South Fraser Perimeter Road/Highway 17 Extension | Completed - Page 74

Stingray2004 · #**1461** Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 2:04 AM**

As an afterthought, the new Hwy 99/SFPR interchange certainly is a phenomenal improvement over the original EAO-tendered design, which contemplated "signalized intersections" at both ends of the SFPR overpass.

See Figure S40 in the following link:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/docu...388_8472cae2a0154601bf12ab205e7b4d0f.pdf

Furthermore, in the new design, the SFPR abutments also allows room for the future expansion of Hwy 99 to either 6 or 8 lanes.

Canadian Mind · #**1462** Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 2:45 AM**

8 lanes? Thats a long ways down the road. o.O

officedweller · #**1463** Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 3:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

See Figure S40 in the following link:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/docu...388_8472cae2a0154601bf12ab205e7b4d0f.pdf

This one does say "Preliminary Concept for discussion only".
Glad there' no one suing over the "change" in design...

The_Henry_Man · #**1464** Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 4:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

As an afterthought, the new Hwy 99/SFPR interchange certainly is a phenomenal improvement over the original EAO-tendered design, which contemplated "signalized intersections" at both ends of the SFPR overpass.

See Figure S40 in the following link:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/docu...388_8472cae2a0154601bf12ab205e7b4d0f.pdf

Furthermore, in the new design, the SFPR abutments also allows room for the future expansion of Hwy 99 to either 6 or 8 lanes.

However, the revised design eliminated the ramp for vehicles wanting to go Southbound on Hwy 99 towards the US from SFPR traveling southbound.

Millennium2002 · #**1465** Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 6:33 AM**

<post deleted>

- Allan Kuan

Stingray2004 · #**1466** Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 8:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

However, the revised design eliminated the ramp for vehicles wanting to go Southbound on Hwy 99 towards the US from SFPR traveling southbound.

Makes sense from a traffic modelling perspective.

Any WB/SB SFPR traffic, towards the border, would have already taken the off-ramp at/near the easterly Hwy 91 interchange.

Mininari · #**1467** Posted **Jun 22, 2009, 6:30 PM**

Makes sense....

And any traffic heading south from the Industrial properties along the river could just use the existing River Road / Highway 17 overpass to Access Highway 99 south.

CrazyCommute · #**1468** Posted **Jun 23, 2009, 2:16 AM**

I also don't see a north/east bound SFPR exit from Hwy. 99 northbound. How is northbound traffic from the U.S./White Rock supposed to access the SFPR north/east bound? Via Hwy 91?

go_leafs_go02 · #**1469** Posted **Jun 23, 2009, 2:27 AM**

you got that right...

why would you backtrack and go west and then exit to go east.

I believe this exit is the next one after Highway 91, discounting the Ladner Trunk Road, mainly because that goes west (and south to the ferries).

Highway 91 to Nordel Way will be alot quicker, even if you have to go west on the SFPR from Nordel.

Alex Mackinnon · #**1470** Posted **Jun 28, 2009, 12:30 AM**

If anyone has noticed the lines between Grandview and Cassiar as getting pushed to the outside so there's more room to work in the median. My line crew is going to be busy out there for a few more nights.

CosmoDog · #**1471** Posted **Jun 28, 2009, 4:42 AM**

I've often heard people complaining that by widening the Hwy 1 and building the new Port Mann Bridge (by the way, will they re-name it?). They argue that by doing so, will only bring more cars on the road and therefore create more pollution. Well it seems to me that, that is narrow minded thinking.

The fact of the matter is, until they develop personal teleporters, people will always rely on their car for transportation. Yes, I'm all for public transport! I say build as many rapid transit lines as possible! But people's love affair with their cars will unlikely go away within the next few decades.

Having said that, it should be our collective responsibility to go electric or an equivalent technology. Imagine a super hwy where all vehicles traveling on it are near zero or even zero emission. That along with an expansive rapid transit network would be a great marriage. This would both, reduce the number of vehicles on the road, as well reduce keep our air clean.

