South Fraser Perimeter Road/Highway 17 Extension | Completed

[DKaz]

How is New Westminster less complex than Seattle? And would boring two 9 to 10m diameter tunnels be less expensive than a single 16m diameter tunnel?

[Stingray2004]

Soil/rock/geotechnical conditions, utility relocations, existing water table, seawall replacement, demolition of existing viaduct all play a role in costs with Seattle. The costs there look along the lines of Boston's Big Dig.

In any event, back in 2000, BC MoT prepared preliminary cost estimates for a 4.6 km twin bored 4-lane tunnel under North Delta for the SFPR (as opposed to the surface option) coming at ~$100 million/km

And these were the findings:

From a review of costs of recently constructed soft ground tunnels with the cross-sectional area adjusted to a bored diameter of 12.25 m, the cost range of $35,000 to $50,000 per linear meter can be utilized for cost estimating.

It can be concluded that a tunnel in the North Delta area is feasible but in potentially difficult ground conditions. A likely cost for twin tunnels approximately 4.6 km long is in the range of $450 million to $500 million.

Source: BC MoT, Appendix C, Roadway Tunnel

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/SFPR/docs/reports/Route_Alternatives_in_Delta.pdf

[Metro-One]

And that is exactly what we should do in New West, and we could finally properly link up the 99, 91 & 91A with the #1. The NFPR should eventually become free flow from the Queensburough bridge to the #1 at Brunette. There travelers could continue free flow on the #1 or they could use h signalized United Boulevard. Then from the Cape Horn the Mary Hill and then the #7 to the Golden Ears Bridge should become free flow again.

If this was Europe, the Queensborough Bridge would be twinned and at the north bridgehead the 4-lanes of tunnel would commence therefrom right underneath the old penetentiary site and come out past the old brewery site.

All through traffic and truck traffic would be taken off New West's municipal street system and trams would be rolling along Columbia St., etc.

But this is BC, not Europe.

Thank you! Finally some one gets what i have been trying to say! The reason why European and Asian cities are able to have so many trams on their roads is because they have proper layered freeway systems and connectors that utilize tunnels and viaducts to take the majority of the traffic off of the local roads. I was so amazed the first time i was in Japan, i drove all the way from the Kansai airport to Kobe on a viaduct! It never once touched the ground, and along the way there were numerous other freeway viaducts criss crossing the city (not to mention all of the train viaducts and tunnels). Metro-Van has to learn about layers! And a tunnel under New West would be the best solution.

I honestly have to say after being in Asian and Europe freeways are not the cause of urban sprawl, the cause of urban sprawl is purely land zoning done by the cities and other levels of government. I think freeways have simply become the scape goat because they are the most visual aspect. Many cities in NA have allowed freeways to cause urban sprawl by having low density zoning and issuing the permits to build houses around them, instead of just allowing the freeway to be a connector. That is why i like the SFPR, because it has limited access points and acts as a proper connector, although all the traffic lights should be interchanges. Because in that regard even mass train transit can become an engine of urban sprawl if the city allows for bad zoning practices.

[officedweller]

The main reason that you don't want a tunnel for a truck route is that explosives and flammable materials are banned from tunnels (i.e. Cassiar Connector and George Massey both require special permits for flammable materials to pass through them).

Personally, I think that's the reason tunnels were not built for the Sea to Sky and SFPR - but politically, you can't really highlight the fact that dangerous goods are being transported through a community. Even in Seattle, the marine operators are against the Alaskan Way tunnel because it would prohibit the transport of marine fuels.

B.C. Reg. 275/2006

M238/2006 Deposited October 17, 2006

Transportation Act
Tunnel Transportation
of Dangerous Goods Regulation

Definitions

1 In this regulation:

"means of containment" has the same meaning as in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 (Canada);

"means of transport" has the same meaning as in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 (Canada);

"prohibited area" means

(a) the George Massey Tunnel, or

(b) the Cassiar Connector Tunnel.

Prohibited movement of dangerous goods

2 (1) A person must not transport any means of containment in a prohibited area at any time when section 4.15 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations, SOR/2001-286, requires that a placard, within the meaning of that regulation, be displayed on the means of containment.

(2) Despite subsection (1), a person may transport a means of containment in a prohibited area at a time referred to in subsection (1) if
(a) the person does so in accordance with a written permit issued by the minister, and
(b) the permit is carried in the means of transport transporting the means of containment when it is in the prohibited area.

(3) The minister may issue a permit for the purposes of subsection (2) if the minister is satisfied that no suitable alternative route exists, and may impose any terms and conditions that the minister considers appropriate.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The main reason that you don't want a tunnel for a truck route is that explosives and flammable materials are banned from tunnels (i.e. Cassiar Connector and George Massey both require special permits for flammable materials to pass through them).

