stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge (Pattullo Bridge Replacement) | U/C

[makr3trkr]

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Document...%20Consultation%20Discussion%20Guide.pdf



The proposed loop ramp from Columbia onto the bridge simply doesn't make sense with two lanes. You have differing grades, differing speeds, and a very short merge distance. It very clearly should be an add/drop lane.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

The proposed loop ramp from Columbia onto the bridge simply doesn't make sense with two lanes. You have differing grades, differing speeds, and a very short merge distance. It very clearly should be an add/drop lane.

Totally agree. It's going to be the same problem that plagued the Boundary Road on-ramp to northbound Highway 1 - the small turn radius and grade up to road level limits how fast you can accelerate, you have a terrible view of the traffic you're merging into because you're coming from below, and you have to split your attention between trying to see that traffic and making sure that you don't rear-end someone in front of you who's stopped because they weren't able to merge under such difficult circumstances.

The PMH1 upgrade has lengthened the Boundary Road on-ramp a fair bit so it's not as bad as it used to be, but this design looks like it's going to be even worse than the original layout there.

[Trainguy]

Don't be surprised if the Patullo Bridge turns into another white elephant like the GEB is. They are losing huge dollars every year in payments. People will avoid the bridge because of tolls and Translink will once again be on the hook for millions in short-fall funding because not enough motorists will pay $4.00 each way to use it. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Don't be surprised if the Patullo Bridge turns into another white elephant like the GEB is. They are losing huge dollars every year in payments. People will avoid the bridge because of tolls and Translink will once again be on the hook for millions in short-fall funding because not enough motorists will pay $4.00 each way to use it. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

How else are they going to get across the Fraser River? The Port Mann bridge is tolled too, and its not likely that people would divert all the way to the Alex Fraser just to avoid paying a toll. People have to get across the river somehow. I think the bridge will do fine.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Don't be surprised if the Patullo Bridge turns into another white elephant like the GEB is. They are losing huge dollars every year in payments. People will avoid the bridge because of tolls and Translink will once again be on the hook for millions in short-fall funding because not enough motorists will pay $4.00 each way to use it. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Wow $4 a trip. I presume that's single or is it a return commute? Anyway it's enough to make you flip; no wonder people will avoid it! Is there not another way of adressing the funding issue?

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Wow $4 a trip. I presume that's single or is it a return commute? Anyway it's enough to make you flip; no wonder people will avoid it! Is there not another way of adressing the funding issue?

Mob the Parliament?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Don't be surprised if the Patullo Bridge turns into another white elephant like the GEB is. They are losing huge dollars every year in payments. People will avoid the bridge because of tolls and Translink will once again be on the hook for millions in short-fall funding because not enough motorists will pay $4.00 each way to use it. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

I feel like people don't quite understand what a White Elephant is. Just to clarify, it is something that is built for very high sums of money and then will have little to no use in the future.

The GEB and GEW is very useful, adding a very important link between which was once a huge gap of in connectivity between the Port Mann and Mission Bridges and will continue to be useful for the remainder of its life.

The problem is that Translink should not have been the body responsible for the capital costs. Higher levels of government should have been (and the same goes for all major road and rail projects)

The other problem is that tolls should never be counted on to pay back capital costs. Expecting road tolls to pay back the entire cost of the GEB is no different than expecting ride fares to pay back the entire capital costs of a sky train line. Will... Never... Happen.

Tolls and fares should only be relied on for covering or helping with operational and maintenance costs.

And finally, 4 dollars is a little steep and it has been obvious for a while that a region wide tolling of all crossings (say around 1.50 each) is the far better solution.

So in the end, the GEB is a great project ( and was clearly better designed than what is being proposed for the Patullo Bridge ) it was just the rolling aspect that is poorly planned.

Not a white elephant.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Don't be surprised if the Patullo Bridge turns into another white elephant like the GEB is. They are losing huge dollars every year in payments. People will avoid the bridge because of tolls and Translink will once again be on the hook for millions in short-fall funding because not enough motorists will pay $4.00 each way to use it. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

The Patullo Bridge replacement is likely to be the best performing of any of the toll bridges currently in existence or planned.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Document...%20Consultation%20Discussion%20Guide.pdf



The proposed loop ramp from Columbia onto the bridge simply doesn't make sense with two lanes. You have differing grades, differing speeds, and a very short merge distance. It very clearly should be an add/drop lane.

