Highway 17 (SFPR) Upgrades

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Who made the decision to downgrade it?

The NDP.

Community benefits!

[flipper316]

??Dear Community Member,


Thank you for your interest in the Highway 91/17 and Deltaport Way Upgrade Project (the Project). You are receiving this email because you have signed up to receive Project updates.


As noted in the March 26, 2020 update, the public information session that was scheduled to take place on March 31 was postponed in response to COVID-19 developments. Despite the current challenges, we are committed to keeping the community, public and stakeholders informed about the Project, and are pleased to advise you that the information session materials are now available on the Project webpage at http://www.gov.bc.ca/highway91-17-deltaport


The display boards provide updated Project information, including the refined concept design for the Highway 91/17 upgrades, a high-level construction schedule and next steps. Please take some time to review the materials and share your feedback by filling out the feedback form on the Project website.


Pre-construction work and site preparation activities are now underway for the Highway 91/17 upgrades, with construction starting in the coming weeks. If you would like to be added to the Contractor's email distribution list for construction updates and traffic notifications, please let us know.


If you no longer wish to receive Project emails, please reply to this email with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.


Kind regards,


Project Team

Highway 91/17 and Deltaport Way Upgrade Project

[DKaz]

I'm not a fan of the NDP but let's not forget who built this in the first place.

[c041v]

Originally Posted by waves

The problem with such a solution is that you would create a crossing conflict point on the Highway between those getting onto the bridge and those getting off before the bridge. If the truck volumes are high for either then its very possible that crossing conflict point could cause worse traffic congestion than the light they propose.

The pier location of the existing structure and east abutment location of the new structure don't support this. It's an aggressive weave, and the parclo, as correctly surmised by another user is a substandard solution that does not work from a geometric perspective in that space. The Hwy 91 NB to Nordel Way EB movement is relatively low volume.

As for the complaints about the "additional" signals , the signal at Hwy 91C / 91 does halt the 91C EB through traffic to allow for Nordel Way WB to Hwy 91 SB, which is a very low (30 vph) movement, meaning the EB traffic will see a lot of green time in the cycle. It's a movement the contractor fought to eliminate, but was ultimately required by the Province to provide "all possible movements" at the interchange.

"No matter where road infrastructure gets built in BC, there is always an excuse about terrain"

There's 8m+ peat layers for much of this project. Easy enough to solve from an engineering standpoint, less so from an economic perspective. Substantial ground improvements are required for most of the elements of the project, adding a few more bridges would have astronomically increased costs. BC is one of the most challenging jurisdictions to build any roads due to seismic design criteria and a dearth of flat land.

The Nordel interchange looks the way it does as most of the traffic volumes are on Nordel Way EB from Highway 91 and 17, not WB.

What nobody appreciates about the Highway 91C "choke point" location is that there are underground two FortisBC transmission lines, and an Overhead BC Hydro Transmission line that offered virtually no options outside of what is shown in this location due to utility envelope restrictions and settlement considerations.

If you think the price was high now, consider what it would have cost to alter the location of either of these utilities.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by c041v

The pier location of the existing structure and east abutment location of the new structure don't support this. It's an aggressive weave, and the parclo, as correctly surmised by another user is a substandard solution that does not work from a geometric perspective in that space. The Hwy 91 NB to Nordel Way EB movement is relatively low volume.

As for the complaints about the "additional" signals , the signal at Hwy 91C / 91 does halt the 91C EB through traffic to allow for Nordel Way WB to Hwy 91 SB, which is a very low (30 vph) movement, meaning the EB traffic will see a lot of green time in the cycle. It's a movement the contractor fought to eliminate, but was ultimately required by the Province to provide "all possible movements" at the interchange.

"No matter where road infrastructure gets built in BC, there is always an excuse about terrain"

There's 8m+ peat layers for much of this project. Easy enough to solve from an engineering standpoint, less so from an economic perspective. Substantial ground improvements are required for most of the elements of the project, adding a few more bridges would have astronomically increased costs. BC is one of the most challenging jurisdictions to build any roads due to seismic design criteria and a dearth of flat land.

