Roads Fantasy Thread

[go_leafs_go02]

nothing too bad with that interchange at this moment. Just the MOT needs to get rid of that bailey bridge to the south of the interchange...one day we can hope

[xd_1771]

The problem with that area at the moment is that the interchange is not very well up to modern standards (especially the merges). With South Surrey/White Rock getting busier as well as Whalley in the north, additional capacity may soon be needed. This interchange would fix the merges and smoothen and streamline some of the movements out (i.e. fewer loop ramps, more lanes in certain places).

My interchange plan would of course remove that bridge as well as the other one, both being very old and in need of replacement. The new bridge would be 2 lanes northbound and 3 southbound. On both sides of the interchange (north & south) the rightmost lane would end some 300m away from the interchange to return KGH to the 2/2 lane configuration.

Don't forget the expansion of the park & ride area as well as HOV lane ramps (not shown)

[BCPhil]

I hate to break it to you, but you need to stop it with the really complex intersections. Having a lane turn right, from the center of the road, across other straight through lanes is ridiculous (like you have at the 40 Ave intersection). It will result in extra long lights for traffic exiting the 99 and many accidents. If the reason you are doing it is because it is the only way around your design of the interchange, then the design is wrong. You can't over engineer hoping it will solve your complexity issues.

As well, this interchange completely marginalizes straight through traffic on King George. While the majority of the traffic leaves King George for the 99 at this point, it is not a significant majority. It is also desirable to encourage Surrey centric travel on King George, so it is of significant importance to make it a primary arterial route in Surrey.

If King George were to be expanded to 2 lanes each way on the south side, like is happening on the north, many, if not all, the traffic problems here would cease. The largest holdup of traffic is having 2 flows of traffic merge into a single lane for the old bridge, then continue on for some distance as a single lane. If King George were at least 2by2 from #10 to 8 ave it would solve most of the problems, and not just regional travel on 99 problems, but local, in South Surrey problems as well, for a fraction of the money.

And a 2 lane on ramp from KG SB to 99 SB is overkill (2 lanes onto NB 99 is even a bit of overkill). That would require at least a 4 lane stretch of highway (5 if you have HOV) to implement effectively, which the area does not really need for that travel pattern. Which will cause weaving problems as people try to get ready to exit at 32 ave.

As well, you are missing a SB 99 to NB KG route. How am I supposed to get over to Bucket of Birdies if I'm coming from Vancouver?

[DKaz]

There is a way to get from 99 S to KG N, it involved going through two roundabouts.

Overengineered and expensive. The ramp is almost a Parclo A-4 interchange (minus the KG N to 99S movement, which is not needed anyway) which is very efficient and one Go_Leafs_Go2 endorses. The only problem is what goes on north and south of King George Highway.

[whiteshadow]

That interchange is very complex... takes quite a bit of time to figure out what is going on.

I drive through that interchange everyday to/from work (Live in Morgan Heights, office in Newton). This interchange design seems to consider my commute an afterthought.

Based on my experience, traffic going N/S on KGB is much higher than breaking off to/from H99. A Parclo A4 interchange would be sufficient here, with an upgraded overpass to support the new 4 laning of KGB.

A bigger help to the KGB/H99 interchange would be to add an interchange further down, i.e. near 24th/H99.

[xd_1771]

I'm going to revise the laning to offer more lanes for the King George Highway based on what you say.
I still find it quite out of place that the major movements in between the highways are rather sharp loop ramps when they could be easily designed better in about the same space though.

[trofirhen]

In another part of town altogether, but still the same topic .... does anyone have any idea how to upgrade the North end of the LGB, Taylor Way, and the Highway 1 interchange so that it might possibly become traffic light -free, and provide a better connection to downtown?

Or are we going to leave it as is?

[go_leafs_go02]

Loop ramps are perfectly fine, as long as they do have a rather large radius..or, at the least, do not have sharp turns entering or exiting the loop.

