South Fraser Perimeter Road/Highway 17 Extension | Completed

[amor de cosmos]

Originally Posted by officedweller

As an aside, Portland's version of the Port Mann twinning - the new I-5 bridge over the Columbia River - has the support of Portland City Council - a tolled 12-lane span with LRT.

Construction began on Ft McMurray's version of the Port Mann twinning yesterday:

Construction begins on new five-lane bridge in Fort McMurray

Fort McMurray... Construction has begun on the $127-million five-lane bridge across the Athabasca River in Fort McMurray. The new bridge will have the province’s largest bridge deck when it opens to traffic in 2011, weather permitting.

etc

This project includes construction of the new northbound Highway 63 bridge over the Athabasca River and the first stage construction of the new overpass structure over Franklin Avenue. Traffic disruptions during construction of the bridge will be limited.

The new bridge will be 33 metres wide and 472 metres long, with a deck area of 15,576 square metres, making it the largest provincial bridge deck. The bridge will provide three lanes for northbound Highway 63 traffic and two lanes for the northbound traffic from Franklin Avenue. The bridge will include a 4.2-metre wide sidewalk and major utility lines. The bridge has been designed to carry up to a 6.4-metre wide, 1.1 million-kilogram (2.3 million-pound) overload vehicle, which is 12.5 times our usual designs.

http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200806/23851B7284BF9-B4AC-120B-FAFADD0668698E11.html

[deasine]

Originally Posted by northwest2k

12 lanes rool:

12 Lanes = 6 Lanes per direction

6 - 1 lane for LRT = 5 lanes per direction

Not necessary for that portion of the I-5, there is congestion, but not necessarily enough to need a 5 lanes per direction. Maybe 4 lanes w/ one of them being HOV.

[northwest2k]

Originally Posted by deasine

12 Lanes = 6 Lanes per direction

6 - 1 lane for LRT = 5 lanes per direction

Not necessary for that portion of the I-5, there is congestion, but not necessarily enough to need a 5 lanes per direction. Maybe 4 lanes w/ one of them being HOV.

Mmmm nope its actually 6 lanes for cars in each direction + 1 lane in each direction for LRT. Look at the picture.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by northwest2k

Mmmm nope its actually 6 lanes for cars in each direction + 1 lane in each direction for LRT. Look at the picture.

Looks like plans have changed. Sorry.

Either way it's kind of disgusting - they need to dramatically widen the rest of I-5 down Portland. Around the rosemont corridor (which is one of the busiest parts of I-5 in Portland), it narrows to two lanes per direction.

[clooless]

Originally Posted by northwest2k

12 lanes rool:

From the article:

The task force is expected to endorse a proposal that replaces the six-lane bridge with a high-capacity 12-lane toll bridge, light rail, fixes for six interchanges and wider bike and pedestrian paths.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by officedweller

As an aside, Portland's version of the Port Mann twinning - the new I-5 bridge over the Columbia River - has the support of Portland City Council - a tolled 12-lane span with LRT.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/06/portland_council_backs_new_i5.html

Background info:

http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/Background/Default.aspx

So why the hell do a lot of critics use Portland as an example of transit and in the same statement say "see we should build ONLY transit LIKE PORTLAND"? It seems to me Portland is actually doing exactly what we are doing here aka dealing with both transit & road infrastructure at the same time.

:-| I like how critics always ignore half the story just to make their points.

Thanks for the info.

[officedweller]

That's pretty much why I posted it.
In addition to good transit, Portland has massive highway infrastructure surrounding its core - both I-5 and I-405 ring the downtown core and I-205 provides a Portland by-pass further afield.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by northwest2k

12 lanes rool:

Maybe if you stay sober when you drive, you won't need that many lanes to swerve around without driving off the side of the road.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

Maybe if you stay sober when you drive, you won't need that many lanes to swerve around without driving off the side of the road.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by officedweller

That's pretty much why I posted it.
In addition to good transit, Portland has massive highway infrastructure surrounding its core - both I-5 and I-405 ring the downtown core and I-205 provides a Portland by-pass further afield.

and that i80 (is that the number?) does a nice east - west criss cross and having ridden the LRT that runs down the side - rush hour traffic looks awfully backed up - much worse than hwy 1 here

[northwest2k]

I don't see how they're going to complete the gateway project by 2012 if they haven't even started yet. They need to hurry up. This should be the province's top priority

[SpongeG]

its already started hasn't it?

they are building the underpass in surrey now

they have put sticks/marks along hwy #1 in burnaby

[mr.x]

don't forget the new Pitt River Bridge.

