Posted Jun 5, 2013, 6:13 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by makr3trkr
Spending 1 billion+ on a bridge that functions with a high level of service only on a sunny day, with no accidents, and light to moderate traffic doesn't make sense.
The extra lane doesn't have to be a through lane, it could be used only for merging and exiting the bridge, or for HOV, or emergency only, or just built as an extra large shoulder and reserved for future use.
If the Pattullo should fail within the next few decades, then we wouldn't have to look at building *another* bridge, rather than having a six lane bridge that actually functions well.
The Pitt River was built with 8 lanes for future flexibility, which is a good example - one lane is exit only, and one lane is for multi-modal use.
|
Plus you add the fact after the pattullo becomes a 2/3 lane bridge it should become a no truck crossing. So all trucks have now been pushed on to the new bridge. Lots of people don't like passing trucks let alone over a bridge. so having only 2 lanes you've now made a choke point when one guy is to scared to pass the truck
|