Port Mann/Highway 1 Improvements | Completed - Page 67

Stingray2004 · #**1321** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 4:12 AM**

Some more recent pics at the PMB:

Source: Flickr/ johnvrobinson

cairnstone · #**1322** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 4:57 AM**

I think as tax payers we are paying way to much for the limited up grades we are getting. The PMBH1 project was a design build to fix all the problems we face now and in the future. There were 3 shortlisted bidders but we ended up with kewiet. I would like to see what we would have got from the other to proponents. As the project started we suffered and incrediable down turn in the world economy. Global many mega pprojects were canceled or neaqring compleation. This translates into huge savings for the Keiwet, The labour rate dropped by 35% by the time the project got started. If anything we should be getting more instead of less. Take a look at the labour ion any of the sites young people with little experience so less pay. Most of the equipment came from down south.

I hope that keiwet does not get the perimeter roads as it will be more of the same with big projects that get scaled back.

Zassk · #**1323** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 5:51 AM**

^ How would that have been different with any other contractor? Presumably all other contractors on other projects are also reaping the benefits of reduced costs, and I doubt any of them are being forced to pass the savings on to the buyer, either.

Mininari · #**1324** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 2:11 PM**

Besides, they make a decent profit, and the Gov't can come out and say "ahead of schedule and under budget" as usual.

Of course, based on the pre-designs misleading many of us, one could add "underdelivered..." to the start of that same statement.

aberdeen5698 · #**1325** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 3:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Some more recent pics at the PMB

Very nice shots - thanks for posting!

DKaz · #**1326** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 4:15 PM**

Hey the new bridge itself is less than what we would've gotten originally.

Original scope:
Retain the 5 lane Port Mann Bridge for westbound traffic.
Build an 8 lane twinned bridge, 6 to be used for eastbound traffic, 2 to be used for transit.

Modified scope:
Demolish old Port Mann Bridge
Build a 10 lane bridge, 5 lanes for eastbound traffic and 5 lanes for westbound traffic with future provision to build rapid transit lanes underneath the main deck, how they are going to do it I have no idea.

The modified scope of work somehow doubled the cost of the bridge. They should've stuck with the original scope. The extra billion could've been used to build a starter LRT line from Braid to Walnut Grove with money to spare to build the C/D system around Grandview/Willingdon, maybe even extend it to Kensington. Heck they wouldn't have even had to modify the old Port Mann Bridge, the existing concrete barriers are fine as it is for the westbound C/D system.

Stingray2004 · #**1327** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 4:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

Hey the new bridge itself is less than what we would've gotten originally.

Original scope:
Retain the 5 lane Port Mann Bridge for westbound traffic.
Build an 8 lane twinned bridge, 6 to be used for eastbound traffic, 2 to be used for transit.

Gotta disagree with ya. Yes, the original scope was to retain the current PMB but those current 5 lanes are tightly shoe-horned in there, particularly through the centre arch. Even with removal of the centre median barrier, five 12-foot lanes would a toughy. Four 12-foot lanes with some shoulder would have been the cross-section, esp. through the arch.

Furthermore, the current PMB has some construction flaws in that some of the pilings never reached bedrock. That's why you have that "dip" with the steel plating on the deck once you pass through the arches in both directions. It was a major engineering story/political issue during the 1960's.

The contemplated EB twinned PMB would also only have four 12-foot lanes with some shoulder and, as with the new PMB, would have the "potential" for future rapid transit. That's the same line that they gave us when they built the AFB.

OTOH, the new PMB will have ten 12-foot lanes, extensive shoulders, plus a much better design with the express/collector set-up. That lane configuration could be increased to twelve 12-foot lanes, retain the c/d system, with still some shoulder width.

Finally, the new PMB will have a higher design speed and will be posted at 90 km/hr. MoT likely may have kept the 80 km/hr speed limit on the old PMB even though it would have been one-directional WB.

DKaz · #**1328** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 7:28 PM**

Hm I didn't realize there was an engineering flaw in the original bridge. Makes sense... if they can manage to fit LRT/commuter rail on the bridge and in the future and retain 5 lanes each way that would be bonus.

BTW, News 1130 Exclusive:

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...ore-completion

The new Port Mann Bridge will be tolled from the get go.

WarrenC12 · #**1329** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

Hm I didn't realize there was an engineering flaw in the original bridge. Makes sense... if they can manage to fit LRT/commuter rail on the bridge and in the future and retain 5 lanes each way that would be bonus.

BTW, News 1130 Exclusive:

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...ore-completion

The new Port Mann Bridge will be tolled from the get go.

I saw that as well. Was anybody really expecting a one year free ride?

Mininari · #**1330** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 7:52 PM**

LMAO!

Omg! I was totally right! (see the perimeter roads discussion thread).
The first leg of the SFPR is to open by late 2012 from Hwy 1 to Patullo... theres your untolled alternative... a nice freeway terminating at the barely 4-lane, unsafe Patullo. What a mess that is going to create...

And people will acquiesce to the toll bridge to avoid it.
Ingenious.

BCPhil · #**1331** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 8:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Again, that pavement is in excellent shape and a portion has been paved over the past few years. The pavement is well maintained with annual crack-sealing.

