HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3221  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2014, 1:51 AM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
edit: nm not worth it
     
     
  #3222  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2014, 2:19 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
IMHO, too many tight curves as a result of design speed. Gonna happen more often methinks as a result of driver expectation based upon neighbouring design speeds of Hwy 17A, Hwy 91, 99.



Source: BC MoTI
     
     
  #3223  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2014, 4:08 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,916
In most cases trucks flip because of poor loading where the load shifts or is not balanced. A way while back now I worked in the freight forwarding industry and this was a common problem because there is little oversight or regulation. Think of a 10,000kg aluminium spool shifting in a turn, yes the truck will flip, or a load with 20,000kg on the left hand side and 5,000kg on the right hand side, yes, a ticking time bomb in every turn. The drivers don't load the trailers and have no idea when they are pulling a accident waiting to happen. Even in cases where the drivers can watch when the trailer is loaded, as they should, and if they are allowed, then they will certainly be owner operators and will be in a hurry to get going asap since they are being financially squeezed as is. If they are hourly drivers then no one will pay them to sit and watch for a few hours. So lets not blame the drivers every time a truck flips because in most cases it is not their fault.

Anyways this highways is a huge disappointment, I can't believe its this incredibly underbuilt. They had the opportunity to build it properly from scratch and they messed it up completely. We are in the 21st century, I would have thought we learned from past mistakes. /my two cents
     
     
  #3224  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2014, 6:59 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,759
The SFPR is not the first highway in BC to have a big rig flip on its side. We have seen this on other BC highways built with higher speed specifications and more gentle curves. Rollovers are mainly due to driver failure to negotiate a turn at a reasonable speed that is suitable for the load and weather condition.
     
     
  #3225  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2014, 7:17 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
The SFPR is not the first highway in BC to have a big rig flip on its side. We have seen this on other BC highways built with higher speed specifications and more gentle curves. Rollovers are mainly due to driver failure to negotiate a turn at a reasonable speed that is suitable for the load and weather condition.
Well, I grew up and have lived in Tsawwassen a good chunk of my life and still have my old bedroom extant there. During that entire time the only other truck rollover(s) that I recall, with my relatively sharp memory, was along the old Hwy 17 SB exit from Hwy 99.

Great curvature for a vehicle with a lower centre of gravity... but not nearly so much with the higher centre of gravity of major trucks - improper super-elevation (banking) on that exit for 80 km/hr+ in a big rig. And only ONCE in my lifetime do I recollect a flipped rig on that exit.

Just one month into the opening of the SFPR or NEW Hwy 17 west of Hwy 99 and we see this happen. Believe me, many more similar events will occur just during 2014 alone as that old Hwy 17 exit has much better geometry/curvature than most new tight curves/exits along the NEW Hwy 17. I basically posted same here on opening day that this section of highway will def be accident-prone - due to major traffic volumes, port trucks, numerous tight curves, and the major variation in driver speeds thereto along the alignment.

Personally, I am not used to driving 80 km/hr in the left-lane along "Hwy 17" following other drivers doing same - and then even slowing down along the several curves. Very frustrating and therein lies another major accident-prone matter.

Avg. driver speeds along the existing Hwy 17A have regularly been 110 - 120 km/hr in the left-lane over the past couple of decades in my personal experience.

PS. Hell, I travel from White Rock to Tsawwassen and from Tsawwassen to Vancouver quite a bit. I now avoid the new SFPR from Hwy 99 like a plague. Still much quicker time-wise for me to take the Hwy 99 exit to the old Hwy 17 even with the light at Ladner Trunk Rd.

Last edited by Stingray2004; Jan 18, 2014 at 9:42 AM.
     
     
  #3226  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2014, 2:49 AM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,447
Based on your experience in the area, Stingray, I fully believe you and support your opinion on the matter. Now that 17A / Ladner Trunk Rd doesn't have so much truck traffic, I imagine it is operating quite efficiently now.

As for the SFPR, we've barely had a month of data to play with. There certainly has been some problems at a few of the missing interchange sites, (Sunbury and 104th in particular), but I imagine they're tweaking the light timings based on traffic patterns. Its one thing to model the traffic patterns, set the light timings, and then discover that your models are all wrong. This truck roll-over is disappointing, but there were probably load-shifting, driver factors involved. Its only one data point. Of course, if we start having a roll-over every week, then there must be something wrong with the road design. The general public doesn't really understand the whole road design speed thing, so they see the 80 signs and go 'pfft' wtf, its a 4-lane divided highway, *I* can go 110. I had my cruise control on move of my time on the road because I was wary of the radar blitz (thank you forumers!). However, I was also probably pissing off every second driver who bolted out into the left lane and took off. Driver behavior is going to be an issue on this lesser-designed road because nobody is going to actually go 80.

On another note, does anyone know if the 104th 'overpass' would be constructed as part of the Golden Ears Connector project, or is that another 'when traffic volumes warrant construction' cop-out?
     
