South Fraser Perimeter Road/Highway 17 Extension | Completed

[nname]

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.

I believe the Hwy 99 segment between Horseshoe Bay and Lions Bay would be the same standard compared to the SFPR?

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by nname

I believe the Hwy 99 segment between Horseshoe Bay and Lions Bay would be the same standard compared to the SFPR?

Yes. Both have an "arterial" standard design with an 80 km/hr design speed. (narrower paved/divided medians), tighter curves, a relaxation in super-elevation (banking), some shorter sight-lines, etc.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Yes. Both have an "arterial" standard design with an 80 km/hr design speed. (narrower paved/divided medians), tighter curves, a relaxation in super-elevation (banking), some shorter sight-lines, etc.

For a study to upgrade Highway 3, Binne describes the goal to be a "100 km/h four-lane arterial standard"

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/BCHighways/contr...ity%20Report%20-%20July%2012,%202012.pdf

So I don't know that "arterial" = 80 km/hr, strictly speaking.

Golden Ears Way is described as "urban arterial" and is signed at 60 km/hr before the bridge and variously as 70, and 80.

Not to mention that Highway 17 was originally 70 mph (112 km/hr).

Sometimes it seems like the limits are chosen by lottery.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

For a study to upgrade Highway 3, Binne describes the goal to be a "100 km/h four-lane arterial standard"

So I don't know that "arterial" = 80 km/hr, strictly speaking.

That's correct. Most of the 4-laning of Hwy 97 in the Okanagan Valley and Hwy 1 east of Kamloops is also a 100 km/hr "design speed" but an "arterial standard" - even with some interchanges thrown in.

Same with Hwy 97 in the Cariboo - the "Cariboo Connector".

OTOH, the 25 km Kicking Horse Canyon section of Hwy 1 east of Golden is also designed with a 100 km/hr design speed but at an "expressway" standard.

Frankly, I don't understand why BC MoT doesn't simply design these highways "expressway" standard from the get go. Much higher design standards and easier to upgrade to freeway standard down the road.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Not to mention that Highway 17 was originally 70 mph (112 km/hr).

Interesting observation. Hwy 17 to the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal was a 2-lane highway when it opened up circa 1960 and did indeed have a 70 mph posted limit. Imagine that! But that was the "boonies" back in the day. That speed limit was downgraded to 60 mph (100 km/hr) circa 1970 and then to 50 mph (80 km/hr) circa 1977.

When Hwy 17 was 4-laned circa 1975, it only had a paved median - about the same width as the current SFPR median. Then circa the early 1980's, Hwy 17 was widened to increase the width of the paved median, new paving, and installation of a concrete median barrier.

The 34B overpass just east of the Roberts Bank exit was opened up in 1991.

And the speed limit on Hwy 17 was bumped from 80 km/hr to 90 km/hr in either the late 80's or in the 1990's. Can't remember.

[Mininari]

If you guys really want to get steamed about the speed limits on the SFPR (and also the GEB), come take a visit to Winnipeg and check out the 'design standards' that warrant an 80'km/hr speed limit here. Route 80 and 90 both are signed at 80 and have driveways fronting the road, no shoulders, and certainly not the 'expressway feel' that those SFPR images are giving me. Heck, the section of route 90 that is signed at 70 cannot really even driven at that speed because of the number of lights.

I drove over the GEB last time I was in town (had out-of-town plates on the rental car).... and yes, that mish-mash of speed limits is an irrefutably ridiculous situation. A good solution would be to just sign ALL of the roadway at 70 (if they're so worried about safety), and 80 over the bridge. There, done. None of this 60 Bull.

Honestly, I can see the SFPR 80 limit being a bit more understandable once it is fully finished and starts seeing heavy truck traffic. Given that there are traffic lights to slow down and stop at and idle at and sloooowwwwly start moving again... 80 might be pushing it one day.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

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.

I believe one of the reasons may be due to noise as the highway runs along some residential areas. As speed increases the noise increases exponentially, or at least close to exponentially. In Prague there is a new outer ring road next to where I am when I am there and the speed limit is 80kmph specifically to reduce noise and there the highway speed limits are 130kmph. Long story short this is the main reason for my interest in paving products and how efficient they are at reducing noise.

