Highway 1 Fraser Valley Phase 1: 216th Interchange | Compleated - Page 8

libtard · #**141** Posted **Sep 7, 2020, 2:48 AM**

There is also no room for extra capacity under the new 216 interchange for extra lanes. This is the best we can hope for out to Abbotsford. A third lane added for HOV from 264th westbound to 200. And east we lose a general purpose lane between 232 and 264. The NDP literally hate highway expansion. All of their infrastructure projects so far have been head scratchingly bad.

jollyburger · #**142** Posted **Sep 7, 2020, 6:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

There is also no room for extra capacity under the new 216 interchange for extra lanes. This is the best we can hope for out to Abbotsford. A third lane added for HOV from 264th westbound to 200. And east we lose a general purpose lane between 232 and 264. The NDP literally hate highway expansion. All of their infrastructure projects so far have been head scratchingly bad.

I don't think it's an issue with the number of lanes under the overpass but the length of merging and throw in that cars are heading down a slope and around a curve.

They either need to extend three lanes further east or possibly remove the HOV before the overpass and get them down to two lanes before cars start to merge from the interchange. Or maybe make the far right lane the 2nd lane. And have the HOV lane merge into the middle lane.

WarrenC12 · #**143** Posted **Sep 7, 2020, 2:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The best way for highways to drop a lane or two is at a major interchange / junction as off ramps.

For example with the widening out to 264 the third lane should drop as the eastbound off ramp to 264th. Of course the overpass structures should be built to allow further widening east and the fact that the NDP has switched the proposed third lane from general purpose to HOV does complicate things a little more.

Yep that makes sense, and I agree with the HOV. In this next longer widening, HOV should end somewhere past 232nd. It will still lead to some shifting around prior to 264, but not as bad as 216 today I'm guessing.

WarrenC12 · #**144** Posted **Sep 7, 2020, 2:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

There is also no room for extra capacity under the new 216 interchange for extra lanes. This is the best we can hope for out to Abbotsford. A third lane added for HOV from 264th westbound to 200. And east we lose a general purpose lane between 232 and 264. The NDP literally hate highway expansion. All of their infrastructure projects so far have been head scratchingly bad.

Aren't these plans from the Liberal era that are just being followed through on?

cabotp · #**145** Posted **Sep 7, 2020, 3:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

this is not happening for the love of god how many times do i have to say this. Why would they make the configuration 2+1 HOV from 200 - 216, then back to 2 general purpose until 232, then 3 general purpose plus 1 HOV up until 264. It doesn’t make sense. The ultimate configuration from 200 - 264 will be 2 general purpose + 1 HOV

Because the current extra lane between 232 and 264 was installed a climbing lane for commercial trucks. Also the current extra lane is just an really long on / off ramp between 232 and 264. There are really only 2 GP lanes in that section that continue on straight. Which matches the section just after the HOV drops off after 216. So it would be quite easy to extend the HOV to 264 and further if so desired. Nothing else would need to change. Other than upgrading the overpasses if need be.

Either way, you have no clue and I have no clue, and nobody has no clue.

libtard · #**146** Posted **Sep 7, 2020, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cabotp

Because the current extra lane between 232 and 264 was installed a climbing lane for commercial trucks. Also the current extra lane is just an really long on / off ramp between 232 and 264. There are really only 2 GP lanes in that section that continue on straight. Which matches the section just after the HOV drops off after 216. So it would be quite easy to extend the HOV to 264 and further if so desired. Nothing else would need to change. Other than upgrading the overpasses if need be.

Either way, you have no clue and I have no clue, and nobody has no clue.

I already predicted the lanes from 202 - 216 would be 2 general purpose + 1 HOV even though the plans showed 3 general purpose. I am right about this prediction too and will quote your post again when it finally happens

dharper · #**147** Posted **Sep 7, 2020, 7:35 PM**

I am sure the fix for the eastbound lane end merge, will only happen when the 216th - 264th section is completed.

libtard · #**148** Posted **Sep 7, 2020, 8:02 PM**

I think it’s funny that the best we can hope for as far as highway 1 expansion to Abbotsford is the addition of an HOV lane

Trainguy · #**149** Posted **Sep 8, 2020, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dharper

I am sure the fix for the eastbound lane end merge, will only happen when the 216th - 264th section is completed.

This section is years and years away from being completed or even started. They have the tricky railway crossing section to deal as well. Not holding my breath.

cabotp · #**150** Posted **Sep 8, 2020, 2:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trainguy

This section is years and years away from being completed or even started. They have the tricky railway crossing section to deal as well. Not holding my breath.

