South Fraser Perimeter Road/Highway 17 Extension | Completed

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

It is a shame we don't. Our wonderful Liberal government deems it wise to spend $1.1 million per year on cycling for the entire province. We will never see lit pathways everywhere let alone pathways. We are spending $1.7 Billion per year on transportation and are only spending $1.1 million on cycling? Cycling is not getting its fair share and it will never grow with current senior government funding levels. A little bit here and there for good PR that is about all cycling gets from them, enough so they can pat themselves on the back. The best cycling gets now is highways with wide shoulders for bike lanes. There is not even going to be a decent route between the Port Mann, the Trabulay trail (Poco) and the Central Valley greenway next year. Who knows when. This is an outcry. 8/10 lanes with the highway and no bike path connecting to the existing paths, give me a break.

So if the SFPR is built to expressway standards do you think there will be money for the separated path even though it is in the Surrey Greenway plan? Big fat NO.

It's built to "expressway standards" but it is a Provincial Highway so I'd say... fat chance.

[VanCvl]

There's been a lot of discussion about the speed being too low. I think we should remember that it was designed to 80km/hr and that it feels like you can drive faster because newer design standards are a lot more forgiving to errant drivers than the ones used to build highways in the 50's. That said the highway is a design-build-operate delivery model and I doubt the Province will take on the liability on raising the speed limit when it's being operated/maintained by a third party. Ie someone sues the Province for an accident and the Province then will have a tougher time turning around to blame the design/operator if they change the speed limit.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by jhausner

It wasn't hailed as a way to reduce congestion. It was hailed as a way of moving goods easier. They didn't see the ferries as fully part of that. Roberts Bank was the focus which is why you don't see interchanges at 56th and 52nd though I absolutely agree. When you get off a ferry it takes you forever just to get to and then past 56th and always has been that way.

As for the speed traps, it's laughably predictable and unfortunately (or fortunately) the Police are stuck in this notion that speed kills when there is absolutely no proof anywhere in the world that this is the case. It's just a method of punishing law abiding citizens and making money. When they talked about reducing speeds on Hastings to 30kph because fast cars are dangerous to people j-walking my first reaction was "No, jumping out in front of moving cars is the dangerous thing. What ever happened to natural selection??"

:/

Here's the thing: if you're breaking the law by speeding, you aren't a law abiding citizen. You may be an otherwise-law abiding citizen, but until the speed limit is changed you are lawfully required to not exceed it. SENSE BC is making a very strong case that rural highways should have their speed limits increased and I think the same case could be made for our local major highway network, including the SFPR, but until their lobbying is successful and the speed limits are increased, then the law's the law. Wilfully breaking it because you feel the speed limit is too low means that you are breaking the law and exposing yourself to whatever speed enforcement the police deign to set up and municipal coffers and local taxpayers are the beneficiaries of the largess. I'd welcome back photo radar if it meant that local municipalities could curtail their rates of property tax increases or more services and amenities could be financed. Speeding fines are essentially a sin tax. Don't want to pay? Don't break the speed limit.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by VanCvl

There's been a lot of discussion about the speed being too low. I think we should remember that it was designed to 80km/hr and that it feels like you can drive faster because newer design standards are a lot more forgiving to errant drivers than the ones used to build highways in the 50's. That said the highway is a design-build-operate delivery model and I doubt the Province will take on the liability on raising the speed limit when it's being operated/maintained by a third party. Ie someone sues the Province for an accident and the Province then will have a tougher time turning around to blame the design/operator if they change the speed limit.

I bet it was actually designed with a higher speed in mind actually. I'd say 90-100 if i was to actually guess. Since thats seems to be the speed limit of most freeways around here.
You need to remember when this road was first planned out it was suppose to be a freeway system. They downgraded the over/underpasses and made it a normal highway. The road itself was never really changed. 80 is not freeway speed. which parts of this road feel like.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

You need to remember when this road was first planned out it was suppose to be a freeway system. They downgraded the over/underpasses and made it a normal highway. The road itself was never really changed. 80 is not freeway speed. which parts of this road feel like.

