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

[libtard]

Originally Posted by officedweller

My point was that if the "shoulder/future lane" is used as the bike ped path on opening,
you'd still need to expand the deck outside the towers / cables for a new bike / ped path
once that lane is converted to auto use, so the bridge design will have to take that into account.

WRT shoulder, I suppose you could consider the Patullo a local bridge - not a freeway bridge, so shoulders may not be necessary.

Im advocating the use of a shoulder in addition to a bike lane. The Pitt River didn't take into account what you're saying about an H frame needing to be expanded. The render for the new Patullo showed a lane for pedestrians, bikes, and no shoulder for cars. Completely unacceptable when compared with other new bridges being built around North America. I haven't seen criteria for "local" bridges not needing shoulders compared to "freeway" bridges, could you please provide this info? Because it sounds like a pretty ridiculous reason NOT to have a shoulder, especially on such a notoriously dangerous bridge. Also the approaches on either side of the bridge are free flowing which means cars would likely reach freeway speeds on the bridge.

[red-paladin]

You're getting repetitive, Libtard.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

You're getting repetitive, Libtard.

What's getting repetitive is vancouver's track record of sub standard bridges

[makr3trkr]

It is kind of funny that the new proposed configuration has McBride southbound merging into ONE lane ... which is actually a downgrade from the current configuration.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

It is kind of funny that the new proposed configuration has McBride southbound merging into ONE lane ... which is actually a downgrade from the current configuration.

Currently it merges into one lane, does it not? Royal gets the right lane currently.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Currently it merges into one lane, does it not? Royal gets the right lane currently.

That's correct.

[KevinFromTexas]

Please make sure that any images you post that aren't your own are credited with a link to the website where you found them.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=192107

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by libtard

I haven't seen criteria for "local" bridges not needing shoulders compared to "freeway" bridges, could you please provide this info?

Just anecdotally -
i.e. Cambie Bridge, Granville Bridge, Burrard Bridge have no shoulders.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Just anecdotally -
i.e. Cambie Bridge, Granville Bridge, Burrard Bridge have no shoulders.

Even then, you could consider the Alex Fraser Bridge a "freeway bridge" and it doesn't have shoulders either. Neither does the Port Mann.

[Trainguy]

Interesting that the Pattullo bridge got mentioned in the throne speech to get replaced within 5 years but not a mention of the other transit projects. When real money starts appearing for these projects, I will believe that they will actually happen. Talk is cheap!!!

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Interesting that the Pattullo bridge got mentioned in the throne speech to get replaced within 5 years but not a mention of the other transit projects. When real money starts appearing for these projects, I will believe that they will actually happen. Talk is cheap!!!

"The Horgan government resurrected its election pledge to replace the aging Pattullo Bridge within five years, saying it is “moving quickly” to come up with a plan before the bridge can no longer be used due to safety concerns.

Horgan said that extends to the Metro Vancouver mayor’s 10-year transit plan. “I believe it’s full speed ahead on those other initiatives,” he said."

From vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-to-unveil-affordable-child-care-plan-in-throne-speech

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Interesting that the Pattullo bridge got mentioned in the throne speech to get replaced within 5 years but not a mention of the other transit projects. When real money starts appearing for these projects, I will believe that they will actually happen. Talk is cheap!!!

Reminds me of the GMT promise... easy to promise something will happen beyond your current 4-year term.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Reminds me of the GMT promise... easy to promise something will happen beyond your current 4-year term.

If the funding is there there can be shovels in the ground for the Pattullo within six months. They're just waiting for the funding before putting it out for bids.

Also, they're going to have to close the current Pattullo in five years because it's that unsafe. That wasn't the case for the Massey Tunnel. Killing (or "revisiting") the Pattullo replacement in three years would be a complete non-starter.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

If the funding is there there can be shovels in the ground for the Pattullo within six months. They're just waiting for the funding before putting it out for bids.

Also, they're going to have to close the current Pattullo in five years because it's that unsafe. That wasn't the case for the Massey Tunnel. Killing (or "revisiting") the Pattullo replacement in three years would be a complete non-starter.

Yes, all true, however if they were serious about doing it, why say 5 years? Why not 2? 3?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes, all true, however if they were serious about doing it, why say 5 years? Why not 2? 3?

Because that's how long it takes to build a billion dollar bridge? All of the timelines for the past five years have said that after bids go out the new bridge should be open within five years.

[Zassk]

Even if shovels can go in the ground in 6 months, I will believe it when I see actual girders up against the sky. The GMT has had 8 months of shovels in the ground, and now it is all sitting idle (even the hydro work which was very advanced) and about to be abandoned.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Even if shovels can go in the ground in 6 months, I will believe it when I see actual girders up against the sky. The GMT has had 8 months of shovels in the ground, and now it is all sitting idle (even the hydro work which was very advanced) and about to be abandoned.

My concern isn't the shovels in the ground, it's the talk talk talk. The GMT was a campaign promise in 2013, "will start construction in 2017". You can see what happened.

Regardless of whether you support each project in what form, the distant promises are worthless.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

My concern isn't the shovels in the ground, it's the talk talk talk. The GMT was a campaign promise in 2013, "will start construction in 2017". You can see what happened.

Regardless of whether you support each project in what form, the distant promises are worthless.

You will notice that the liberals waited until the year of the next election to start working on the GMT project. I wouldn't be surprised if they could of just back in 2014 or 2013. But they waited and tried to use the project as a ribbon cutting, picture op, for the last election. They loose and the project gets put on hold because there hasn't been much done on it.

They are not the only political party to try this and they won't be the last.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Even if shovels can go in the ground in 6 months, I will believe it when I see actual girders up against the sky. The GMT has had 8 months of shovels in the ground, and now it is all sitting idle (even the hydro work which was very advanced) and about to be abandoned.

Is the new GMT completely dead? Horgan said he's leaving it up to the mayors council right?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by libtard

Is the new GMT completely dead? Horgan said he's leaving it up to the mayors council right?

“Leaving it up to the mayors council” is essentially where projects go to die, or spend eons in limbo, especially if it is a major road project.