South Fraser Perimeter Road/Highway 17 Extension | Completed

[ryanmaccdn]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Well this is a bike route. Cycling is allowed on the shoulders so I don't see that 90 or 100 is appropriate until the multi-use trail is open which will be who knows when. Yes I know that the upper levels is 90.

I sent a correction to Google to make it look like Highway 15/176 street as it is not a freeway.

Absolute lunacy.... it should be an high speed route for goods and services of which 99% of people using the corridor will be using a motorized vehicle.

If I'm going to hit a cyclist on a freeway what's the difference between 90 - 100. They are dead already.

[Dave2]

Quick question: Does Mary Hill westbound connect directly to Highway 1 westbound yet? Or do you still have to take the long way around (north on United, west on Lougheed?)

[makr3trkr]

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7kW0ucTaBY

to give you an idea of the character of the road:

there is enough of a shoulder that a 90 km/hr limit (the design speed) would easily be safe for cyclists vs 80 km/hr

[DKaz]

People are too lazy to change lanes all the time, that's all it boils down to, so they stick in the left lane where they don't have to deal with people merging in and out all the time.

That's why I like three general lanes of traffic. Right lane - trucks, slow cars, and merging traffic. Middle lane - general traffic. Left lane - passing traffic.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by Dave2

Quick question: Does Mary Hill westbound connect directly to Highway 1 westbound yet? Or do you still have to take the long way around (north on United, west on Lougheed?)

It's been there since 2001, just that it's closed on certain evenings and weekends to allow for the construction of the new overpass and ramps.

Do you mean MHB to Lougheed Hwy? That'll be open end of 2013.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by DKaz

People are too lazy to change lanes all the time, that's all it boils down to, so they stick in the left lane where they don't have to deal with people merging in and out all the time.

That's why I like three general lanes of traffic. Right lane - trucks, slow cars, and merging traffic. Middle lane - general traffic. Left lane - passing traffic.

Driving the new Surrey portion of Highway 1 at night, with nary a car in sight, there are still trucks doing 10-20 under the limit in fast lane. Some people's children... I used to think if SFPR was six lanes instead of four, traffic might flow better, but now, I seriously question that.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by DKaz

It's been there since 2001, just that it's closed on certain evenings and weekends to allow for the construction of the new overpass and ramps.

Do you mean MHB to Lougheed Hwy? That'll be open end of 2013.

No, I did mean 7B WB to 1 WB. Thanks, I was last there in September and had to detour.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

Absolute lunacy.... it should be an high speed route for goods and services of which 99% of people using the corridor will be using a motorized vehicle.

If I'm going to hit a cyclist on a freeway what's the difference between 90 - 100. They are dead already.

Simple answer: Stopping distance increases with speed. Wind disturbance increases with speed. The speed limit should remain 80km/hr. If they wanted higher they should have built wider shoulder lanes:

Wider lanes are required than what was built:

2.5 m for a posted speed ≥ 80 km/h and SADT > 10,000 vpd.
3.0 m for freeways and expressways (page 31)

The lanes are 2.4 or 2.5m wide. I have always known them to be around 8ft wide.

I agree, I wanted the multi-use path as part of the project but the MOTH is cheap and don't like cyclists. Only the right of way land space is being set aside as part of the project. City of Surrey or Delta will have to foot the bill for the actual pathway or try to reserve some of the Gateway cycling funding for it.

I am sorry if you think the Gateway program is only for vehicles, it is not:

One of the primary goals of the Gateway Program is to facilitate better connections to transit,
cycling and pedestrian networks. The Gateway Program Cycling Plan accommodates cyclists
and pedestrians plus other alternative modes in two ways. It provides:
1. Pedestrian/cycling facilities and improvements within the pre-design scope for the
Gateway Program concept in accordance with the Ministry of Transportation and
Infrastructure’s cycling policy, and;
2. Funding for additional improvements to adjacent municipal cycling facilities and networks
in support of the above improvements, on a cost shared basis.

[Gordon]

when the SFPR is complete wht will the current Highway #17 be called? The current Highway 17 is the pirmary access to the to the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Gordon

when the SFPR is complete wht will the current Highway #17 be called? The current Highway 17 is the pirmary access to the to the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal.

