South Fraser Perimeter Road/Highway 17 Extension | Completed

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VanCvl

The bump is from a sanitary manhole. They couldn't put additional preload because there is an adjacent Kinder Morgan line that could not withstand any deflection/movement caused from the preload settlement. There are no easy solutions other than repair until the ground equalizes.

Won't the "equalizing" ground cause the same problems for the pipeline that the preload would have?

[VanCvl]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Won't the "equalizing" ground cause the same problems for the pipeline that the preload would have?

You are absolutely right...but preload usually is only take out "primary" settlement which is the fastest and largest (~85%) of the settlement while "secondary" settlement can occur over 30+ years for the remaining amount so its a much smaller settlement.

[c041v]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Interesting. Hmm, I wonder if in the long run they could build a short elevated section there? That is if a single span would we wide enough so that the pile driving wouldnt cause the same problem.

Not likely. It would be unbelievably expensive and not as short as you think. The soil conditions in that area are extremely poor and as VanCvl pointed out, the Kinder Morgan line further punctuates the problems and potential solutions. It is built on a massive piled structure that does not move.

There's a significant peat (>10 m in some areas from what I remember) deposit that overlies channel cut from the more competent material left by the Fraser eons ago. The section that is slightly east cut into the hill is a completely different composition.

This area had some of the longest preload duration of the whole project, something in excess of 3 years. Unfortunately, the soils just never behaved the way they were supposed to.

At the end of the day, in an effort to get the road finally open, lightweight fill (pumice) was used to mitigate the weight of the new road on top of this area on either side of the KM line. It was always going to be a problem no matter unless you excavated the peat down all the way to till, which would have been a ludicrously expensive endeavor. Timber piles were considered, but they too were also quite expensive.

Also, the 'sewage main' in question is North Surrey Interceptor Forced Main, which is a huge diameter, old concrete line. It actually zig zags across the SFPR alignment (Don't ask me why) and was another fixed point that couldn't be touched, despite the line itself having a history of settlement problems.

[cairnstone]

the kinder morgan pipe line has piles on both sides of it to support the bridge. So the only reason they never put densification or timber piles would be do to cost. As indicated above the whole area is a bog and used lava rock and geotextile to float the road over the poor soil.

[DKaz]

There are three sanitary systems in that Bridgeview area.

One is an old centrally pumped line that's been abandoned as in new developments cannot connect to it but existing developments may still stay connected to it until City of Surrey deems a major fix of the system unfeasible. It's pressurized the entire way.

The next is newer where new developments or redevelopments are to connect to., where properties pump into a line that is gravity drained and there are a series of pumps. It's only pressurized at the pumps.

The third is a vacusan system which just requires properties to pay into having a truck come in to vacuum the crap into trucks every once in awhile. Less up front cost but ongoing service costs. One vacusan collection point serves a cluster like a block, so it wouldn't cross the SFPR for sure.

I forget if the pressurized or semi-gravity system zig zags, you can check on COSMOS for the alignments. But with the limited grade in the area, you can assume that it's already sloped down to the bare minimum and cannot move down anywhere even a few mm. And they were all there before the SFPR, although they could've been rerouted.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by c041v

Not likely. It would be unbelievably expensive and not as short as you think. The soil conditions in that area are extremely poor and as VanCvl pointed out, the Kinder Morgan line further punctuates the problems and potential solutions. It is built on a massive piled structure that does not move.

There's a significant peat (>10 m in some areas from what I remember) deposit that overlies channel cut from the more competent material left by the Fraser eons ago. The section that is slightly east cut into the hill is a completely different composition.

This area had some of the longest preload duration of the whole project, something in excess of 3 years. Unfortunately, the soils just never behaved the way they were supposed to.

At the end of the day, in an effort to get the road finally open, lightweight fill (pumice) was used to mitigate the weight of the new road on top of this area on either side of the KM line. It was always going to be a problem no matter unless you excavated the peat down all the way to till, which would have been a ludicrously expensive endeavor. Timber piles were considered, but they too were also quite expensive.

Also, the 'sewage main' in question is North Surrey Interceptor Forced Main, which is a huge diameter, old concrete line. It actually zig zags across the SFPR alignment (Don't ask me why) and was another fixed point that couldn't be touched, despite the line itself having a history of settlement problems.

Wow, thanks for the great answer! It is very refreshing to get real educated reply on here.

[gkz]

Does anyone have any picture updates of the 6-laning? I drove though the area, but at night and could not see anything.

Also, was the southbound acceleration lane off of HWY17A lengthened to go under the 28 Ave overpass?

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by gkz

Does anyone have any picture updates of the 6-laning? I drove though the area, but at night and could not see anything.

Also, was the southbound acceleration lane off of HWY17A lengthened to go under the 28 Ave overpass?

The overpass is now 3 lanes on both sides. As some here pointed out, the merge length was too short, and this was probably a bandaid.

I have a suspicion it will end up as 3 lanes ---> 2 lanes ---> 3 lanes on both sides because they are trying to discourage people from using 17a.

