Highway 17 (SFPR) Upgrades - Page 8

Mininari · #**141** Posted **Aug 13, 2020, 7:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Going to guess this is a temporary feature to accommodate construction.

I would hope so, since the designs shown on the newly developed and updated BC MoTH project site are showing a loop for that turn movement in the finished project.

Surely we can't be value-engineering THAT much!

bluefox · #**142** Posted **Aug 16, 2020, 6:03 PM**

I am pretty sure I've seen it in a couple different places this is just a temporary realignment so they can do work on the south side without interruption.

officedweller · #**143** Posted **Aug 27, 2020, 11:30 PM**

From Trish Jewison Twitter Aug 12th:

https://twitter.com/AM730Traffic/status/1293549871572475906/photo/1

Metro-One · #**144** Posted **Aug 28, 2020, 3:21 AM**

Kind of a silly question, but has there ever been a project where the temporary alignment worked better for traffic flow than the final alignment in Canada or anywhere?

Bobert · #**145** Posted **Dec 31, 2020, 7:25 AM**

The temporary alignment for HWY17 at east of the connector is really bad imo. Very windy, and if i remember correctly no reflectors on the concrete barriers.

montyhallgoat · #**146** Posted **Feb 3, 2021, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobert

The temporary alignment for HWY17 at east of the connector is really bad imo. Very windy, and if i remember correctly no reflectors on the concrete barriers.

Not sure about barriers but, tons of plastic reflectors/cat eyes on road markings.

Also, Nordel Way south of Highway 91 Connector (to truck rest area) is going to close on Friday, Feb 5.
I guess they are going to start building the new Highway 91C alignment soon, though not sure if they need to preload the area around truck parking.

Bobert · #**147** Posted **Mar 13, 2021, 5:53 AM**

The protected T intersection is up for what I assume is the truck parking facility by the portmann bridge.

Also large MSE walls are up for the 91C/17 intersection. Construction is pretty deep now from what it looks like.

Metro-One · #**148** Posted **Mar 18, 2021, 12:54 PM**

Thanks for the updates, so they went with a protected T instead of a signalized intersection? If so that is better, but it still should have been an interchange.

c041v · #**149** Posted **Mar 19, 2021, 1:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by montyhallgoat

I guess they are going to start building the new Highway 91C alignment soon, though not sure if they need to preload the area around truck parking.

Yes. Lots of preload across the old access, already underway on either side.

Bobert · #**150** Posted **Mar 19, 2021, 5:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Thanks for the updates, so they went with a protected T instead of a signalized intersection? If so that is better, but it still should have been an interchange.

Should have been more specific. Unfortunately, the signals are in as part of the protected.

We have Through lane and left turn signals east bound.
RYG stop/go signals on the west bound.

I guess the signals make sense since you cant expect a semi to reach enough speed to safely clear the west bound traffic.

libtard · #**151** Posted **Apr 18, 2021, 8:32 PM**

I’m seeing a lot of sand built up for the approaches to the overpasses at the 17 / 91 interchange... which will eventually settle and create more bumps and dips. Why is the ministry so hell bent on not using concrete structures

DKaz · #**152** Posted **Apr 18, 2021, 9:14 PM**

The big foam blocks they used around Cape Horn Interchange seems to have held up help.

MIPS · #**153** Posted **Apr 18, 2021, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

I’m seeing a lot of sand built up for the approaches to the overpasses at the 17 / 91 interchange... which will eventually settle and create more bumps and dips. Why is the ministry so hell bent on not using concrete structures

Geotechnically speaking weight in this project is the enemy.

libtard · #**154** Posted **Apr 18, 2021, 11:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIPS

Geotechnically speaking weight in this project is the enemy.

Well yes that is the typical BC value engineering excuse that we’ve heard for decades. But with modern construction techniques nowadays, anything is possible. It would be similar to the approach just south at 72nd which has concrete piers for the approaches.

aberdeen5698 · #**155** Posted **Apr 19, 2021, 2:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

I’m seeing a lot of sand built up for the approaches to the overpasses at the 17 / 91 interchange... which will eventually settle and create more bumps and dips. Why is the ministry so hell bent on not using concrete structures

More expensive to construct --> takes longer to get the funding --> fewer road projects per decade --> more complaints about lack of infrastructure in this forum.

osirisboy · #**156** Posted **Apr 19, 2021, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

More expensive to construct --> takes longer to get the funding --> fewer road projects per decade --> more complaints about lack of infrastructure in this forum.

Yet other jurisdictions don’t seem to let that stop them and do just fine

moosejaw · #**157** Posted **Apr 19, 2021, 7:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

I’m seeing a lot of sand built up for the approaches to the overpasses at the 17 / 91 interchange... which will eventually settle and create more bumps and dips. Why is the ministry so hell bent on not using concrete structures

how else do you build up a ramp?
What do you think sits under the concrete?
They dont proffroll and compact the soils over there in BC?

Marshal · #**158** Posted **Apr 19, 2021, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosejaw

how else do you build up a ramp?
What do you think sits under the concrete?
They dont proffroll and compact the soils over there in BC?

I don't know about libtard's endless complaining, but technically he has a point. If you build a ramp on compacted bog, infill, sediment, no matter how you consolidate it, you run the risk of settlement problems.

"how else do you build up a ramp?" Well he told you: you can build a structure on columns (steel or concrete).

"What . . . sits under the concrete?" You are implying that the same rotten soil conditions would 'sit under the concrete. You are wrong, and that's libtard's point. The concrete columns would sit on pile foundations that would be driven well below the depth of bad soil, and if not to 'bedrock,' then deep enough to gain enough friction to support the loading. There would be no settlement of the structure.

DKaz' brought up the use of foam blocks to form the ramps. Since these have been used before locally, it would be interesting to know why not here.

DKaz · #**159** Posted **Apr 19, 2021, 10:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosejaw

how else do you build up a ramp?
What do you think sits under the concrete?
They dont proffroll and compact the soils over there in BC?

Marshy land especially adjacent to the bog. It doesn't matter how much you compact the soil when you're essentially building on mud at sea level.

Metro-One · #**160** Posted **Apr 20, 2021, 1:05 AM**

The use of infill instead of elevated concrete structures for highway ramps seems to be a common practice throughout Canada.

This is actually why the extensive use of viaducts in the Golden Ears Bridge / Way project actually shocked me at the time. But that project seems to be an exception and not the rule in Canada, especially anywhere outside of Ontario and Quebec.