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

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

"Building a six lane bridge there won't resolve congestion. In fact, it's likely to make it much worse in the areas surrounding the bridge because they're not suited to support traffic from a six lane bridge."

With this logic building nothing ever at all should solve all our traffic problems! If the roads cannot physically fit more cars, everyone wins? How about we make all roadways only 2 lanes, so even less cars can fit on them? Will that then equate to "less" traffic and everyone winning even bigger??

I think this is another case of how crumbling western societies we have become with the career politicians in power having no real intention of solving any of our problems, as it allows them keep riding on the same topics election after election, decade after decade. Just waste some public money on optics and keep blaming something else for your very own inactivity and indecisiveness.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by DKaz

To Surrey especially prioritizing free flowing connections to SFPR, I don't know why New Westminster doesn't want traffic to get out of their city ASAP. Perhaps it's a reciprocating agreement with City of Surrey -- it has to work both ways.

My guess is that they are worried about induced demand. That extra lane of traffic leaving NW will pull an equivalent amount of traffic into new west for that one-way flow.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

My guess is that they are worried about induced demand. That extra lane of traffic leaving NW will pull an equivalent amount of traffic into new west for that one-way flow.

Again, seeing how it would operate as an add / drop directly connecting a major on ramp and a major off ramp, the benefits of opening with a 5th lane would outway the cons. The same way you can argue induced demand, intentionally underbuilding also has many negative economical, safety (the biggest issue for me regarding adding the fifth lane due to the major merge point on the bridge), social and even environmental benefits (idling cars aren’t great for the environment either).

Also, can’t use the induced demand argument both ways. People on here were calling the GEB and Port Mann bridge wastes of money when they weren’t jam packed with cars. Now that the tolls are removed and they are filling up, those same people will flip their argument and say these bridges filled up due to induced demand (also this argument is often made without referencing population growth in regions or increased economic activity). If you argument changes from underused to induced demand without a pause between I feel you have really weakened your stance.

That said, if we were to fill in a couple missing links in our freeway system, I would support a distance based toll system to curb pointless commutes. (But I only support such a system if the road system itself is well designed)

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Houses already cost over a million on the far side of the Fraser. If we don't allow the working class to commute quickly and easily from their homes in the valley - the only place they can afford - there's going to be no economy in Vancouver at all.

Single family houses cost over a million on the far side of the Fraser. You can find a lot of homes that aren't single family on the north side of the Fraser for a lot less than a million dollars. This trope of "working families can't afford to live north of the Fraser" is bunk.

Off topic for this thread, I know, but it needs to be called out.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by libtard

Can we talk about the fact that they haven't widened the shoulders in the new render for the Patullo. Why are we building sub standard infrastructure compared to the US?

Bridges generally don't have shoulders. The lanes are wider -- something like 3.6m, which will allow a higher speed limit and room for traffic to squeeze through if there is a breakdown or fender bender. The centre barrier will prevent serious accidents that seriously injure or kill people and shut down the bridge for hours.

[ClaytonA]

Interestingly wider lane requirements are one of the things autonomous vehicles are supposed to "solve." Most of Vancouver's arterials are 2.9m.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Our regions transit is actually quite good especially in the inner suburbs. It's significantly better than most competitors in North America and with all the planned service expansions things are only looking up.

BUT - we don't have the same freeway infrastructure as most other cities. We rely on alternatives to the car, so our transit system has to be that much better in order to make up the difference.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

BUT - we don't have the same freeway infrastructure as most other cities. We rely on alternatives to the car, so our transit system has to be that much better in order to make up the difference.

Which is why we need to improve both.

Neglecting either (or both) is detrimental to our region IMO.

And sometimes improving both can involve the same project (for example rapid bus systems as part of major highway upgrades).

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Bridges generally don't have shoulders. The lanes are wider -- something like 3.6m, which will allow a higher speed limit and room for traffic to squeeze through if there is a breakdown or fender bender. The centre barrier will prevent serious accidents that seriously injure or kill people and shut down the bridge for hours.

Lol higher speed limit give me a break. Highway 17 below the bridge is a modern almost freeway with a 50km/hr limit there. As soon as you get off the bridge in Surrey gaining speed down the slope you hit modern lane widths on KGB, a laughably low 50km/hr limit, and cops on the left side of the overpass over Scott Road positioned for "your safety" with their radar guns out. You and I both know this thing will only be 60km/hr at most when open.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Single family houses cost over a million on the far side of the Fraser. You can find a lot of homes that aren't single family on the north side of the Fraser for a lot less than a million dollars. This trope of "working families can't afford to live north of the Fraser" is bunk.