DKaz · #**1472** Posted **Jun 28, 2009, 6:40 AM**

Just for reference:

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

Continuation on Hwy 99 North:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/SFPR/docs/proposed_alignment/dwgs/sfpr-rfp-issue-s41.pdf

Continuation on Hwy 99 South:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/SFPR/docs/proposed_alignment/dwgs/sfpr-rfp-issue-s42.pdf

Millennium2002 · #**1473** Posted **Jun 29, 2009, 3:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmoDog

The fact of the matter is, until they develop personal teleporters, people will always rely on their car for transportation. Yes, I'm all for public transport! I say build as many rapid transit lines as possible! But people's love affair with their cars will unlikely go away within the next few decades.

True. However, if the government decided to invest more in the promotion and improvement of public transit then we can change the perception of public transit within the travelling public such that it becomes less of a last resort and more of a daily routine. If and when that happens we can reduce traffic on the roads such that we don't have to expand them in the first place. In the case of freight, there is freight rail. The government hasn't invested in improving that at all in cooperation with CP and CN unlike Washington state in the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmoDog

Having said that, it should be our collective responsibility to go electric or an equivalent technology. Imagine a super hwy where all vehicles traveling on it are near zero or even zero emission. That along with an expansive rapid transit network would be a great marriage. This would both, reduce the number of vehicles on the road, as well reduce keep our air clean.

A super highway is a bad idea simply due to induced demand. Even with clean cars, if too many people use them we'll sooner or later have to expand the roads again and again just to keep up (and covering up usable land in the process). And along with every expansion comes more people wanting to use it. Transit may suffer from the same induced demand but there are less land-occuping solutions to those problems. If bus routes are congested, we can try rapid transit. If rapid transit is congested, platforms can be extended or more lines can be added to service that area. All can be done with out needing acres and acres of land. All aforementioned improvements may be expensive yes but they will repay themselves in no time as the region expands.

- Allan Kuan

Stingray2004 · #**1474** Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 2:40 AM**

A conceptual design for the future approximate $40 million Harris Road interchange on Hwy 7 between the Pitt River Bridge and the Golden Ears Connector - apparently post-2012 (page 280 at the following link):

http://www.pittmeadows.bc.ca/assets/Council/Minutes/cic07aug21min.pdf

Mininari · #**1475** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 4:59 AM**

Has anyone noticed that the ministry of transportation and highways website has been nearly dead since the election? No news... just the odd construction notification.

I guess they don't need to any more "announcements" ... still, it would be nice to see some activity in the news column. Even if its a bridge replacement on some remote highway.

officedweller · #**1476** Posted **Jul 15, 2009, 10:27 PM**

Pitt River Bridge - Mary Hill Bypass ramp webcam pic from today - note the foam blocks...

Vancouver_Highrise · #**1477** Posted **Jul 16, 2009, 7:43 AM**

hopefully that overpass won't have the same fate as the 200th street overpass...

twoNeurons · #**1478** Posted **Jul 16, 2009, 8:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmoDog

Having said that, it should be our collective responsibility to go electric or an equivalent technology. Imagine a super hwy where all vehicles traveling on it are near zero or even zero emission. That along with an expansive rapid transit network would be a great marriage. This would both, reduce the number of vehicles on the road, as well reduce keep our air clean.

These already exist. They transport people at near zero emissions are super fast and don't take up much room.

I believe they are called "High-speed Electric trains"

hollywoodnorth · #**1479** Posted **Jul 16, 2009, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vancouver_Highrise

hopefully that overpass won't have the same fate as the 200th street overpass...

whats that......to be useful?

DKaz · #**1480** Posted **Jul 16, 2009, 7:19 PM**

I think he's referring to how both sides of the 200 St overpass settled creating an unintended speed bump that was finally fixed last year.

The Howes St interchange on 91A is doing fine with the foam blocks, it hasn't settled as far as I can tell. Did 200 St use the foam blocks? My guess would be no.