[Cypherus]

...and don't forget the South Fraser Perimeter Road.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by northwest2k

I don't see how they're going to complete the gateway project by 2012 if they haven't even started yet. They need to hurry up. This should be the province's top priority

I think they started it already. I drove by the Surrey section of Hwy 1 last week and you can see construction max speed and new pavement just beside the modified sections.

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

its already started hasn't it?

they are building the underpass in surrey now

they have put sticks/marks along hwy #1 in burnaby

The underpass in Surrey at Hwy 1 and 156 st isnt necessarily part of the gateway program - it is simply an underpass to service the residential areas noth of the hwy to allow better conenction to south of hwy/guilford area because the 152nd and 160th overpassess are clogged with commuter traffic most of the day.

The underpass btw 176 and 192 is part of the Gateway program however. That is part of the system to flow traffic from the Golden Ears Bridge through Port Kells and out to 176 interchange.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by northwest2k

I don't see how they're going to complete the gateway project by 2012 if they haven't even started yet. They need to hurry up. This should be the province's top priority

I'd rather they start giant projects when the cost of labour and materials has dropped a little, post-2010.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by vanlaw

The underpass in Surrey at Hwy 1 and 156 st isnt necessarily part of the gateway program - it is simply an underpass to service the residential areas noth of the hwy to allow better conenction to south of hwy/guilford area because the 152nd and 160th overpassess are clogged with commuter traffic most of the day.

The underpass btw 176 and 192 is part of the Gateway program however. That is part of the system to flow traffic from the Golden Ears Bridge through Port Kells and out to 176 interchange.

Isn't that part of the new transit only interchange?

[Blake]

Originally Posted by vanlaw

The underpass in Surrey at Hwy 1 and 156 st isnt necessarily part of the gateway program - it is simply an underpass to service the residential areas noth of the hwy to allow better conenction to south of hwy/guilford area because the 152nd and 160th overpassess are clogged with commuter traffic most of the day.

The underpass btw 176 and 192 is part of the Gateway program however. That is part of the system to flow traffic from the Golden Ears Bridge through Port Kells and out to 176 interchange.

Actually you have it in reverse.

The 156 underpass is part of Gateway as it was planned in conjunction with the transit only off/onramps for the Hwy 1 expansion.

The underpass between 176 and 192 is part of the Golden Ears Bridge project and is Translink's responsibility.

[Bert]

Originally Posted by jhausner

:-| I like how critics always ignore half the story just to make their points.

Come on now, jhausner; that's not very sporting. Nobody has (seriously) replied to b5baxter's last post or my own last post yet. We've been waiting patiently and we've been directly addressing this so-called "ignored half" of the story, so it's not fair to say things like that.

In the face of the fact that real alternatives were not evaluated, do you not think we should evaluate them? Especially now, when the project was modelled with what we now know were such flawed assumptions, i.e. 80 cent/L gas prices? Would you not support a second look?

To me, the process has been something like "we need a new computer for our daughter; let's look at some alternatives" - option A: Mac, option B: Commodore 64, option C: IBM 286. Only Option A makes any kind of sense, but why haven't the MoT considered realistic alternatives - spending a more comparable sum - like a Windows PC or a Linux PC as well? Really, we are limited by dollars, so the MoT looking essentially only at "effectiveness" as the criteria (quoted, as this will be regressive for our region in solving long term congestion), and not looking at efficiency (value) at all makes little sense when the MoT was weighing (poorly chosen) options of such varying costs. I'd say it appears to be another sign of corruption among the BC Liberals, as I doubt the MoT is really that inept.

But back to the story: 4 years down the road, you've long decided on a Mac, but still haven't bought it. The price of Apple software has doubled, but well, we (the MoT) think that the efficiency of software has doubled in 4 years, so our daughter will be fine - she'll surely be able to get twice as much done.

Would it still be a good idea to buy that Mac without even considering some realistic alternatives?