Do you know how much money they saved by making it a regular road?
Do you think it was to save money or to pacify the treehuggers that its not really a freeway?

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Here's the thing: if you're breaking the law by speeding, you aren't a law abiding citizen. You may be an otherwise-law abiding citizen, but until the speed limit is changed you are lawfully required to not exceed it. SENSE BC is making a very strong case that rural highways should have their speed limits increased and I think the same case could be made for our local major highway network, including the SFPR, but until their lobbying is successful and the speed limits are increased, then the law's the law. Wilfully breaking it because you feel the speed limit is too low means that you are breaking the law and exposing yourself to whatever speed enforcement the police deign to set up and municipal coffers and local taxpayers are the beneficiaries of the largess. I'd welcome back photo radar if it meant that local municipalities could curtail their rates of property tax increases or more services and amenities could be financed. Speeding fines are essentially a sin tax. Don't want to pay? Don't break the speed limit.

That's a cop out pardon the pun. The truth is, it becomes a slippery slope saying "well the law is the law" when the truth is, laws need to be questioned or else we descend into a Police state. We have really stupid laws on the books that are put in place under the notion of "keeping the public safe" yet are just plain ridiculous. Things like our firearms license laws which if the same laws were applied to your driver's license, if you failed to renew your driver's license, or if you were caught driving in such a way that was deemed "dangerous to society" you know like reckless driving or speeding, the Police could come and confiscate your car without compensation. That's it. Your car is ours sorry the law is the law.

Well same thing with speeds. Highways used to be 100kph pretty much everywhere or more. Then they drop to 90. Then 80. Now you're seeing a lot more 80 or less 'highways'. It used to be 60kph was the standard speed in cities. Then 50. And now you're seeing that drop to 30 kph. Again people drive the speed that feels safe and natural.

So if you keep making the bar lower and lower, you make more people break the law just through proxy. It is easy to say "Oh well the speed limit is now 70 so you should do 70." then 10 years later "Oh well the speed limit is now 50, so you should do 50." but there becomes a point in time when it just becomes ridiculous and you're simply moving more and more 'law abiding citizens' into the realm of breaking the law. We're at the point where you can't find a single human being living in this city that doesn't break the speed limits on our roads at least once a week minimum. Nobody. Even you. I guarantee you break the law every single day.

So if everyone breaks the law, does that make us all criminals? You're saying yes. I'm simply saying that it isn't us it's the laws themselves that are just getting ridiculous. And with speed it is blatant, to the point everyone said "Hey look at that 50kph spot, bet you that will be a speed trap" and guess what, FIRST DAY! there was a cop parked there and there have been cops parked there EVERY DAY!

That's just sad. In a city (Surrey) that had a record murder rate, I would prefer my cops to be out there getting rid of real criminals, those killing people, selling drugs, and breaking into cars. That's done by raising the speed limits to take away the sweet chocolate temptation of speeding tickets dangling in front of the RCMP and Delta Police.

At the end, you have to ask what is the purpose of a speed limit?

Is the purpose to a) keep people safe or b) earn the Police/Province money? If you say A, you're being dishonest.

I mean someone also posted about the speed limits shouldn't be raised due to liability reasons? What eve happened to you screw up and crash your car, and it's your fault? And let's be honest, the Sea to Sky was a death trap for years before it was rebuilt, why was the Province never sued over those deadly crashes? Because that's not how the world works.

Same deal here. They raise the limit to 90kph on SFPR and someone crashes, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on with regards to suing.

[GMasterAres]

And for the record, what has been posted above is true. The SFPR was designed for 100kph not 80kph. It has been posted 80kph on purpose but according to the regulations and everything I've read and heard in regards to the SFPR, it meets 100kph design without issue.

The only reason they are getting away with 80kph right now are because of the intersections but as was posted before, the original design which didn't change for 95% of the entire highway, was to be a full freeway with full interchanges and 0 intersections. Heck they actually purchased all the land for the interchanges already.

