Highway 1 Improvements, 216th to 264th | U/C

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by libtard

If the new configuration is 6 lanes total, 2 HOV that means it will now be 2 general purpose lanes from 232nd to 264th east bound instead of 3

Honestly, I would not read too much into it as of yet, certainly not until the proposed configuration is published. I would guess that for a public announcement, it is just easier to say "six lanes total" rather than "six lanes total, except for the portion between x and y, where there already was a third lane eastbound, so there'll be seven lanes there."

[makr3trkr]

Wrong thread

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Honestly, I would not read too much into it as of yet, certainly not until the proposed configuration is published. I would guess that for a public announcement, it is just easier to say "six lanes total" rather than "six lanes total, except for the portion between x and y, where there already was a third lane eastbound, so there'll be seven lanes there."

Yeah, after going back and actually looking at the plans for the 216 interchange, it is clearly 3 lanes of general traffic on the highway east of 208 street to and through the new 216 interchange.

So I don't see where it actually says it's going to be HOV lanes.

But again, if it were, I don't think that's a bad idea based on how poorly tucks use the climbing lane from 232 (EB) or from Mt Lehman (WB). I'm all for letting people who are acting responsible (car pooling, using transit, EVs) have a lane free from trucks. Because we all know exactly what will happen: it will just be 3 semis side by side by side trying to pass each other at 70km/h

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by libtard

How is that a climbing lane? It’s literally 3 lanes east bound from 232nd to 264th. That’s more than a climbing lane that’s a legitimate 3rd lane. If the new configuration is 6 lanes total, 2 HOV that means it will now be 2 general purpose lanes from 232nd to 264th east bound instead of 3

Length does not a climbing lane make. The reason it extends so far is because the hill goes from 232 to 264 that they climb. Because it is interchange to interchange though, it does serve a dual purpose as a third lane.

Honestly, I just think we do things bass-ackwards in this Province and don't build enough road infrastructure. It should be 3 lanes + HOV from Grandview Highway to Sumas at minimum.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Length does not a climbing lane make. The reason it extends so far is because the hill goes from 232 to 264 that they climb. Because it is interchange to interchange though, it does serve a dual purpose as a third lane.

Honestly, I just think we do things bass-ackwards in this Province and don't build enough road infrastructure. It should be 3 lanes + HOV from Grandview Highway to Sumas at minimum.

I don't think it's backwards, but fairly common and prudent.

In Montreal, the new Champlain Bridge is going in, and Autoroute 10 drops to 2 lanes in each direction right after Autoroute 30 interchange, which is only 5 km from the Bridge and only 15km from the Ille do Montreal.

In Toronto, the 401 drops down to 3 lanes in Ajax, which is a 48 Km drive from Union Station (and before you get to Oshawa). 200 Street, where it will drop down to 3 lanes is about a 40km drive from Waterfront station.

As it is, this is reported to be a $235 million project, for 11km of work. If all things were equal, that would be a $640 million project just to 3 lane it to Sumas, or about $855 million to 4 lane (each way) all the way to Sumas.

The main problem with 4 lanes, is that the new overpasses at Clearbrook, MacCallum, Fraser Highway, and Mt Lehman aren't really capable of 4 lanes each way. And I really don't think it is wise to replace less than 15 year old infrastructure, nor would it be cheap.

I don't think a population of 150,000 75km away from Waterfront in Abbostford justifies more than 3 lanes of traffic, when Oshawa, an area of 380,000 only 40 km away from Union station has 3 lanes of traffic in spend-a-holic, financially Bankrupt Ontario.

[dharper]

In email correspondence with TRAN BM Client Relations TRAN:EX <TRANBMClientRelations@gov.bc.ca>, about the start of this project, here is the answer I received:
"We’ve had word now that the start of construction is tentatively planned for spring of 2021 but that is pending completion of ongoing design and stakeholder engagement."

[Mininari]

Great, thanks for inquiring. One line of info is better than nothing, but its pretty tentative. I'd like to know when we'll see a project webpage with the consultation info... the new BC MoTH projects webpage is terrible. I preferred the simplicity of the clickable list of hyperlinks, organized by highway number, but I guess that was not mobile-friendly?

[libtard]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Yeah, after going back and actually looking at the plans for the 216 interchange, it is clearly 3 lanes of general traffic on the highway east of 208 street to and through the new 216 interchange.

So I don't see where it actually says it's going to be HOV lanes.

This post didn’t age well

[SpongeG]

Trans-Canada twinning project between 216th and 264th Streets on schedule for 2021
Commuter said more work needs to be focused on 264th Street exit in Aldergrove

RYAN UYTDEWILLIGEN Sep. 22, 2020


The twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway in Langley is still in developmental stages, but some residents are saying the expansion can not come soon enough.

Highway One will be widened to six lanes between 216th and 264th Streets in Langley through a project adding HOV lanes and upgrading interchanges.

