HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #661  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2012, 3:33 PM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man View Post
Is there even room for an additional counter-flow lane on the Patullo?
There is no room for a counterflow lane - if they do implement a counterflow system, it would reduce the bridge to three lanes total since the needed seismic upgrades would reduce the width available.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #662  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2012, 6:11 PM
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,626
Hopefully the actual experts will declare that it would be too financially risky to try to rebuild the bridge and may not be possible within a reasonable timeframe and budget. If the Port Mann failed that test, then I don't see how the older orange death drap can possibly pass it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #663  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2012, 7:46 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
If they honestly piss away 150 million on putting lipstick on this pig just have another horrid counter flow system (that in the end never worked for the Pitt River) I will be disgusted with Translink's lack of balls.
The Lions Gate bridge carries 60-70,000 vehicles with a 3 lane counter flow system and the Patullo bridge carries 67,500 vehicles per day. With Highway 1 loosing its congestion with 10 lanes instead of 5 vehicles can go over there to avoid congestion.

Food for thought:

http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/pattullo-versus-pedal-guess-which-one-gets-cut/



Does this make sense that cycling has funding cut?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #664  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2012, 8:16 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,792
Huh? - doesn't that chart say:
67,700 vehicles per day used the Patullo Bridge;
84,3000 total cycling trips per day throughout Metro Vancouver?

What kind of comparison is that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #665  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2012, 8:17 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
Does this make sense that cycling has funding cut?
I'm not sure what kind of response you expect to that comparison.

It would take a hell of a lot of bicycles to get anyone across the Fraser River without getting wet (although 106,000 of them might be enough).

Conversely, you could probably pay for about 106,000 hours of swimming lessons with $3 million per year, and then everyone could just get themselves across the river without bicycles or bridges...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #666  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2012, 8:33 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
What kind of comparison is that?
Well, it compares money spent on the Patullo bridge to the people who use it vs. money spent on cycling to the people who use it. What's the problem with that? Is it just that the cyclists are spread out over a larger area? If that's your objection, it's misplaced because the comparison is based on cost per user, not on cost per square mile or cost per linear mile.

I can see an argument based on the fact that the bridge expenditure being talked about would provide a benefit that lasts for many decades, but I think that's probably true of most of the money spent on bike infrastructure, too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #667  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2012, 8:48 PM
Smooth's Avatar
Smooth Smooth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 906
I know those stats relate to the Patullo Bridge but could we keep all "bicycle infrastructure is underfunded" talk to the appropriate thread?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #668  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2012, 9:21 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Well, it compares money spent on the Patullo bridge to the people who use it vs. money spent on cycling to the people who use it. What's the problem with that? Is it just that the cyclists are spread out over a larger area? If that's your objection, it's misplaced because the comparison is based on cost per user, not on cost per square mile or cost per linear mile.

I can see an argument based on the fact that the bridge expenditure being talked about would provide a benefit that lasts for many decades, but I think that's probably true of most of the money spent on bike infrastructure, too.
The geographic dispersion of the people factors in a lot in a comparison.
Is it worthwhile throwing money out the door to try to "equalize" spending per person when that expenditure isn't put to good use?

Just look at that bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

I just think that money should be spent project by project not on some vague per capita basis.

Anyways - too far off topic....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #669  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2012, 9:59 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Well, it compares money spent on the Patullo bridge to the people who use it vs. money spent on cycling to the people who use it.
The whole concept of "trip" is quite misleading...

If you drive to/from work, you created 2 auto trip (work). At noon, you walk from your office to get lunch, then you add 2 walking trip (dining). After dinner, you bike with your child to the nearest park, then you add 2 more cycling trips (recreation). If you do this everyday, then you have 2 driving trips, 2 walking trips, and 2 cycling trips. You'd think driving is your predominate mode of travel, but in fact, your mode share is 33% driving, 33% cycling, and 33% walking.

