South Fraser Perimeter Road/Highway 17 Extension | Completed

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by VanCvl

I can confirm that it's designed to 80km/hr and not just for the intersections. Everything is built for 80km/hr - sight lines, shoulders, vertical and horizontal curves, acceleration lanes etc.

Very obvious. The sight lines, vertical and horizontal curves (tight curves and lack of super-elevation) are VERY obvious along the SFPR vis-a-vis Hwys 1, 91, and 99, which are freeway standard and have a design speed of 100 km/hr+.

The SFPR (40 km) is essentially a twin of the STS north of Horseshoe Bay in terms of the exact same RAD or "arterial standard" functional design with an 80 km/hr design speed. Basically a twin and the drive is quite obvious.

IMHO, BC MoTI should move away from both the RAD functional design (Cariboo Connector as an example) and any more 80 km hr design speeds (SKS and SFPR being the only two).

Driver expectation for long distance travel is for a 100 km/hr posted speed in the minimum. Simple as that.

OTOH, the Kicking Horse Canyon section of Hwy 1 will see ~$1 billion expended for just 25 km with really no property acquisition. (SFPR was also $1 billion for 40 km with ~$300 million in property acquisition). More importantly, the KHC section of Hwy 1 is designed as RED or "expressway standard" with a 100 km/hr design speed irrespective of the mountainous terrain.

IMHO, that's how all divided highways in BC should be designed, upgradable to freeway standard when warranted, along with a 30 m depressed grass median where terrain also warrants.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Very obvious. The sight lines, vertical and horizontal curves (tight curves and lack of super-elevation) are VERY obvious along the SFPR vis-a-vis Hwys 1, 91, and 99, which are freeway standard and have a design speed of 100 km/hr+.

The SFPR (40 km) is essentially a twin of the STS north of Horseshoe Bay in terms of the exact same RAD or "arterial standard" functional design with an 80 km/hr design speed. Basically a twin and the drive is quite obvious.

IMHO, BC MoTI should move away from both the RAD functional design (Cariboo Connector as an example) and any more 80 km hr design speeds (SKS and SFPR being the only two).

Driver expectation for long distance travel is for a 100 km/hr posted speed in the minimum. Simple as that.

OTOH, the Kicking Horse Canyon section of Hwy 1 will see ~$1 billion expended for just 25 km with really no property acquisition. (SFPR was also $1 billion for 40 km with ~$300 million in property acquisition). More importantly, the KHC section of Hwy 1 is designed as RED or "expressway standard" with a 100 km/hr design speed irrespective of the mountainous terrain.

IMHO, that's how all divided highways in BC should be designed, upgradable to freeway standard when warranted, along with a 30 m depressed grass median where terrain also warrants.

Sfpr was $1.256 billion to be exact

[mezzanine]

I would have been suprised if the SFPR was built to a standard higher than 80 km/h, really due to the grade crossing of the rail tracks by tannery road. the slow-down to 50 km is in the area not because someone's trying to be sneaky, but b/c of the at-grade crossing.

a nice drive though. fast, and the stretch from 176 to the PMB is very scenic.

what is the faster exit to get to the patullo going WB, old yale road or bridgeview?

[proudcanuck]

Originally Posted by jhausner

My bad yes Tilbury intersection. And though I don't know which intersection is which, I do know traffic law and:

Motor Vehicle Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318
Part 3

131 (3) When rapid intermittent flashes of yellow light are exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal,

(a) the driver of a vehicle facing the flashes of yellow light may cause it to enter the intersection and proceed only with caution, but must yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully in the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk, and

(b) a pedestrian facing the flashes of yellow light may proceed with caution across the roadway, in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

So in regular language, you do not have to stop with a flashing yellow light. You do have to stop with a flashing red (Section 131(1)).

So 4-way procedures are NOT in affect. I'm not entirely surprised AM730 would state that though as for liability sakes, they are probably safest requesting people perform 4-way stop procedures. I don't think their lawyers would ever allow them to say "people with yellow light, no need to stop, just proceed cautiously."

I'm actually a little surprised the default flashing state is red from Tilbury, yellow on SFPR given you are dealing with a higher volume of truck traffic that can't turn through the red very quickly, and the intersection is on a curve.