The Nordel interchange looks the way it does as most of the traffic volumes are on Nordel Way EB from Highway 91 and 17, not WB.

What nobody appreciates about the Highway 91C "choke point" location is that there are underground two FortisBC transmission lines, and an Overhead BC Hydro Transmission line that offered virtually no options outside of what is shown in this location due to utility envelope restrictions and settlement considerations.

If you think the price was high now, consider what it would have cost to alter the location of either of these utilities.

Well the NDP had no issue spending millions and millions to relocate lines over the Fraser only to cancel the bridge.

[waves]

Originally Posted by c041v

As for the complaints about the "additional" signals , the signal at Hwy 91C / 91 does halt the 91C EB through traffic to allow for Nordel Way WB to Hwy 91 SB, which is a very low (30 vph) movement, meaning the EB traffic will see a lot of green time in the cycle. It's a movement the contractor fought to eliminate, but was ultimately required by the Province to provide "all possible movements" at the interchange.

"No matter where road infrastructure gets built in BC, there is always an excuse about terrain"

There's 8m+ peat layers for much of this project. Easy enough to solve from an engineering standpoint, less so from an economic perspective. Substantial ground improvements are required for most of the elements of the project, adding a few more bridges would have astronomically increased costs. BC is one of the most challenging jurisdictions to build any roads due to seismic design criteria and a dearth of flat land.

The Nordel interchange looks the way it does as most of the traffic volumes are on Nordel Way EB from Highway 91 and 17, not WB.

What nobody appreciates about the Highway 91C "choke point" location is that there are underground two FortisBC transmission lines, and an Overhead BC Hydro Transmission line that offered virtually no options outside of what is shown in this location due to utility envelope restrictions and settlement considerations.

If you think the price was high now, consider what it would have cost to alter the location of either of these utilities.

Why didn't they decide to go with a full double-trumpet interchange?
They are so close to it with their current design.
It would make the intersection free-flowing and with no conflict points.
The only extra engineering different from the original new design would be a culvert for the EB Nordel on-ramp to the AF

AFB Double Trumpet:

Source: https://i.imgur.com/myCKtb3.png?2

Example Double Trumpet (yin yang interchange) in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina:

Source: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7391483,-78.9511808,1529m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4

[Dengler Avenue]

Do you want to email B.C. MTI about this? That’s what Metro-One and I did for another project. If you pass me the name, I may be able to find the email address.

[Metro-One]

That’s a great idea.

On the project website they do have a feedback form / contact info.

[Dengler Avenue]

@waves, it's your turn to flood them with your emails.

=====
By the way, if anyone's wondering what to do with that mess between TCH/SFPR/Pacific Highway/GEW near Barnston, I have a (lousy) proposal in #21.

[moosejaw]

That really is a great idea
It’s just missing some traffic lights ( joke)

[Mininari]

If the email doesn't go anywhere, then it might not hurt to tweet at @TranBC with that image showing the design comparison similarity -- and a brief tweet text that says "you've essentially got a double-trumpet, why not finish it like this for full-moment freeflow??" The public commentary could become interesting for that.

You'd think that left turn to head NB on the AFB would have a higher priority for free flow improvement to help goods movement, and improve safety?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Mininari

If the email doesn't go anywhere, then it might not hurt to tweet at @TranBC with that image showing the design comparison similarity -- and a brief tweet text that says "you've essentially got a double-trumpet, why not finish it like this for full-moment freeflow??" The public commentary could become interesting for that.

You'd think that left turn to head NB on the AFB would have a higher priority for free flow improvement to help goods movement, and improve safety?

yes, 100% tweet it as well. that is a great idea.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Mininari

If the email doesn't go anywhere, then it might not hurt to tweet at @TranBC with that image showing the design comparison similarity -- and a brief tweet text that says "you've essentially got a double-trumpet, why not finish it like this for full-moment freeflow??" The public commentary could become interesting for that.