     
  #3227  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2014, 4:23 AM
dharper dharper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Surrey
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mininari View Post
On another note, does anyone know if the 104th 'overpass' would be constructed as part of the Golden Ears Connector project, or is that another 'when traffic volumes warrant construction' cop-out?
I doubt it, as from what I have read, the Golden Ears Connector construction is going to start in the spring time. And my best guess is that the interchange will probably be at least 10 years behind it.
     
     
  #3228  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2014, 8:51 AM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
IMHO, too many tight curves as a result of design speed. Gonna happen more often methinks as a result of driver expectation based upon neighbouring design speeds of Hwy 17A, Hwy 91, 99.



Source: BC MoTI
Anyone else very disturbed by this image? What an absolute joke. Look where those broken jersey barriers pieces ended up. Right in oncoming lanes. Those could have been in someones front seat. God damnit BC why can't you build proper highways.
     
     
  #3229  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2014, 7:30 PM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
Anyone else very disturbed by this image? What an absolute joke. Look where those broken jersey barriers pieces ended up. Right in oncoming lanes. Those could have been in someones front seat. God damnit BC why can't you build proper highways.
Yeah I was also concerned about the Jersey Barriers in that picture looking brittle. It is hard to say if they were effective given that a big rig slammed into them and such force would offset any object.
     
     
  #3230  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2014, 7:42 PM
Flash604 Flash604 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dharper View Post
I doubt it, as from what I have read, the Golden Ears Connector construction is going to start in the spring time. And my best guess is that the interchange will probably be at least 10 years behind it.
Also, for over a year now the pre-loading has been in place for a level crossing.
     
     
  #3231  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2014, 8:08 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,299
That photo proves the trucker lost control of his semi well before the curve. I don't think we can blame the road.

Also, I don't think jersey barriers are designed to take the impact of a loaded semi, but it did stop the semi from crossing into oncoming traffic.

Last edited by DKaz; Jan 19, 2014 at 8:27 PM. Reason: CURVE not curb
     
     
  #3232  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2014, 9:44 PM
Thousands Wouldn't Thousands Wouldn't is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 62
What is the exact location of this please?
     
     
  #3233  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2014, 12:05 AM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,299
Just south of Hwy 99.
     
     
  #3234  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2014, 1:04 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
Anyone else very disturbed by this image? What an absolute joke. Look where those broken jersey barriers pieces ended up. Right in oncoming lanes. Those could have been in someones front seat. God damnit BC why can't you build proper highways.
More like why don't driver's slow down and take corners at the proper speed instead of trying to race to their next delivery.
     
     
  #3235  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2014, 3:58 AM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
More like why don't driver's slow down and take corners at the proper speed instead of trying to race to their next delivery.
I'm not sure what to believe about truck drivers these days. I've heard on the news all of the drivers are taking the Patullo because they are being paid so little, it's worth all of their extra time to do so. And then there's this...
     
     
  #3236  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2014, 4:28 AM
jlenko jlenko is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Willoughby
Posts: 127
Another semi driver talking on cell phone, loses control? Yes.. the stereotype exists.. but there is a reason for this.

That truck is one of many coming from the Bridgeview area, grain rail cars are unloaded and stuffed into containers which are then sent to Deltaport to load onto ships to head overseas. I don't like that place.. they've made a hell of a mess on the 130A side street as they insist on driving on and off the road, over curbs, and put gravel, mud and rocks all over the nicely re-paved road. Might have just saved the money by not paving it!!!

As far as the jersey barrier crumbling like that... I've seen the same thing done by a Dodge Neon coming off the 91A (southbound off the Queensborough bridge) and going head-on into the barrier on 91 westbound... same result, barriers into the left (fast) lane on 91 eastbound. So being a semi or a Neon, makes no difference... it depends how you hit it.

Wasn't there another semi that nailed the centre divider between 138th and the Port Mann recently? I recall seeing them replacing some smashed barriers in the centre..
     
     
  #3237  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2014, 5:04 AM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post
Sometimes city boundary is not really a good indicator though, as it can extend far out of the populated area. One example is that Coquihalla Hwy first enters the City of Kamloops at exit 355. But the next 11km is still in the middle of nowhere until you first see residential area at exit 366. The exit to downtown is exit 369, but there still a 2km drive to go into downtown. What is the most logical place to measure the distance from for this case then? IMO its most definitely not exit 355.
Good point. So what you're basically saying is that "it doesn't make sense" for any of the rules to apply to all cities in the Province. So maybe they shouldn't have rules and should just use their brains.

Aka... ok in Metro Vancouver, the cities are quite blended, and you're already in many of them that span 15km+ wide, so we'll use the "next exit" as the marker for the city or put "City Center" beside it.

For Kamloops, well it doesn't make sense to make based on a random exit 11km away so let's mark it from the exit to Kamloops Downtown or a point right in downtown.

