Gateway Discussion: Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1/RapidBus - Page 3

SpongeG · #41 Posted: **Jun 24, 2009, 5:57 PM**

there was/is a sign on hwy #1 just east of 152 that says there will be 10 minute closures overnight for some period of time i forget what the dates were - how much can they get done in 10 minutes? i don't know how frequent they are either

Metro-One · #42 Posted: **Jun 24, 2009, 6:15 PM**

I was just looking over the new (February 2009) alignments of the SFPR and one thing to me does not make sense. With the conversion of the SFPR #99 intersection into an interchange (smart idea) the entire length of the SFPR from the Deltaport Interchange to the Pattullo Bridge in a full freeway except 1 intersection (the Tilbury Intersection). Now I am thinking does it not make sense at this point to convert the Tilbury Intersection into a full interchange? Therefore it would become a full freeway at least between the #17 and the Alex Fraser Bridge. If not we are just going to have another highway 91 72nd intersection problem.

Of course I wish they were building the entire length as a freeway but at the very least it makes the most sense to make this one intersection an interchange.

Also when are we going to get to see the new Highway 1 alignments!?

Stingray2004 · #43 Posted: **Jun 24, 2009, 7:29 PM**

One design flaw on the Hwy 1 upgrades that I hope will be reviewed...

And that is the 1st Avenue WB off-ramp/ EB on-ramp.

Traffic tends to become backed-up right onto the freeway on occasion leading to the westbound off-ramp. And alot of traffic also enters Hwy 1 EB from the on-ramp.

Currently, both Hwy 1 acceleration/deceleration merge lanes are TOO short and that does not change in the schematics.

I would prefer the extension of these 1st Ave. on/off ramps in both directions right up to the Boundary Road on-off ramps, which are in relative close proximity. One continuous auxilary lane.

It makes for much safer merging and smoother traffic flow.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1...ce_Concept.pdf

officedweller · #44 Posted: **Jun 24, 2009, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

One design flaw on the Hwy 1 upgrades that I hope will be reviewed...

And that is the 1st Avenue WB off-ramp/ EB on-ramp.

Traffic tends to become backed-up right onto the freeway on occasion leading to the westbound off-ramp. And alot of traffic also enters Hwy 1 EB from the on-ramp.

Currently, both Hwy 1 acceleration/deceleration merge lanes are TOO short and that does not change in the schematics.

I would prefer the extension of these 1st Ave. on/off ramps in both directions right up to the Boundary Road on-off ramps, which are in relative close proximity. One continuous auxilary lane.

It makes for much safer merging and smoother traffic flow.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1...ce_Concept.pdf

That concern is going to be addressed - an extra lane will be added for the exit and on-ramps.

See video presentation here:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/info...%20Interchange

Other video presentations for each intrchange along the project here:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/info...mprovs_vid.htm

Stingray2004 · #45 Posted: **Jun 25, 2009, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

That concern is going to be addressed - an extra lane will be added for the exit and on-ramps.

See video presentation here:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/info...%20Interchange

Thanks OD for the links!

Nevertheless, west of Grandview, the "core lane" cross-section will still comprise ONLY 6 THRU lanes.

I reckon that the section between 1st Ave and Boundary Road should be 6-lanes + 2 auxilary lanes for merging (extended between both interchanges) and that concept is still not contemplated in the preliminary design.

Currently, in both directions, traffic slows down too quickly (seeing brake lights are common) due to the close proximity of the on/off ramps of the closely spaced interchanges with the concurrent weaving.

That area, west of Grandview, likely comprises the closest spaced array of interchanges/on-off ramps along the entire system. And that always spells potential trouble (ie. potential accidents) unless appropriate design modifications are implemented.

Typically that could involve some stepped-down form of c/d system albeit additional auxilary lanes will probably suffice in this instance.

Hopefully, further design modifications will be made as we've seen with the SFPR.

Canadian Mind · #46 Posted: **Jun 25, 2009, 2:11 AM**

Thought the whole system was going to have a series of expressway lanes and auxillary lanes from Port Mann to Ironworkers?

deasine · #47 Posted: **Jun 25, 2009, 2:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Thought the whole system was going to have a series of expressway lanes and auxillary lanes from Port Mann to Ironworkers?

Of course not. That would be like the 401.

Canadian Mind · #48 Posted: **Jun 25, 2009, 2:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by deasine

Of course not. That would be like the 401.

Aside from the 401s immense size at 18 lanes, how is that a bad thing for a region with less than half the population to have a freeway with less than half the lanes or the 401, but in a similar design manner?

Whalleyboy · #49 Posted: **Jun 25, 2009, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

You mean like the rapid lines that will be in the middle of the new 10-lane bridge?

i thought the plans was to be under the road deck not in the middle

GeeCee · #50 Posted: **Jun 25, 2009, 3:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

i thought the plans was to be under the road deck not in the middle

Nope. There are light rail provisions under the bridge. The rapidbus lanes will be the inside lane in each direction in the middle of the bridge.

Maersk · #51 Posted: **Jun 25, 2009, 3:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Nope. There are light rail provisions under the bridge. The rapidbus lanes will be the inside lane in each direction in the middle of the bridge.

*rapidbus/HOV lane

surrey1 · #52 Posted: **Jun 25, 2009, 4:04 AM**

anyone know what the height is going to be? based on the renderings it looks like it could be around 700 feet. would that make it the tallest structure in bc?

Maersk · #53 Posted: **Jun 25, 2009, 4:40 AM**

Was just snooping around the Fort McMurray Construction thread. Apparently an area in ALberta called Wood Buffalo is getting a 10 lane highway. Anyone else puzzled at the fact that they're getting one before Metro Vancouver is?

DKaz · #54 Posted: **Jun 25, 2009, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maersk

Was just snooping around the Fort McMurray Construction thread. Apparently an area in ALberta called Wood Buffalo is getting a 10 lane highway. Anyone else puzzled at the fact that they're getting one before Metro Vancouver is?

I haven't checked to confirm but Alberta's a lot cheaper to build roads through and they can afford it.

wrenegade · #55 Posted: **Jun 25, 2009, 5:36 AM**

Wood Buffalo is the name of the overall area surrounding Fort Mac. I am surprised to see a 10 lane highway. That seems totally of out whack. Most of the highway up there is just two lanes, just twinning it would make a world of difference.