Fact is this is a silly argument because you will never have a direct apples to apples comparison. So many factors to weigh.
How wide is the river / body of water?
What is the population distributions on each side?
How far does the body of water extend? (As in, can you go around it).
How many islands are involved / how many channels?
Is it an active shipping waterway?
What is the topography like on either bank / side?
All important factors. For example, the Fraser river diverges into several arms before it meets the ocean, therefore many routes require two bridges and many islands require their own bridges.
Also bridge / bridge lanes and population will never be a one to one growth scenario. Less populated regions will nearly always have more bridge lanes (especially over a long river) than more populated ones. For example, if the lower mainland had 1/3 the population it is very unlikely it would have 1/3 the bridges / lanes, this is because you still need to have bridge structures periodically spaced along the river to allow access (and avoid people driving for an hour to reach the nearest bridge).
Looking at Paris it has literally reached a saturation point for bridges. In the heart it is literally a continuous street grid over the river (of course the river is also narrower).
IMO we are not at our saturation point given our numerous river channels and nearly equally spaced population distribution north / south of the Fraser and growing population.
Dude, I made a statement, and you misread it and insulted me. I used the exact same language you did.
Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Why would you only use one body of water?
Thats like using for comparison say Burrard Inlet but excluding the fraser north and south arm
Its a very odd comparison and please.......no one insulted you so get off your high horse
What a way to twist words............ thanks
Why would you only use one body of water?
Thats like using for comparison say Burrard Inlet but excluding the fraser north and south arm
I dunno - the discussions I've seen here usually treat the north shore bridges as a topic separate from "south of Fraser", and the bridges over False Creek also seem to have their own set of topics as well.
Some what related (maybe not at all), do we know the status of the Burnette/TCH interchange redesign? That would tie in nicely with the Pattullo for overall traffic flow improvements in the area.
Some what related (maybe not at all), do we know the status of the Burnette/TCH interchange redesign? That would tie in nicely with the Pattullo for overall traffic flow improvements in the area.
It's gone incredibly quiet since the last round of public consultation. I can do some digging and see if there's any scuttlebutt out there.
They are against the road work because it would create a safety concern on the provincial road network. Wtf?
Also, they said the road work would cause more people to use the bridge causing congestion. Shouldn't that give them a clue that replacing the bridge with another 4 lane bridge ridiculous!?
Some what related (maybe not at all), do we know the status of the Burnette/TCH interchange redesign? That would tie in nicely with the Pattullo for overall traffic flow improvements in the area.
I asked my sources and everything's been quiet at the ministry. Absolutely no news about the Brunette Interchange.
This is completely true though. They stated the reason for not building the Interchange because of "excessive queing" onto highway 17. This is exactly what I said about the sunburry Interchange in another thread. Everyone advocating for thr SFPR to have all these interchanges is out to lunch. It doesn't have the capacity to be completely free flow. It's not a true highway so stop treating it like one.
City official mentioned that the bridge would only support 2.5m lanes in a 6 lane config. Really unsafe and narrow...he essentially confirmed that the 6 lane config will never happen. The City of Surrey is absolutely livid.
1.4 bil for a replacement without upgrading the approaches seems absurd.
I really don't see why they don't just open it with 6 lanes with the outer two lanes being add/ drop lanes. It makes sense for traffic flow / reducing congestion by removing unnecessary merges, especially on the west side of the bridge.
I hope Surrey grills them on this.
And yes, the price tag does seem really high for what is being built (if it were 6 lanes with a full flow connection between the SFPR and the Patullo in all directions, that would be more understandable).
So basically, this “new” bridge will create more problems than it solves.
I wouldn’t go that far, but for the price tag it is underwhelming and there is some good old semantic political trickery going on with the “6 lanes” expandable.
I really really want to give the NDP the benefit of the doubt, but the handling of this project doesn’t help.
Prev
typical. It will have terrible connections, and never be expanded to 6 lanes. what a good use of 1.4 billion dollars. 
Linear Mode