For Clinton, we just do it when you hit the city limits where things slow down aka you may be in Clinton 5km away, but when you have to slow down on the highway to 50km, we'll mark it there, on either side.

It seems Metro Vancouver doesn't fit the current "SOP" so if you change it to match, many cities in BC don't match the new "SOP" so maybe they need 2. That's the problem I find in this Province and many other governments, they can't seem to think beyond 1 option. If you throw 2 at them they freak out like it is super complicated.
     
     
  #3238  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2014, 5:16 AM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Well, I grew up and have lived in Tsawwassen a good chunk of my life and still have my old bedroom extant there. During that entire time the only other truck rollover(s) that I recall, with my relatively sharp memory, was along the old Hwy 17 SB exit from Hwy 99.

Great curvature for a vehicle with a lower centre of gravity... but not nearly so much with the higher centre of gravity of major trucks - improper super-elevation (banking) on that exit for 80 km/hr+ in a big rig. And only ONCE in my lifetime do I recollect a flipped rig on that exit.
There was one on the HWY17A/HWY99 exit just 2 weeks or so ago actually. I got off the SFPR headed into work and it had just happened. Went over the overpass southbound and on the right the truck was completely on its side trailer and all with fire trucks all over the place.

And about 6 months ago there was a roll over truck on the HWY91/HWY99 exit. So it happens more than you recollect.

Quote:
Just one month into the opening of the SFPR or NEW Hwy 17 west of Hwy 99 and we see this happen. Believe me, many more similar events will occur just during 2014 alone as that old Hwy 17 exit has much better geometry/curvature than most new tight curves/exits along the NEW Hwy 17. I basically posted same here on opening day that this section of highway will def be accident-prone - due to major traffic volumes, port trucks, numerous tight curves, and the major variation in driver speeds thereto along the alignment.
I do think it is going to happen a bit more on the SFPR because of the curves and trucks driving too fast. I have observed the driving speeds on the highway and all traffic is clipping along at about 90-95km/h I think for cars that it perfectly fine because they don't flip so easily and the curves aren't that bad if you're a good driver.

But 80kph is perfectly reasonable a limit for the trucks driving the road. But many too are doing 95kph and they get behind someone in the right lane doing the actual speed limit so over to the left lane to pass and hit a curve and the above is what happens. There are so many trucks in the left lane it is unbelievable on SFPR.

So ultimately I do still think the design speed should have been quite a bit higher with less curves (or even banked curves which they could have done), but even if it was designed for 100kph you'd still have roll overs. As has been mentioned, most roll overs are improperly done loads, then secondary cause is the driver's actions.

SFPR is much higher risk that other highways because our other highways are far straighter. HWY99 for example has basically 2 slight curves between the tunnel and HWY91. In that same span on the SFPR you have something like 17 curves. Each curve = a risk. The more curves you have, the more risk you have.

I am actually surprised given this is meant to be a "Truck Highway" that they have built it quite truck unfriendly with intersections and a lot of curves. But it is what it is and drivers are going to have to get used to it.

Quote:
Personally, I am not used to driving 80 km/hr in the left-lane along "Hwy 17" following other drivers doing same - and then even slowing down along the several curves. Very frustrating and therein lies another major accident-prone matter.

Avg. driver speeds along the existing Hwy 17A have regularly been 110 - 120 km/hr in the left-lane over the past couple of decades in my personal experience.
Yup. Old 17A everyone does 100kph. I would always do 90kph because I've seen Delta Police park at the overpass a lot for years, but when I did that speed I felt like I was poking along in a horse drawn buggy.

Quote:
PS. Hell, I travel from White Rock to Tsawwassen and from Tsawwassen to Vancouver quite a bit. I now avoid the new SFPR from Hwy 99 like a plague. Still much quicker time-wise for me to take the Hwy 99 exit to the old Hwy 17 even with the light at Ladner Trunk Rd.
It probably would be.
     
     
  #3239  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2014, 5:22 AM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,121
As for the barriers, as worrisome as it is that some went into oncoming traffic, I think their purpose is more to keep the vehicle from crossing into oncoming traffic.

Remember physics, if a car oncoming were to hit the barrier that flew out in front, the car still has more mass (even a small one) so the damage would suck but low risk of major injury (unless it was in the air or the car flipped or something, I mean let's face it shit can happen).

On the other hand if the barrier doesn't keep that fully loaded semi from going into oncoming though, then we're probably talking fatal accident. I'll take a barrier moving into oncoming traffic but keeping the semi on the right side of the road any day imo.
     
     
  #3240  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2014, 5:43 AM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 593
Of course, there's always tall walls, which is what a "truck highway" with a lot of curves should have had originally:



As seen on the 401:


(asphaltplanet.ca)

A second (doubled) tall wall was later added in that section for additional protection.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:21 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.