HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3541  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2015, 3:41 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 18,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man View Post
Hwy 91 would most probably be widened to 6 lanes (8 lanes in a few sections in Richmond) first way before Hwy 17 would ever be widened. In fact, of all the driving I've done so far on the 17 ever since it was opened, the only significant traffic jams I've experienced is the infamous 17/91 connector intersection, which should've been an interchange in the first place. Other than that, with conversion to properly designed interchanges along its entire length, the 17 is good enough with 4 lanes in the foreseeable future, especially when it's not really connecting from city centre to another.

Hwy 91, on the other hand, needs to be at least 6 lanes throughout its entire length ASAP.
Yes, that intersection especially should have been built as an interchange from the start. The only silver lining is maybe that entire junction will be rebuilt soon similar to the Cape Horn, seeing how three major arteries converge in that area.

I would support the 99 being upgraded to 6 lanes, especially between the south approach of the AFB and where it meets the 99 in Richmond.
     
     
  #3542  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2015, 7:30 AM
The_Henry_Man The_Henry_Man is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Regarding signage, I've always been bothered by the fact that the new westbound Hwy 1 direction signs through Burnaby and Vancouver have Whistler as a control city for Hwy 1. I know that one can eventually get to Whistler this way, but it should indicate Horseshoe Bay as the control city for Hwy 1, and refer to Hwy 99 for continuing on to Whistler
You beat me to it! Exactly going to say the same thing. Similarly, for eastbound TCH-1, it should say Abbotsford as the control city, esp since it's the next major municipality and Hope is less well known and only a small town. Other than that, I think the current TCH-1 signage is quite clear and done pretty well. Exact opposite can be said for Knight St, 91 and especially 17.

Also, on the same vein, when you go southbound on the Knight St in Richmond after crossing the bridge, eventually signage will say 91 eastbound to Delta and USA border on the left lane, which is fine, but right lane should've said 91 westbound to Richmond City Centre as the main destination, which connection to 99 to ferries on the second line. Really, the ultimate destination on 91 westbound is Richmond City Centre and not the ferries. I'm pretty sure many people took the wrong exit and went to New West because of that. The current configuration is so unclear for people wanting to head west to Richmond city centre via Knight St and then 91 westbound.
     
     
  #3543  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2015, 7:13 AM
Mininari Mininari is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Yes, that intersection especially should have been built as an interchange from the start. The only silver lining is maybe that entire junction will be rebuilt soon similar to the Cape Horn, seeing how three major arteries converge in that area.

I would support the 99 being upgraded to 6 lanes, especially between the south approach of the AFB and where it meets the 99 in Richmond.
I suspect the H99 project will have this section even wider; probably 2-3-3-2, with the collectors starting and ending with the Hwy 17/99 interchange, and then 6 lanes out at least as far as you state.... possibly further (They'll probably including 6-laning to the border in the H99 project definition report, but then only do half of it at first). The current configuration heading northbound already supports this as the Hwy 17 traffic travels towards the tunnel in barrier-separated lanes before merging into the C$#@$%@ known as the GMT.
     
     
  #3544  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2015, 1:49 AM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man View Post
Similarly, for eastbound TCH-1, it should say Abbotsford as the control city, esp since it's the next major municipality and Hope is less well known and only a small town.
Hope punches above its weight in terms of routing importance because it's the decision point for taking highway 1 vs 3 vs 5. For people who are feeling their way around the province using a map it's more valuable to know how to get to Hope than to Abbotsford.
     
     
  #3545  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2015, 2:07 AM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Hope punches above its weight in terms of routing importance because it's the decision point for taking highway 1 vs 3 vs 5. For people who are feeling their way around the province using a map it's more valuable to know how to get to Hope than to Abbotsford.
Yes, I'm also fine with Hope being a destination, because that's where Highway 1 splits into 1, 3 & 5.

Agree that Horseshoe Bay should be the destination on Highway 1 once you leave Vancouver, especially since a) Highway 1 does not go to Whistler, and b), Horseshoe bay is where Highway 1 and 99 split.
     
     
  #3546  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2015, 11:35 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man View Post
You beat me to it! Exactly going to say the same thing. Similarly, for eastbound TCH-1, it should say Abbotsford as the control city, esp since it's the next major municipality and Hope is less well known and only a small town. Other than that, I think the current TCH-1 signage is quite clear and done pretty well. Exact opposite can be said for Knight St, 91 and especially 17.

