HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2016, 7:24 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,556
There's a lot of talk in that news release, not much more IMO. I suppose time will tell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2016, 8:43 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mininari View Post
The key missing detail is will it be a full-movements interchange (to appease Delta)? Or are they just going to go ahead with SOMETHING.
Pic was added to that BC Press Release.
Added above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2016, 8:47 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Torcouver
Posts: 9,637
To save everyone the time of looking, the plan is not full movement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2016, 8:56 PM
logicbomb logicbomb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
To save everyone the time of looking, the plan is not full movement.
Go figure. It's better than what's there right now, but a SB flyover off-ramp is desperately needed instead of a light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2016, 9:15 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,300
Thanks for posting.
Hmm, It actually doesn't look too bad... that picture is in-line with what I've envisioned as a simple solution for the spot... an overpass for 72nd to permit free-flow hwy 91 with a light at the end that can accommodate the SB91-72nd and 72nd-SB91 movements. It won't be an awesome improvement for 72nd ave users, but it fits within the constraints of the existing interchange with minimal impact on the bog.

I agree a SB-72nd flyover would be better, but a double-left turn light ( with high priority on the light cycle) should function well enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2016, 10:04 PM
connect2source's Avatar
connect2source connect2source is offline
life in the present
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,159
Great news!!! Can't believe this incredibly simple interchange has been decades in the making!
__________________
source | energy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2016, 10:17 PM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 551
Impressed that they are exploring counterflow. Wish traffic could be segregated better. Congestion here is not only due to capacity, but also because people are cutting across lanes at the bridgehead from Annacis/Nordel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2016, 11:37 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post



•The ministry will start an engineering review to look at:
◦Installing a new counter-flow system on the bridge for the morning and afternoon traffic crunches;
At ~$30 million, looks like they are appeasing Delta with a 72nd Ave. WB to BC-91 SB connection, which only accounts for 5% of the traffic movements thereto. Still believe that a directional ramp from BC-91 SB to 72nd Ave. EB (accounting for 95% of traffic movements) would not only be much more cost effective but also provide faster traffic movement.

Well at least it's a done deal prima facie!

Make no mistake that this announcement also has some political overtones connected with same as well... as the riding mostly impacted - Delta North - is a very marginal BC Lib seat (BC NDP in 2005/2009).

As for the proposition for AFB counter-flow lanes... that's a bit of a Catch-22 IMHO.

After 3 pm on a typical afternoon weekday, BC-99 NB to the GMT is a parking lot. The only other option is BC-91 NB to the AFB. Even by 3pm, that route as well is a parking lot and can be backed up to the 64th Ave. interchange. With the imposition of afternoon counter-flow lanes, I could see that back-up extending right onto BC-99. Ergo, I don't believe this concept to be such a great idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2016, 11:48 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,444
CKNW quotes Todd Stone as there being the possibility of adding a 7th lane:

Quote:
“We are exploring the possible implementation of a counterflow system to the Alex Fraser Bridge, similar to what is in place with George Massey and the Lions Gate. That could include actually adding a seventh lane to the Alex Fraser Bridge by removing the curbs and the sidewalks, we think there is room for a seventh lane there, potentially.”
http://www.cknw.com/2016/06/08/190403/

Quote:
The review of a counterflow system, like that successfully used at the George Massey Tunnel, “could involve the establishment of a seventh lane through the removal of shoulders,” Stone said.
http://www.cloverdalereporter.com/news/382262081.html

Think there's room?


http://globalnews.ca/news/2749544/ne.../?sf28257146=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2016, 11:53 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,481
A 2+2+2 counterflow system might be a good idea after GMT has been replaced. That would mean that the counterflow traffic diverting around that crossing would no longer be a concern.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 12:06 AM
urbancanadian urbancanadian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 621
Not crazy about the counter-flow idea, but my god it's good to finally see some movement on this! Is this the first time we see an actual diagram of the interchange?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 1:13 AM
Tfreder's Avatar
Tfreder Tfreder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Surrey
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
As for the proposition for AFB counter-flow lanes... that's a bit of a Catch-22 IMHO.