Widen King George, expand the bridge for 6 lanes would be nice (2 for the onramps to Highway 99), redesign the ramps to more modern standards (not as tight loops, better merging areas, and better cross-falls that make sure you don't feel like you're going to fly off the side of the ramp when you drive it.

and I would argue for at least a Left Turn at the signal to allow NB KG traffic access SB 99. Wont' be used much, but there's not a single way to get on the highway until 8 Avenue, which I believe is roughly 8 km away - at least.

[adrianroam95]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

In another part of town altogether, but still the same topic .... does anyone have any idea how to upgrade the North end of the LGB, Taylor Way, and the Highway 1 interchange so that it might possibly become traffic light -free, and provide a better connection to downtown?

Or are we going to leave it as is?

Apparently the Lion's Gate Bridge along with the causeway is going to be decommissioned by the year 2030, to relieve the causeway and the 72 yr old structure, be replaced by a new span further east. I'm picturing something akin to the plans that were drawn up in the '70's, but with less of a "freeway" element to it.
And the population up there in North/West Van isn't growing anyways, it's not like it's in dire need of a free-flow connection downtown.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by adrianroam95

Apparently the Lion's Gate Bridge along with the causeway is going to be decommissioned by the year 2030, to relieve the causeway and the 72 yr old structure, be replaced by a new span further east. I'm picturing something akin to the plans that were drawn up in the '70's, but with less of a "freeway" element to it.
And the population up there in North/West Van isn't growing anyways, it's not like it's in dire need of a free-flow connection downtown.

Interesting. thanks. It's really needed at Taylor Way - at present - for the West Van & western North Van work commutes, and the ferry and Whistler traffic.
It will be interesting how it ultimately hooks up, even if that's in 2030. They will have to plow through someone's garden to get to the Upper Levels.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Loop ramps are perfectly fine, as long as they do have a rather large radius..or, at the least, do not have sharp turns entering or exiting the loop.

Widen King George, expand the bridge for 6 lanes would be nice (2 for the onramps to Highway 99), redesign the ramps to more modern standards (not as tight loops, better merging areas, and better cross-falls that make sure you don't feel like you're going to fly off the side of the ramp when you drive it.

and I would argue for at least a Left Turn at the signal to allow NB KG traffic access SB 99. Wont' be used much, but there's not a single way to get on the highway until 8 Avenue, which I believe is roughly 8 km away - at least.

If it helps in explaining why redesigning the layout might be a better choice, I made a few recent revisions to my H99/KGBinterchange plan:

One less overpass, the interchange focuses more on connection with Highway 99/KGH (i.e. no unnecessary interchanges to local roads), and the entire interchange is now at a much smaller footprint than even the current design. The diagram is still greatly incomplete though i.e. most of the laning still isn't there, but the final layout I've chosen (in yellow) is visible.

I really think that this would be a great opportunity to completely revisit to the interchange design. Besides, it wouldn't be much different - you'd still need a new overpass and new capacity and it would be about the same amount of lanes on the split overpasses here as it would if a new single overpass is built. This would be just much more optimized to traffic flow, and even take up a smaller footprint than the current interchange, for a cost that would probably end up being not much more. Plus, the plan does allow for transit (you can see that the entire park and ride will have to be reorganized, but it would be at huge benefit, as it would be able to accomodate both a future Highway 99 rapid-bus via HOV ramps , as well as a South Surrey LRT line [perhaps on the west side of KGH], as well as much more parked car capacity).

If access to/from Highway 99 to the south is provided at around 32nd diversion/152nd as well as 24th then this on-ramp would then become redundant, and to begin with it would probably be a better choice to place the access ramps there.

(If you notice that one of the on-ramps nearly overlaps a power line tower, that will be moved in the final diagram, just haven't got around to it yet)

[adrianroam95]

What about the SB Hwy 99 to NB King George movements?

[xd_1771]

Actually I don't think that movement would be that much necessary at all

Three words: use Highway 10

In any case I think if a connector using Colebrook between KGH & 152nd, and then diagonalling downwards southwest to Highway 99, were instated, that'd make up for that movement well enough and improve other important links.

