Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02
That interchange should get some redesigns - it's the only bottlneck you hit between 160 Street & Abbotsford on the way home.
Quick solutions:
Convert interchange into Parclo B4:
"The Parclo B4 interchange superficially appears to be a mirror image of the Parclo A4. However, the B4 design provides freeway-to-arterial ramps without traffic lights, which is undesirable due to a lower capacity arterial being potentially flooded with freeway traffic. Entering the freeway often requires a left-hand turn lane."
Also quick fix involves construction of a climbing lane east to past 248 Street (where the grade levels out).
|
I've rethought it, I actually now doubt a full-movement interchange will be needed at that intersection since the most it could be used for are movements to/from Highway 1 to the west (particularly rare) or access to the business area. The interchange actually does fine traffic-wise with a single two-lane overpass, it's just the safety issues that concern me. I might even consider swapping out the westernmost flyover/overpass for a directional ramp and/or a loop ramp, since a loop ramp would allow for more non-stop movements to Fort Langley (if you don't take 88th thru Walnut Grove).
Highway 13 is not as often-used but is also a bottleneck; I think in the short term longer acceleration lanes will do it there.
Pennywise604 that's a fine list you have there... might take me awhile to read it, visualize it and reflect on it though
16th: The 192nd St-style ramps seem quite fine to me, but should only be place once the industrial area to the east starts to really set up or the demand won't be enough to extend the 3rd lane to there.
24th: I would rather see a full-movement interchange there; it's hard getting onto 99SB as it is, and King George seems wildly under-capacity for the future. A SPUI might be nice there, but I worry the area under the overpass can support 3 lanes without at least removing shoulders.
32nd: Highway 99NB to 152nd NB and 152nd SB to Highway 99SB could be an extremely useful (full) movement, which is currently lacking. The NB acceleration lane from 32nd has to be lengthened, you're dealing with two lanes merging into one and then merging onto the highway and this apparently causes problems in the morning rush hour.
King George: the HOV ramps may be a good idea, there is a park-and-ride there.
Colebrook: Possibly redundant, Those movements could use Highway 10.
91: This is where a Highway 1/104th-160th style bottleneck would be sufficient, as a majority of the movements use the ramps. 99 W to 91 N to/from movement is used often by trucks going to Highway 10, that can't use Ladner Trunk Road. 99E to 91N to/from movement is natural, as both routes head to the same place, but 91 also has a better over-river route as of present. A new interchange should be constructed here and it should have no loop ramps; due to the nearby ocean that could prove difficult. The NB exit onto 99 should be a double-lane exit (one lane exit only, one lane optional exit). The HOV lanes should continue onto 99 with no direct connections; I'd rather see HOV lanes on the 91 start at around the 91A interchange and follow the east-west connector. It helps separate major HOV traffic movements. Only 3+1 lanes west and east of the interchange (with 2+1 in between, BUT with room for expansion) should work just fine here; 1 exit only + 1 optional exit lane should exit from Highway 99 in both directiona. The ramps should be configured so that 99SB > 91NB flies over the 99NB > 91NB lane, and creates a new lane which exits at Highway 10. This would assist truck movement to Highway 10 E. Considering trucks can't use Ladner Trunk Road, the extra lane merging in from 99SB could prove useful, but only if an extra lane/better merge is added at the 10 SB on-ramp. A 3rd lane should not be added onto 91NB onto the AFB; that 3rd lane currently comes from Nordel WB which is a heavy traffic volume route from Surrey. Otherwise heavy traffic could be caused at the NB merge point, which often features really slow moving cars and/or trucks coming up the bridge.
104th: Completely redundant considering the nearby Ladner Trunk Road, unless you meant NB exit and SB entrance which would work.
Ladner Trunk Road: A full-movement interchange may not be needed due to redundant movements. If anything redundant movements should be avoided as it just adds to the cost. From 99SB to 10 EB, 99NB to 10WB, 10WB to 99NB and 10EB to 99EB should be enough. A similar interchange to Exit 83/Mt. Lehman Road on Highway 1 should be constructed here. The redundant 10WB-99SB and 10EB-99NB movements are... well, redundant, and both have no acceleration lanes currently - which is not a problem, both are unused. 3+1 as always, but provisions for 4+1 or more should be added in case traffic volumes from SFPR warrant it.