It will be renamed 17A north of where it splits off to join the new SFPR. So 17A will run from there, through Ladner up to the existing Hwy 17 interchange at Hwy 99.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Simple answer: Stopping distance increases with speed. Wind disturbance increases with speed. The speed limit should remain 80km/hr. If they wanted higher they should have built wider shoulder lanes:

Wider lanes are required than what was built:

2.5 m for a posted speed ≥ 80 km/h and SADT > 10,000 vpd.
3.0 m for freeways and expressways (page 31)

The lanes are 2.4 or 2.5m wide. I have always known them to be around 8ft wide.

I agree, I wanted the multi-use path as part of the project but the MOTH is cheap and don't like cyclists. Only the right of way land space is being set aside as part of the project. City of Surrey or Delta will have to foot the bill for the actual pathway or try to reserve some of the Gateway cycling funding for it.

The Coquihalla and Okanagan connector are bike routes with a limit of 110 and the shoulder is 2.5 meters at the very most, and considerably less than that in some sections.

I am entirely sympathetic to the fact that getting people to cycle is a chicken and egg thing: you have to built the infrastructure first.

That said, the simple fact is the design speed is 90 km/hr and people are going to travel whatever they feel is safe.

"2.5 m for a posted speed ≥ 80 km/h and SADT > 10,000 vpd." If the shoulder is 8 ft / 2.5 metres, then it is, in fact wide enough for 90 km/hr.

3 meters would only be required for a "freeway" although it isn't specified here what that means as far as speed limit (100 km/hr? 110?) or traffic count (50,000? 100,000?).

I agree a multi-use path should have been constructed. Cycle traffic should not have been allowed on the roadway, as on highway 91. Lowering the limit artificially doesn't resolve those problems. Take a look at the sunbury intersection - 9 lanes wide and totally hostile to pedestrians and cyclists alike. Cycling beside big rigs on a truck route almost requires a bit of a death wish. I tried it on river road a few times and gave up.

River road and King road will be viable future alternatives once truck traffic is off those routes. The hill at 176th is tortuous anyway, so it's not like you can avoid the steep grade by taking SFPR.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Wider lanes are required than what was built:

2.5 m for a posted speed ≥ 80 km/h and SADT > 10,000 vpd.
3.0 m for freeways and expressways (page 31)

That document is a local guideline for the Capital Regional District (i.e. Ottawa). I don't think we build our freeways to those specifications here in B.C. under any circumstance, bicycles or otherwise.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by Zassk

That document is a local guideline for the Capital Regional District (i.e. Ottawa). I don't think we build our freeways to those specifications here in B.C. under any circumstance, bicycles or otherwise.

CRD -- Victoria BC

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Simple answer: Stopping distance increases with speed. Wind disturbance increases with speed. The speed limit should remain 80km/hr. If they wanted higher they should have built wider shoulder lanes:

Wider lanes are required than what was built:

2.5 m for a posted speed ≥ 80 km/h and SADT > 10,000 vpd.
3.0 m for freeways and expressways (page 31)

The lanes are 2.4 or 2.5m wide. I have always known them to be around 8ft wide.

I agree, I wanted the multi-use path as part of the project but the MOTH is cheap and don't like cyclists. Only the right of way land space is being set aside as part of the project. City of Surrey or Delta will have to foot the bill for the actual pathway or try to reserve some of the Gateway cycling funding for it.

I am sorry if you think the Gateway program is only for vehicles, it is not:

One of the primary goals of the Gateway Program is to facilitate better connections to transit,
cycling and pedestrian networks. The Gateway Program Cycling Plan accommodates cyclists
and pedestrians plus other alternative modes in two ways. It provides:
1. Pedestrian/cycling facilities and improvements within the pre-design scope for the
Gateway Program concept in accordance with the Ministry of Transportation and
Infrastructure’s cycling policy, and;
2. Funding for additional improvements to adjacent municipal cycling facilities and networks
in support of the above improvements, on a cost shared basis.