They should place those funds into extending the de-acceleration lane 1/3 way down the hill from the relatively new 32nd Ave interchange. It can get dangerous in the late afternoon with exiting traffic moving over to the shoulder of Hwy 99, down the hill, due to traffic volumes.

The worst pavement IMHO is Hwy 7 between the Pitt River Bridge and the Golden Ears Way. Fully cracked with no crack sealing. That's where they should be focusing these dollars.

I didn't know anyone else fully knew the power of the dark side of 32nd Ave interchange. That is one horrible beast in afternoon rush. And it will be impossible to ever change it due to all the construction permitted right up to the ROW.

go_leafs_go02 · #**1332** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zegby

Where will HWY 1 link up with the SFPR? Around the Port Mann bridge? Or further down near 176th?

It will connect right to 176 Street. An intersection (yes a downgrade from an interchange) will be located around 104 Avenue & 175 Street with a connector directly to 96 Avenue meets Golden Ears Way (not at 176, but farther east)

BCPhil · #**1333** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zegby

Where will HWY 1 link up with the SFPR? Around the Port Mann bridge? Or further down near 176th?

At 176th/Highway 15. It's going to be one major interchange with Highway 1, Highway 15, Golden Ears Way/96 (which I think is in the process of being widened), and the SFPR. You can see it in the width of the new overpass they are putting up at 176th when you drive under it. I hope they make Highway 1 <-> SFPR free flowing.

EDIT: nuts!

DKaz · #**1334** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 8:47 PM**

Not to mention McBride/10th/Canada Way...

Was the SFPR and 176 St and Golden Ears Way intersections going to be an interchange in the first place?

go_leafs_go02 · #**1335** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

Not to mention McBride/10th/Canada Way...

Was the SFPR and 176 St and Golden Ears Way intersections going to be an interchange in the first place?

Yes it was.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/SFPR...-issue-s59.pdf

The latest plans (not online - but I've seen them) show just a rather large intersection in that location.

Chalk up another downgrade to the Gateway project.

go_leafs_go02 · #**1336** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCPhil

At 176th/Highway 15. It's going to be one major interchange with Highway 1, Highway 15, Golden Ears Way/96 (which I think is in the process of being widened), and the SFPR. You can see it in the width of the new overpass they are putting up at 176th when you drive under it. I hope they make Highway 1 <-> SFPR free flowing.

EDIT: nuts!

Highway 15 interchange is going to be a standard Parclo A4, which as far as I know, isn't too popular in BC. However, it will be identical to any major interchange in Ontario

Here's a map for example of a parclo A4 from a location in London, ON.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...,0.009624&z=17

cabotp · #**1337** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zegby

It was a rhetorical question. The fact is our freeways are just poorly planned so please don't try to come up with other reasons to rationalize why they were built to such poor specifications.

Gee you asked a question. I gave my best guess answer for your question.

If you don't want a question answered, don't ask the question.

Stingray2004 · #**1338** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

The latest plans (not online - but I've seen them) show just a rather large intersection in that location.

Chalk up another downgrade to the Gateway project.

Any other "scope" downgrades for the SFPR that you are aware of?

BTW, MoT projects an AADT of 22,000 for the SFPR (although the measuring point hasn't been specified). I reckon that the majority of SFPR traffic will traverse between Deltaport Way and the Pattullo Bridge, which has most of the current commercial traffic movements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Highway 15 interchange is going to be a standard Parclo A4, which as far as I know, isn't too popular in BC. However, it will be identical to any major interchange in Ontario

Typically a freeway/freeway or freeway/expressway interchange requires a full movement interchange - not a parclo A4, for example, and the SFPR is designed as expressway standard. Nevertheless, the Hwy 1/Hwy 15(SFPR) interchange was always designed as a parclo A4. Southward from there Hwy 15 is a 4-lane arterial standard divided hwy.

In that same vein, the Hwy 99/SFPR interchange was initially designed as a full movement interchange, later down-graded to a parclo A4, then later revised again upward to a full movement interchange. They better keep it that way.

cairnstone · #**1339** Posted **Aug 24, 2010, 1:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ How would that have been different with any other contractor? Presumably all other contractors on other projects are also reaping the benefits of reduced costs, and I doubt any of them are being forced to pass the savings on to the buyer, either.

Most if not all of the other contractors working on the pmbh1 project are subs to Kiewet, so they are only getting payed on a labour basis in other words keeping there crews busy. I know of a few companies that have decided that it is easier to not work than deal with the drama of getting a job done in Kiewet land.

If the other proponents where awarded the contract many of the structures and the different segments would have been tendered. This would allow compition and a lower price as it would reflect market conditions.

Metro-One · #**1340** Posted **Aug 24, 2010, 1:40 AM**

Having friends and relatives that work with many large construction corporations (Vancouver Pile Driving, Graham Construction), I can tell you that the BC Liberals are in bed with Kiewet.

And honestly, how can the SFPR have been downgraded in design, yet is costing more than originally proposed, especially during an economic slowdown almost depression?

Sounds like to me we are getting ripped off.