[xd_1771]

Most of the laning has now been drawn out and some of Highway 99 as well, including that HOV lane/ramp I was talking about

Also, bringing over the more southerly part of my Hwy 99 expansion concept from the other page:

[Millennium2002]

I see two critical problems... short and intertwined merge and exit lanes, as well as left-bound exits that may be confusing to people used to right-bound exits. =S

[xd_1771]

A properly signed left-bound exit will wouldn't be much different... in any case I'd take it over a loop ramp. With modern BC signs now using upward arrows that properly show direction/side of exit I don't see how it's going to be too huge an issue anymore.
The setup won't be much different from Highway 91 around the 91A split
Speed limit would be lowered to compensate for the short lanes, i.e. around 70km/h.... perhaps with some speed control methods (if only the short white-marked rumble strips used often in the Philippines were standardized here). In any case only north of this interchange does King George Highway actually become a major highway.... it's somewhat more of an arterial through South Surrey esp. with the 99 nearby; the interchange was designed so you could possibly cruise through the interchange on KGH at around 80km/h or so but it would be signed at 70 or below. With the cars coming into the third left lane being traffic light controlled and unfrequent anyway I don't see how the weaving would be a huge issue. Better than having them merge short-style like BC usually does on left side merges. Plus it's an exit-only/optional-exit lane setup, not even a need to switch to the third left lane if you were already on the left lane of KGH to begin with. If you meant where traffic from Highway 99 merges onto KGH and traffic may have problem weaving through one lane to get to a right turn lane onto 40th Ave.... it's about as long as the setup at 200th St. (perhaps longer) coming off of route 1 & approaching 88th Ave., and not any different from that. Once again, such movement would be infrequent. Not a huge issue.

[Toddlertoddy]

What if a bridge was built between Deep Cove and Belcarra? Would it have any impact on the congestion on the Ironworkers? I don't know how many people work in the North Shore that live in the Tri-Cities, or if it could be an alternative to go to downtown. It would definitely have an environmental impact and a lot of NIMBY complaints.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Toddlertoddy

What if a bridge was built between Deep Cove and Belcarra? Would it have any impact on the congestion on the Ironworkers? I don't know how many people work in the North Shore that live in the Tri-Cities, or if it could be an alternative to go to downtown. It would definitely have an environmental impact and a lot of NIMBY complaints.

It would not help get downtown at all. IOCO and Barnet is probably THE worst intersection, in congestion for turns, in BC (I have seen the left turn line back up to Moray St). I would drive over the Ironworkers any day, any time than try to turn left off Barnet onto IOCO at rush hour.

So, IMO, the cost of building a bridge, plus the cost of improving the roads in the area at both ends, would never be worth it for the number of drivers using the crossing, ever.

If you actually really wanted a crossing, I would propose a small ferry, like the Albion ferry but with tolls, from the Dollarton Hwy to the Barnet Hwy. Or a high speed passenger only seabus connecting several ports of call, but I don't think there would ever be enough passengers to justify it.

[xd_1771]

I don't like the idea of building any bridges near Deep Cove. There would be way too much environmental impact.

A small ferry does sound like a good idea though for a local alternative. Seabus-based transit connecting Deep Cove, Port Moody, and other areas along the end of Burrard Bay, definitely seems like a fair idea.

There's been a lot of comment on the Highway 10 interchange & congestion lately. This is a simple plan I made on where I think this interchange needs to be in the medium-term:

[go_leafs_go02]

I like that for the most part. Pretty good design, not too complicated either.

Only thing I would change is to have the 70A Avenue connection instead connect down 232 Street. Alot of traffic uses 232 Street so it should be connected through with an intersection.

Oh, and another collision there today EB right at the merge point. Traffic back to 200 Street. Yet the MOT says they need warrants to do any upgrades. An accident every other week or so says nothing?

Why this wasn't included in Gateway is beyond me...