HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2017, 5:51 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Drove the area last night and there is a lot going on already. Completion in fall 2018 the signs said.
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 12:57 AM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,441
Wow, it is really great to see those photographs of the progress thus far, thanks! I'm hoping to get over to the mainland again soon and I'll be sure to take the 'toll free' alternative AFB to get up to the tri-cities.

As the creator of this thread, may I propose that a moderator change the title to include the Nordel Way & Sunbury Interchange projects, and maybe even the AFB counterflow lane? Wouldn't hurt to expand this to a "Highway 91 Corridor Improvements" thread or something of the like. Would make great use of a thread that originated as a "whats going on" no-real-info-teaser thread, and its nice to avoid having major projects underway get lost in the "Metro Vancouver Roads Discussion" Thread.
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 4:20 AM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
72C by Ian, on Flickr
Versions of this design should be replicated at a few locations on Lougheed and Mary Hill Bypass.
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 4:28 AM
flipper316 flipper316 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal View Post
Versions of this design should be replicated at a few locations on Lougheed and Mary Hill Bypass.
It'd be nice if they used this design for 17 and Tilbury.
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 5:26 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
I hope the new overpass will fit 3+3 lanes under it for the future.
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 5:37 AM
urbancanadian urbancanadian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
I hope the new overpass will fit 3+3 lanes under it for the future.
It should. I believe everything along Highway 91 already can.
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 6:02 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 3,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancanadian View Post
It should. I believe everything along Highway 91 already can.
it can, doesn't mean this will... it isn't 1985 anymore with a government who has vision.
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 6:31 AM
urbancanadian urbancanadian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 671
That would be like building an infill Canada Line station to 30 metres. They may have poor vision, but that would be beyond absurd.
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 8:29 PM
flipper316 flipper316 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 863
Did anyone get any news regarding the Sunbury/17 new interchange and Nordel connector improvements? It's already the middle of July and there's nothing new. There are not even any signs around there. Is that getting canceled too? Are they expecting the container truckers to jump on a bus or something?
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 9:38 PM
moosejaw moosejaw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Miami
Posts: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper316 View Post
Did anyone get any news regarding the Sunbury/17 new interchange and Nordel connector improvements? It's already the middle of July and there's nothing new. There are not even any signs around there. Is that getting canceled too? Are they expecting the container truckers to jump on a bus or something?
Well the govt of BC is only contributing only 33% of costs for this development. Iwouldnot think that its not likely to be cancelled as there is federal, port, and tribal money involved as well withe port and feds donating as much as BC.

It could happen thought and it would be funny to see the NDP/Green party or even the band of mayors to try to put a stop to this too saying the money is better used towards rapid transit to nowhere or bike lanes where no one uses them.

The lower mainland enjoys some of the highest ridership levels seen on the continent. Its up there with San Fran, Boston, NYC, Montreal, Toronto, and Mexico City. The fact is successful kind of negates the point that more transit is needed when your main road into the city from the US looks like something out of Central America as you get closer to the city. All its missing is the oversized Coca Cola signs and Police Roadblocks
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 1:35 AM
flipper316 flipper316 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I-405 has recently added HOT lanes and SR167 (Renton to Auburn) has had HOT lanes for many years.


http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...ss-toll-lanes/

*****************

Big version of the interchange from MoTI Flickr.

I don't see a traffic light for westbound to southbound.
I think there'll be a stop sign.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/tranbc...57669452741566
As usual a ridiculously short merge from 72 east to 91 north. Why can't they ever build a nice long merge lane.
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 4:30 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 flipper316 View Post
As usual a ridiculously short merge from 72 east to 91 north. Why can't they ever build a nice long merge lane.
That merge will remain in place (no changes) from original circa 1984 design.

Frankly, as part of this project, they should have extended the add-on/drop-off lanes between 72nd Ave. and Nordel Way as part of this project scope. IOW, 3-lanes in both directions between both interchanges.

Just too much merging/weaving, these days, in that short section. Would have minimally impacted project specific CAPEX and certainly improved safety/traffic flow.
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 4:45 AM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
That merge will remain in place (no changes) from original circa 1984 design.