[worldwide]

I don't know about you guys, but my vehicle gets terrible fuel efficiency at these higher speeds. I rarely go faster than 100kmh and prefer to set my cruise control at 90.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by Dave2

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

Same thing tonight. Fun to backseat guide a visitor from Ontario through the detour.

I see a speed limit debate is underway. 17 years ago the NMSL repeal was a hot topic on the still relatively new 'internet'. Still is

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by worldwide

I don't know about you guys, but my vehicle gets terrible fuel efficiency at these higher speeds. I rarely go faster than 100kmh and prefer to set my cruise control at 90.

I am jealous, your cruise control works! haha, discovered mine had dies this summer when trying to set it going to Kamloops.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by Zassk

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.

For the record, I do not necessarily endorse any of the contents of the document I quickly scimmed through. I'm acually on the '85th' percentile team, not the 'speed limits need to be low because everyone always drive 10 over team (10 mph over in US, 10 km/h over in Canada).

What's that Sammy? In Canada it's "I can't drive 90 k"

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by worldwide

I don't know about you guys, but my vehicle gets terrible fuel efficiency at these higher speeds. I rarely go faster than 100kmh and prefer to set my cruise control at 90.

90? How will we beat Hitler if you keep wasting gas by going 55 mph? 55 km/h is better

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

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.

There's a policy about speed limits and traffic lights. 90 km/h max. That explains the drop in the speed limit on the otherwise 110 km/h Hwy 19 http://goo.gl/maps/UC34t

[Mousey]

I decided to take a ride on the SFPR WB tonight. My car is small, and thus didn't make a sound on the pavement. Like everyone else though, I did not like the 80 km/h speed limit and certainly did not follow it. I did not see one single car ahead of me for the entire length. Cruised between 100-110km/h, and made it between 176th-Pattulo in roughly 5 minutes. I basically had a semi keep up with me for most of the length, so 110 isn't that crazy. It is a long section with no lights, and should be a posted limit of 100 km/h. It really felt like the S2S, and was a very pleasant drive. In no traffic/late at night, I can now commute between Maple Ridge and North Delta in about 20 minutes. I never would of imagined that possible before.
My only major concern has to do with the long section between Pattulo-GEW. Commuters will not drive at 80 km/h for that long boring stretch. They will speed, bunch up, and cause the intersections further along to become major choke points. (72nd@Hwy91 type problems) They never should of made intersections. This should be a full divided highway for the whole length. The benefit to truckers would keep them off and away from the 99/91/KGB/New West. Which would make shorter commute times for everyone.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Mininari

If you guys really want to get steamed about the speed limits on the SFPR (and also the GEB), come take a visit to Winnipeg and check out the 'design standards' that warrant an 80'km/hr speed limit here. Route 80 and 90 both are signed at 80 and have driveways fronting the road, no shoulders, and certainly not the 'expressway feel' that those SFPR images are giving me. Heck, the section of route 90 that is signed at 70 cannot really even driven at that speed because of the number of lights.

I drove over the GEB last time I was in town (had out-of-town plates on the rental car).... and yes, that mish-mash of speed limits is an irrefutably ridiculous situation. A good solution would be to just sign ALL of the roadway at 70 (if they're so worried about safety), and 80 over the bridge. There, done. None of this 60 Bull.

Honestly, I can see the SFPR 80 limit being a bit more understandable once it is fully finished and starts seeing heavy truck traffic. Given that there are traffic lights to slow down and stop at and idle at and sloooowwwwly start moving again... 80 might be pushing it one day.

Or go to Europe especially the UK and realize when you're hurtling down a 1 land winding country road with no shoulders through farmer's fields at 100kph that our speed limits are a snails pace.

After spending a month in Norway, Sweden, and the UK earlier in the year, as typical when I got home I felt like I was walking for a good 2 months after. Found myself driving around feeling like "hey this is a good pace" then realizing I'm doing 100kph down 128th street then quickly needing to tap the brakes in case a cop shows up and wants to impound my car for being so crazy.