After 3 pm on a typical afternoon weekday, BC-99 NB to the GMT is a parking lot. The only other option is BC-91 NB to the AFB. Even by 3pm, that route as well is a parking lot and can be backed up to the 64th Ave. interchange. With the imposition of afternoon counter-flow lanes, I could see that back-up extending right onto BC-99. Ergo, I don't believe this concept to be such a great idea.
That was my initial reaction as well, but it's probable that it's just the light at 72nd that's causing the delay NB during the PM-peak. Once they build the interchange it'll be interesting to see how much it will improve congestion. I'm sure the counterflow idea will be much more justifiable once the interchange is built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 1:23 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is online now
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 841
wimpy ass interchange. but at least it will keep the highway 91 flowing now which is good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 1:27 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 11,303
I am guessing that will be an elevated ramp over the highway? (given how tight the interchange is). The T being at grade and the highway dipping under seems like it would be a bad idea in that location.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 1:57 AM
teriyaki teriyaki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 302
Not sure if that picture is the proposed interchange, but it doesn't look like a completely free-flowing interchange...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 2:36 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
CKNW quotes Todd Stone as there being the possibility of adding a 7th lane:


http://www.cknw.com/2016/06/08/190403/


http://www.cloverdalereporter.com/news/382262081.html

Think there's room?


http://globalnews.ca/news/2749544/ne.../?sf28257146=1
Off the bat, the AFB has modern, freeway-standard, 12-foot lane widths. During low-traffic periods, some traffic comfortably traverses same at 110-120 km/hr.

Had the AFB been constructed to exact freeway specifications, one would also see 10-foot shoulders on each side of a carriageway permitting stalled vehicles, vehicles in accidents, etc. to pull over to the shoulder allowing most traffic unimpeded flow.

Unfortunately, that would have escalated the costs of the structure and therein comes the trade-off - basically non-existent shoulders. As an aside, during the Monday afternoon commute accidents in both directions resulted in just one-lane in each direction with up to 1 1/2 hour delays in each direction.

In any event, Stone's comment comes across as an off-the-cuff, ill-considered, ill thought out trial balloon. Just does not make any logical sense. For example, the sidewalks are on the OTHER side of the cable stringers. No room to expand there. Period.

In order to go to 7-lanes, one would need to decrease each of the 6 lanes to 11-feet (- 6 ft). Then add in the 1-foot right hand shoulders on each side plus the 3-foot median area (5 feet altogether) and bingo - another purported 7th lane at 11-feet - with no median whatsoever. Again, Stone threw out a ridiculous red herring here IMHO.

Just ain't gonna happen IMHO.

Again, the counter-flow proposal also comes across as a bit of a hair-brained scheme from my perspective as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 2:38 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
I am guessing that will be an elevated ramp over the highway?
Correct. Also allows traffic flow to remain unimpeded during the construction phase.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 2:43 AM
Infrequent Poster Infrequent Poster is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 609
the road system (in my opinion) on either side of the AFB is so bad, I dont see what can be gained by scabbing on some sort of counter flow system over the bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 3:37 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,122
Great news about the 72nd ave interchange. I thought that would never go ahead. Looking at the T-shaped interchange, it will look just like the Evans road T interchange in Chilliwack.


Source: Google Maps

They better make sure it is a double lane offramp otherwise traffic queuing up at the red light at the top of the interchange may be spilling onto the highway.

Last edited by Cypherus; Jun 9, 2016 at 4:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 3:43 AM
logicbomb logicbomb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Unfortunately, that would have escalated the costs of the structure and therein comes the trade-off - basically non-existent shoulders. As an aside, during the Monday afternoon commute accidents in both directions resulted in just one-lane in each direction with up to 1 1/2 hour delays in each direction.

In any event, Stone's comment comes across as an off-the-cuff, ill-considered, ill thought out trial balloon. Just does not make any logical sense. For example, the sidewalks are on the OTHER side of the cable stringers. No room to expand there. Period.

In order to go to 7-lanes, one would need to decrease each of the 6 lanes to 11-feet (- 6 ft). Then add in the 1-foot right hand shoulders on each side plus the 3-foot median area (5 feet altogether) and bingo - another purported 7th lane at 11-feet - with no median whatsoever. Again, Stone threw out a ridiculous red herring here IMHO.

Just ain't gonna happen IMHO.

Again, the counter-flow proposal also comes across as a bit of a hair-brained scheme from my perspective as well.
The counter-flow proposal makes no sense what-so-ever and isn't possible unless you really narrow the lanes and sacrifice safety.

Plus to me, the biggest issue is the 91C + SFPR intersection. It's a really congested and dangerous intersection that requires urgent attention and there are no plans to even look at upgrading the one narrow left-turn lane on the connector to get on the NB on-ramp.

Bear in mind that North Delta's Liberal MLA narrowly defeated the incumbent and the Libs got crushed in South Delta by Vicki Huntington.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

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 5:10 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.