Also, on the same vein, when you go southbound on the Knight St in Richmond after crossing the bridge, eventually signage will say 91 eastbound to Delta and USA border on the left lane, which is fine, but right lane should've said 91 westbound to Richmond City Centre as the main destination, which connection to 99 to ferries on the second line. Really, the ultimate destination on 91 westbound is Richmond City Centre and not the ferries. I'm pretty sure many people took the wrong exit and went to New West because of that. The current configuration is so unclear for people wanting to head west to Richmond city centre via Knight St and then 91 westbound.
Except staying in the travel lanes on Hwy 1 doesn't take you into Horseshoe Bay. You don't exit onto Highway 99, you exit to Horseshoe bay. So the same road does take you to Whistler even though the road name changes.

Also, Horseshoe Bay isn't a city, so it might not be easy to find on every map. Even though it is the ferry terminal, people NOT going to Horseshoe bay might have no idea where/what that is. It would be like trying to be specific on other signs and say instead of Langley, the hwy 1 takes you to Walnut Grove.

The signs do say "Whistler - Hwy 1 West", meaning the road does both.

The reason sign say far off destinations is it reduces the number of places referenced on signs. It means less memorization by the average person. So many signs say "Hope" because its easy to remember that my destination is on the way to Hope instead of trying to remember the half dozen places that are between here and my destination.

Also, the sign on Knight does say "99 - Alderbridge Way - Ferries" for the right lane, then there is a sign that says "Richmond Center" to right just after that. The signs do emphasize the ferries though, because exiting from Knight does primarily take you to 99 South. And signs are more for visitors or people not familiar with the area, and as such, most of those people would be heading to either the Ferries or the Border (I got asked once at a gas station near Knight by a tourist which road was the I-5). If you are interested in Richmond Center you are probably a little bit familiar with the area and know the 91 takes you there (then you need to know what other roads you want to turn on). The signs on a Freeway are meant to direct people through forks in the road, not get them to some good dim sum.

As such, I actually think the sign on hwy 17 to the 99 is fine. As long as you glance at a map before you leave, you can figure it out pretty easily.

The only problem with the sign is that people are trying to trust their gut instead of doing what the sign says. People's first instinct is that Vancouver and USA aren't in the same direction. So it is like easier to believe that the sign is wrong? Like the government put up a sign that is actually false is more believable than an exit can lead to 2 places.

But really, the government should think ahead. Almost everyone is now driving around with a hyper accurate, up to date GPS in their pocket. They should just number the lanes at an exit. Google already says things like "Use the rightmost lane" or "use the 2nd lane from the right to exit". If they were just numbered, the GPS could say "Use lane 1 or 2 and travel through the interchange" or "Use lane 3 to exit then keep left".
     
     
  #3547  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 12:56 AM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 593






Sunbury should never have been an intersection.
     
     
  #3548  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 1:08 AM
Infrequent Poster Infrequent Poster is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 613
holy —. Is it like that every weekday?
     
     
  #3549  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 1:27 AM
Jack Guevara Jack Guevara is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 47
You can thank the BC Liberals for half assing an important project
     
     
  #3550  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 2:06 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,759
Wow that is ridiculous if that is just volume because of an intersection. Just like 72nd and Hwy 97 - costing millions of dollars to the economy to save money by not building an interchange....makes sense.
     
     
  #3551  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 2:51 AM
logicbomb logicbomb is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,272
To be fair, there was an accident near the AF Bridge and a stalled vehicle in the NB lane hence why it was so congested today.

Still, that intersection needs to be upgraded to an interchange asap.
     
     
  #3552  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 4:13 AM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 593
The 91 Connector wasn't actually congested at Highway 17 (which is visible in the Google Maps screenshot).

Congestion this evening was purely a cascade effect from the lights.

The morning traffic does however back up from the Alex Fraser all the way onto Highway 17 not infrequently.
     
     
  #3553  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 3:44 PM
moosejaw moosejaw is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 483
But I thought the province came out and announced in a PR Blog that they did a study and determined that grade separated intersections were not needed and unneccesary? You mean they were wrong?
     
     
  #3554  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 4:13 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,431
Did they actually do a study? And that's what the study concluded??are they just making up data to justify their decision to put intersections instead of interchanges. Lol

It's sucha a waste of money not building interchanges in the first place
     
     
  #3555  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 4:45 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by osirisboy View Post
Did they actually do a study? And that's what the study concluded??are they just making up data to justify their decision to put intersections instead of interchanges. Lol

It's sucha a waste of money not building interchanges in the first place
The study only really looked at the trucks rolling over.

The report recommended an interchange, but also said signage and some other minor changes could change that issue.
     
     
  #3556  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 6:08 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by makr3trkr View Post






Sunbury should never have been an intersection.
As someone who drives this route every single day, I wanted to point out a few missing facts to the cause of the congestion.

