to stay as a highway.

[officedweller]

I think the Tilbury Interchange/Intersection accesses 80th Streeet - so I think they are the same.

For Hwy 17, what would the "downgrade" entail?
Exitting from the ferries, you would still have the option to continue on Hwy 17 to Hwy 99 or exit to SFPR and then to Hwy 99.

Hwy 17 & SFPR:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/SFPR/docs/proposed_alignment/dwgs/sfpr-rfp-issue-s37.pdf

SFPR and Hwy 99:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/SFPR/docs/proposed_alignment/dwgs/sfpr-rfp-issue-s40.pdf

[Stingray2004]

Originally, even pre-eao, a signalized intersection was to be situate at either 72nd or 80th, which could be upgraded to an interchange when traffic warrants.

That signalized intersection was moved eastward to a new alignment called "Tilbury", which has since been upgraded to an interchange.

BC MoT recently had a "PowerPoint" presentation at the Delta Chamber of Commerce whereby Slide 4 (of 15), confirms a 72nd underpass and an interchange just east of there at Tilbury.

http://www.deltachamber.com/chamber_business/news/news10160901.aspx

As for Hwy 17 between Deltaport and Ladner Trunk Road, that one still leaves me wondering. I sincerely hope that it will remain a 4-lane divided expressway but something tells me that MoT might remove half the roadbed and turn it into a 2-lane highway to disuade traffic from utilizing the corridor due to residential concerns at Ladner Trunk Rd.

I hope that I'm wrong!

[Zassk]

There is enough traffic from Ladner to the tunnel that I'm sure 17 will remain at least 2+2 lanes. But now, 17 will be only for Ladner traffic, which realistically is all that it is suited for anyway. I wonder whether MoT intends Tsawwassen traffic to take 17 or SFPR to/from 99?

[officedweller]

I could see them planting lots of trees on Hwy 17 and maybe narrowing the intersection at Ladner Trunk Road (maybe from Hwy 99 to Ladner Trunk) to say Lougheed Highway proportions or just lowering the speed limit or adjusting traffic light timing - but you still need connectivity between Ladner and Tsawwassen (sp?).

[Mininari]

My guess would be a speed limit of 60.

It would be nice if they could include upgrading the rest of the route to the Ferry Terminal to free-flow. That light at 56th street is the bane of a ferry traveller's existence.

[Zassk]

One or two overpasses would really streamline the route to BC Ferries.

I wonder what SFPR will be numbered? Do you think they will call it Highway 17?

[Millennium2002]

They're basically replacing the old route with the new aren't they? (at least... for the sections in Delta?) A lot of people call it the new highway 17 now.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Mininari

My guess would be a speed limit of 60.

It would be nice if they could include upgrading the rest of the route to the Ferry Terminal to free-flow. That light at 56th street is the bane of a ferry traveller's existence.

As someone who grew up in Tsawwassen and still has roots there, strangely enough I would still utilize the existing Hwy 17 route (even with the Ladner Trunk Road signalized intersection) as it's quicker and more direct to the GMT than the current southerly SFPR routing.

BTW, the original 2-lane Hwy 17 was posted at 70 mph (113 km/hr) during the 1960's and it currently has a 90 km/h speed limit albeit operating speed is ~110 km/hr.

I've also sent our friends at TIC a note for clarification.

As for 56th St. and 52nd St., those two intersections have been identified as longer range interchange conversion sites. 56th St. should have been converted years ago though (major accident site).