HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 5:24 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicbomb View Post
The counter-flow proposal makes no sense what-so-ever and isn't possible unless you really narrow the lanes and sacrifice safety.
I suggest a bit of a correction. The key point here is the apparent FINAL announcement of an interchange at BC-91/72nd Ave. That matter over-rides everything else. Been critical for years.

Today, an apparent secondary matter under consideration is a counter-flow proposal for the AFB. Said matter does not require any change in the 6-lane configuration of the AFB currently extant. Just requires gates plus some additional lane expansion/barriers on either side of the AFB footprint. (akin to the current GMT set-up as well as the old Pitt River Bridges set-up)

The third secondary matter, apparently espoused by BC MoTI minister Todd Stone this afternoon, is shoe-horning a 7th lane onto the AFB bridge-deck/cross-section... for whatever bizarre reason. Just not logically/physically possible. Gotta say it... Todd was apparently "Stoned" with those comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logicbomb View Post
Bear in mind that North Delta's Liberal MLA narrowly defeated the incumbent and the Libs got crushed in South Delta by Vicki Huntington.
Brought up the matter in one of my initial post today herein:

Quote:
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).
Would prefer to discuss in further detail in the BC Poli thread... but what the hey.

Again, as ya mentioned, Delta North BC Lib incumbent won the seat in 2013 by the skin of his teeth (after BC NDP wins in 2005/2009). In that political vein, the new 72nd Ave. interchange will positively impact Nordel residents utilizing both the 64th and 72nd Ave. interchanges. On top of that, White Rock/South Surrey residents will also be positively impacted. But that's it.

Residents in the riding of Delta South (Tsawwassen/Ladner) are as far removed from the 72nd Ave./BC-91 proposed interchange as are Van City residents in terms flow-through actual usage of same.

As an aside, the riding of Delta South (centre-right demographics) is represented by Ind. Vicki Huntington - former Delta councillor and a red tory. Her pops was former fed Tory MP Ron Huntington representing a north shore riding during the Mulroney gov't.

Vicki won in 2013 by a 48% - 37% margin. And she will win comfortably again in 2013 as I posted in the BC Poli thread. It's basically "Vicki's seat" as long as she wants it.

In that vein, the BC Libs, for whatever reason, believe that they can take it back in 2017. Just ain't gonna happen. Gotta admit though, my eye-brows have been raised when long-time former Delta Police chief Jim Cessford is aiming for the BC Lib nomination contesting same with current Delta councillor Ian Paton, who took top council spot in both Tsawwassen and Ladner during the 2014 Delta muni election. Good BC Lib recruiting but both of these guys are dreaming in technicolour in terms of ultimately winning the Delta South political prize in 2017.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 5:48 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
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.
The traffic light on the upper level of the T ramps won't have to accommodate northbound through traffic, so more time will be dedicated to the two remaining types of turns. That should significantly reduce queuing for that those turns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 5:53 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Today, an apparent secondary matter under consideration is a counter-flow proposal for the AFB. Said matter does not require any change in the 6-lane configuration of the AFB currently extant. Just requires gates plus some additional lane expansion/barriers on either side of the AFB footprint. (akin to the current GMT set-up as well as the old Pitt River Bridges set-up)
IMHO the sensible and safest way to set up counterflow on the AFB would be to set up two runs of permanent jersey barriers to split the bridge into three sets of two lanes each, and have the middle set be routed in the direction of prevalent traffic flow. So rather than being Massey tunnel-like where counterflow is used only during rush hours, it would be more like the Lion's Gate Bridge where there's always a "preferred" direction. That increases safety by putting a more substantial barrier between opposing traffic directions. The single-deck design of the bridge makes it easy to use this configuration, unlike the GMT or old Pitt River bridges.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 3:52 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
IMHO the sensible and safest way to set up counterflow on the AFB would be to set up two runs of permanent jersey barriers to split the bridge into three sets of two lanes each, and have the middle set be routed in the direction of prevalent traffic flow. So rather than being Massey tunnel-like where counterflow is used only during rush hours, it would be more like the Lion's Gate Bridge where there's always a "preferred" direction. That increases safety by putting a more substantial barrier between opposing traffic directions. The single-deck design of the bridge makes it easy to use this configuration, unlike the GMT or old Pitt River bridges.
This. I've been advocating two-two-two for a long time. Having 7 lanes with no barriers is either crazy or they'd have to lower the speed limit to 60.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 5:09 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,486
What about places where they have a single row of movable barriers that can be quickly changed over by a special vehicle. I've seen some interesting pictures of those awhile ago, but have not seen it in person.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 5:35 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
What about places where they have a single row of movable barriers that can be quickly changed over by a special vehicle.
That seems unnecessarily complex to me. The 2-2-2 configuration is simple and would work just as well IMHO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 5:44 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
What about places where they have a single row of movable barriers that can be quickly changed over by a special vehicle. I've seen some interesting pictures of those awhile ago, but have not seen it in person.
That was supposed to happen on the old PMB, either the Socreds or NDP came up with the idea in the late 80s/early 90s. I think the machine didn't end up fitting on the bridge or something. It was a giant mess, though not a very expensive mistake IIRC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 6:07 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,486
Here we go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2SHgWRVD5g