The layouts that have been presented are design guidelines that the contractor will use when determining the actual layout. The details of how long a merge would be or where it is would be up to the contractor coming up with the design. Remember, this is a design-build project, and although TransLink is coming up with these design guidelines, they're guidelines only and aren't set in stone.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The layouts that have been presented are design guidelines that the contractor will use when determining the actual layout. The details of how long a merge would be or where it is would be up to the contractor coming up with the design.

And of course the contractor would just love to make a really nice long merge lane so as to minimize his profit....

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And of course the contractor would just love to make a really nice long merge lane so as to minimize his profit....

Preferably the contractor would make a short merge lane, come back in 5 years to lengthen the short merge lane, and then come back in another 5 years to fix the project and fully complete the add drop lanes.

If these in fact are the design guidelines Translink is going with then it shows the organization is truly incompetent through and through. If people shook their heads at the speed design of the GEB wait until their trying to merge onto a 2 lane brand new gridlocked bridge.

[officedweller]

More likely, it's politicians restricting it to a 4 lane bridge.
An add/drop lane would make it a 5 lane bridge - at least in part.

[libtard]

Pardon my ignorance, but HOW do you expect them to incorporate a free flowing interchange with the SFPR? There's nowhere near enough room...

Oh wait I forgot Metro-One loves Japan. This would wok perfectly

[Metro-One]

Seriously? Are you just trying to be a troll right now?

I am at work currently so maybe someone else can dig up the 2009 alignments that were proposed (and far superior to the current)

In those alignments the SFPR was free flow with no signalized intersection as shown now. I believe two of the current signaled intersections were removed from the SFPR with that concept.

Really not hard to imagine and did not involve any massive ramps outside of the proposed south bound to westbound ramp from the bridge to the SFPR.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

most depressing office ever

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Seriously? Are you just trying to be a troll right now?

I am at work currently so maybe someone else can dig up the 2009 alignments that were proposed (and far superior to the current)

In those alignments the SFPR was free flow with no signalized intersection as shown now. I believe two of the current signaled intersections were removed from the SFPR with that concept.

Really not hard to imagine and did not involve any massive ramps outside of the proposed south bound to westbound ramp from the bridge to the SFPR.

Two different entities. They can only show what is mainly there today I think. My recollection is the Patullo = Translink but SFRP = Ministry of Transport. So any full interchange for the SFPR would be their responsibility and outside the scope of the bridge replacement.

My understanding was that the MOT was waiting for the final design of the Patullo bridge to consider the next phase of work to fix the Bridgeview section of the SFPR, mainly addressing the traffic lights and 50kph zone under the bridge. So it isn't entirely out of the question, though my logical brain says we'll probably get stuck with traffic lights for a long time coming.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Seriously? Are you just trying to be a troll right now?

I am at work currently so maybe someone else can dig up the 2009 alignments that were proposed (and far superior to the current)

In those alignments the SFPR was free flow with no signalized intersection as shown now. I believe two of the current signaled intersections were removed from the SFPR with that concept.

Really not hard to imagine and did not involve any massive ramps outside of the proposed south bound to westbound ramp from the bridge to the SFPR.

i couldn't find a 2009 concept, but i found a 2012 one that has no signals.

2012 SFPR-Patullo Connections

[libtard]

Those drawings don't give any information on the design. And like I said, not enough room. Those off ramps are clearly on top of private property. Translink is going to exercise eminent domain?

[Metro-One]

Aren't you the same guy who always wants to build 100 - 120 km grade super wide American style freeways through urban areas?

Are you seriously doing these gymnastics now, even against your usual philosophy, just because you don't want to admit that I am right?

Some land appropriation was required, but same with the GEB project, and the SFPR, and pretty much every major road project.

The 2012 proposals are far, far, far superior to the Mickey Mouse proposal we have now.

The 2012 proposals are pretty much what was envisioned in 2009 as well. Essentially, these were the professionally engineered alignments before too much politics got in the way.

[Metro-One]

PS, thank you VancouverofTheFutre for finding those.

Also, had those plans been accepted (Surrey did by the way) it is likely that the new bridge would have been opening next year.

This entire process has been a clown show.

The new tiny merge where an add drop lane should be (all because of the political idea that 6 lanes is bad without the understanding that an add drop lane is not the same as a third through lane), the lack of free flow with the SFPR, and the bizarre option of having one way free flow but the other direction stop at a light at Royal Ave (that one is the most bizarre and screams super value engineering) have made this project pretty laughable.

It does not need to be an 8 lane freeway bridge, but the current concept is super lack luster for the price being paid IMO.