Personally, I think that's the reason tunnels were not built for the Sea to Sky and SFPR - but politically, you can't really highlight the fact that dangerous goods are being transported through a community.

That's a good point, but I'd wager that commercial traffic defined as, and carrying, explosive and flammable materials represents less than 5% of said commercial traffic... mostly the propane and gasoline carriers... and they have other designated route options.

Regarding the tunnel/surface option for both the S2S and the SFPR, it's obvious that the surface option was much, much cheaper and they had a viable corridor for that surface option in both instances.

Cost-benefit analysis comes into play.

Such surface corridors don't really exist in built-up New Westminster, Vancouver, etc. whereby tunneling represents the only viable, but extremely costly, option.

[DKaz]

With a bored tunnel, would it be possible to build an interchange at McBride Blvd to link up with the Patullo?

Dangerous goods cargo can be routed on the SFPR instead.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

But this is BC, not Europe.

Don't remind me.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by DKaz

With a bored tunnel, would it be possible to build an interchange at McBride Blvd to link up with the Patullo?

They seem to have had no problem constructing on/off ramps in the Boston Big Dig:

http://www.masspike.com/img/big_dig/project_map/downtown.gif

As for the current cost of twin 2-lane bored tunnels, I believe that the $100 million/km estimate for the SFPR in Nordel in 2000 would be considered lowball today.

The estimate for the 1 km, twin 2-lane bored tunnel for the S2S was $170 million/km in 2004.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/seatosky/documents/2006/Backgrounder_Tunnel-Comparisons_Apr-2006.pdf

And the current estimate for the 3 km tunnel option for the Kicking Horse Canyon is at ~$200 million/km - probably the best cost estimate we have today.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

That's a good point, but I'd wager that commercial traffic defined as, and carrying, explosive and flammable materials represents less than 5% of said commercial traffic... mostly the propane and gasoline carriers... and they have other designated route options.

In the case of Sea to Sky and SFPR the tunnel would have been on the principle route - agreed that in the Front St. example, there would be other alternate routes.

[Stingray2004]

Here's a bit better visual explanation of what is going on vis-a-vis the Cape Horn bluff:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1/docs/commnty_rltns/PMH1_Postcard_March_2009.pdf

[Mininari]

April 1st update (and I don't think this is an April Fools Joke!).

"Work on in Cape Horn Area continues" -- the document on that link outlines some additional preloading work to be done in the upcoming weeks / months.
Looks like preloading for the Mary Hill / United Blvd Ramps, and an embankment for the new Cape Horn Interchange 'Lougheed-to-bridge' Ramp, as well as the embankment for the expanded approach to the new bridge.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1/docs/construction_schedule/090401_PMH1_CB_Cape_Horn.pdf

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by Mininari

as well as the embankment for the expanded approach to the new bridge.

Are you sure? The current preload seems to be in preparation for Cape Horn interchange work since the new Port Mann Bridge will be downstream, not upstream, of the existing Port Mann Bridge. Prep work for the PMB would be vacating all those industrial buildings in the way

I'm surprised work on the Mary Hill Bypass is starting so soon, it doesn't seem like the new interchange can be built until the new bridge is done.

[Mininari]

Well, on the second image in the PDF, the marked area is immediately south of the existing approach. Since the new bridge is going downstream of the old one, I thought that inference made sense.

But maybe I'm wrong.
Whatever, its good to see more work being done!

Btw, its now April... has the Province finalized their contract with Kiewitt-Flatiron yet? I'm guessing thats another pre-election (recycled?) mega-announcement in the works.

[Metro-One]

Do remember some of this pre-load work is likely for intermediate traffic patterns during construction. For example the Pitt River bridge is currently on its 2nd or 3rd intermediate alignment.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Well, on the second image in the PDF, the marked area is immediately south of the existing approach. Since the new bridge is going downstream of the old one, I thought that inference made sense.

The marked area is immediately north at Mary Hill Bypass. =) Metro-One could be right, they may have intermediate split alignment until they get the new overpass in. They can probably start the MHB westbound to Hwy 1 westbound right away though until they widen Hwy 1 will do nothing to alleviate traffic on the MHB. Hwy 1 eastbound to MHB eastbound will likely be preloaded now but won't start construction until after the old PMB is demolished.

I don't expect the final design of MHB interchange to deviate too much from the original design:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1/doc...3_Mary_Hill_Bypass_Reference_Concept.pdf

[Mininari]

Ok, I don't want to beat this to death, but I just want to clarify what I was looking at! I realize that what I wrote was implying the entire marked area was south, when in fact I meant "the marked area that I'm looking at." I didn't mean to implicate ALL the area. My bad.

