stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge (Pattullo Bridge Replacement) | U/C - Page 82

Klazu · #**1621** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 3:07 AM**

I hope this gets postponed as long as we have again have a government willing to do the right thing and build it with six lanes from the get go.

Mininari · #**1622** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 4:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also still dismayed with the loss of the Surrey side interchange. (Surrey also isn't happy with that).

"Community Benefits Agreement"

Hmm, not so beneficial to the Community of Surrey...

Metro-One · #**1623** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 4:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mininari

"Community Benefits Agreement"

Hmm, not so beneficial to the Community of Surrey...

Kind of ironic that while New West has been complaining against this project the full scale build out on their side remains and on the Surrey side, whom has been pushing for the full scale of this project, has had their end greatly reduced...

flipper316 · #**1624** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 7:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

PHOOEY!! but thanks for the response. Looking at the render:

https://images.dailyhive.com/20180103133021/new-pattullo-bridge-f.jpg

It has no provision for future rail transit, and is still only 4 langes wide, despite oh! bravo the bike lanes! Pls excuse the facetiousness, but it is not long-term-conceived.
Or ... what is that space down the middle for? If for transit, or extra lanes, I retract my criticism. (it just doesn't seem quite wide enough, somehow, correct me if I'm wrong)

You do realize there's already a Skytrain line right next to the bridge. We don't need 2 expo lines connecting Surrey and New West.

aberdeen5698 · #**1625** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 9:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flipper316

You do realize there's already a Skytrain line right next to the bridge. We don't need 2 expo lines connecting Surrey and New West.

Well, the Expo line is getting pretty crowded and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it reaches its ultimate capacity during the lifetime of the new Patullo bridge. When that happens the only sensible alternative would be a relief line, and wouldn't it be nice if we had the foresight to provide for it?

Jalapeño Chips · #**1626** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 3:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Well, the Expo line is getting pretty crowded and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it reaches its ultimate capacity during the lifetime of the new Patullo bridge. When that happens the only sensible alternative would be a relief line, and wouldn't it be nice if we had the foresight to provide for it?

I'm sure a new railway bridge to replace the ancient one next to the Patullo will be built by then. They could just add a couple Skytrain tracks to that.

Lexus · #**1627** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I wonder how many ppl would be walking over the bridge

A lot if people! Even more people will bike.

interrobang · #**1628** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 4:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dharper

When are they going to start building this damn thing, or at least have some construction info on the website. The website is basically a 'brochure' of the project.

The technical submittal deadline was August 29. Interim commercial submittal is this week, with final commercial submittal this fall.

Source: RFP Package

osirisboy · #**1629** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexus

A lot if people! Even more people will bike.

What's that based on

CanSpice · #**1630** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

What's that based on

The greatly improved multi-use path across the bridge, along with the greatly improved connections on either side.

osirisboy · #**1631** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The greatly improved multi-use path across the bridge, along with the greatly improved connections on either side.

Oh. It sounded like it was based on something factual.

stump · #**1632** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 7:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Oh. It sounded like it was based on something factual.

Who doesn't want to walk from New West into the Surrey industrial zone. I'd do that all that time....

idunno · #**1633** Posted **Sep 9, 2019, 7:14 PM**

I'm also really disappointed in the disappearance of the Surrey interchange from the project. That area is and will continue to be a mess for anyone driving, but even more so for walking/biking.

The north end looks great though, as it retains the Translink design. I do really wonder why this happened (cost creep maybe?).

Metro-One · #**1634** Posted **Sep 10, 2019, 12:14 AM**

It was removed because of environmental concerns...(Greenhouse gas emissions). Even though it was the optimal choice to retain it for nearly every other factor.

The only saving grace of the Surrey side is the direct south to west bound ramp to the SFPR and the removal of a traffic light on the SFPR.

osirisboy · #**1635** Posted **Sep 10, 2019, 3:19 AM**

Removed because of green house gas emissions? How is moving traffic more efficiently increase gas emissions? Also, when we are building infrastructure that is supposed to last generations shouldn't we factor in that emissions from vehicales will be basically non existent in the future.

Lexus · #**1636** Posted **Sep 10, 2019, 3:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

What's that based on

Based on when there is an infrastructure people start using it.
Also look what happened to the Cambie Bridge, Burrard Bridge. Watch what's gonna happen to Granville Bridge after they finish what in works now.

osirisboy · #**1637** Posted **Sep 10, 2019, 3:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexus

Based on when there is an infrastructure people start using it.
Also look what happened to the Cambie Bridge, Burrard Bridge. Watch what's gonna happen to Granville Bridge after they finish what in works now.

Seriously? Just because they build something doesn't mean People will therefore use it.

In other words you're just guessing

And if you are going to try and compare this bridge with the downtown ones than whatever. Lol

dandor31 · #**1638** Posted **Sep 10, 2019, 3:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Removed because of green house gas emissions? How is moving traffic more efficiently increase gas emissions? Also, when we are building infrastructure that is supposed to last generations shouldn't we factor in that emissions from vehicales will be basically non existent in the future.

It could a be due to the embodied carbon in the construction of the infrastructure. People often overlook this. I think concrete accounts for 6-10% of global CO2 emission. Mostly from the production of cement in kilns. Obviously the construction carbon budget could be amortized over the infrastructure lifespan, but it's still not insignificant.

Lexus · #**1639** Posted **Sep 10, 2019, 5:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Seriously? Just because they build something doesn't mean People will therefore use it.

In other words you're just guessing

And if you are going to try and compare this bridge with the downtown ones than whatever. Lol

Your “lol” reminded me those drivers from 1996 from this video about Burrard Bridge. No one seems is LOL today.

https://youtu.be/rWxeVUEsTro

osirisboy · #**1640** Posted **Sep 10, 2019, 6:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexus

Your “lol” reminded me those drivers from 1996 from this video about Burrard Bridge. No one seems is LOL today.

https://youtu.be/rWxeVUEsTro

Wtf?! lol. Ok. There is no comparison