Off topic for this thread, I know, but it needs to be called out.

Exactly. You can't have a walkable high-transit utopia AND have everyone expect a detached house at the same time. Hoping Vancouver chooses the former.

By the way, Paris has 5 times Vancouver's population and has only twice the number of lanes crossing the Seine vs the Fraser.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by dleung

Exactly. You can't have a walkable high-transit utopia AND have everyone expect a detached house at the same time. Hoping Vancouver chooses the former.

By the way, Paris has 5 times Vancouver's population and has only twice the number of lanes crossing the Seine vs the Fraser.

Where do you draw the line for metro Paris?

Going through the urban built up area north to south along the Seine I counted 65 road bridges (actually more since many of those roads have two bridges on either side of the islands in the middle, but they essentially act as a single route) and that was only south to where the river splits since from there there are too many more to count along both arms and I don’t feel like doing that now.

So kind of calling you on this one.

Many of those bridges are 4 and 6 lanes of traffic too.

Actually surprised how many major freeways the Paris metro has.

[WarrenC12]

Paris is a ridiculous comparison. The Seine is narrow and winds through the city like Chicago's river. The crossings are small and simple, more like overpasses in complexity and expense, if that.

Compare us to Seattle's Lake Washington crossings might be more fair, but even then they have 2x the population, only 2 bridges (1 of which is toll) and there are ways around from the North and South.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Single family houses cost over a million on the far side of the Fraser. You can find a lot of homes that aren't single family on the north side of the Fraser for a lot less than a million dollars. This trope of "working families can't afford to live north of the Fraser" is bunk.

Off topic for this thread, I know, but it needs to be called out.

I don't even know what you're trying to say. Working families are priced out, what you said doesn't change that. Anything even close to $700,000 is too much for most people.

And it's not off topic because housing prices are exactly why sufficient infrastructure (road AND transit) is needed to Surrey and beyond.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Paris is a ridiculous comparison. The Seine is narrow and winds through the city like Chicago's river. The crossings are small and simple, more like overpasses in complexity and expense, if that.

Compare us to Seattle's Lake Washington crossings might be more fair, but even then they have 2x the population, only 2 bridges (1 of which is toll) and there are ways around from the North and South.

Obviously you dont spend a lot of time down south. How did you come up with two bridges.
Seattle actually has like six crossings

• Lacey Murrow
• Evergreen
• Ship Canal Crossing
• Aurora Ave
• West Seattle -
• Marginal Way - Duwamish River

and if you want to get technical you can also include

• 15th Ave
• Fremont
• Montlake

And as far as population to be fair Greater Seattles population which includes Everett , Burlington, Olympia and Bainbridge Island is more like 20% more than Lower Mainland. To be fair its kind of hard to make a direct comparison as Seattle is way more spread out than Vancouver.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Obviously you dont spend a lot of time down south. How did you come up with two bridges.
Seattle actually has like six crossings

Obviously you have reading comprehension issues. Please read my post again, I said Lake Washington crossings.

The crossings that go over 50m of water are relevant to the Paris and Chicago examples, not relevant for the Fraser.

Plus one of their 2 big bridges is floating (520), now has a toll, and the other (I90) is being upgraded to handle rail transit.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Obviously you have reading comprehension issues. Please read my post again, I said Lake Washington crossings.

The crossings that go over 50m of water are relevant to the Paris and Chicago examples, not relevant for the Fraser.

Plus one of their 2 big bridges is floating (520), now has a toll, and the other (I90) is being upgraded to handle rail transit.

You were being selective in your comparison
and i was being nice...you should try it without being insulting

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

You were being selective in your comparison
and i was being nice...you should try it without being insulting

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.

[Chikinlittle]

Comparisons could be drawn to the SF Bay Area (2 into SF itself, and 5 crossing the Bay in total, not including anything further to the NE from Vallejo inland), and also perhaps the Hudson River between NJ and Manhattan (3).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

Comparisons could be drawn to the SF Bay Area (2 into SF itself, and 5 crossing the Bay in total, not including anything further to the NE from Vallejo inland), and also perhaps the Hudson River between NJ and Manhattan (3).

And all 8 crossings referenced there have tolls. I don't think Vancouver compares to SF and NYC, but still.

[Chikinlittle]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

And all 8 crossings referenced there have tolls. I don't think Vancouver compares to SF and NYC, but still.

The comparison was more to do with the scale of the crossings (see previous comparison to Paris, where as mentioned, the bridges in many cases are more like overpasses rather than bridges a la Lions Gate, Second Narrows, Port Mann, etc etc), and also the disparity between the number of them in the metro regions vs the population.