South Fraser Perimeter Road/Highway 17 Extension | Completed

[Dave2]

[QUOTE=Stingray2004;5674730]Interesting tidbit regarding the Tilbury and Sunbury intersections:

The Optimist link must have a misprint... "The report found that "traffic modeling indicates that the Tilbury intersection will fail in 20-25 years, and the Sunbury intersection will fail in 1015 years, meaning that full interchanges will have to be constructed in order to ensure an efficient traffic flow."

3027? Probably a missing dash, fail by 2022-2027.. and what is "fail"? Interminable delays at an 8 phase light? Waiting more than one green cycle?

>Delta council has been particularly vocal about the highway having interchanges

...........

[GMasterAres]

Prediction and projection are both just words that mean "Guess."

I just hate the mentality of build it when it fails. That's exactly why we are where we are when it comes to regional infrastructure. We build stuff 10 years after it is needed and by the time it is complete it is completely obsolete.

If they really want to stimulate the economy, just build stuff RIGHT the first time.

As for the Delta issues, I'm not sure traffic heading South at 72nd will increase a large amount given the fact your feeder routes are near maximum capacity already being 1 lane. 72nd = 1 lane, 64th = 1 lane. That means the most logical routes if you want to go south are to either take Nordel (if you are further North) or Highway 10 (if you are further South). That means logically that the demand to go south on 72nd is not that high and 64th Avenue could probably serve the community enough.

The only reason I ever go South on 72nd is because I like trying to be first in line to turn left at the light. It's quite fun in my sports car to get a green light then be able to just punch it to 110kph. Not many roads you can do that on anymore. But really the best route South is down Scott Road then Highway 10. It is vastly quicker than going down 72nd or even 64th.

So I can see the MoT's point. At the same time who knows what the future holds and there is a traffic demand at 72nd going south. People right around that area it doesn't make sense to have to detour around or through the city just to go South at the highway. I'd also have a beef of an improvement reducing current service. There is the ability to head south now so if you "Upgrade" an intersection into an interchange but lose an option you used to have, it becomes harder to convince your citizens that it is a good investment.

I'd be a bit annoyed if it was me.

[Mousey]

The other option for 72nd WB to 91 SB is Westview, which is a very residential traffic calmed road. It's not those users who use it though, it's the NB 91 trying to bypass the delays at the 72nd light in the afternoons, to head up 72 EB. I am sometimes one of those people, and it saves lots of time. Otherwise the only bypass is Hwy 10 via Scott Rd.

I am asking for help on this one since I now work full time in Richmond (Garden @ Blundell). I sometimes have to leave at 5pm and head back to Surrey which is always an adventure. I hate the AFB SB with a passion if stuck on the 91, so I take the 99, 90% of the time. I don't know any quick short cuts though. Steveston EB/5 Rd are nightmares trying to merge on. Today while trying to rush I took Blundell/Sidaway/Steveston WB, and that seemed to be quick, but if they're any other ways I'd love to know. If they're quick ways to get over the AFB also. It's frustrating that it takes 20+ minutes to get to the Tunnel, then less than 10 minutes to drive twice the distance afterwards.

[Zassk]

The obvious solution (to me) is to build a frontage road from 72nd to 64th, either beside the freeway or beside the railway. Then build the north-only interchange as planned.

[dharper]

If no new interchange is going to be built at 72nd and 91, I wish MOT would remove the light altogether. 72nd to 91 north would be unaffected, and anyone going south on 91 to 72nd east, would have to use Nordel Way or 64th ave.
This would remove that ridiculous light on the 91 'freeway', that I have been caught in a few times, by completely forgetting about it.
It would be a good way for MOT to force its way on Delta, at the intersection, by increasing traffic on Delta roads, and then dangling MOT's 'carrot' solution in front of them.

My 2 cents worth.

[DKaz]

Oh man that would be awesome. Some people will be pissed but whatever.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Oh man that would be awesome. Some people will be pissed but whatever.

Agreed, definitely would be good. I love how google maps downgrades highway 91 to a 'local road' right near that intersection, with freeway on either side leading up to it.

[Mousey]

They shifted the NB HOV on 99 way up to build the interchange with SFPR. In the mornings it's awful since traffic gets choked through the stretch and then jams up for the tunnel. I heard last week it had traffic slow from the 91 to the dump curve. The portion of the lane was blocked off, and the lanes shift to the right until past the dump curve then shift to 3 again. Not as confusing as Hwy 1, and doesn't affect anything except capacity which only matters in the morning rush. SB unnafected. Massive pre-loading everywhere and looks like it's going to be a massive interchange.

[Metro-One]

It is going to be a massive interchange.

This is actually the one piece of the SFPR that has improved significantly from the original proposal. Originally it was a much smaller interchange with two sets of lights on the SFPR (only 99 free flow).

Now, it is full free flow for both the 99 and the SFPR with many ramps.

[TransitJack]

I recall the initial talks about this route indicate it would be tolled. Is this still the plan to toll the SFPR, or has that planned been dropped?

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

I recall the initial talks about this route indicate it would be tolled. Is this still the plan to toll the SFPR, or has that planned been dropped?

Only item in the entire Gateway Program to be tolled is the Port Mann Bridge.

I've never heard of the SFPR being tolled, the rest of the project will be toll-free.