These lights at Tilbury again this morning during the AM rush were flashing yellow. A semi in the left right lane infront of me, cut me off and stopped... blocking both lanes of westbound traffic to allow other semis coming out of Tilbury to turn east onto Hwy 17.

These lights need to be fixed before there is a serious rear ender there!

[go_leafs_go02]

Looks like the Highway 91 connector between Nordel and the SFPR is solid heading eastbound to the Alex Fraser Bridge.

That left turn onto the bridge deck probably is very difficult to get on at this point.

[Mininari]

I was in the lower mainland this weekend for a visit and used the SFPR gratuitously. I will avoid echoing the many comments about the speed limits, curves, narrow shoulders, etc., but on the later, I have to say that I was feeling nervous driving in the left lane in the Burns Bog section at times. I understand they were working to come on in budget and all, but would an extra 12" of center median space really killed them? I guess thats part of the THIS-IS-DESIGNED-FOR-80KM/HR-MAXIMUM.

Overall, I loved the road. In my previous life, I used to make deliveries to Richmond, River Road, and could have used this route on every one of those trips. Furthermore, the drive itself was actually quite scenic; yes, the section between 176 and the Port Mann Bridge is quite scenic, but really, the whole road is to some degree. Driving towards the Alex Fraser at sunset yesterday on the way to the ferry terminal was truly the highlight of my test drive.

In general, the connectivity to the Alex Fraser Bridge is pretty awful. For one, Hwy 17 is not signed as you head southbound on the bridge, so the driver doesn't even know the route exists... or if they do, how to get to it. I suppose there is new signage coming (?), so that would help. The real problem is getting from the SFPR onto the bridge.

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Looks like the Highway 91 connector between Nordel and the SFPR is solid heading eastbound to the Alex Fraser Bridge.

That left turn onto the bridge deck probably is very difficult to get on at this point.

Bingo, exactly what I expected to happen. The left turn to get onto the Alex Fraser Bridge is an uncontrolled left turn bay that depends on the turning vehicle having a gap to get through. What happens when that vehicle wishing to turn left is a fully-loaded 53' truck?

Worse yet, are we going to see any immediate improvements in regard to this? A loop on the Southeast corner of the Nordel-Way / 91 interchange would work, but is there room to do that? They surely can't leave the bridge access like this.

[Flash604]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Worse yet, are we going to see any immediate improvements in regard to this? A loop on the Southeast corner of the Nordel-Way / 91 interchange would work, but is there room to do that? They surely can't leave the bridge access like this.

They wouldn't be able to make a loop there; that is a nature preserve.

I think what they'll have to do instead is take advantage of the hill coming down to the interchange from the northeast and elevate the blue section of road in this map http://goo.gl/xB2pF0. The left turn could then pass under the westbound lane.

[Mininari]

^
Yeah, I figured that the Nature Preserve was a pretty hard boundary for any further interchange expansion here.

Lets hope they lump it in with the 91/72nd contract, and get both projects done as soon as possible.

Hmm, to be fair, this issue of Alex Fraser Bridge access needs to be addressed before all of the benefits of an interchange at Sunbury could be realized.
I guess this area will need to be studied for a bit once the traffic settles into the new 'normal.'

EDIT:
OK, after viewing google traffic, I can see three VERY prominent trouble spots to watch:

1) Sunbury Intersection (enough said)
2) Alex Fraser access (enough said)
2) Eastbound SFPR through the 104th intersection, and heading up the big hill to Hwy 1. I think this has been pointed out before, but the 'goods movement' going up that hill will have trouble moving with the grade thats there.
Oh well, small battles. I guess it can't be perfect, but for $1.245B...? With this, I now see the value of the Golden Ears Connector Road.

[malabrat]

Originally Posted by Mininari

^
Yeah, I figured that the Nature Preserve was a pretty hard boundary for any further interchange expansion here.

Lets hope they lump it in with the 91/72nd contract, and get both projects done as soon as possible.

Hmm, to be fair, this issue of Alex Fraser Bridge access needs to be addressed before all of the benefits of an interchange at Sunbury could be realized.
I guess this area will need to be studied for a bit once the traffic settles into the new 'normal.'