SFPR: 3+1 lanes will be fine here for now, and should remain 3+1 throughout or optionally narrow down to 2+1 until Route 17. NB 99 to SB SFPR and the other way around should receive a movement priority; most of this traffic will exit to 91 NB and then 10EB. There should be no HOV ramps at SFPR, it would be unnecessary for now; SFPR is a truck route.
17: SB 99 to SB 17 and the other way around should receive a large movement priority, with 2+1 ramps south to 17.
River Road: As-is is just fine. With a 5/3/5 Bridge layout (explained later), the 5th lane could exit onto River Road.
New George Massey Bridge: North of the 17 interchange there should be a 4/3/4 or 5/3/5 movement, with Lions-Gate-Bridge style 3-lane HOV (or Seattle-style express lanes if you wish) rather than 2 HOV lanes in both directions. Double deck won't be necessary. If a cable stayed bridge is preferred (yet again) the towers can go in between the main & HOV lanes.
Steveston: NB lanes should remain as they are, no exiting lanes here unless the bridge has a 5/3/5 lane layout. North of Steveston Highway 99 should retain a 4+1/4+1 lane layout. One of the HOV lanes bound for Highway 17 should enter/exit here at Steveston, creating 3 HOV lanes that could work in a Lions-Gate style arrangement.
Blundell: Sounds fine but I would rather see those ramps placed more conveniently at No. 5 Road. Perhaps a future provision if not built.
Knight Street Connector: New connector to Knight Street separates movements from Westminster Avenue. Exits the 99 as an exit-only/exit-optional setup. 99 is 3+1 north of there. An HOV exit here would work as well.
Collector/express system: Exits just before Westminster Avenue with an exit-only, exit-optional exit of the 3th lane or perhaps the 5th lane as well. Main 99 Route remains a 2+1 in both directions. Collector/distributor system continues to the Oak Street Bridge. There are no further exits on the 99 express lanes.
Westminster/No. 5 Road: I'd rather see the Blundell ramps placed onto No. 5 to help serve Westminster. A NB 99 to WB Westminster ramp (overhead or loop ramp) could help separate traffic movements into Richmond from 91 and 99NB.
91: Massive. Northbound collector lane remains 2 lanes through this interchange, but there is an exit to 91 EB. A major exit on SB has an exit-only/exit-optional exit to 91 EB with a widened overpass, with one lane remaining on the 99 SB collector lane that merges with the main 99 route immediately after. 91 WB to 99 SB should remain as is without any major changes, as Knight Street will be using a different route so this won't be a major exit anymore. Exit from 91 EB to 99 NB flies over HOV lanes, with one lane veering left to the main 99NB lanes (with no merge, new lane) and one lane going to the collector lanes. The new lane from 91 becomes a new lane on the NB collector while the rightmost collector lane is marked to exit-only at Bridgeport. The EB Alderbridge > NB 99 loop ramp is removed; it is redundant. An HOV lane exit leads to Alderbridge Road to the west. A new ramp from 91 EB to 99 SB is constructed.
On the 91: Exit to Knight Street NB is removed. Travelers from Richmond can use Westminster Highway + a new ramp to Knight instead or Bridgeport Road. NB 99 travelers use the Knight Street connector. This helps resolve the weaving on EB 91. On WB 91, the WB lane entering from Knight Street continues past the 91WB > 99SB ramp and exits as an exit only/exit optional lane to 99NB. Knight SB > 99SB uses new connector rather than extra lane via 91.
Shell: Basic upgrade here. Exit-only/exit-optional from the SB collector lanes. NB entrance flies over/dips under collector lanes but merges onto the collector lanes, on the left side, to avoid weaving. North of here the collector lanes are 4 lanes wide northbound and 3 lanes wide southbound, and the express lanes are 3+1 northbound and 2+1 southbound (with provisions for 3+1 there of course).
Bridgeport: NB, Rightmost collector lane exits-only with the next lane exit-optional. After this exit, the rightmost collector lane ends for a 2-lane collector north of Bridgeport. SB, the one lane coming into the Collector lanes to exit later at Shell comes from Sea Island Way as usual. Existing ramp layout is pretty much kept here without much issue, just needs some longer merge points in areas. NB, one lane from Bridgeport EB merges to create a new lane, for a 3-lane NB collector over a new Oak Street Bridge. collectors are also 3 lanes southbound, with one lane exit-only/exit-optional exiting onto Sea Island Way to Richmond. One lane from SB express lanes exits and becomes a collector lane just before this interchange, creating a short 4-lane collector lane southbound; after the Bridgeport exit, rightmost collector lane ends. HOV ramps are probably a given here, they should lead from 99NB > Bridgeport or Sea Island WB and the other way around.
