Port Mann/Highway 1 Improvements | Completed

[Zassk]

Is it just me, or are these first several cables actually connected to the tower's concrete cross-beam, rather than to the steel bridge deck?

Also, it's shocking how thin and scrawny the actual cables look at the bottom... apparently most of the visible cable is actually a hollow cladding.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Is it just me, or are these first several cables actually connected to the tower's concrete cross-beam, rather than to the steel bridge deck?

Also, it's shocking how thin and scrawny the actual cables look at the bottom... apparently most of the visible cable is actually a hollow cladding.

I suspect that the concrete outriggers are actually two thin concrete arms, rather than one wide one, hence the 4 (rather than 2) cables, and the cables will help stiffen those arms and the towers. The outriggers extend quite a ways from the tower (i.e. 5 lanes worth) and the forces on them at their tips must be pretty high (hence the cables).

I think the thin cables are there to guide the main cables when they get tensioned and secured (that may have to be performed evenly/simultaneously on all 8 cables (both sides of the tower), so what you currently see probably isn't the final set-up. I'm wondering where those end caps (which look like they'll slide up the cable to the gray area) will end up after tensioning. i.e. will all the silver part of the cable be within the concrete arm and only the white part visible?

This old shot shows that the outriggers are really two thin parallel arms:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[SpongeG]

they have cleared a bunch of trees, pretty much every single one along hwy one north side between brunette overpass and north road

[officedweller]

Today's webcam pics from the Grandview Interchange.

Note:
(1) new girders in the background (maybe for addition to the east side of those ramps
which we can't see, since we can't see any other supports (or temporary storage for some other location)) and
(2) preparations for paving the new roadway in the foreground.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Perhaps that is related to how the columns in the water are farther apart (longer spans) than the columns on the land sections...

I realized why there's a difference...
It's because the parts of the north approach over the water will be assembled using the "balanced cantilever" method - where segments are added to each side of a column. So it requires a firm attachment point at the column as a starting point.

From the IBT website:

The approach spans consist of three parallel precast segmental box girders with cantilever construction above the water and span-by-span construction on land.

http://www.ibtengineers.com/PROJECTS/PortMann/portmann-1.html

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

New concep drawing for the 156th interchange
LINK
Actually I quite hate the design. Traffic has to share a single lane where the HOV lane intersects 156th. I think the lack of separated left turn & right turn movements, only having one lane to turn into on 156th, and allowing pedestrians to cross this intersection, is going to prove a major traffic disaster and cause backups onto Highway 1 if this turns out to be heavily used. The same happens after school every day at 100th/154th; lack of proper turn lanes causes snarlups that not only affect outbound traffic from schools, but affect southbound traffic on 154th turning left onto 100th as well.
Of course, if they separate traffic signal phasing to only allow one direction at the time, this might not be so huge an issue as long as traffic volumes here stay moderate. Then there still would be pedestrians; I doubt this crossing would be used often unless bus stops are placed smack-dab near this intersection, but they would block everybody, including transit.

Thankfully there's plenty of room to fix this, they'll have to eat away at the shoulders a bit but proper left/right turn lanes could be added. I really hate the treatment of the Guildford area though with this project, as I've been seeing nothing but design screwup after design screwup here and there. First the narrowing of the highway @ 160th, now this. The local roads are already screwed up enough (have you ever been to 104th eastbound approaching 156th!? Anybody), by no means should they try to make it worse.

Yes there may be some traffic issues but I think traffic wise for that area it won't be an issue right away or in the near term. Potentially in the future though.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Note:
(1) new girders in the background (maybe for addition to the east side of those ramps
which we can't see, since we can't see any other supports (or temporary storage for some other location)) and

Yah I saw those yesterday as I was driving in. They both appeared to have a slight curve in them.

[officedweller]

I think it's a staging area for the girders before being installed elsewhere.
There's a new one (replacing one from yesterday) - the new one has struts on the side for a sidewalk.

[Zassk]

After staring at these pictures for a while and comparing with the pics from earlier this week, I think that these girders at Grandview are cross-girders for the Port Mann bridge deck.