EDIT:
OK, after viewing google traffic, I can see three VERY prominent trouble spots to watch:

1) Sunbury Intersection (enough said)
2) Alex Fraser access (enough said)
2) Eastbound SFPR through the 104th intersection, and heading up the big hill to Hwy 1. I think this has been pointed out before, but the 'goods movement' going up that hill will have trouble moving with the grade thats there.
Oh well, small battles. I guess it can't be perfect, but for $1.245B...? With this, I now see the value of the Golden Ears Connector Road.

I have been watching the traffic on google maps too past few days. Its actually the 104th intersection that appears to have most congestion for the mainline Highway 17, more than Sunbury or Bridgeview

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by malabrat

I have been watching the traffic on google maps too past few days. Its actually the 104th intersection that appears to have most congestion for the mainline Highway 17, more than Sunbury or Bridgeview

I just looked now (4:56pm), and yes, you are certainly right (at the moment at least). That 104th intersection is a problem indeed. I still maintain Sunbury is / will be a serious problem as well though.
But 104 is bad now; looks like a ~2km backup of vehicles trying to get off of the road. They're trapped since there is no other way off of it.

Did they just build a 'South Fraser Perimeter Trap' for eastbound rush hour traffic?
Another reason to pay that toll for the Port Mann...

Speaking of which, the entire Highway 1 corridor looks to be flowing smooth right now.

[proudcanuck]

Originally Posted by Mininari

I just looked now (4:56pm), and yes, you are certainly right (at the moment at least). That 104th intersection is a problem indeed. I still maintain Sunbury is / will be a serious problem as well though.
But 104 is bad now; looks like a ~2km backup of vehicles trying to get off of the road. They're trapped since there is no other way off of it.

Did they just build a 'South Fraser Perimeter Trap' for eastbound rush hour traffic?
Another reason to pay that toll for the Port Mann...

Speaking of which, the entire Highway 1 corridor looks to be flowing smooth right now.

The lights at 104th last night were running on a short cycle which was the cause of the backup. Only a few vehicles would get through at a time. It was fine this morning.

This morning on the westbound trek the pinch point was the construction light under the Port Mann. It was backed up to the start of the old dump. But it still moved quick. It appeared from Hwy 17 that Bridgeview drive was jammed tight from King George right back to the 17 intersection.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by proudcanuck

The lights at 104th last night were running on a short cycle which was the cause of the backup. Only a few vehicles would get through at a time. It was fine this morning.

This morning on the westbound trek the pinch point was the construction light under the Port Mann. It was backed up to the start of the old dump. But it still moved quick. It appeared from Hwy 17 that Bridgeview drive was jammed tight from King George right back to the 17 intersection.

Yeah, I heard about that too on my way home (is it bad I'm listening to AM730 from the Saanich Peninsula?) Lets keep watching this, afterall a proper traffic study needs months of data to be able to draw any conclusions.

On that note, the Patullo sounded ridiculous this morning! The general chaos on other routes didn't help (accidents, ladder on Hwy 1, etc). It was amusing to hear the radio people say "avoid the mess, pay for it! Take the Port Mann instead."

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Yeah, I heard about that too on my way home (is it bad I'm listening to AM730 from the Saanich Peninsula?) Lets keep watching this, afterall a proper traffic study needs months of data to be able to draw any conclusions.

On that note, the Patullo sounded ridiculous this morning! The general chaos on other routes didn't help (accidents, ladder on Hwy 1, etc). It was amusing to hear the radio people say "avoid the mess, pay for it! Take the Port Mann instead."

Also doesn't help that media last night were saying traffic on the other bridges was just fine on Monday, which made others choose to drive on the "free alternatives"

It will level itself out over time.

[SunCoaster]

Glad to see the opening of the SFPR - been staying in Ladner for awhile and regularly travel to the Walnut Grove area so the advent of the SFPR has dramatically reduced my travel time. That said, as this road gains popularity it will soon suffer the traffic snarl which is the malaise of the GVRD. It's already happening as a few days ago it took me roughly 7 minutes to clear the 104 avenue traffic light eastbound.

Peeve 1 - I know there has been a lot of discussion around the SFPR 80km speed limit ... I'm with those who contend that the limit aught to raised to at least 90 and preferably 100kmh. This road was engineered for a higher speed limit and I can't understand why the artificially low limits. I'm originally from Alberta where the secondary paved country roads are posted at 80 to 90, secondary highways (which the SFPR) would be considered are posted at 90 to 100 with the freeways at 110.