1) Some of the congestion is due to the intersection because you get trucks turning left in front of Eastbound SFPR on red lights. Not just going through a light turning red, I mean it is already red. I've sat eastbound and our light goes green and a truck in the left turn just turns right in front of everyone.

I still stand by the notion that if you stationed a cop at that intersection every single day, they'd write about $20,000 in tickets every day.

2) The backups for the left-turn (what causes all the trucks and cars to run the red) is actually not a result of the intersection at SFPR but rather a result of the 1 lane overpass + left turn design of the connector to get onto the Alex Fraser bridge.

People line up trying to turn left onto HWY91 onto the Alex Fraser and as the overpass is 1 lane from the SFPR (and actually is like 3 lanes into 1 lane) everyone gets stuck and that lines up all the way to the SFPR.

So then people turning left off SFPR get stuck. It can take you 30 minutes (I kid you not) to get from the left lane from SFPR Westbound to the Alex Fraser bridge. Something that with no traffic takes about 2 minutes.

See the following image for the problem points. Bottom arrow is where 3 lanes --> 1 lane over the overpass. Second arrow is the left turn across Nodel to get on the AFB that backs up causing even people that just want to go straight through to get stuck behind all the left-turners on the overpass. Also keep in mind you have a truck weigh scale on the other side of the overpass so 23723928 trucks along that stretch which are slow and can't turn very quickly.





My fear is that with an interchange you will solve Eastbound issues but Westbound will compound even worse because trucks again getting off and onto the connector to Alex Fraser will line up onto the highway westbound at the exit. Similar to what happens at Steveston through the tunnel. It will line up through the tunnel in the right lane in rush-hour just because of people stuck trying to exit at Steveston.

So they really need to not just put an interchange at SFPR there but also need to widen the overpass over HWY91 and remove the left turn across Nordel making it a proper interchange onto AFB.
     
     
  #3557  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 6:18 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,431
That whole area needs to be interchanges from the 17 to the 91 connector to the 91
     
     
  #3558  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 6:32 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,408
I have been there during morning rush, but I don't understand how merging on Alex Fraser Bridge can be so slow? Traffic from Nordel Way and Connector have to merge on one lane, but that lane is a free-flowing dedicated lane once they start climbing over the bridge. Is it merging with the other lanes that slows traffic down or what? Should merging be prevented with poles before traffic reaches the top of the bridge?
     
     
  #3559  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 8:00 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
I have been there during morning rush, but I don't understand how merging on Alex Fraser Bridge can be so slow? Traffic from Nordel Way and Connector have to merge on one lane, but that lane is a free-flowing dedicated lane once they start climbing over the bridge. Is it merging with the other lanes that slows traffic down or what? Should merging be prevented with poles before traffic reaches the top of the bridge?
Lane changing and truck climbing.

There have been numerous traffic studies done int he US that show people that change lanes frequently or abruptly in an attempt to "go faster" actually ripple-effect cause traffic to back up behind them. One study I read (sorry don't have the link was years ago) from Seattle even went so far to link people in a 9am to 9:15am period changing lanes back and fourth on I5 into Seattle causing noticeable ripple traffic slowness up to 2 hours later as far back as Everett.

So even though there is a dedicated lane on the AFB you have a combination of a lot of Semi-trucks merging so they start to climb right away up the hill at 2km/h which firstly does slow everyone down but then you have everyone behind them as soon as the cones stop on the AFB cut over to the middle or left lane.

You get this darting effect "OMG MUST GET BY TRUCK!!!!" and it causes everyone to slam on brakes and just generally slows things down.

Not sure what they can do about it, the merge point is right at the base of the bridge. It would be better if the Nordel interchange was maybe 500 meters south of where it is. Then trucks wouldn't be coming out of a curb right onto a steep hill climb which is the bridge.
     
     
  #3560  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 9:07 PM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
2) The backups for the left-turn (what causes all the trucks and cars to run the red) is actually not a result of the intersection at SFPR but rather a result of the 1 lane overpass + left turn design of the connector to get onto the Alex Fraser bridge.

People line up trying to turn left onto HWY91 onto the Alex Fraser and as the overpass is 1 lane from the SFPR (and actually is like 3 lanes into 1 lane) everyone gets stuck and that lines up all the way to the SFPR.

So then people turning left off SFPR get stuck. It can take you 30 minutes (I kid you not) to get from the left lane from SFPR Westbound to the Alex Fraser bridge. Something that with no traffic takes about 2 minutes.


What you wrote is correct. It is normal (often in the AM) for the entire connector road to be clogged.

However, yesterday evening specifically, the connector road was not backed up that far (see above).

Just building an interchange would not necessarily alleviate the morning congestion, as pointed out.
     
     
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 12:32 AM.

     

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