Frankly, as part of this project, they should have extended the add-on/drop-off lanes between 72nd Ave. and Nordel Way as part of this project scope. IOW, 3-lanes in both directions between both interchanges.

Just too much merging/weaving, these days, in that short section. Would have minimally impacted project specific CAPEX and certainly improved safety/traffic flow.
The new 17a to SFPR interchange had such a short merge as designed they hastily added a few hundred more feet of ramp recently which you can see going under the farm overpass.
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 5:13 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 makr3trkr View Post
The new 17a to SFPR interchange had such a short merge as designed they hastily added a few hundred more feet of ramp recently which you can see going under the farm overpass.
SFPR has a 80 km\hr design speed though - results in short merge lanes, minimal super-elevation (banking) and has been cause of numerous truck roll-overs.

BC MoTI simply needs to remove both RAD (Rural Arterial Divided) highway design concurrent with 80 km/hr design speed from its options. Period.

Either RED or RFD design with 100 km/hr+ design speeds should be the only functional design that they should entertain. IMHO.
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 6:13 AM
flipper316 flipper316 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
SFPR has a 80 km\hr design speed though - results in short merge lanes, minimal super-elevation (banking) and has been cause of numerous truck roll-overs.

BC MoTI simply needs to remove both RAD (Rural Arterial Divided) highway design concurrent with 80 km/hr design speed from its options. Period.

Either RED or RFD design with 100 km/hr+ design speeds should be the only functional design that they should entertain. IMHO.
But that would make too much sense.
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 5:44 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
SFPR has a 80 km\hr design speed though - results in short merge lanes, minimal super-elevation (banking) and has been cause of numerous truck roll-overs.

BC MoTI simply needs to remove both RAD (Rural Arterial Divided) highway design concurrent with 80 km/hr design speed from its options. Period.

Either RED or RFD design with 100 km/hr+ design speeds should be the only functional design that they should entertain. IMHO.
Eliminating the lower-cost options would increase the cost of building road projects and therefore either delay them from being built sooner (best case) or eliminate them altogether (worst case).

Which would you rather have, an 80km road today or a 100km road 10 years down the line?
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 5:59 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 aberdeen5698 View Post
Eliminating the lower-cost options would increase the cost of building road projects and therefore either delay them from being built sooner (best case) or eliminate them altogether (worst case).

Which would you rather have, an 80km road today or a 100km road 10 years down the line?
Unfortunately, that's not how "it" works. Again, off the bat, BC has 3 separate divided highway functional designs:

1. RFD (Rural Freeway Divided)

2. RED (Rural Expressway Divided)
-same design as RFD but has signalized intersections upgradable to interchanges.
- design speed for both is minimal 100 km/hr up to 120 km/hr.

3. RAD (Rural Arterial Divided)
- typically 80 km/hr but can also be 100 km/hr
- driveway access not uncommon
- basically the inferior/least safe option;

Ontario, for example, does not have a similar RAD design on its books. All 400-series highways have an RFD design with design speeds up to 120 km/hr.

Alberta also does not have similar RAD design on its books. All new divided highways are mostly RFD. For example, the SW leg of Calgary's Stoney Trail will initially be between 6 - 8 lanes. The ROW as well as all overpass structures will permit future expansion to between 14 - 16 lanes (collector/express system).

Back to BC.

Hwy 1/Hwy 19 between Victoria and Campbell River is a mish-mash of 3 functional designs - RFD, RED, and RAD. Such a corridor should have "consistency" - IOW either RFD or RED functional design along its entire length. Throwing RAD into the mix makes the corridor less safe. And I have not brought the 3-lane Goldstream park section into the mix.

Back to the SFPR.

It is a RAD functional design with a 80 km/hr design speed - plan dating back from the 1990's. Had it been designed RED with 100 km/hr design speed:

1. Would have wider paved median/shoulders;
2. Would have smoother/gentler curves with longer sight-lines;
3. Would have super-elevation (banking) on curves as well as on/off ramps (read Hwy 99 interchange here);
4. Would have larger current interchanges in terms of both future clearance for new lanes as well as on/off ramp super-elevation;

As a result of this inferior RAD design, the SFPR is one of the most-accident prone highways in Metro Vancouver due to "driver expectation". Truck rollovers are also common. Ergo, major "operational" costs resulting thereto.