Disagreed. I travel 60-70 miles on Highway US-10 (a 4-lane divided highway) from St. Cloud to the Minneapolis-St.Paul metro area and back around 1-2 times a week. Similar to BC-17, it has a mixture of intersections and interchanges (freeway from I-35W to Anoka, and highway from then on west, mostly intersections with a few interchanges). Even then its speed limit is 65mph THROUGHOUT, and commuters often drive at 75mph.

I feel that the artificially imposed speed limit of 80km/h on Hwy 17 is due to political reasons (making it at 100km/h would lead to radical anti-freeway nutjobs to protest even more 'cuz they perceive it to be a US-style interstate). At least it's not as bad as the 60km/h limit on Golden Ears Way. I really hope the 80km/h limit will be increased to 90-100 when all of the current intersections are upgraded to interchanges.

[nname]

I think 80km/h is the standard for urban highway/expressway in BC and I guess BC MoT just put SFPR with the rest of the group instead of treating it as a freeway. Highway 7 (east of Port Coquitlam), 10, 11, 13, 15, 99 (north of Horseshoe Bay) are all 80km/h I believe...

[go_leafs_go02]

Just drove on the new SFPR again from Surrey City Centre out towards where I live, Cloverdale.

128 Street was quiet, 115 Street was quiet. SFPR was DEAD. Not a car in sight the direction I was going, and along the entire 10.0km length, myself and my carpoolie passed maybe 25 vehicles going in the other direction.

Total travel time to almost the Langley border, from Surrey City Centre at 4:30 PM - 18 minutes.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Dave2

CRD -- Victoria BC

My mistake. But it seems that your own quote supports a 90 km/h SFPR with 2.5 m shoulders, does it not? After all, SFPR would not fall under the "freeways and expressways" category, regardless of its posted speed limit.

2.5 m for a posted speed ≥ 80 km/h and SADT > 10,000 vpd.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by nname

I think 80km/h is the standard for urban highway/expressway in BC and I guess BC MoT just put SFPR with the rest of the group instead of treating it as a freeway. Highway 7 (east of Port Coquitlam), 10, 11, 13, 15, 99 (north of Horseshoe Bay) are all 80km/h I believe...

That's for 4-lane divided "arterial standard" design. And these highways all fall into that category. I certainly would prefer an "expressway" standard design for these highways but it obviously increases the capital costs, albeit not significantly.

They were not designed as "expressway" standard, which Hwy 91 was when it first opened with a posted 90 km/hr speed limit. Of course, a bump up to "freeway standard" design, such as the new Hwy 1, can have 90 km/hr posted in urban areas and 100 km/hr posted in suburban areas.

Current Hwy 17, from Hwy 99 to 56th St. in Tsawwassen, is also posted at 90 km/hr, which is "expressway" standard.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

That's for 4-lane divided "arterial standard" design. And these highways all fall into that category. I certainly would prefer an "expressway" standard design for these highways but it obviously increases the capital costs, albeit not significantly.

They were not designed as "expressway" standard, which Hwy 91 was when it first opened with a posted 90 km/hr speed limit. Of course, a bump up to "freeway standard" design, such as the new Hwy 1, can have 90 km/hr posted in urban areas and 100 km/hr posted in suburban areas.

Current Hwy 17, from Hwy 99 to 56th St. in Tsawwassen, is also posted at 90 km/hr, which is "expressway" standard.

if you look here: http://www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/JGA88A21.pdf

The engineers who designed Highway 91 explain the design speed was 100km/hr for the mainline, and 80km/hr for the ramps ("urban expressway").

Cars get safer by leaps and bounds, and speed limits creep lower.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Just drove on the new SFPR again from Surrey City Centre out towards where I live, Cloverdale.

128 Street was quiet, 115 Street was quiet. SFPR was DEAD. Not a car in sight the direction I was going, and along the entire 10.0km length, myself and my carpoolie passed maybe 25 vehicles going in the other direction.

Total travel time to almost the Langley border, from Surrey City Centre at 4:30 PM - 18 minutes.

Sure it's still quiet, the Port Mann Bridge is still free.