Do you think it would be fair to compare the 2 driving trips with the 2 cycling trips? Well, unless you say your nearest park is on the other side of Fraser River...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #670  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2012, 10:26 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeCee View Post
There is no room for a counterflow lane - if they do implement a counterflow system, it would reduce the bridge to three lanes total since the needed seismic upgrades would reduce the width available.
I believe that you misunderstood my point. The existing narrow 4-lane cross-section would be reduced to a wider 3-lane cross-section with the centre-lane acting as the counterflow lane.

Think Lions Gate Bridge/Stanley Park Causeway.

Again, this likely option will need to be revisited within 15 years with another 6-lane replacement. At the end of the day, it will be all about short-term politics. It is what it is unfortunately. I've seen this movie played out several times before.

In that vein, former moderate NDP premier Mike Harcourt's then Transportation minister Art Charbonneau from Hansard, Tuesday, June 15, 1993:

Quote:
[Volume 11, Number 4, Page 7211]

[NDP MoTH Minister] Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member has really hit the goldmine on this one. The congestion, the safety aspects and the delays coming out of the northeast suburbs onto the Trans-Canada are severe, and part of that is the connection from the Mary Hill bypass onto 401.

There is no band-aid solution possible. The 401 should be expanded to six lanes plus two HOV lanes, and we need to twin the Port Mann Bridge. The Cape Horn interchange needs to be reworked in order to facilitate that and the more direct connections onto the Mary Hill bypass.
Of course, a good chunk of the NDP hard-core enviro base eventually balked at this proposition and we wound up with a Hwy 1 HOV lane and PMB seismic upgrades as well as an EB PMB HOV lane completed in early 2001.

6 years later the funds expended were obviously redundant as the new PMB/Hwy 1 Project came to fruition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #671  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2012, 1:25 AM
huenthar huenthar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Well, it compares money spent on the Patullo bridge to the people who use it vs. money spent on cycling to the people who use it. What's the problem with that? Is it just that the cyclists are spread out over a larger area? If that's your objection, it's misplaced because the comparison is based on cost per user, not on cost per square mile or cost per linear mile.

I can see an argument based on the fact that the bridge expenditure being talked about would provide a benefit that lasts for many decades, but I think that's probably true of most of the money spent on bike infrastructure, too.
Cyclists mostly use roads and sidewalks, funding for which comes out of the roads budget, not the cycling budget. Cyclists also need to get across the river too, presumably they'll need a bridge to do that... Bad comparison when there is significant overlap between the things being compared...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #672  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2012, 7:37 AM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by huenthar View Post
Cyclists mostly use roads and sidewalks, funding for which comes out of the roads budget, not the cycling budget. Cyclists also need to get across the river too, presumably they'll need a bridge to do that... Bad comparison when there is significant overlap between the things being compared...
Aren't the costs of the Bicycle program money that pretty much mostly went into dedicated lanes for bikes? Cars don't use bike lanes, and I'd be willing to estimate that the vast majority of new cyclists stick to roads that have dedicated lanes (or at least painted ones). That's just a guess, though.

It's an interesting comparison which does illustrate that roads are expensive per user and usually encounter little resistance. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's one or the other, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #673  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2012, 8:05 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
I just don't understand what's happening with Translink and the proposed Pattullo Bridge replacement... or now perhaps just an upgrade.

We had the various alignment options, etc. and open houses. Now this story comes out leaving me scratching my head even more.

Quote:
Decision on future of Pattullo Bridge could be made by the summer

VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980)
Alison Bailey
12/7/2012


It's been a question for years: what to do about the aging Pattullo Bridge?

In a few months, there may be an answer.

Sany Zein with Translink says they’re hoping to work towards a short list of options this winter and spring, and to reach consensus on a solution sometime around next summer.

"This is a very public and transparent process, when we have information to be shared with the public, we will be having a public consultation strategy to share with the public what we're finding."

Translink is working with the cities of New Westminster and Surrey. He says no option is off the table.
http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx/story.aspx?ID=1836823
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #674  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2013, 4:27 PM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 593
Firstly let me say I agree that the lane closures on the Pattullo are good and well so far as they have probably saved lives.

However, it seems that if the delay at midnight to get across the bridge can be up to 20 minutes, they might consider changing the staging process, or timing.