Can't remember where I read about it. But I thought I read a post or news update about replacing the railway crossing just before 232.

jollyburger · #**151** Posted **Sep 8, 2020, 3:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cabotp

Can't remember where I read about it. But I thought I read a post or news update about replacing the railway crossing just before 232.

Quote:

new underpass at Glover Road and the CP Rail crossing

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2019TRAN0062-000774

SpongeG · #**152** Posted **Sep 9, 2020, 12:32 AM**

there is some video inside this story

VIDEO: New freeway interchange opens in Lower Mainland
Traffic is already flowing on a new $62-million highway connector in Langley

ROXANNE HOOPER Sep. 4, 2020

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/vid...GmPoIxSpsBvgRPYt3ys3MbPmKxcLBkxO29Moe_OA

flipper316 · #**153** Posted **Sep 9, 2020, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

there is some video inside this story

VIDEO: New freeway interchange opens in Lower Mainland
Traffic is already flowing on a new $62-million highway connector in Langley

ROXANNE HOOPER Sep. 4, 2020

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/vid...GmPoIxSpsBvgRPYt3ys3MbPmKxcLBkxO29Moe_OA

As usual. Brand new road and they couldn't even bother to put in cats eyes reflectors. Why are Burnaby and Coquitlam the only 2 cities that actually care about road visibility

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**154** Posted **Sep 9, 2020, 5:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flipper316

As usual. Brand new road and they couldn't even bother to put in cats eyes reflectors. Why are Burnaby and Coquitlam the only 2 cities that actually care about road visibility

i think they add them later? i do see them on a lot of BCMoTI projects so, assuming this is their jurisdiction, they will most likely be there eventually.

though being in the rainy, dark climate we are, reflectors should be mandatory in all jurisdictions, at least in the GVRD. they really do help see the lanes. and considering a butt load of collisions are caused by being unable to see road markings according to ICBC, then why not solve the issue...

Alex Mackinnon · #**155** Posted **Sep 9, 2020, 10:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i think they add them later? i do see them on a lot of BCMoTI projects so, assuming this is their jurisdiction, they will most likely be there eventually.

though being in the rainy, dark climate we are, reflectors should be mandatory in all jurisdictions, at least in the GVRD. they really do help see the lanes. and considering a butt load of collisions are caused by being unable to see road markings according to ICBC, then why not solve the issue...

It doesn't take much to add them later. I don't think you'd want them in place during the painting anyways, to make sure you don't accidentally paint over them.

s211 · #**156** Posted **Sep 9, 2020, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

though being in the rainy, dark climate we are, reflectors should be mandatory in all jurisdictions, at least in the GVRD. they really do help see the lanes. and considering a butt load of collisions are caused by being unable to see road markings according to ICBC, then why not solve the issue...

This issue seems to make the evening news religiously every year for who knows how long, and SWF ever gets done. It's almost as if someone influential in the transportation ministry also owns a very lucrative auto body shop.

libtard · #**157** Posted **Sep 10, 2020, 12:16 AM**

This interchange was built by a contractor to be turn key. It was handed over to the BC MoT after it was constructed. Why would the MoT go back later and add cats eyes instead of including it in the construction package. Answer: there will be no cats eyes

WarrenC12 · #**158** Posted **Sep 13, 2020, 2:48 PM**

I had the chance to take this new section both ways yesterday (Sat) at full regular speed. Going eastbound, 7:30am on a Saturday morning, light volume. The "double merge" after the 216 interchange is bad. I was in the fast lane but saw it first hand as fairly light traffic still had brake lights everywhere, people changing lanes multiple times. The merge from the interchange ends and immediately there is a "merge 150m" sign, and 150m is very quick at highway speeds. Added to that is the fact that this whole thing takes place on a moderate curve and down slope. A recipe for fender benders and worse.

The sad part is, this section is only 2 lanes for a short period to get through that CP Rail underpass, then it's 3 lanes to 264th anyway.

Westbound is fine, it's already only 2 lanes from 264, and it widens in a normal way with the HOV lane appearing as the new lane.

MIPS · #**159** Posted **Sep 13, 2020, 11:58 PM**

Global had a thing about it on Friday.

https://globalnews.ca/video/7330774/new-highway-1-interchange-in-langley-already-causing-problems

xd_1771 · #**160** Posted **Sep 14, 2020, 12:50 AM**

It looks like a restripe may be needed to change the merge over there to a left-hand lane merge (which if I'm not mistaken was the setup that existed east of 200th beforehand).

It's definitely far from ideal and presents safety issues of its own, but I think in this circumstance it's superior because of the high volume of trucks taking the rightmost lane and the challenge of handling a merge like that with trucks expected to be a large portion of that traffic.