[SpongeG]

the exit ramp from grandview highway has been having a lot of holdups at night i got stuck in it the other night - it wasn't too bad i got their at the end of the line for a few minutes i can only guess the 20+ cars in front of me had been there for quite a while

[officedweller]

I think you're right - the overpasses aren't made of steel girders are they (they're concrete beams)?
Only the curving ramps seem to be make of steel and those wouldn't have sidewalks.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Yes there may be some traffic issues but I think traffic wise for that area it won't be an issue right away or in the near term. Potentially in the future though.

Yeah, perhaps I'm not seeing it right. If they only allow 1 direction at a time and no pedestrians cross, it'd probably be fine. And there is definitely room on the sides to fix it (though you'll have to dig into the shoulders). What worries me is that this is already the only link into Fraser Heights, and traffic is already bad enough going southbound in the morning rush, backing up long past where this intersection would be. In addition, the 104th/156th intersection is a mess. It does, however, look like there may be a significant improvement for that section of 156th between the highway & 104th (4 lanes). Hopefully that new second southbound lane there becomes a largely-needed right turn lane to 104th westbound (A large majority of the movements there have become right turn ever since they closed access from Fraser Heights to 152nd; in the morning with no dedicated right turn lane and pedestrians crossing all the time due to nearby schools, it is a complete and inconvenient parking lot for both travellers destined for 156 SB or 104th WB).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Yeah, perhaps I'm not seeing it right. If they only allow 1 direction at a time and no pedestrians cross, it'd probably be fine. And there is definitely room on the sides to fix it (though you'll have to dig into the shoulders). What worries me is that this is already the only link into Fraser Heights, and traffic is already bad enough going southbound in the morning rush, backing up long past where this intersection would be. In addition, the 104th/156th intersection is a mess. It does, however, look like there may be a significant improvement for that section of 156th between the highway & 104th (4 lanes). Hopefully that new second southbound lane there becomes a largely-needed right turn lane to 104th westbound (A large majority of the movements there have become right turn ever since they closed access from Fraser Heights to 152nd; in the morning with no dedicated right turn lane and pedestrians crossing all the time due to nearby schools, it is a complete and inconvenient parking lot for both travellers destined for 156 SB or 104th WB).

I think you are overguestimating the amount of traffic. Yes, there is tons of traffic on 156, but this isn't a major interchange, it's just another intersection on what is basically a city street. Yes, people might be walking through the area, but this isn't a major pedestrian thoroughfare, and definitely not the crossing point (of 156) of choice. There will be an occasional bus using the on/off ramps, and some HOV commuters, but traffic on 156 won't be stopped for very long.

And the corner of 104th and 156 is a Surrey Problem. In my area of Surrey, there are no right turn lanes anywhere on Scott Road (except at 88), and I dare say there are far, far more pedestrians in the area here, and it is not a problem AT ALL.

[xd_1771]

Well, at the moment, the crossing of choice thing can be ignored... because this really is, at the moment, the only useful crossing into Fraser Heights. I have a bad feeling about combining that with traffic coming from the Highway, at least unless other things are solved.

Comparing 104th with 120th is a bit of a stretch. 104th, you're looking at the primary connector to Guildford and Whalley from the Route 1. 120th is a major road through a few centres, but at the moment isn't as much a deadshot important link between major centres. I'd argue that 120th is also probably somewhat better managed than 104th - it at least has pull out bus bays, a few more right turn lanes than you think, and room to actually build them.

[DKaz]

I hate driving on Scott Road, hell I avoid driving through Surrey altogether if I can.

[xd_1771]

I can't say much then I guess, I never really drive Scott Road often. The faster routes are either 152nd & 72 (to get to Scottsdale), or continue straight on 96th and use 116th to get to Nordel Way (somewhat faster).

[anchorman]

re: steel girders

They were actually put on the new Boundary Road overpass, not Port Mann... saw them laying them down.

[Metro-One]

Another note, it appears that they are getting ready to hoist into place the first of many girders for the #7 westbound to #1 eastbound fly-over at the Cape Horn interchange.

Saw it just an hour ago driving home.

[officedweller]

Wish there were a webcam for that area.

Originally Posted by anchorman

re: steel girders

They were actually put on the new Boundary Road overpass, not Port Mann... saw them laying them down.

Thanks.
So I guess that would explain the curve.

[xd_1771]

Perhaps they can get a longer acceleration/merge lane there earlier then? (i.e. before the 3-laning and everything else is complete)
I hope so