Highway 17 (SFPR) Upgrades

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by libtard

How is it value engineered when the fit and finish is literally better in every way? The lack of piers right next to the retaining wall and the longer girders. That costs money. If the original overpass in question were built to these standards, so no ugly piers, just girders on reinforced retaining walls, it would have costed more. There is no disputing that. That’s what I mean by value engineering. Shorter girders and exposed piers was the cheaper option. They went the value engineering route. The first response for why they went that route was because “the retaining walls couldn’t support the weight”. Then someone else tried to justify it because we’re in a higher danger zone for earthquakes even though Seattle is in an even worse location. Just stop. Look at the 2 different overpasses in question, one clearly looks better engineered and more aesthetically pleasing. And that one costed more money to build

Originally Posted by libtard

The overpass in the original post has actually eliminated any type of future expansion by having the support piers right up against the shoulder of the road. Trying to use the space between the retaining wall and the support piers would lead to a bizarre configuration of 2 lanes of traffic going each way and then an extra lane on either side of the support piers? The picture I posted has no support piers so expansion would be seamless by using the space between the shoulder and the retaining wall.

Just hilarious how value engineered this specific overpass is

Your original contention applies exactly to the I-5 overpass. Don't try to skirt that.

You complain about this so-called "value engineering" yet you endorse wasting money on making things "look better engineered".

You talk about "fit and finish" as if you're kicking tires in a used car lot pretending to understand quality to keep the used car salesman from swindling you.

You're so blinded by being right you pretend this overpass is "aesthetic" and "built to better standards" when they didn't even bother to continuously pave the bridge and just left a concrete to asphalt gap which will forever be a bump in the road.

You should stop.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Er no - you offered an example in Pennsylvania, which clearly has a lower seismic risk and can be designed differently. So you dug around to find an example in Tacoma that had the aesthetics you like (straight retaining walls) rather than the design here (columns, with a retaining wall behind). Now you're arguing that columns must be cheaper than a reinforced retaining wall, with no evidence except your strong conviction, and an innate dislike of columns, it would seem. The column solution may well be related to the soil conditions - the hint is in the name Delta. Either way, if this is what really bothers you, keep hammering the keyboard, if it makes things better to have vented.

I don’t know how I can make it any clearer. I merely pointed out that the overpass was value engineered and you took offence, along with some others. It doesn’t make my statement any less true. Designing the original overpass with no exposed piers and longer girders would have costed more. Let’s use common sense

[libtard]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Your original contention applies exactly to the I-5 overpass. Don't try to skirt that.

You complain about this so-called "value engineering" yet you endorse wasting money on making things "look better engineered".

You talk about "fit and finish" as if you're kicking tires in a used car lot pretending to understand quality to keep the used car salesman from swindling you.

You're so blinded by being right you pretend this overpass is "aesthetic" and "built to better standards" when they didn't even bother to continuously pave the bridge and just left a concrete to asphalt gap which will forever be a bump in the road.

You should stop.

The only argument I picked out of this entire post was about the transition from concrete to asphalt. I’ve driven over this overpass and it’s literally seemless. Don’t act like paving the entire overpass in asphalt somehow eliminates bumps between the overpass structure and the approaches. Vancouver had many, MANY overpasses that would disagree with that statement.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by libtard

The only argument I picked out of this entire post was about the transition from concrete to asphalt. I’ve driven over this overpass and it’s literally seemless. Don’t act like paving the entire overpass in asphalt somehow eliminates bumps between the overpass structure and the approaches. Vancouver had many, MANY overpasses that would disagree with that statement.

You only pick out that one because you think you can counter it unlike the others. Point taken.

If it's new that'll be the case but if you had any engineering knowledge you'd know that these are not the same materials, nor are they bonded together, so once you get some nice winter temperature transitions and it gets the beating of heavy trucks it's supposed to that'll end soon. It only opened a year ago and you can already see the concrete chipping away at the transition impact point. That nice new asphalt won't be new forever.

Oh and also it just doesn't look nice or sleek. Quote: "One clearly looks better engineered and more aesthetically pleasing." and it's not the Washington one.

I'll leave the others here since they're still valid if you want to address them:

Your original contention applies exactly to the I-5 overpass. Don't try to skirt that.

You complain about this so-called "value engineering" yet you endorse wasting money on making things "look better engineered".