Even just closing one lane would probably suffice to prevent cross overs (rather than both middle lanes, which might be overkill).

There was no accident on the bridge or the New Westminster side when this was taken, long after the cones were finished being set up.

The line up on McBride stretched halfway down Queen's Park.


Last edited by makr3trkr; Mar 26, 2013 at 5:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #675  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2013, 2:29 AM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,447
How can we take that 'decision on the bridge' seriously??? EVERY option is off the table when it comes to New westminster, save tearing down the existing bridge, removing all roads, and converting roadways to cobblestone walking paths.

But seriously...

And I was wondering about those nighttime safety closures... why would one use a tolled bridge at midnight when traffic volumes are otherwise light... oh thats right, to save time because the free alternate is completely congested. Might as well jog over to the Alex Fraser if you find yourself approaching the Pattulo after midnight...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #676  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2013, 4:43 AM
DKaz DKaz is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,301
They close the lanes between 9 and 10. FYI I live in Whalley and played late night hockey in Burnaby this past year. By 12:30, 1am, there is absolutely no traffic on the roads and coming to a stop on the ramp from Columbia is more precautionary than anything. It is backed up when I drive by at about 10 but cars can slowly roll down the hill with gravity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #677  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2013, 4:56 AM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz View Post
They close the lanes between 9 and 10. FYI I live in Whalley and played late night hockey in Burnaby this past year. By 12:30, 1am, there is absolutely no traffic on the roads and coming to a stop on the ramp from Columbia is more precautionary than anything. It is backed up when I drive by at about 10 but cars can slowly roll down the hill with gravity.
Still took 20 minutes to get across the bridge (at midnight). There were no accidents, nothing out of the ordinary. Long after the pylon setup was finished. The line up was 1.5-2km along McBride. Could easily have walked faster from Queens Park across to Surrey without breaking a sweat. Traffic from all three SB ramps (Royal, Columbia, McBride) came to a complete stop. Could be a directional thing, as NB from Surrey was pretty good.

Likely last year it wasn't an issue, but now that the 20 free crossings are starting to run out for the Port Mann it has probably worsened. Closing only one lane rather than two lanes would probably help while still preventing crossovers. Can't imagine what it will look next year after the toll doubles.

Last edited by makr3trkr; Mar 27, 2013 at 5:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #678  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2013, 8:29 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Maybe it is becoming a problem now that the 20 free trips are running out, but I haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary in the past few months at night over the Pattullo bridge. I drive over the bridge fairly frequently at night (before and after the lane is closed), and haven't had any slow downs in the last few months. There does seem to be some extra volume, but no jams. Maybe a big event got out, like a concert or a game? Was this the day that Scott Road was closed because of the Motorbike vs Train accident? A major accident like that can have lasting effects hours after the accident is cleared.

One solution to this problem would be to have Pattullo status updates appear on the road information signs on Highway 1. Show the time it takes to get to Guildford via Pattullo and Port Mann from the Canada Way exit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #679  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2013, 12:17 AM
jlenko jlenko is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Willoughby
Posts: 127
I still think they should ban big trucks from the bridge... period. Then the cars could flow a little easier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #680  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2013, 7:58 PM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 593
New round of consultation next month

===============

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/201484341.html

The Port Mann Bridge was tolled on the basis the Pattullo offers a viable free alternative, but critics say that already questionable logic falls apart if both the Pattullo and the Massey Tunnel are also replaced with toll bridges.

Olewiler said a short list of options to replace the Pattullo will go out to public consultations in mid-May.

She said Surrey and New Westminster municipal reps have agreed to work together to try to find a mutually agreeable configuration of a new bridge, which New West residents fear will increase local traffic.

Olewiler said the province also needs to be part of the Pattullo discussion to deal with routing of trucks and connections to provincial highways like the South Fraser Perimeter Road and Highway 1.

Those talks with government will have to wait until after the election, she said, but added it's important to "make sure the big picture is looked at and this isn't just our little bridge in the middle of it."

===============

Seems to be implying that a direct ramp at Port Mann and no connection to SFPR might be bargaining chips
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:59 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.