Peeve 2 with the SFPR is the traffic lights and railway crossing ... There is no need for either. They've had years to build this road sans traffic interference (ala highway 1 construction) so they easily could have constructed over/under passes throughout the entire length not just at Tannery Road. Not having over/under passes is a short term cost savings but as traffic, particularly cargo traffic, piles up the pressure will mount for future, costly, over/under passes.

Peeve 3 - what's with the lack of ramps at the highway 17/99 interchange? What I'm getting at is if you're driving north on 99 you can not take an exit to 17 east to Surrey/Hope as it doesn't exist - you can only exit to 17 west to Tsawwassen. Also, if you're on 17 eastbound from Tsawwassen you can not go southbound on 99 to White Rock no exit exits ... If you want to go southbound on 99 then you have to take the Ladner hwy 17A exit off of 17 back near Tsawwassen.

... and a question - I accidentally took the "mini" exit at 124 street off of the SFPR and ended up in an older residential part of Whalley - my question is what is the purpose of that exit as it leads to no where and there are nearby full intersections at Bridgeport and Old Yale?

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by SunCoaster

Peeve 2 with the SFPR is the traffic lights and railway crossing ... There is no need for either.

Honestly I'm not sure how they could avoid the railway crossing. The track needs to go underneath the rail bridge approach, so you can't elevate it. At the same time, the SFPR needs to go underneath both the rail bridge approach and the Patullo. Due to the Patullo, the SFPR can't just be elevated above both tracks. So it seems impossible to solve.

Peeve 3 - what's with the lack of ramps at the highway 17/99 interchange? What I'm getting at is if you're driving north on 99 you can not take an exit to 17 east to Surrey/Hope as it doesn't exist - you can only exit to 17 west to Tsawwassen. Also, if you're on 17 eastbound from Tsawwassen you can not go southbound on 99 to White Rock no exit exits ...

The latter does exist - I'm not sure how you missed it? You can definitely go from Tsawwassen to White Rock at that interchange. The same off-ramp from SFPR provides access to 99 in both directions.

The only ramp that is missing is from 99NB to 17EB. That traffic is expected to take the "short cut" of Hwy 91. We need some better signs on 99 at 91 to explain this, but it's a reasonable expectation.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The only ramp that is missing is from 99NB to 17EB.

And its reverse counterpart 17WB to 99SB.

For those wanting to go from Tilbury to White Rock, going via 91 makes way more sense.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by DKaz

And its reverse counterpart 17WB to 99SB.

For those wanting to go from Tilbury to White Rock, going via 91 makes way more sense.

Lets hope they do a full signage review. They can ignore our calls for interchanges all they want, but signage is cheap in comparison, and will prevent a lot of grief. I missed the exit coming off SB Alex Fraser to get on the 17, since the sign only said 'River Rd' -- by the time I clued in and realized I had to go that way, I had already blown by the exit and was heading up the Nordel hill into Delta (blah!). 10 minutes later, turned around, I was on 17EB as desired. No need for that to happen.

[SunCoaster]

Originally Posted by Mininari

I missed the exit coming off SB Alex Fraser to get on the 17, since the sign only said 'River Rd' -- by the time I clued in and realized I had to go that way, I had already blown by the exit and was heading up the Nordel hill into Delta (blah!). 10 minutes later, turned around, I was on 17EB as desired. No need for that to happen.

Agreed - I almost did exactly the same thing - the signage sucks.

Agreed that there is a SB exit onto 99 from 17 eastbound - meant no SB exit from 17 westbound at 99 nor an eastbound exit onto 17 from 99 NB.

Still think that they could have built an overpass for the railway crossing near Old Yale.

Something on the Global News at 11 tonight about the too low speed limits on the SFPR ... if I hear anything of interest in the piece I'll post :-)

[osirisboy]

I also did that! Seriously how could they not have thought of putting a freakin sign there saying highway17

[stump]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I also did that! Seriously how could they not have thought of putting a freakin sign there saying highway17

My mom was going from Tsawwassen to Richmond last week using the SFPR and ended up driving to Surrey before turning around and getting to Richmond. SFPR failed the old lady test.