Highway 17 (SFPR) Upgrades

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by c041v

They would have have cost much, much more.

The convenient dismissal of budgets has me chuckling about how some here could have surely done better if put in the same circumstances. Anything is possible with no rules and and unlimited resources. I have been unfortunate to see a project that features either.



This is a good take. It is impossible to satisfy every stakeholder, as their interests are often at odds. The requirements and standards are set to ensure consistency across the region, and Province. There's countless reports and studies for these types of projects that determine, through statistical analysis, what the major issues are.

91/17 does not justify the Cape Horn treatment as the traffic volumes are substantially lower on all movements. Best practice is to design and build for the needs of many, present and future - not overbuilding all movements because traffic lights are inconvenient to the few.

People are annoyed they are replacing the old intersection so soon after the previous one only to not have it be fully free-flowing.

On the other hand, the current solution does solve most of the issues with the traffic lights.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

it addresses most of the issues, which is goodish i guess... but the real issue is, here we are, 8 years later. redoing an entire series of connections. this is logistically harder, as you cant close the road, and of course it will cost more money, and we are probably getting less than had we done it right from the start.

that is the biggest issue here, i think.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There's also a redundant westbound Nordel to northbound 91 route.
Would that ever be useful?

I think the route is intended for Westbound nordel traffic to turn left and access the Southbound Hwy 91 on-ramp.

[officedweller]

Yeah, I know, but is this an alternative if there is a back-up from Nordel to 91 Northbound?

[gkz]

Originally Posted by c041v

I'll keep it short and sweet: The vertical curve leading to the west abutment of the the proposed new structure is already maxed out. Your proposal requires what appears to be an additional structure and would require the profile of Nordel Way EB to be lifted some 50+m to the west, which would require additional walls, ground improvements and embankment, all on top of the existing Highway 91C EB to to Highway 91 SB off-ramp.

All for a movement that sees a few lost souls who live somewhere north of 72nd Ave that are trying to get South Surrey. Seems... excessive.

Thank you for your insights c041v. Thinking about who will actually be the using this movement, it makes sense that the cost-benefit doesn't make sense for additional investment. It is just unfortunate that the light will impact the HWY91C EB to HWY91 NB movement, at least some of the time.

Considering the recent interchange at 72nd Ave, I think it would also make sense to omit this movement (Nordel to HWY91 SB) from the interchange, since taking 172nd St, then 72nd Ave to HWY91 SB is a reasonable alternative for those users - with at most a couple additional minutes of travel time. While I understand to some degree the province's request to provide full movement in each interchange, given that this probably aligns with the expectations of drivers, now that many (most?) people rely on directions from Google Maps and similar, is this really still an issue? Especially considering that if the movement was omitted, if a driver made the mistake of attempting to go Nordel to HWY91 SB, the design still provides an easy way for them to u-turn and fix their mistake with minimal additional driving:



One question, as I am just an amateur and not a civil engineer: Would you be willing to explain what "The vertical curve leading to the west abutment of the the proposed new structure is already maxed out." means in this case?

Thank you!

[waves]

Originally Posted by gkz

One question, as I am just an amateur and not a civil engineer: Would you be willing to explain what "The vertical curve leading to the west abutment of the the proposed new structure is already maxed out." means in this case?

He's referring to the vertical alignment of the road over the new overpass. (the steepness of the grade and the smoothness of the transition from flat to uphill to flat bridge to downhill to flat.) In other words, how "smooth" the transitions are between flat and steep depend on the design speed and vehicle.

It may also be impacted by the traffic light, thereby reducing the distance available for the vertical curves east thereafter.

It would be nice to see the full design rather than just the rendering.

[c041v]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

it addresses most of the issues, which is goodish i guess... but the real issue is, here we are, 8 years later. redoing an entire series of connections. this is logistically harder, as you cant close the road, and of course it will cost more money, and we are probably getting less than had we done it right from the start.

that is the biggest issue here, i think.

I feel your pain. It was a head scratcher of a question during the construction of SFPR considering the missed opportunity. It is substantially greater effort to construct the grade-separated solution now.

