Highway 91 / 72nd Ave. Interchange | Completed

[WarrenC12]

There's a lot of talk in that news release, not much more IMO. I suppose time will tell.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Mininari

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.

[LeftCoaster]

To save everyone the time of looking, the plan is not full movement.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

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.

[Mininari]

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.

[connect2source]

Great news!!! Can't believe this incredibly simple interchange has been decades in the making!

[makr3trkr]

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.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by officedweller

•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.

[officedweller]

CKNW quotes Todd Stone as there being the possibility of adding a 7th lane:

“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/

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

[Alex Mackinnon]

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.

[urbancanadian]

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?

[Tfreder]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

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.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

wimpy ass interchange. but at least it will keep the highway 91 flowing now which is good.

[Metro-One]

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.

[teriyaki]

Not sure if that picture is the proposed interchange, but it doesn't look like a completely free-flowing interchange...

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by officedweller

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.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I am guessing that will be an elevated ramp over the highway?

Correct. Also allows traffic flow to remain unimpeded during the construction phase.

[Infrequent Poster]

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.

[Cypherus]

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.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

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.