You talk about "fit and finish" as if you're kicking tires in a used car lot pretending to understand quality to keep the used car salesman from swindling you.

On the other hand, you should stop. It's hard to beat "This one is better because it looks better engineered." Any chance you don't have an iron ring on that pinky?

[libtard]

This place is hilarious. Users on this forum can have page long debates about the color of spandrel used on a high rise or the font used on a sign at a sky train station and no one’s bats an eye. Yet you can’t comment on the aesthetic look of a highway? What’s the difference?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by libtard

This place is hilarious. Users on this forum can have page long debates about the color of spandrel used on a high rise or the font used on a sign at a sky train station and no one’s bats an eye. Yet you can’t comment on the aesthetic look of a highway? What’s the difference?

"Page long debates where no one bats an eye", as if this is any different?

No one's saying you can't assert this engineering design offends your aesthetic sensibilities, it's just ridiculous to make baseless claims that there's a grand "value engineering" conspiracy in BC when this overpass was certainly designed to a certain specification and need without unnecessary waste.

There's a synonym of "value engineering" you should learn, it's called "engineering".

[libtard]

Originally Posted by chowhou

"Page long debates where no one bats an eye", as if this is any different?

No one's saying you can't assert this engineering design offends your aesthetic sensibilities, it's just ridiculous to make baseless claims that there's a grand "value engineering" conspiracy in BC when this overpass was certainly designed to a certain specification and need without unnecessary waste.

There's a synonym of "value engineering" you should learn, it's called "engineering".

By that metric, skytrain stations should be concrete boxes with no escalators. Grand floor to ceiling windows, escalators, etc. are a waste.

Both my original statements are true. The delta overpass was value engineered (ive explained many times why that’s true) and it’s aesthetically ugly. If you disagree that’s fine but you have in no way proven either of my statements wrong. I’ve provided many examples. The overpass I posted in Seattle just looks fantastic. The diamond grinded concrete surface?? Are you kidding me. BC could never. The steel guard rails on the approaches instead of pre fabbed jersey barriers? Just awesome. Even the cement cast in place barriers on the overpass itself were painted. And for the overpass to have been open for a year and there’s no visible damage to the asphalt is very impressive. A couple of chips on the cement is nothing, that overpass was built to last. Everything about the the overpass and subsequent round about in the picture I posted is just a cut above the value engineered garbage on the sfpr

[Metro-One]

He also complained about the lack of elevated ramps via columns with the use of earth fill.

Yes nearly every ramp in Alberta is earth fill with limited viaduct structures, but never heard him complain about that practice there…

Also he is bizarrely mute about the massive downgrade to the highway 99 project simply because he likes the NDP.

This project was largely done by the Feds and the Provincial Liberals, so he will find any issue he can, even if they contradict each other.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

He also complained about the lack of elevated ramps via columns with the use of earth fill.

Yes nearly every ramp in Alberta is earth fill with limited viaduct structures, but never heard him complain about that practice there…

Also he is bizarrely mute about the massive downgrade to the highway 99 project simply because he likes the NDP.

This project was largely done by the Feds and the Provincial Liberals, so he will find any issue he can, even if they contradict each other.

I’ve voted BC liberal every time since I was voting age. I was super excited when I saw the renders for the original steveston interchange. A bridge or tunnel would be good. Obviously shoulder bus lane is same old BC value engineering. I’ve moved on though. That whole plan the liberals had is never going to happen.

And when you drive the new section of this portion of the sfpr you’ll see what I mean. Namely, there are 2 big overpasses but it dips back down to ground level in between. A raised viaduct especially because it’s a marshy area in between the 2 overpasses to keep you at a constant height and to combat settling (which we all know will happen with this road. Bumps and dips galore) would have been nice so you don’t feel like your going over hills on a roller coaster

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by libtard

By that metric, skytrain stations should be concrete boxes with no escalators. Grand floor to ceiling windows, escalators, etc. are a waste.

Have you never been to an Expo Line station before? The entire line is concrete boxes. The entire design philosophy was simplicity and modularity while not sacrificing what actually matters and getting the most bang for the buck. This is why we have 80m platforms protected from the elements by steel mesh panels held up by squared off concrete and the original line could be built from Waterfront to New West. Canada Line stations might "look better engineered" and are "more aesthetically pleasing", but when we're talking about infrastructure you can't sacrifice form for function.