[gkz]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

The overpass is now 3 lanes on both sides. As some here pointed out, the merge length was too short, and this was probably a bandaid.

I have a suspicion it will end up as 3 lanes ---> 2 lanes ---> 3 lanes on both sides because they are trying to discourage people from using 17a.

That's too bad. Connecting the third lanes would make sense.

Looking at DeltaMap http://www.delta.ca/services/deltamap
It is nice to see that there is adequate right of way reserved for a 56 st interchange (with cloverleaf), but it is concerning to see there is little or no right of way reserved for 52 st or 48 st interchanges - with the new development on reserve land, in addition to ferry traffic, it would seem prudent to plan ahead and reserve that right of way.

56st:


52st:


48st:

[makr3trkr]

Highway 17 Intersection Improvements
http://www.tsawwassenmills.ca/content/highway-17-intersection-improvements

Map of Highway 17 and 52 Street Intersection


Map of Highway 17 and 56 Street Intersection

[dharper]

I drove east on the SFPR at 5PM today, and it was backed up to a crawl, within half a km of the Port Mann Bridge. I don't know how crowded the other intersections are that had their interchanges removed, but the intersection @104th ave seems like a good candidate to be the first interchange to be reinstated along the SFPR.

[Metro-One]

Would it not make sense to just build Hwy 17 and 52nd as an interchange now, instead of this massive middle step improvement?

Also, in the are today there are 3 intersections, I am guessing this can be replaced with 2 interchanges and maybe some frontage roads.

[SOSS]

They better replace all the intersections of the SFPR if they twin Roberts Bank Container Port. An additional 5,100 estimated peak day trucks would cripple the current road.

Plan to twin Roberts Bank container port under fire

by Jeff Nagel - BC Local News
posted May 1, 2015 at 3:00 PM

Port Metro Vancouver's plan to more than double the container-handling capacity of Deltaport by building a second terminal in the ocean is under fire after the filing of the environmental impact statement for the $2-billion expansion project.

Independent MLA Vicki Huntington (Delta South) predicts Roberts Bank Terminal 2 will further damage the sensitive Fraser River estuary, spur the industrialization of more prime agricultural land, and worsen road traffic already snarled by large numbers of container trucks.

Huntington said many of those impacts won't be considered as part of the federal environmental assessment because of their distance from the immediate project footprint.

"That whole area of the Fraser estuary is considered one of the world's most critical habitats," Huntington said, adding she's profoundly disappointed the port has decided to proceed.

"There is a time when society has to say 'No, there are other values at stake here,'" she said. "The industrial activity on Roberts Bank is at is peak and can't grow any further. Port, you're just going to have to go elsewhere to do your business."

The impact statement submitted by Port Metro Vancouver concludes there will be no adverse environmental impacts from the project that cannot be mitigated by creating or enhancing habitat near the site.

Huntington said those direct project impacts don't consider other losses, such as the dozen rail sidings that would be created to accommodate trains on agricultural land, or other farmland that developers are already assembling for container-handling yards.

The extra capacity at Terminal 2 would be 2.4 million standard containers a year, more than twice as much as the nearly two million Deltaport can now handle.

The total Vancouver-area container capacity is expected to grow from nearly four million now to five million by the mid-2020s when Terminal 2 would come on stream, increasing total capacity by another 50 per cent.

The new 1.7-kilometre-long three-berth terminal with widened causeway would cover 108 hectares of what is now ocean just west of the existing terminal.

Construction would add $1 billion in local wages and the operations would add 1,500 terminal jobs and support nearly 11,000 more elsewhere.

The project will double the number of trains moving on the Roberts Bank rail corridor to eight on an average day, or 10 on a peak day.

The impact statement says it would add 3,700 truck trips on the average day, or 5,100 on a peak day.

But Port Metro Vancouver infrastructure vice-president Cliff Stewart suggested in an interview the project doesn't necessarily mean more severe road congestion.

"There are currently a lot more container trucks on the road than need to be or ought to be there," he said, adding the port is exploring various strategies to improve efficiency.

"It's entirely possible that you could double the throughput of the port without increasing the number of trucks. We're not suggesting that's absolutely going to happen. But I think that's a plausible target."

Stewart noted container terminals began running a second shift at night last year.

"It's entirely possible that in 2030 we'll have no more trucks running around at any particular point in the day than are today."

Stewart defended the port's updated estimates of future demand, adding the project is based on container shipment growth averaging four per cent a year.

Expansions are already underway or planned at other local ports, and at Prince Rupert, but more capacity will still be needed, he said.

"We're running out of room to manage the growth of Canadian trade with Asia," he said. "We've looked at all the existing and feasible capacity on the west coast and, frankly, we're going to run out in the early 2020s."

Stewart said the port considered but ruled out increased use of Fraser Surrey Docks once the Massey Tunnel is replaced, allowing heavier ships to head upriver.

He said container ships are increasingly too big for the river. Even once the tunnel is removed, he noted, many of those ships would be too long to turn around on the Fraser.