So Tannery, Sunbury, Bridgeview, etc., they own all the land around it for the interchanges. And Old Yale (the 50kph stretch) is marked as a 'temporary' intersection meaning it is not supposed to be there just like the traffic light under the Port Mann right now.

So you can't say that is the norm if it isn't even supposed to be there. Anyone that has driven it knows 100kph is plenty fine on the entire stretch. Hell everyone does 100kph right now even the fully loaded container trucks that have no issue doing that speed.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by jhausner

The SFPR was designed for 100kph not 80kph. It has been posted 80kph on purpose but according to the regulations and everything I've read and heard in regards to the SFPR, it meets 100kph design without issue.

the original design which didn't change for 95% of the entire highway, was to be a full freeway with full interchanges and 0 intersections.

I have posted the following previously, but again from the documents filed at the BCEAO regarding the functional design/design criteria for the SFPR (page 94):

Table 4.2 Highway and structure design criteria / standards for the SFPR.

Design Criteria Four-lane rural design standards
Deltaport Way – 176th Street
Highway classification RAD (Rural Arterial Divided)
Design speed 80 km/h
Posted speed 80 km/h

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/docu...703_8472cae2a0154601bf12ab205e7b4d0f.pdf

Again, a Rural Arterial Divided functional design is below a Rural Expressway Divided design, which in turn is below a Rural Freeway Divided design.

I would have preferred a Rural Expressway Design standard with a 100 km/hr+ design speed upgradable to future freeway standard akin to Hwys 1, 99, and 91 and former 17. The SFPR is more akin to the SKS with tight geometry and "mini-changes" at Tannery Road, for example.

That said, an 80 km/hr design speed still has enough geometrical allowance to drive same safely at 100 km/hr.

[VanCvl]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

I have posted the following previously, but again from the documents filed at the BCEAO regarding the functional design/design criteria for the SFPR (page 94):



http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/docu...703_8472cae2a0154601bf12ab205e7b4d0f.pdf

Again, a Rural Arterial Divided functional design is below a Rural Expressway Divided design, which in turn is below a Rural Freeway Divided design.

I would have preferred a Rural Expressway Design standard with a 100 km/hr+ design speed upgradable to future freeway standard akin to Hwys 1, 99, and 91 and former 17. The SFPR is more akin to the SKS with tight geometry and "mini-changes" at Tannery Road, for example.

That said, an 80 km/hr design speed still has enough geometrical allowance to drive same safely at 100 km/hr.

I can confirm that it's designed to 80km/hr and not just for the intersections. Everything is built for 80km/hr - sight lines, shoulders, vertical and horizontal curves, acceleration lanes etc.

[go_leafs_go02]

80 km/h design speed should mean that all vehicles should be able to safely travel at 80 km/h, not just cars, but designed for a large semi-truck to be able to travel at 80 km/h.

[Mininari]

Just taking a little peek at Google traffic for conditions at the infamous Sunbury Intersection, and uh oh, westbound SFPR is looking a little 'RED' on the map. Not too good considering today is still a 'light' traffic day. The real test will be next Monday when EVERYONE's holiday vacation will be over.

So my incredibly unscientific observation aside, how are others judging Sunbury?

[GMasterAres]

Ok then I think our 80kph 'standards' are too strict. Any other place on the planet and it would probably be 100kph. Have driven around all of the US and much of Canada and we have some of the slowest speeds everywhere yet I don't think crash statistics are any different. Could be off my rocker I'll have to actually look deeper, but it just seems like everyone drives over the speed limit so our speed limits and "design specs" are off their rockers.

And the notion about all vehicles, including trucks, well trucks are all soing 95kph and I'd argue a full size semi stopping from 80kph vs 95kph isn't substantially faster that in an emergency it would mean the difference between a crash or not.