As for quality of life features like glass enclosure and escalators, this might come as a shock to you but people spend time in Skytrain Stations. I'm sorry if an aerial drone shot of an overpass's structural members offends you but unless you're planning on living underneath it why does it even matter? Hell, it's not even done yet and you're offended by the aesthetic quality of it.

Both my original statements are true.

Nah but you're free to believe that. We live in a free country.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Have you never been to an Expo Line station before? The entire line is concrete boxes. The entire design philosophy was simplicity and modularity while not sacrificing what actually matters and getting the most bang for the buck. This is why we have 80m platforms protected from the elements by steel mesh panels held up by squared off concrete and the original line could be built from Waterfront to New West. Canada Line stations might "look better engineered" and are "more aesthetically pleasing", but when we're talking about infrastructure you can't sacrifice form for function.

As for quality of life features like glass enclosure and escalators, this might come as a shock to you but people spend time in Skytrain Stations. I'm sorry if an aerial drone shot of an overpass's structural members offends you but unless you're planning on living underneath it why does it even matter? Hell, it's not even done yet and you're offended by the aesthetic quality of it.



Nah but you're free to believe that. We live in a free country.

The only one that seems to be offended is you. I’m sorry if my criticisms of the new additions to the sfpr hurt your feelings but they still stand. I outlined several different reasons the overpass I posted was a better piece of infrastructure. And it didn’t have to compromise form for function. Steel guard rails have been proven to be safer than cement jersey barriers. Yes they are more expensive and have to be replaced after a crash, but they are also much more forgiving. Also they let debris pass through and onto the ground instead of sling shorting back at your car like a machine gun. Diamond grinding the surface of the concrete (do we even have an concrete surfaced roads in Vancouver? The pad at bus stops don’t count) will increase the life span of the surface exponentially. These things in listing are actually smart, well engineered techniques that are nowhere to be seen up here. I’ll take higher safety standards on a road over fancy glass windows or escalators “because people spend time at skytrain stations” any day of the week. You can’t even compare the 2 but it’s hilarious you’re trying. Anything more than a concrete box for a new skytrain station is a waste by your metric. Just because people spend time standing waiting for a train doesn’t change that. But we’re getting off topic, enough about skytrains. More about discussing what the thread is about

[Marshal]

Stop arguing with libtard. It never ends. libtard is not always wrong, but regardless, he/she never gives up. I don't think he/she is an intentional troll, but the end product is often the same.

[chowhou]

I'm sorry but you're just incredibly uninformed. Let's take a look at some actual numbers from traffic engineers.

Here's the Washington State Department of Transportation's report on cable barriers where they compare and contrast them with concrete barriers and steel guard rails.

Washington State Department of Transportation. (2013, June). Cable Median Barrier Program in Washington State. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/812.1.pdf

By Washington state's own analysis, they determined that concrete barriers reduce fatalities compared to steel guard rails by a factor of almost 3.

For guardrail, the rate of fatal collisions is 0.16 per 100 mvmt; for concrete barrier, the fatal collision rate is 0.06 per 100 mvmt; and for cable median barrier, the fatal collision rate is 0.13 per 100 mvmt.

- Section 4.2.3 (*mvmt = million vehicle miles travelled)

As well, concrete barriers, which is the standard on BC highways as you know, cost over 3-4 times as much to install as steel guard rails (Steel guard rails are the "value engineered option"!!)

• The estimated installation costs for a 4‐strand high‐tension cable median barrier system with minorgrading were $46.00 per linear foot and $71.00 per linear foot with major grading, which averaged $58.40 per linear foot.
• The estimated installation costs for guardrail median barrier with minor grading were $53.00 per linear foot and $127.00 per linear foot with major grading, which averaged $89.94 per linear foot.
• The estimated installation costs for concrete median barrier with minor grading were $187.00 per linear foot and $521.00 per linear foot with major grading, which averaged $351.11 per linear foot.

- Section 4.2.2

Ultimately Washington has decided to prioritize cable guards in a prime example of value engineering: Even though cable barriers allow twice as many deaths as concrete barriers, you can build seven times as many of them which, compared to having no barriers at all, is an improvement.

(Also the only concrete surfaced roads I can think of are the northmost section of Granville Street and the access roads beneath the north end of the Granville Bridge, but I suppose you'd probably not consider those "real" roads.)

Originally Posted by Marshal

Stop arguing with libtard. It never ends. libtard is not always wrong, but regardless, he/she never gives up. I don't think he/she is an intentional troll, but the end product is often the same.