However, there's many factors at play, and the money just wasn't available at the time to build then what is now being built now. It's not a perfect solution and maybe not even a very good answer, but that is the answer. The funding and scope justification for these projects are never as black and white as the engineering would lead one to believe, and budgets need to be adhered to.

gkz- As for the Nordel WB to Highway 91 SB movement, omitting it does make perfect sense. Without divulging too much, some folks tried very hard to eliminate it, citing the availability of Nordel Way to still execute the movement, as you suggest. The current design is an indication of how successful those efforts were.

[c041v]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, I know, but is this an alternative if there is a back-up from Nordel to 91 Northbound?

The current Nordel Way WB/SB signal goes away in the future, so unless there is an accident, this movement is indeed superfluous, and more of a weird quirk in the design. It's not the first interchange that I've seen result in multiple options, and is a good observation.

[makr3trkr]

https://www.delta-optimist.com/news/...ose-1.24165675
Sandor Gyarmati / Delta Optimist
July 6, 2020 04:30 PM

"The existing Highway 91 northbound off-ramp to Nordel Way eastbound will be closed and traffic diverted. Part the of province’s Highway 91/17 Upgrade Project, traffic will be diverted to the existing traffic signal on Nordel Way at the Alex Fraser onramp."



Can't help but think that this could back up on to the bridge during rush hour, as all three lanes (including the Nordel exit / Highway 17) will be controlled.

[flipper316]

Little clip of Nordel east to 91 north. Looks like soon there's gonna be a light coming off the offramp from 91 north to Nordel east. https://youtu.be/uo3aHro7wq8

[flipper316]

https://www.peacearchnews.com/news/p...t-cost-of-30m/

[Mininari]

Another project scope reduction to stay on budget (and pay for the community benefits)? Space for 150 trucks reduced to 100?

And a new signalized intersection on an otherwise 'free' section of the road.

Hooray.

Otherwise, its a needed new facility for truck drivers in a good location.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Another project scope reduction to stay on budget (and pay for the community benefits)? Space for 150 trucks reduced to 100?

And a new signalized intersection on an otherwise 'free' section of the road.

Hooray.

Otherwise, its a needed new facility for truck drivers in a good location.

Having just been reminded of the mob's control of NYC's construction unions in the 70s (thank you netflix documentary series), can we please drop the pretense of "community benefits" and just call it what it is: "union kickbacks", as plain as the nose on one's face. Simple corruption.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by s211

Having just been reminded of the mob's control of NYC's construction unions in the 70s (thank you netflix documentary series), can we please drop the pretense of "community benefits" and just call it what it is: "union kickbacks", as plain as the nose on one's face. Simple corruption.

What are you talking about??

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Another project scope reduction to stay on budget (and pay for the community benefits)? Space for 150 trucks reduced to 100?

And a new signalized intersection on an otherwise 'free' section of the road.

Hooray.

Otherwise, its a needed new facility for truck drivers in a good location.

There was a private developer trying to build a 75-acre truck park but Margaret Atwood and crew were worried about fish.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...park-1.3796852

[flipper316]

https://www.peacearchnews.com/news/d...gin-this-fall/

[s211]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

What are you talking about??

Ummm.... the NDP's so-called Community Benefits program. You know, the program that gives the community less for the same price, and the difference pads union coffers?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by s211

Ummm.... the NDP's so-called Community Benefits program. You know, the program that gives the community less for the same price, and the difference pads union coffers?

Pretty sure it doesn't apply to this project.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

https://www.delta-optimist.com/news/...ose-1.24165675
Sandor Gyarmati / Delta Optimist
July 6, 2020 04:30 PM

"The existing Highway 91 northbound off-ramp to Nordel Way eastbound will be closed and traffic diverted. Part the of province’s Highway 91/17 Upgrade Project, traffic will be diverted to the existing traffic signal on Nordel Way at the Alex Fraser onramp."



Can't help but think that this could back up on to the bridge during rush hour, as all three lanes (including the Nordel exit / Highway 17) will be controlled.

What a stupid design. We went from 0 traffic lights to now 3 in a span of 2 years. Only in BC.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

What a stupid design. We went from 0 traffic lights to now 3 in a span of 2 years. Only in BC.

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