The majority of the prep work is indeed NORTH of the existing approach, but there is a small area SOUTH of the existing Port Mann Bridge approach as well. It is on the lower-left side of fig 2 in that document. Thats the spot I originally identified as possibly being the embankment expansion for the new super-bridge.



I'll try to improve my clarity of pointing out such obscure things in the future!

[SpongeG]

some pics i took of the new underpass area

just east of 104th - lots of stakes




the underpass

[Mininari]

Coquitlam's Fraser Mills site to be used in construction of Port Mann
0408Campbellbridge.jpg
Premier Gordon Campbell announces the construction of a new 10-lane Port Mann Bridge during a press conference last month.
TRI-CITY NEWS FILE PHOTO

Buy The Tri-City News Photos Online
Email Print Letter to Editor Share
others also read...
The Tri-City News

* Walk (carefully) and watch the herons
* Yikes! Tax hikes
* Local website gets global readers – with Port Moody news
* Got game?
* 50 km/h is speed limit, so don't worry about e-cars

Text
By Janis Warren - The Tri-City News

Published: April 07, 2009 3:00 PM
Updated: April 07, 2009 3:54 PM

0 Comments

Coquitlam's oldest industrial site may soon be the staging area for the new Port Mann bridge project.

On Monday, city council approved in principle plans by builders Kiewit/Flatiron to use the former Fraser Mills land to cast, store and transport parts of the new bridge — by truck and barge — over a five-year period.

But the work is not expected to get in the way of a residential and commercial development planned for the site.

Dave Gormely, the Beedie Group's director of development, told The Tri-City News yesterday the move won't slow waterfront plans by his company, which owns the 89-acre property. Last November, city council rezoned the land for Beedie to build up to 3,700 residential units plus commercial, light industrial and institutional space for a new village.

Gormely said the first phase of development is planned for another section of the property.

Jim McIntyre, Coquitlam's general manager of planning, said the lease is for 35 acres at Fraser Mills, with operations by Kiewit/Flatiron due to start in October. Potential site uses include:

• piling, to make the ground level for pre-casting;

• assembly of steel bridge deck sections, pipe-pile splicing and rebar-cage fabrication;

• use of a 45-tonne tower crane (118 feet high) to move materials;

• installation of a concrete batch plant; and

• storage of 50,000 gallons of fuel.

All structures are expected to be gone by 2014, according to a city staff report.

As per the Local Government Act, the Beedie Group will host a public consultation on the proposal at 6 p.m. on April 16 at Place des Arts (1120 Brunette Ave.). Among those to be formally consulted include surrounding businesses, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the city of Surrey, the Maillardville Commercial and Cultural Revitalization Advisory Task Force and the Como Watershed Group.

Once the city receives the feedback, council is expected to amend the official community plan to grant a temporary industrial use permit.

City council and staff were generally pleased with the application, given that the multi-million dollar project will create 120 jobs and direct spin-offs for the neighbourhood.

"The property is quite ideally located," McIntyre said at Monday's land use committee. "The site is vacant and under-utilized."

"If this private property owner is willing to do this, then it's beneficial to the whole community," Coun. Mae Reid said, adding, "It is the most logical spot to do this."

Still, Coun. Selina Robinson said she worries about future traffic tie-ups in the area, especially with Gateway building the new King Edward Overpass, for which Kiewit is responsible.

At the city council meeting, Coun. Fin Donnelly voted against the proposal because of the potential for traffic congestion and because the temporary permit will require approval from B.C.'s lieutenant governor as it's for five years, not the usual four years.

"I think this is highly unorthodox the way this is being handled," Donnelly said.

McIntyre said the traffic — about 40 heavy trucks a day, plus 400 employee vehicles — "is not inconsequential, however, we don't feel the amount of traffic at this site will be fatal or inappropriate."

Yesterday, Mayor Richard Stewart told The Tri-City News the traffic could "be a mess" but "there's a bright light at the end of the tunnel when it's all done."

Fraser Mills was once home to the largest sawmill in the British Empire, attracting workers from mainly Quebec, who were instrumental in the formation of Maillardville.

The $3.1-billion Port Mann/Highway 1 project is expected to be complete by the provincial Gateway Program by 2013.

[email protected]

[officedweller]

Pitt River Bridge from the east webcam facing west (maybe yesterday?) (panorama shot note the poor splice)



http://www.earthcam.net/users2/interface...=1209&clientid=575&camnum=1&page=default

[GeeCee]

Nice pic! I can't wait until that whole interchange is complete..