Had the SFPR been a RED functional design with at least a 100 km/hr design speed, these numerous traffic "incidents" would likely not occur. The additional CAPEX would only have been perhaps between 5% - 10% as the corridor is mostly just flat terrain.

Not only that, but the SFPR will never be expandable to 6-lanes or more. Would require demolishing all over/underpasses along entire corridor (BTW, in RAD functional design lexicon, the existing "interchanges" are actually known as "mini-changes"). Just ain't gonna happen. As a result, just hastens, down the road, the future construction of either the Serpentine Fwy or Southern Fwy corridors (both are RFD functional designs). Not "cost-effective" approach IMHO.

OTOH, we come to the past upgrades to Hwy 99 between Horseshoe Bay to Whistler - again RAD functional design (for the 4-lane parts) with an 80 km/hr design speed. Overall CAPEX thereto was ~$600 million. Unlike other corridors, Hwy 99 N could be construed as a "secondary" corridor v. a primary/strategic corridor IMHO.

Had just the section between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish been completed as RFD with a 100 km/hr design speed, that section alone would have cost $billions:

1. Hills with less than 5% grade;
2. Major rock cuts;
3. Viaducts;
4. Tunnels;

Unlike the SFPR, that corridor is curvilinear along mountainous terrain. Very expensive highway construction.

OTOH, upgrades along Hwy 1 between Kamloops and the AB border are both RED/RFD functional design with a 100 km/hr+ design speed. Phase 4 of the Kicking Horse Canyon section of Hwy 1 alone will also be the most expensive rural freeway ever constructed to date - not in only BC, but in all of Canada. ~$450 million for 4 km or just over $100 million/km. Again runs through expensive mountainous terrain and is curvilinear.

With an RAD functional design as well as 80 km/hr design speed, Phase 4 would have been considerably "cheaper" to construct. But consistent functional design/design speed is critical along strategic corridors and, of course, safety concerns as also paramount.

Utilizing your argument, the proposed Broadway subway should be constructed at-grade, along Broadway, as LRT. Would "exponentially" reduce CAPEX. OTOH, I am familiar with traffic (both vehicular & transit) along that corridor as well as future growth nodes. At-grade LRT along Broadway would neither be cost-effective nor in the public interest. Ergo, I have always been a major supporter of the proposed Broadway subway - the considerably (exponentially?) higher CAPEX is cost-effective here.

That old idiom "Penny Wise and Pound Foolish" is certainly apropos in this discussion.

Last edited by Stingray2004; Jul 12, 2017 at 6:11 AM.
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 7:26 AM
flipper316 flipper316 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Unfortunately, that's not how "it" works. Again, off the bat, BC has 3 separate divided highway functional designs:

1. RFD (Rural Freeway Divided)

2. RED (Rural Expressway Divided)
-same design as RFD but has signalized intersections upgradable to interchanges.
- design speed for both is minimal 100 km/hr up to 120 km/hr.

3. RAD (Rural Arterial Divided)
- typically 80 km/hr but can also be 100 km/hr
- driveway access not uncommon
- basically the inferior/least safe option;

Ontario, for example, does not have a similar RAD design on its books. All 400-series highways have an RFD design with design speeds up to 120 km/hr.

Alberta also does not have similar RAD design on its books. All new divided highways are mostly RFD. For example, the SW leg of Calgary's Stoney Trail will initially be between 6 - 8 lanes. The ROW as well as all overpass structures will permit future expansion to between 14 - 16 lanes (collector/express system).

Back to BC.

Hwy 1/Hwy 19 between Victoria and Campbell River is a mish-mash of 3 functional designs - RFD, RED, and RAD. Such a corridor should have "consistency" - IOW either RFD or RED functional design along its entire length. Throwing RAD into the mix makes the corridor less safe. And I have not brought the 3-lane Goldstream park section into the mix.