Chrissy Skingsley, a Langley commuter who uses the highway to get to work in Aldergrove, called the 264 Street exit a hazard.

...

https://www.langleyadvancetimes.com/...l7I4P40vPYqGCQ

[officedweller]

Why do they call it twinning?
It's already a divided highway.

[Jimbo604]

If 200 to 216 took three years, how long is three times as long from 216 to 264 going to take? Yikes! Are they planning any new interchanges/overpasses in this section? Hopefully not and that will speed things up, comparatively!

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

If 200 to 216 took three years, how long is three times as long from 216 to 264 going to take? Yikes! Are they planning any new interchanges/overpasses in this section? Hopefully not and that will speed things up, comparatively!

I believe that the rail overpass will need to be replaced, but that should be relatively straightforward as it doesn't require so much rerouting of traffic lanes and managing of construction to minimize traffic impacts.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I believe that the rail overpass will need to be replaced, but that should be relatively straightforward as it doesn't require so much rerouting of traffic lanes and managing of construction to minimize traffic impacts.

What is the typical process for replacing a train overpass? With road traffic, you can build the new structure slightly to one side of the existing one, or remove part of the structure, build part of the replacement, and move traffic over. It does introduce delays for traffic but those are relatively easy to manage. With rail, though, you have to factor in the lack of alternative routes and the need to keep the tracks relatively straight (given that trains do not have the same flexibility as cars with respect to bends and speed changes).

[SpongeG]

I think the article says it will be complete by 2025/26.

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

What is the typical process for replacing a train overpass? With road traffic, you can build the new structure slightly to one side of the existing one, or remove part of the structure, build part of the replacement, and move traffic over. It does introduce delays for traffic but those are relatively easy to manage. With rail, though, you have to factor in the lack of alternative routes and the need to keep the tracks relatively straight (given that trains do not have the same flexibility as cars with respect to bends and speed changes).

It would depend on the priority. For that rail line, running from the CNR to DeltaPort, it's super high priority and suspending service to demo and build a new over pass would likely take too long for the rail and port to support.

Likely they would build a new structure alongside or near by and then once complete connect the new track to existing (likely with some track geometry changes on existing rail to have a smooth high speed connection). Once operational, then old section is decommissioned and removed.

That rail overpass replacement will be expensive and need to be extremely well coordinated.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

Likely they would build a new structure alongside or near by and then once complete connect the new track to existing (likely with some track geometry changes on existing rail to have a smooth high speed connection). Once operational, then old section is decommissioned and removed.

i doubt they would shift the line over. i know for their old wooden bridges they generally replace it pier by pier leaving it in the original spot. it is more difficult, but you cant have trains do a shift to either side. that would mean a permanent slow section which is a major impact to operations.

i have a feeling they will probably keep the same alignment, but do some crazy engineering work to keep it operational while upgrading it. i assume the highway will need to be lowered as well. probably a long gradual grade change. the trains will not be changing their grade.

[dharper]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

If 200 to 216 took three years, how long is three times as long from 216 to 264 going to take? Yikes! Are they planning any new interchanges/overpasses in this section? Hopefully not and that will speed things up, comparatively!

I believe the project includes replacing the 232 and 264 interchanges. I hope they do a better job of keeping 232nd and 264th overpass alignments straight, than they did when they replaced 200th St overpass.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i doubt they would shift the line over. i know for their old wooden bridges they generally replace it pier by pier leaving it in the original spot. it is more difficult, but you cant have trains do a shift to either side. that would mean a permanent slow section which is a major impact to operations.

The track over the current bridge alignment is already coming out of a curve on the east side, if you regrade the approaches so that a curve of the same radius starts a few hundred feet earlier then the track could cross the highway far enough on the east side to build a completely new bridge.

It looks to me like the biggest issue might be the need to expropriate some strips of land to make that happen, but there aren't any buildings that would be affected - just a pedestrian overpass from the field at Trinity Western university on the west side, and that's far enough away that the new track might be able to rejoin the original alignment without any excessive curves.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i have a feeling they will probably keep the same alignment, but do some crazy engineering work to keep it operational while upgrading it. i assume the highway will need to be lowered as well. probably a long gradual grade change. the trains will not be changing their grade.

Replacing existing piers is one thing, but the current overpass is built on a couple of boxes with earthen berms coming right up to the side of the highway right-of way. I can't think of any way for them to excavate the berms and extend the bridge while keeping the line operational. And that doesn't even begin to address the issue of raising the line to eliminate the substandard clearance under the bridge.

[BCPhil]

My bet is they start by building a new structure under the middle between the current traffic lanes. Then reroute road traffic there while they complete the structure over where the lanes currently are. Then reroute the lanes back to a straight alignment. At the end it will become a long rail bridge over the freeway plus median. No more earthworks.

[libtard]

All this work for 1 HOV lane. Thanks NDP