[Mininari]

I was thinking about how the free-flow to/from Hwy 1 from the Mary Hill Bypass is going to impact traffic volumes along the Mary Hill Bypass... and I don't think its going to be pretty. Currently, the eastbound traffic is somewhat regulated by the right-turn / left turn movements at the United Boulevard / bypass intersection. However, the future free-flowing eastbound hwy 1 --> Mary Hill connection, with additional traffic coming off United Boulevard is really going to put some pressure on the lights at Shaughnessy, Mary Hill Road, Broadway and Kingsway. I wonder if theres a limited forward-looking budget for improvements to the SFPR OR the Mary Hill Bypass, and they want to see which intersection(s) function the WORST, after all of the current work is done. They may luck out and find some or all of the SFPR isn't too bad... but I have my doubts that the Mary Hill will be ok.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Mousey

The other option for 72nd WB to 91 SB is Westview, which is a very residential traffic calmed road. It's not those users who use it though, it's the NB 91 trying to bypass the delays at the 72nd light in the afternoons, to head up 72 EB. I am sometimes one of those people, and it saves lots of time. Otherwise the only bypass is Hwy 10 via Scott Rd.

I am asking for help on this one since I now work full time in Richmond (Garden @ Blundell). I sometimes have to leave at 5pm and head back to Surrey which is always an adventure. I hate the AFB SB with a passion if stuck on the 91, so I take the 99, 90% of the time. I don't know any quick short cuts though. Steveston EB/5 Rd are nightmares trying to merge on. Today while trying to rush I took Blundell/Sidaway/Steveston WB, and that seemed to be quick, but if they're any other ways I'd love to know. If they're quick ways to get over the AFB also. It's frustrating that it takes 20+ minutes to get to the Tunnel, then less than 10 minutes to drive twice the distance afterwards.

No real option unfortunately. Wish there was one. Get a second person in your car then use the HoV is about the only option you have unfortunately.

[GMasterAres]

Btw there are more logistics than just building an interchange at 72nd. For 1, 72nd can't handle the extra traffic a full flow interchange would introduce being a 1 lane road. The only way an interchange would work is for Delta to widen 72nd through to Surrey. Barring that the alternative is 64th which again is 1 lane through Delta and that has less of a chance of being widened than 72nd because it cuts through a park.

[Mousey]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Btw there are more logistics than just building an interchange at 72nd. For 1, 72nd can't handle the extra traffic a full flow interchange would introduce being a 1 lane road. The only way an interchange would work is for Delta to widen 72nd through to Surrey. Barring that the alternative is 64th which again is 1 lane through Delta and that has less of a chance of being widened than 72nd because it cuts through a park.

They could easily make a 2nd climbing lane heading up 64th EB. The problem is the light at Scott Rd. is a long one and since EB has the one lane it limits the length of the wait at the light as it's 2 lanes at that point. It could be done though, but the intersection would be a mess. 72nd could also be done but it is a residential area with a school zone on it. Those can't be changed and shouldn't be. NB delays won't be completely removed though once the interchange goes in, only the pm delays would be. It would back up to 64th everyday but move a lot faster in the mornings.

[BCPhil]

I don't think you would have to worry about 72nd that much. It's not like more cars will use 72nd if an interchange is built. Each time the light changes by the time traffic is done turning left it is usually backed right up do the intersection, all the way up the hill. And the left turn lanes backs up into through traffic lanes on SB 91. If the overpass was 2 lanes wide you could have the exit lane split into 2 lanes immediately, thus moving the backlog that usually happens on the highway onto the overpass and into an extended exit lane.

[Zassk]

If 72nd is an inappropriate route for through traffic, and if Delta doesn't want more traffic on it, then why isn't the province entertaining the idea of closing the interchange completely? As an outsider, it seems to me that Delta can't have it both ways - either it gets an interchange built and designates 72nd as a major artery, or it maintains 72nd as a residential/school street and the freeway access is removed completely.

[dharper]

Originally Posted by Zassk

If 72nd is an inappropriate route for through traffic, and if Delta doesn't want more traffic on it, then why isn't the province entertaining the idea of closing the interchange completely? As an outsider, it seems to me that Delta can't have it both ways - either it gets an interchange built and designates 72nd as a major artery, or it maintains 72nd as a residential/school street and the freeway access is removed completely.

Agreed.

[Mousey]

Originally Posted by Zassk

If 72nd is an inappropriate route for through traffic, and if Delta doesn't want more traffic on it, then why isn't the province entertaining the idea of closing the interchange completely? As an outsider, it seems to me that Delta can't have it both ways - either it gets an interchange built and designates 72nd as a major artery, or it maintains 72nd as a residential/school street and the freeway access is removed completely.

I want to agree but can't. A lot of drivers do turn left at 112th and 116th and the side streets that connect to 72nd. Enough to warrant an interchange at the 91 by them selves. 72nd in the mornings causes 112th to back up heavily for cars trying to turn right on to the 91. You would be forcing them onto Nordel and 64th and cause both of those to back up well past Scott Rd. every single morning.

[dharper]

Is it just me or is the SFPR website in desperate need of an update. Still no alignment maps, photo galleries are just aerial photos of preloading from February. I think the webmaster of the PMH1project website is doing a much better job of being up to date.