Back to the SFPR.

It is a RAD functional design with a 80 km/hr design speed - plan dating back from the 1990's. Had it been designed RED with 100 km/hr design speed:

1. Would have wider paved median/shoulders;
2. Would have smoother/gentler curves with longer sight-lines;
3. Would have super-elevation (banking) on curves as well as on/off ramps (read Hwy 99 interchange here);
4. Would have larger current interchanges in terms of both future clearance for new lanes as well as on/off ramp super-elevation;

As a result of this inferior RAD design, the SFPR is one of the most-accident prone highways in Metro Vancouver due to "driver expectation". Truck rollovers are also common. Ergo, major "operational" costs resulting thereto.

Had the SFPR been a RED functional design with at least a 100 km/hr design speed, these numerous traffic "incidents" would likely not occur. The additional CAPEX would only have been perhaps between 5% - 10% as the corridor is mostly just flat terrain.

Not only that, but the SFPR will never be expandable to 6-lanes or more. Would require demolishing all over/underpasses along entire corridor (BTW, in RAD functional design lexicon, the existing "interchanges" are actually known as "mini-changes"). Just ain't gonna happen. As a result, just hastens, down the road, the future construction of either the Serpentine Fwy or Southern Fwy corridors (both are RFD functional designs). Not "cost-effective" approach IMHO.

OTOH, we come to the past upgrades to Hwy 99 between Horseshoe Bay to Whistler - again RAD functional design (for the 4-lane parts) with an 80 km/hr design speed. Overall CAPEX thereto was ~$600 million. Unlike other corridors, Hwy 99 N could be construed as a "secondary" corridor v. a primary/strategic corridor IMHO.

Had just the section between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish been completed as RFD with a 100 km/hr design speed, that section alone would have cost $billions:

1. Hills with less than 5% grade;
2. Major rock cuts;
3. Viaducts;
4. Tunnels;

Unlike the SFPR, that corridor is curvilinear along mountainous terrain. Very expensive highway construction.

OTOH, upgrades along Hwy 1 between Kamloops and the AB border are both RED/RFD functional design with a 100 km/hr+ design speed. Phase 4 of the Kicking Horse Canyon section of Hwy 1 alone will also be the most expensive rural freeway ever constructed to date - not in only BC, but in all of Canada. ~$450 million for 4 km or just over $100 million/km. Again runs through expensive mountainous terrain and is curvilinear.

With an RAD functional design as well as 80 km/hr design speed, Phase 4 would have been considerably "cheaper" to construct. But consistent functional design/design speed is critical along strategic corridors and, of course, safety concerns as also paramount.

Utilizing your argument, the proposed Broadway subway should be constructed at-grade, along Broadway, as LRT. Would "exponentially" reduce CAPEX. OTOH, I am familiar with traffic (both vehicular & transit) along that corridor as well as future growth nodes. At-grade LRT along Broadway would neither be cost-effective nor in the public interest. Ergo, I have always been a major supporter of the proposed Broadway subway - the considerably (exponentially?) higher CAPEX is cost-effective here.

That old idiom "Penny Wise and Pound Foolish" is certainly apropos in this discussion.
Great post. Today, July 11, during the afternoon commute according to Google maps and am730 Twitter 17 east was pretty much backed up from halfway to the Port Mann to 104th. No doubt the backup was pretty much caused due to that ridiculous intersection with 104 and the steep grade with only 2 lanes going to the interchange with Highway 1. What a joke.
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 4:31 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Utilizing your argument, the proposed Broadway subway should be constructed at-grade, along Broadway, as LRT.
Yep, fair point.

Although LRT on Broadway would be a lot of money for very little marginal increase over existing service, so I'm not sure it's a good comparison to SFPR, which simply didn't exist before.
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 3:15 AM
2009 2009 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper316 View Post
As usual a ridiculously short merge from 72 east to 91 north. Why can't they ever build a nice long merge lane.
At least a short merge lane makes the merge more manageable and involve less cheaters during rush hour
     
     
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.