Moveable jersey barrier.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 9:37 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicbomb View Post
Go figure. It's better than what's there right now, but a SB flyover off-ramp is desperately needed instead of a light.
No it's not.

So few cars make the turn from 72nd to SB 91. The current problem is that the cars turning onto 72nd have to wait a long time for 91 through traffic to pass through the intersection. The left turn light to SB 91 is probably green for 30 seconds out of every 10 minutes. Once you remove the wait for 91 through traffic, cars turning onto 72nd will basically have a green light 95% of the time. If you commute that way every day, you'll probably only stop at the light once a week if even.

There are so many far busier exits that have lights, like at 32 Ave Div. This is nowhere near as bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
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.
The traffic only backs up because in the PM rush, the light at 72nd actually gives more time to people turning left off the 91 than to NB traffic. And you have a whole bunch of trucks that are stopping and starting at their lethargic pace (usually in both lanes, those assholes), so that just slows down things even more.

Once the GMT bridge opens and is tolled, and throw in a tolled Pattullo, the AFB will be even busier. While that will encourage people to take the toll bridges, there are a large number of people for whom the AFB is the bridge they NEED to take. A counterflow system will improve things for them. It is one thing to allow congestion to encourage the use of uncongested tolled bridges, but another thing to have so much it ruins certain people's lives.

And yes, it will also cause congestion in the reverse peak direction. But this too should encourage people to use the tolled bridges in the reverse peak direction. If the AFB has 3 fairly empty lanes NB in the PM peak, who in their right mind would actually pay the toll (if you are coming from anywhere other than South Delta)? A little congestion on a 2 lane NB AFB bridge would get people using the GMB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
That seems unnecessarily complex to me. The 2-2-2 configuration is simple and would work just as well IMHO.
The 2-2-2 might be a bit difficult when trying to integrate it with the exits. The counterflow also works on the GMT because there are enough lanes on the other side to keep traffic moving (after the counterflow traffic doesn't have to merge back down to 2 lanes for a long time) Around the AFB, the roadways are a bit tight, and I don't know if the traffic patterns facilitate easily separating traffic.

Like in the PM peak the center lanes might be far less used because of the volume from the 91 travelling to Nordel. And most of the traffic getting on at Queensborogh and Anacis might be travelling past Nordel. So you end up with a situation where most of the traffic is now compressed down to 2 lanes while the minority of flow (East-West Connector to 72nd and beyond) gets 2 whole lanes to spread out in. It is for sure worth studying.

At least with a movable barrier you can have traffic integrate more and fill up the space available.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 11:07 PM
Gordon Gordon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 954
By the time the new GMB is built there will be region wide tolling \ Road pricing system in place. All major bridges would have a somewhat lower toll on it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2016, 1:30 AM
gkz gkz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 68
While the interchange is not free flowing, this is not a large problem as the light will be green for the 91SB to 72EB 95% of the time. And indeed, if in the future they decide that they want a free flowing interchange, and don't care about intrusion into burns bog, building a trumpet interchange using the existing bridge structure would be easy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2016, 1:49 AM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
By the time the new GMB is built there will be region wide tolling \ Road pricing system in place. All major bridges would have a somewhat lower toll on it.
No there won't That's a crazy commie idea to be honest

I wonder about the new George Massey Bridge will Washington State residents get tolled? And other out of province plates. Because there are ton of Washingtonians that currently use the GMT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2016, 5:50 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is online now
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 943
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
That's a crazy commie idea
well you don't hear that very much anymore. haha.

although i am quite doubtful region wide tolling will ever happen. that would be political suicide.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2016, 7:18 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
No there won't That's a crazy commie idea to be honest

I wonder about the new George Massey Bridge will Washington State residents get tolled? And other out of province plates. Because there are ton of Washingtonians that currently use the GMT.
There's no bilateral agreement in place with WSDoT as YET.

