South Fraser Perimeter Road/Highway 17 Extension | Completed

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

When they were building it they were sending lots of information pamphlets to our house claiming that the new highway would be faster because it won't have a light. It was a point that they stressed repeatedly. I remember seeing plans before to make Highway 17A more local, so maybe this was one of the ways of doing so.

I barely ever drive (I've only driven to Tsawwassen once since the SFPR opened) so could you guys explain what you mean by punishing drivers heading through Ladner? The one time I did go to Tsawwassen, I got lost on the way back, because it didn't seem logical that I had to exit to keep going straight back home. I stayed on the road and ended up having to loop around via Highway 99. Is this what you guys mean?

http://www.vickihuntington.ca/mla-report...uiries-about-south-fraser-perimeter-road

The light at 17A and Trunk Road has been timed to make North/South traffic wait longer.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/190412311.html

It was considered making 17A one lane south of Trunk Road.

The Deltaport way ramps were reconfigured to be low speed (this is somewhat justifiable because trucks shouldn't be taking 17A).

Finally, widening the highway for 2 km but leaving a very deliberate gap at the end so traffic has to merge.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I barely ever drive (I've only driven to Tsawwassen once since the SFPR opened) so could you guys explain what you mean by punishing drivers heading through Ladner?

Basically what has already been said. Rather than keep 17A as it was, they've made a few changes that make the route slower. The rather short, oddly angled one lane merge onto 17 south from 17A south makes it quite clear to me that they did not want people using the old road as a through route to the ferry.

In my case, I quite frequently drive from Richmond to the ferry terminal in Tsawassen. As is pretty obvious from looking at google maps, when heading from Richmond to the ferries, the old route is significantly more straight and direct than the new route. The fact that they've purposely tried to slow the route down and make it primarily for local traffic is "punishing" for drivers headed from Richmond to the ferries because the trip to the ferries has been made longer. If you take the new route, as the ministry of transportation would like, it takes longer than the old route because it's a longer distance. If you take the old route, it's slower than it used to be because of the changes.

For the most part it's really just petty, but I'd rather the 17A number live up to its designation as an alternate route. Not a local route as the province seems to want.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

If you take the new route, as the ministry of transportation would like, it takes longer than the old route because it's a longer distance. If you take the old route, it's slower than it used to be because of the changes.

According to Google Maps, right now (middle of the day, no traffic) it is literally 1 minute difference in travel time between the old and new routes, from the tunnel to the ferries. For people coming from the east (i.e. MOST OF THE REGION) the new route is in fact faster. During any amount of traffic congestion, the new route will be faster from all directions.

Ladner residents and their representatives fought for decades for some kind of solution to the extreme traffic going through their outskirts at Trunk & 17A. Now that it is finally built, there are complaints that it's not direct enough. What would have been better? Building the new bypass 1 km closer? It is only 2 km away to the east as it is.

I feel like regular visitors to the ferry terminal just don't like change. I'll prefer to take the route that has less traffic lights, personally.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Zassk

According to Google Maps, right now (middle of the day, no traffic) it is literally 1 minute difference in travel time between the old and new routes, from the tunnel to the ferries. For people coming from the east (i.e. MOST OF THE REGION) the new route is in fact faster. During any amount of traffic congestion, the new route will be faster from all directions.

Ladner residents and their representatives fought for decades for some kind of solution to the extreme traffic going through their outskirts at Trunk & 17A. Now that it is finally built, there are complaints that it's not direct enough. What would have been better? Building the new bypass 1 km closer? It is only 2 km away to the east as it is.

I'll prefer to take the route that has less traffic lights, personally.

I don't take issue with encouraging people to take the new route. In fact I prefer it myself.

What I take issue with is deliberately leaving the connection between the two highways hobbled at the expense of safety.

With the new third lane east of 56th, there's really no good reason not to extend it a few hundred feet and directly connect it (similar to the add/drop at McGill).

You have local traffic from Ladner merging into heavy truck traffic at a curve on the highway. It is only a matter of time before there is a serious incident.

[officedweller]

New Hwy 17 is a bypass.
So it's the same as any other bypass situation.
Longer route, avoids either congested area or traffic calmed area.

[gkz]

Ministry Report: HWY 17 and HWY 91 Connector intersection truck rollover safety assessment

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/rep...y17-91-TruckRolloverSafetyAssessment.pdf

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by gkz

Ministry Report: HWY 17 and HWY 91 Connector intersection truck rollover safety assessment

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/rep...y17-91-TruckRolloverSafetyAssessment.pdf

Picked up by NEWS1130:

http://www.news1130.com/2015/05/12/repor...-highway-17-at-the-highway-91-connector/

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Zassk

According to Google Maps, right now (middle of the day, no traffic) it is literally 1 minute difference in travel time between the old and new routes, from the tunnel to the ferries. For people coming from the east (i.e. MOST OF THE REGION) the new route is in fact faster. During any amount of traffic congestion, the new route will be faster from all directions.

Ladner residents and their representatives fought for decades for some kind of solution to the extreme traffic going through their outskirts at Trunk & 17A. Now that it is finally built, there are complaints that it's not direct enough. What would have been better? Building the new bypass 1 km closer? It is only 2 km away to the east as it is.

I feel like regular visitors to the ferry terminal just don't like change. I'll prefer to take the route that has less traffic lights, personally.

Regardless of what Google maps says, in real life driving, the old route is quite a bit faster than the SFPR when coming from the west.
You can rip down the old straight route at 120 km/h pretty easily. It's harder to go that fast on the new route because of the curves.

