Quote:
Originally Posted by waves
The problem with such a solution is that you would create a crossing conflict point on the Highway between those getting onto the bridge and those getting off before the bridge. If the truck volumes are high for either then its very possible that crossing conflict point could cause worse traffic congestion than the light they propose.
![](https://i.imgur.com/5R8Ulzz.png)
|
The pier location of the existing structure and east abutment location of the new structure don't support this. It's an aggressive weave, and the parclo, as correctly surmised by another user is a substandard solution that does not work from a geometric perspective in that space. The Hwy 91 NB to Nordel Way EB movement is relatively low volume.
As for the complaints about the "additional" signals
![Roll eyes](images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
, the signal at Hwy 91C / 91 does halt the 91C EB through traffic to allow for Nordel Way WB to Hwy 91 SB, which is a very low (30 vph) movement, meaning the EB traffic will see a lot of green time in the cycle. It's a movement the contractor fought to eliminate, but was ultimately required by the Province to provide "all possible movements" at the interchange.
"No matter where road infrastructure gets built in BC, there is always an excuse about terrain"
There's 8m+ peat layers for much of this project. Easy enough to solve from an engineering standpoint, less so from an economic perspective. Substantial ground improvements are required for most of the elements of the project, adding a few more bridges would have astronomically increased costs. BC is one of the most challenging jurisdictions to build any roads due to seismic design criteria and a dearth of flat land.
The Nordel interchange looks the way it does as most of the traffic volumes are on Nordel Way EB from Highway 91 and 17, not WB.
What nobody appreciates about the Highway 91C "choke point" location is that there are underground two FortisBC transmission lines, and an Overhead BC Hydro Transmission line that offered virtually no options outside of what is shown in this location due to utility envelope restrictions and settlement considerations.
If you think the price was high now, consider what it would have cost to alter the location of either of these utilities.