*shrug* Anyway probably doesn't really have much to do with the SFPR anymore, the speed limit is the speed limit. I get on and off before/after the 50kph stretch so it doesn't really actually matter to me in the grand scheme of things. I'll simply drive the same speed as traffic. Knock on real wood, haven't had a speeding ticket since I was 16 years old and I drive a ticket magnet of a car so seems to be a fine way of doing things.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Just taking a little peek at Google traffic for conditions at the infamous Sunbury Intersection, and uh oh, westbound SFPR is looking a little 'RED' on the map. Not too good considering today is still a 'light' traffic day. The real test will be next Monday when EVERYONE's holiday vacation will be over.

So my incredibly unscientific observation aside, how are others judging Sunbury?

Does Google Traffic actually work for the SFPR? How does it actually work?

[DKaz]

Crowd sourcing.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Does Google Traffic actually work for the SFPR? How does it actually work?

Seems to.
As for your question about how google traffic works... Google it!

e.g.
http://www.theconnectivist.com/2013/07/how-google-tracks-traffic/

Oh the wonders of smartphones.

But seriously, the real test for this intersection comes next week and beyond when we get back to 'regular' traffic volumes. Deferring Sunbury's interchange is going to emerge as a very serious mistake. But, I've said that over and over, and I'll stop now.

Looking forward to driving the entire road tomorrow!
I'll watch for that 50km/hr sign, and certainly will listen for radar traps on AM730.

[GMasterAres]

Ok official word from me, just got home after taking SFPR home. The issue is the lights are flashing at the Sunbury intersection. Flashing yellow for SFPR, flashing red for the road connecting. So basically lights aren't working. They were working this morning.

Same thing happened last week on Monday. Working Monday morning, were doing the same on my way home. So they have something broken with the lights which is probably causing the Google traffic to spike a bit because it is completely stopping people trying to get on the SFPR as traffic is high enough and people aren't stopping (yellow) on the SFPR, + it is raining really heavy so more difficult to take the plunge and turn onto the SFPR. SFPR traffic is also slowing to maybe 50-60kph but not fully stopping and just going through the intersection.

So not traffic, but rather messed up traffic light.

Cool on the Google traffic thing. Just red the web site link provided, thanks for that. I know I could have googled but was 1 foot out the door and easier just to type what I typed and assume someone would be kind enough to oblige me with a link.

And for the record re the speed limit, my last post on the topic, I never advocated 100kph speeds for SFPR, but I think 90kph is perfectly reasonable and it should eventually be the speed limit vs 80 even if the "design specifications" were for 80kph. Just my opinion.

Oh and they really need to put reflectors eastbound between Tilbury intersection and the Tannery interchange. There don't seem to be any and in the heavy rain and dark (today's drive home) you can't see the lanes at all. Not kidding, couldn't see a single line anywhere even at the speed limit.

[proudcanuck]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Ok official word from me, just got home after taking SFPR home. The issue is the lights are flashing at the Sunbury intersection. Flashing yellow for SFPR, flashing red for the road connecting. So basically lights aren't working. They were working this morning.

Same thing happened last week on Monday. Working Monday morning, were doing the same on my way home. So they have something broken with the lights which is probably causing the Google traffic to spike a bit because it is completely stopping people trying to get on the SFPR as traffic is high enough and people aren't stopping (yellow) on the SFPR, + it is raining really heavy so more difficult to take the plunge and turn onto the SFPR. SFPR traffic is also slowing to maybe 50-60kph but not fully stopping and just going through the intersection.

So not traffic, but rather messed up traffic light.

Cool on the Google traffic thing. Just red the web site link provided, thanks for that. I know I could have googled but was 1 foot out the door and easier just to type what I typed and assume someone would be kind enough to oblige me with a link.

And for the record re the speed limit, my last post on the topic, I never advocated 100kph speeds for SFPR, but I think 90kph is perfectly reasonable and it should eventually be the speed limit vs 80 even if the "design specifications" were for 80kph. Just my opinion.