So they don't get tolled on our bridges, and we don't get tolled on their bridges or HOT lanes.

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

Quote:
...
As far as how a counterflow system would work on the Alex Fraser, which has three lanes in both directions, Delta North MLA Scott Hamilton said a number of ideas will be explored, including adding a seventh lane on the bridge by removing the raised curb on both sides.

"That lane could then serve as a counter-flow lane. It wouldn't affect the sidewalks because they are cantilevered, they basically hang off the edge. It would be a destination lane, the type of lane where once you're in it, you're committed to going a certain route like the East-West Connector," he said.
...
http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/c....mkxydfx7.dpuf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2016, 10:24 PM
Political_R Political_R is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
There's no bilateral agreement in place with WSDoT as YET.

So they don't get tolled on our bridges, and we don't get tolled on their bridges or HOT lanes.

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


http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/c....mkxydfx7.dpuf
WSDOT manages the roadways you would have to have agreements with likely the Department of Licensing to obtain owners of the vehicles. WSDOT doesn't manage that. WSDOT contracts out the tolling to ETC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2016, 11:22 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: 85 floors above Metro Vancouver
Posts: 6,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
So they don't get tolled on our bridges, and we don't get tolled on their bridges or HOT lanes.
Is that so? I have always avoided the Bellevue floating bridge thinking I would be tolled. Well what do you know, huh. Also, I-5 has HOT lanes somewhere?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 12:25 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Is that so? I have always avoided the Bellevue floating bridge thinking I would be tolled. Well what do you know, huh. Also, I-5 has HOT lanes somewhere?
I-405 has recently added HOT lanes and SR167 (Renton to Auburn) has had HOT lanes for many years.

Quote:
Q: What if I drive I-405 toll lanes without a pass?

A: The state’s toll contractors will photograph your license plate, search a multistate database, and send a bill by mail — with a $2 surcharge, similar to how business is done for the Highway 520 toll bridge. British Columbia drivers aren’t tolled because the province and state lack a mutual-charging agreement.
...
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

Last edited by officedweller; Jun 23, 2016 at 12:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 2:21 AM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 569
Washington State and BC don't have a mutual tolling strategy in place but when I drove I-90 through NY without Quick-Pass they sent a bill to my address in BC... strange
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 2:52 AM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,622
You can bet such an agreement between WA and BC will be in place when the GMT replacement bridge is operational (and tolled).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 3:07 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
Washington State and BC don't have a mutual tolling strategy in place but when I drove I-90 through NY without Quick-Pass they sent a bill to my address in BC... strange
The only problem that I have with your foregoing statement is that the tolling director for the Washington State Department of Transportation contradicts your assertions, which are also obviously applicable across the U.S.:

Quote:
Why Canadians don’t have to pay for tolls on I-405

BY CHRIS SULLIVAN, KIRO Radio Reporter
October 13, 2015 @ 1:46 pm

Only two-tenths of one-percent of plates going through the toll system on I-405 between Lynnwood and Bellevue are Canadian, according to WSDOT.

Canadians and motorcycles: two nagging issues dogging the new express toll lanes on I-405 between Bellevue and Lynnwood.

For Canadian drivers, Good-to-Go is able to send a bill to any car licensed in any of the 50 states, but it cannot send a bill to our neighbors to the north.

Why?

Tolling director Craig Stone with the Washington State Department of Transportation said Canada has an even tougher version of the U.S. Patriot Act. It will not give up citizens’ information, even for tolling.

What makes this so frustrating is that Washington drivers have to pay the toll on Canada’s Port Mann Bridge. Canada can get our information. Washington cannot do the same for Canadian drivers.

“We do not have the ability to actually get a pay-by-mail bill to a Canadian plate up in B.C.,” Stone said.

He said the state is working with Canada on this, but it’s not likely it will give up addresses.
[emphasis added]

http://mynorthwest.com/151441/why-ca...olls-on-i-405/
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 1:30 AM.

     

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