In serious though unfortunately our speed limits in BC are dictated partially by road design conditions but also partially in the lowest common denominator and that's drivers. We have REALLY POOR DRIVERS in the lower mainland and because there is a large swath of the population that should quite frankly not be permitted to stand within 10 feet of a car let alone drive one, they have to set speed limits to take into account this lack of skill and ability or else there would be 90 accidents in each city every day.

Hell today at lunch I was following someone in the fast lane going 30kph in a 60kph zone. That same person then at the next intersection with no turn signal promptly yet slowly cut to the right land in front of a car and made a right turn down the side street. Could you imagine if they tried to do that at even the posted 60kph? Chaos and a police report with some very choice words by me as a witness...

[GMasterAres]

Also as a side note I think when the SFPR is complete, the speed limits will bump up to at least 90kph. That seems standard in Metro Vancouver. I mean Hwy 10 is posted 80kph for most of it and goes straight through a few cities and has slews of intersections. The SFPR is much more highway in design and similar to HWY 17(A) so 90kph at least is a no brainer.

But like I said design isn't always a factor. I mean why is HWY1 100kph from Surrey east but 90kph from Vancouver to the PMB? What is the difference? Construction not withstanding it is the same highway. The reason is because of average congestion combined with average driver's ability = you need to reduce speed limits to try and reduce crashes.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Also as a side note I think when the SFPR is complete, the speed limits will bump up to at least 90kph. That seems standard in Metro Vancouver. I mean Hwy 10 is posted 80kph for most of it and goes straight through a few cities and has slews of intersections. The SFPR is much more highway in design and similar to HWY 17(A) so 90kph at least is a no brainer.

But like I said design isn't always a factor. I mean why is HWY1 100kph from Surrey east but 90kph from Vancouver to the PMB? What is the difference? Construction not withstanding it is the same highway. The reason is because of average congestion combined with average driver's ability = you need to reduce speed limits to try and reduce crashes.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=R5YuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cKEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=867%2C2554555

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AxBMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yYADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5074%2C3193867

50 MPH the limit on the Island "Not Permanent"... 1980, some 80 km/h zones become 90 km/h.

"Think metric as you drive... think metric from now on... 20 gives you 30. 30, gives you 50. 50, gives you 80"

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by worldwide

I don't know about you guys, but my vehicle gets terrible fuel efficiency at these higher speeds. I rarely go faster than 100kmh and prefer to set my cruise control at 90.

I have a CVT so I get pretty much the same fuel efficiency at any speed all the way up to about 130 km/h.

Highway 19 on the Island is 110km/h and slows down to 90 around intersections. You just need a longer warning. I don't see why the SFPR (or GEW) couldn't be 90km/h the entire way with proper intersection warning lights. I just drove the SFPR the other day, it's fairly straight and has great sightlines (and the stretch done goes a long way between intersections).

[DKaz]

No way, all your CVT is doing is keeping your engine at the most energy efficient point, it doesn't make the laws of physics disappear. Wind resistance increases exponentially with speed. If my Mazda 3 goes 80 km/h, I do about 3.8 L/100 km, 90 about 4.1, 100 4.5, 110 5.1, 120 5.8, I haven't gone faster than that in this car yet but in my old cars I'd be doing close to rated city mileage at 140.

These numbers are according to my UltraGauge fuel economy computer, on flat ground with no wind.

[GMasterAres]

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

I've re-quoted and highlighted a key symbol that seems to be missed by those saying it should not be more than 80 km/h. Just FYI that symbol stands for GREATER THAN OR EQUAL so that means it can be 80 km/h... or more.

So 90 km/h by the above definition still falls within acceptance. Regardless though all the hubbub about people needing to drive slow around bikes is silly and has no fact behind it. As someone pointed out, if you hit a cyclist at 80 km/h vs 90 km/h you'll still most likely result in a dead cyclist. Yes physically the stopping distance is greater and the wind affect is greater but technically the stopping distance is greater and wind affect is greater if you were doing 81 km/h, and both would be less if you did 79 km/h. You have to look at what makes sense and unless you drop traffic to 60 or 50 you won't really change the result.

As I said though a few pages back, it will be 90 eventually.