Oh and they really need to put reflectors eastbound between Tilbury intersection and the Tannery interchange. There don't seem to be any and in the heavy rain and dark (today's drive home) you can't see the lanes at all. Not kidding, couldn't see a single line anywhere even at the speed limit.

Just a correction... the lights were flashing both nights at the Tilbury intersection (Tilbury Connector/80th Street), not Sunbury (River Road/Hwy 91 Connector) . It was the first set of lights eastbound from the Hwy 99 interchange. People were treating the yellow as a 4 way stop. Very dangerous.

I called it in to AM730 and they in turn tell people to use the 4 way stop procedure. Now did something change in the driving laws I am not aware of that we now are to stop at a flashing yellow????

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by proudcanuck

Just a correction... the lights were flashing both nights at the Tilbury intersection (Tilbury Connector/80th Street), not Sunbury (River Road/Hwy 91 Connector) . It was the first set of lights eastbound from the Hwy 99 interchange. People were treating the yellow as a 4 way stop. Very dangerous.

I called it in to AM730 and they in turn tell people to use the 4 way stop procedure. Now did something change in the driving laws I am not aware of that we now are to stop at a flashing yellow????

My bad yes Tilbury intersection. And though I don't know which intersection is which, I do know traffic law and:

Motor Vehicle Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318
Part 3

131 (3) When rapid intermittent flashes of yellow light are exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal,

(a) the driver of a vehicle facing the flashes of yellow light may cause it to enter the intersection and proceed only with caution, but must yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully in the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk, and

(b) a pedestrian facing the flashes of yellow light may proceed with caution across the roadway, in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

So in regular language, you do not have to stop with a flashing yellow light. You do have to stop with a flashing red (Section 131(1)).

So 4-way procedures are NOT in affect. I'm not entirely surprised AM730 would state that though as for liability sakes, they are probably safest requesting people perform 4-way stop procedures. I don't think their lawyers would ever allow them to say "people with yellow light, no need to stop, just proceed cautiously."

I'm actually a little surprised the default flashing state is red from Tilbury, yellow on SFPR given you are dealing with a higher volume of truck traffic that can't turn through the red very quickly, and the intersection is on a curve.

[Mininari]

How about 90km/hr cars, 80km/hr trucks? In general, Highways in BC should consider split speed limits on multi-lane highways.

Its also a shame that if the design speed is indeed 80km/hr as even with a full freeway upgrade (by 2095?, i.e. all interchanges built), we are still stuck with 80km/hr (and speed traps).

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Mininari

How about 90km/hr cars, 80km/hr trucks? In general, Highways in BC should consider split speed limits on multi-lane highways.

Its also a shame that if the design speed is indeed 80km/hr as even with a full freeway upgrade (by 2095?, i.e. all interchanges built), we are still stuck with 80km/hr (and speed traps).

I'd be totally fine with that since it is a double lane highway. I ran into the 75mph car/65mph truck in Montana and a few other states but on 1 lane highways and it basically meant everyone including cars had to drive the truck speed. You get 1 truck doing their speed limit and you have to do their speed or pass (which isn't as easy/safe as some may think on most highways).

On a double lane (or more) highway though, I'm totally for staggered speed limits and they would make complete sense. I think 80kph is probably reasonable for heavy container trucks. 90kph is also perfectly reasonable for cars and other vehicles. I still think it should be 100 because the majority of people drive 95 on the road which would still be _over_ but I know where to pick battles and +-5kph is better than +- 15kph in the grand scheme of things.

And I still think design speed is a load of crap. They say the same thing in Oregon vs Washington State that the speeds on i5 are due to design, but it's the same bloody highway when you cross the river yet 10mph slower in Oregon than Washington. It's just crap excuses. Highway is perfectly safe at 90 or 100kph for cars. Trucks as you get to Tilbury I can see where it may be a little fast, so again staggered speed limits would kill two birds with 1 stone.

90/80 with giant signs saying "TRUCK PROHIBITED FROM LEFT LANE" and I wouldn't complain any more about the SFPR not that anyone really cares what I think.