[Klazu]

No photo, but I drove the Golden Ears Bridge and SFPR today and it seems that the new connector is all paved. When is it going to open? It would have eased my drive today.

Lots of traffic on SFPR on the Surrey stretch even on Sunday. All traffic doing 100km/h.

[DKaz]

I decided to go on an adventure with my (motorcycle) ride to work by going up 182A St. which currently intersects the unfinished Golden Ears Connector but will but cut off to the south when finished with a cul-de-sac already paved. The north side will be right in-right out.

All photos by me.

From 182A St. looking east


From 182A St. looking west

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by gkz

Ministry Report: HWY 17 and HWY 91 Connector intersection truck rollover safety assessment

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/rep...y17-91-TruckRolloverSafetyAssessment.pdf

From the report:

The ultimate long term solution would be to replace the intersection with a grade separated facility. This is a very costly solution and construction of an interchange would cause large traffic disruptions. Construction of an interchange would only be considered if the preceding recommendations are not effective in resolving the occurrence of truck rollovers.

It would have not been very costly or disruptive had they done it RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. *sigh*

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

Regardless of what Google maps says, in real life driving, the old route is quite a bit faster than the SFPR when coming from the west.
You can rip down the old straight route at 120 km/h pretty easily. It's harder to go that fast on the new route because of the curves.

Yah you can't go by Google maps since all the GPS/routing systems take into account speed limits. People fly down 17A (as pointed out above) since it is straight. 110-120km/h is normal even though the speedlimit is 80 along the stretch from HWY99 to Ladner Trunk, and 90 from LT to the overpass where it drops to 60.

On the same token, most people on SFPR drive 100+km/h now so again can't really go by Google maps or GPS.

[paulsparrow]

Originally Posted by Mininari

No surprise here... yes, lets open a new 4-lane expressway and have the connection to the major 6-lane bridge be a single, unsignaled left turn lane that has to wait for a break in heavy traffic coming. I'm surprised there hasn't been a major accident here yet involving a semi that tried to 'sneak through a gap.' This is TOP priority... even over any of the interchanges.

Otherwise, Good on 'em. Yeah, Mayor Lois Jackson is very adament on getting these projects built, and will no doubt pressure the Province as much as possible. Hopefully they can spin a good case for the SFPR / 91 interchanges as 'nationally significant' so they can access Building Canada Funding.

It doesn't matter how you change the eastbound entrance be it a 2 lane direct on ramp or leave it as it is you still have to merge with westbound traffic to one lane to enter the bridge. Until the Alex Fraser gets twinned nothing is going to change.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Yah you can't go by Google maps since all the GPS/routing systems take into account speed limits. People fly down 17A (as pointed out above) since it is straight. 110-120km/h is normal even though the speedlimit is 80 along the stretch from HWY99 to Ladner Trunk, and 90 from LT to the overpass where it drops to 60.

On the same token, most people on SFPR drive 100+km/h now so again can't really go by Google maps or GPS.

Use Waze, they use real average speeds to calculate time.

But in either case, I find that Google and Waze tend to underestimate the time it takes to drive places especially in traffic. I would rather both say I'll arrive there at 7:10 and actually arrive at 7:05 than the other way around.

[makr3trkr]

• Video Link

Delta Police Officers pull over motorcyclist travelling 213 km/hr
Published on 30 Jun 2015

Back in April, two of our Delta Police Traffic Section officers were conducting speed enforcement on Highway 17 (SFPR) southbound in Delta, British Columbia, Canada. This motorcyclist was pulled over after registering 213 km/hr on a laser in an 80 km/hr zone. The rider's motorbike was impounded and the rider was subject to several Motor Vehicle Act charges. Officers noticed the rider was wearing a GoPro camera and watched the footage later. The rider reaches speeds of over 220 km/hr, splits traffic by driving between the rows of cars, and at other times weaves in and out of other cars and large semi trucks/dump trucks - putting himself and other road users at considerable risk. The motorcycle rider signed a release allowing us to use the video.

[Klazu]

That should result in jail time. What an idiot.

[DKaz]

Makes me glad I only had a 125. I could only cruise at like 90 to 100 km/h in a relaxed riding position. Doing 110-120 would involve a full race tuck and a slight tail wind. lol.

Looks like he was possibly taking the bike out for a test ride as well? Notice how quickly this bike (or any modern sport bike) stops with little drama.

[WarrenC12]

Wrong thread.

[trofirhen]

Is there the possibility that the SFPR may evolve, over time, into full freeway status,that is, without controlled intersections with lights . Again, that diamond interchange comes to mind.
The engineers here will know what I am referring to, and might offer responses as to whether or not this could be a reality
or is it not worth trying for?

[GMasterAres]

Not the full highway. I would find it hard to believe they would ever interchange 104th near the bottom of the 176th hill if you assume "SFPR" cuts off at that point.

The whole of highway 17 though goes through Cloverdale and stretches that would never be full freeway.

The stretch though between 104th near the bottom of the hill and 56th in Delta could very well become "full freeway" in the future because it was designed to be. There are supposed to be interchanges at every traffic light between. They were only not built to save money.

So the Tilbury connector, 91 connector, Old Yale, and Bridgeview/130th, were all supposed to be interchanges and designed to be + the Province I believe actually purchased all the land already. I have a friend who owned a piece of land next to Bridgeview at 116A and the Province purchased it off him for the interchange only to not proceed. They still own it and he still stores stuff on the plot of land.

116th not sure about but it could be a right-in-right-out like at elevator road.

So yes you could see all the lights gone between those two points. I still have doubts you'd see the lights go at 56th in Delta or at 104th in Surrey/Port Kells.