"We think by the end of this decade there will probably be no container traffic on the river at all."

The federal environmental assessment for Terminal 2 is expected to take two to three years.

The project, to be financed by the port and a yet-to-be-chosen private terminal operator, would take more than five years to build, starting in 2018, subject to approvals and a final investment decision.

Original Article

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Would it not make sense to just build Hwy 17 and 52nd as an interchange now, instead of this massive middle step improvement?

Also, in the are today there are 3 intersections, I am guessing this can be replaced with 2 interchanges and maybe some frontage roads.

Of course it would be easier to build interchanges now but I want you to remember which province you are talking about.

This is the same place that has had a stop light on HWY 91 thru Delta for 20 years and despite the horrid traffic backups, the light is still there. I will certainly be 6 feet under before they start building interchanges along the SFPR.

BC seems to go out of its way to make sure getting around Greater Vancouver is as slow and unpredictable as humanly possible.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by SOSS

They better replace all the intersections of the SFPR if they twin Roberts Bank Container Port. An additional 5,100 estimated peak day trucks would cripple the current road.

That's very interesting, and it seems to be at odds with those who claim that the Massey Tunnel replacement project will allow larger ships into the Surrey Fraser docks.

[osirisboy]

He said "Container traffic" there will most likely be other ships that will go up the river. Ie. Bulk carriers etc

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Would it not make sense to just build Hwy 17 and 52nd as an interchange now, instead of this massive middle step improvement?

Also, in the are today there are 3 intersections, I am guessing this can be replaced with 2 interchanges and maybe some frontage roads.

Yes! There's a 'freeway phobia' that exists in the region, and although major new freeways are built, other Road, perhaps like the SFPR should be given freeway status. There is a tendency to take 'halfway measures 'on much Vancouver road infrastrucure. Freeway status would require full interchanges built to allow non-stop through traffic, and exiting / entering via ramps.
You seem to imply that this is possible, and I indeed hope it is. Would require tenching in this case, however, and that is too $$$$$$

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Of course it would be easier to build interchanges now but I want you to remember which province you are talking about.

This is the same place that has had a stop light on HWY 91 thru Delta for 20 years and despite the horrid traffic backups, the light is still there. I will certainly be 6 feet under before they start building interchanges along the SFPR.

BC seems to go out of its way to make sure getting around Greater Vancouver is as slow and unpredictable as humanly possible.

The ministry is not connecting the 17A ramp from Ladner to the new third lane on Highway 17 (a gap of a few hundred feet).

The sightlines were poor and the existing merge was clearly too short and underbuilt. It was so bad they were recently forced to extend the merge underneath the 28 Ave overpass.

The stream of traffic coming from Ladner can be heavy, occasionally as much as the traffic on the SFPR.

The 17A ramp could be connected directly (and very easily) to the new third lane. Instead, local, commuter, ferry, truck, and now TFN mall traffic is merging into two lanes just to "punish" traffic that wants to go through Ladner (and is probably going to do so regardless) at the expense of safety.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

The ministry is not connecting the 17A ramp from Ladner to the new third lane on Highway 17 (a gap of a few hundred feet).

The sightlines were poor and the existing merge was clearly too short and underbuilt. It was so bad they were recently forced to extend the merge underneath the 28 Ave overpass.

The stream of traffic coming from Ladner can be heavy, occasionally as much as the traffic on the SFPR.

The 17A ramp could be connected directly (and very easily) to the new third lane. Instead, local, commuter, ferry, truck, and now TFN mall traffic is merging into two lanes just to "punish" traffic that wants to go through Ladner (and is probably going to do so regardless) at the expense of safety.

That's one thing that's bothered me since the SFPR opened. They've clearly designed the south end of 17A to punish people for taking it as a through road.

There has clearly been a huge effort to divert all through traffic to the ferry onto the SFPR, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to expect traffic heading south on 99 from Richmond to take the SFPR to the ferry when the old route is faster.

Not only is the route shorter and more direct, but it is straighter, and as a result you can safely (and legally) drive faster. Even if you get stopped at the light at Ladner Trunk road, it's still faster. It's actually even faster to go that way than it was before the SFPR opened, because there has been a significant reduction in traffic.

Just my two cents, but punishing drivers for making the logical choice to take the faster route is pretty silly.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

That's one thing that's bothered me since the SFPR opened. They've clearly designed the south end of 17A to punish people for taking it as a through road.

There has clearly been a huge effort to divert all through traffic to the ferry onto the SFPR, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to expect traffic heading south on 99 from Richmond to take the SFPR to the ferry when the old route is faster.

Not only is the route shorter and more direct, but it is straighter, and as a result you can safely (and legally) drive faster. Even if you get stopped at the light at Ladner Trunk road, it's still faster. It's actually even faster to go that way than it was before the SFPR opened, because there has been a significant reduction in traffic.

Just my two cents, but punishing drivers for making the logical choice to take the faster route is pretty silly.

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?