Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon
Point #1 - SFPR has no direct connection to PMB and has no contingency for this.
Point #2 - 5000 cars per day is a fart in a hurricane compared with overall bridge traffic. That's 1 lane for 2-3 hours of capacity.
Point #3- My point about Burnaby is that cars would end up diverting through South Burn to the AFB. Nordel would pick a fair bit of slack as well.
Point #4 - A high level pedestrian bridge likely be over $100M on its own. Economies of scale are huge for bridges, hence why the new PMB is 10 lanes instead of 5.
|
(#1) Agreed. The quote for the Sun was less than ideal as I mentioned. As pointed out in one of the other responses:
Quote:
|
the grade separation is pretty steep between SFPR and Johnston Hill.
|
I did allude to the fact that the local traffic will have to use the main arterials ( which you think — as an idea
)to connect or go west. It wasn't my intention to call for a direct connection.
(#2) I can't see how big a fart that is without current numbers.
Anyway, my point is more that the current road system on the north side can barely take the current traffic, i.e. there is no where to put all the traffic trucks or cars on through New West. So why, spend the extra money to move all the congestion to the north side? Without, the NFPR or any of the suggestions the other commenters made, a larger bridge will just aggravate the traffic issue.
(#3) Agreed.
(#4) Against the regional transit and car politics and funding issues, bike/ped bridges don't stand a chance from the public agencies currently. Most people in bike planning/policy are focusing on inclusion provisions so that new road projects have to include them, which is a good example of economies of scale
At this point, I can honestly say that closing the bridge permanently will not happen (and may not be feasible) unless it has a major structural incident like it did in 2009. As such, I would like to see a new one built at the same capacity with a toll and a rebate discount for those living local to the bridge(rebate = wishful thinking maybe). And sure, throw a bike lane on it and ban trucks.
It appears the main tension is the traffic levels in New West and the regional significance of the route over the PB. Dismissing the local opposition as against "the greater good" (hot fuzz reference anyone?) of the region disregards genuine concern for not just current but future traffic levels in their city. Yes, the failure of the NFPR was a debacle but would you support a new highway next to where you live? By letting Translink implement the process, the province essential gave the people who didn't want it an opportunity to kill the project. And they did. Now there is not sufficient infrastructure to support an expanded PM bridge.
So although I support the regional priorities, I don't think adding insult to injury and building a bigger PB in NW makes sense. They passed on major investment. Spend it elsewhere. We have tons of stuff that people want and/or need. Transit, Massey Crossing, sewage plants, garbage facilities, etc.
Prev
New Westminster just needs to get with the program. We aren't a region of 100,000 people with them as the capital city anymore. We are a region of near 2.5 million projected to reach 3.5 million in coming decades. There WILL BE MORE CARS AND TRUCKS! 
). 
The situation on Georgia St in Vancouver is not much better during daytime hours. As I mentioned, several studies have been done across decades by three seperate provincial governments and they all concluded the route was congested and a new or drastically altered bridge or tunnel was needed.
Linear Mode