I wouldn't normally spend this much time arguing. I can handle people being a bit smug, and I can even handle people being a bit wrong, but I just can't handle people being so smug while being so wrong.
In all honesty, it's fun for me and gives me an opportunity to strengthen my arguments.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

this is a long discussion about 2 ugly types of overpasses.

we need more upper levels highway styles! (i doubt theyd work today for seismic loads, etc. but still.)

[c041v]

I won't bother attempting to quote the baseless assumptions and commentary on "aesthetic" which is never a design consideration for Highways, namely given it adds nothing but costs and no tangible or functional value to users.

The closest thing I have ever seen to aesthetic making into Highway design is the overuse of MSE Panel vs. Wire walls. For some reason, people seem to distrust the appearance of wire walls on bridge abutments, and other visible locations, so the specifications typically cite Panel walls, even though they add nothing, structurally, under 10 m in height.

Anyway, back to the structures. As one user mentioned, seismic concerns are a considerable driver for the design, but the specific ground conditions are also an important consideration. Citing examples south of the border is irrelevant as the site conditions on the project in question are sufficiently variable that different designs were required for different portions of this project.

I don't understand why everyone went to the trouble of finding a structure on I-5 when the new Highway 17 / River Road structure is a single span founded on perched MSE Abutments. Additional considerations that nobody has pointed out regarding longer spans for the other structures (Although the one user is quite correct in that abutment rotation is a primary factor in the location of the pier sections and shorter jump spans) is that longer spans require deeper girders. Deeper girders provide less of a clearance envelope, which means a higher roadway profile, which means higher fills, which is longer and more preload, etc, etc. Structures cannot be considered in isolation and there are many criterion which need to be satisfied in their design and development. Certain jurisdictions tend to spend more in order to maintain a certain appearance or serviceability requirements, most of BC is not in that boat.

These structures are indeed value engineered, which I do not believe to be the pejorative it has been presented as. It simply means the end result achieved value for money.

If the aesthetic isn't too your liking, please petition your local elected official. I'm sure contractors will be all too happy to price those desires.

[c041v]

Originally Posted by libtard

Image is not mine, posted by xzmattzx over at https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/u...ays-state-highways.605044/post-174275814

This type of set up is everywhere (except the lower mainland).

The overpass in the original post has actually eliminated any type of future expansion by having the support piers right up against the shoulder of the road. Trying to use the space between the retaining wall and the support piers would lead to a bizarre configuration of 2 lanes of traffic going each way and then an extra lane on either side of the support piers? The picture I posted has no support piers so expansion would be seamless by using the space between the shoulder and the retaining wall.

Just hilarious how value engineered this specific overpass is

Almost every single structure on the PMH1 project looks exactly like this, at least on the Surrey and a portion of the Coquitlam sides. Again, different ground conditions allow for different solutions. The Burnaby structures are somewhat different as the ground conditions are much poorer as one approaches Deer Lake. Almost all SFPR structures are also founded on perched abutments, save for a few between 80th and AFB that are on piled abutments (Hidden behind MSE Panel Walls)

[hollywoodnorth]

the overpass is open .... I used it today. so all the lights in that area are now GONE. Hwy 7 x Nordel x 91

the new overpass over 91 is in place but not paved, etc.

but overall I am very impressed with the project in general so far and when its done it will be a great upgrade.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

the overpass is open .... I used it today. so all the lights in that area are now GONE. Hwy 7 x Nordel x 91

the new overpass over 91 is in place but not paved, etc.

but overall I am very impressed with the project in general so far and when its done it will be a great upgrade.

nice to hear. i look forward to trying it out when its fully paved, etc.

is the grading better so we get less truck tip-overs? haha

[MIPS]

This has been a problem down in the United States. Some of the cheaper (there's that magic cost-cutting word again) LED luminaries have been suffering premature phosphor failure that results in a blue or violet light. There is no fix other than the replace the entire light. There's already a whole bunch of them around the new Nordel interchange.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by MIPS

This has been a problem down in the United States. Some of the cheaper (there's that magic cost-cutting word again) LED luminaries have been suffering premature phosphor failure that results in a blue or violet light. There is no fix other than the replace the entire light. There's already a whole bunch of them around the new Nordel interchange.

This was in the news recently and I believe it is all being done under warranty as the luminaries have crazy long warranty like 20 years or something