Cambie: This'll interfere with Shell Road. With the lack of left-turn-lanes at No.4 and lack of Centre lanes, this wouldn't be an ideal route for trucks anyhow.
Oak Street Bridge: Monstrous. 3+1 express, 3 lanes connectors in both directions. 14 lanes, 12 of them actually heading into Vancouver splitting up into the 6-lane each Oak & Granville Streets.
North end of Oak Street Bridge: Collector lane exit NB to Marine Way EB. 3 NB collector lanes split into 2+2 lanes, the leftmost two veering west for Granville and the other 2 staying for Oak; both of those two-lane sections merge into one, new 152nd street style; the loop ramp to Marine WB is removed. The northbound HOV lane becomes a regular lane midway through the bridge. The rightmost of the 4 express lanes exits, and veers over and around on a new overpass to connect to the Arthur Laing Bridge, creating a new link to the airport and an alternative to the Sea Island bridges from Highway 99NB and Highway 91WB (other traffic from Richmond can use the Sea Island bridges). The third lane exits-only/exits-optional onto Oak, a much better through route into Vancouver with more lanes than Granville (considering the outermost lanes are parking/HOV even if they are direct. Two lanes remain, and merge into one; a single lane from the collector lanes is added, and a third lane merges in from the Arthur Laing. This continues on as Granville Street. Marine now takes on it's own route connecting to UBC rather than merging with Granville, to avoid merging complications, passing under the complex; connections to the Marine are made via a few offramps and 70th Street. In the Southbound direction, three lanes are coming from Granville and three lanes are coming from Oak. The lanes from Oak split up so that two lanes continue as express (the Oak express lanes merge to one before entering), two lanes as collector; the lanes from Granville split up in the same way (collector lanes merge into one). The fourth express lane is coming from the Arthur Laing. As I mentioned earlier, this extra lane exits onto the collectors, which later exits onto Highway 91. The leftmost lane becomes HOV midway through the bridge.
70th: To stay elevated over 70th would result in too much land expropriation. All connections should be figured out on the very north end of the bridge with an interchange.
Sorry I had to steal the thread momentum from you, but I was bored and felt like writing something up
Prev
When the 405/407 is ready to go, it creeps forward activating the sensor. When the offramp onto Marine is ready to get its green light, the priority bus signal allows buses to go first for a few seconds to allow the buses onto the left turn lane before allowing general traffic to go.
Schoolhouse to 7 WB could be done in two ways: 1. using King Edward 2. turning right at that road just before the Superstore, and then using the on-ramp to Highway 7 near the gas station (you'd know this if you actually knew this area, I thought you lived near there). The movement to the United/Blue Mountain area will still be much much faster than before. I understand there will be confusion at first when this new design is implemented. But honestly, I'm pretty sure the same kind of confusion existed with the building of other things such as the Highway 91/99 interchange. As with every upgrade (or the same with moving to a new place/town), some studying WOULD be required. DEAL WITH IT. Have you ever been to Toronto? Shh-yeah, in places the roads can be super confusing... but they are also super-effective. Coming down Blue Mountain and then wanting to get on 1 EB is probably one of the more complicated movements at the moment, I am thinking of a way to address that and I think a loop ramp from Blue Mountain SB to Highway 1 EB would be suitable. From EB 7 to WB 1 (a movement that I think a lot of drivers would rarely have to use) you would turn left at the relocated Brunette Avenue, then use the right turn lane and follow it onto Brunette which would merge directly onto Route 1. From Burnaby to New West... [assuming Burnaby = Burquitlam/SFU area] lol wut, did you ever notice that there's another road that goes down there called NORTH ROAD? Oh yeah, what about the proposed Stormont Connector? You could use that too! If you've been paying attention to the discussions here you'll know that the Stormont connector has been planned for a long long time and if the new Patullo (refurbished Patullo?) comes in they will probably build it.
Linear Mode