You'd think that left turn to head NB on the AFB would have a higher priority for free flow improvement to help goods movement, and improve safety?

That left turn you are talking about (green-NB) is a free flow right turn into a parclo in the original design (so in both designs it is a free flow movement).

The double-trumpet eliminates all the conflict points on these movements: red-SB (one intersection), the yellow-WB, and the green-EB (each with two intersections).

Not that anyone needs permission, but feel free to use the images in tweets. I have submitted a feedback form to the project email address.

[Metro-One]

Okay, sent in my email as well.

Love that double trumpet solution.

We will see if it helps, but over the last couple years highway design and projects have taken a hit in the province.

[c041v]

The left hand exits for Nordel EB to Hwy 91 NB and Nordel WB to Hwy 91 SB are a non-starter from a geometric perspective. Obviously a lot of other options open up elsewhere were this condition allowed.

Additional issues with this design:

The Highway 91 SB to Nordel Way EB ramp is currently two lanes, and needs to stay that way as it is a very high volume movement. The proposed Nordel Way Way to Hwy 91 SB laning is conveniently wedged between what is a very tight area. Interchange ramp lane widths vary between 3.7-4.8 m for tracking, which just won't fit in this space. You are also dropping a WB lane immediately after crossing the structure, which means you only have one Nordel Way WB through lane, which is less than the current design in terms of capacity. Sure, you could widen the existing structure to 5 lanes, but this comes with a huge cost increase as the existing structure is not being replaced with this design.

The Nordel Way EB to Hwy 91 NB ramp cuts under the existing embankment east of the current structure, necessitating an all new structure to accommodate this. Staging-wise, it would be very complicated to split or halve traffic on this abutment to build the structure, and schedule-wise (were you to build the bottom structure first) it won't work either.

The double trumpet could have worked if there was more space in this area, but there isn't - you need to work within the Right of Way limits shown on the drawings. Combined with the geometric preferences of the Province, not much else that could have been done here. Also, the green Nordel Way EB movement only has one intersection for traffic heading to AFB. All of the movements cited for full free flow interchange under a double trumpet design are relatively low-volume when compared to the high priority movements under the current design that are free flow. Essentially, high cost for little gain in performance.

[c041v]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Well the NDP had no issue spending millions and millions to relocate lines over the Fraser only to cancel the bridge.

The millions spent on relocating utilities are a drop in the bucket that is the GMTR fiasco.

[waves]

Originally Posted by c041v

Combined with the geometric preferences of the Province, not much else that could have been done here.

Can you clarify what exactly you mean by this comment above?
Also, just a note that the lines in the sketch were only intended to represent a geometric idea, rather than to show the specific lane configurations. I can see your concern with the limited of space in the south-west corner.

[c041v]

Originally Posted by waves

Can you clarify what exactly you mean by this comment above?
Also, just a note that the lines in the sketch were only intended to represent a geometric idea, rather than to show the specific lane configurations. I can see your concern with the limited of space in the south-west corner.

I simply meant that achieving the desired number of movements, lane & shoulder widths, curve radii and other considerations (such as no left hand exits) can act as significant constraints in developing a viable design.

The level of comfort with innovative design solutions varies a great deal across Municipal and Provincial jurisdictions, some are willing to try something progressive or unconventional to solve a problem, while others are incredibly rigid in their desires, no matter how short-sighted it may seem.

[makr3trkr]

I would think any left hand exits in a potential double trumpet interchange to be more like a split Y junction than a true exit per se

The Queensborough bridge has two lanes exit right and one lane "continue" left for example

Not to mention numerous HOV left exits in the region plus I'm sure other examples ... I don't think it really should be considered a deal breaker

[officedweller]

There's a similar wye/shared exit southbound on Knight to exit to 91 westbound to Richmond or to 91 eastbound to Delta.