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

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by giallo

True, but we would have lost Gastown, Chinatown, and access to almost the entirety of the eastern portion of the peninsula's waterfront.

we have almost no access to the waterfront as it is. its port lands and railyards all the way from Howe - New Broughton Park. other than the tiny little CRAB Park, which the Port at any time can close as they own the land and the park and the City has no say in.

but i wasnt talking about large freeway projects. i was talking about little projects, like the stormont connector, or a sunken freeway in the Grandview cut for a Vancouver example. then you could remove all the traffic from Prior, Venables, Hastings and traffic calm them. turn them into walkable streets, bikeways, etc with no trucks and not a lot of cars.

there always seems to be this weird thing in Vancouver where people are like NO WE CANT HAVE ROADS!!! WE CANT BULLDOZE THE CITY FOR ROADS!!! NO ROADS EVER!!!

you know, there is a middle ground. but i find a lot of Vancouver people seem to forget that. they always take it to extremes. Aberdeen shows this with his response to Klauz.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

you can't just keep building roads forever.

no one was talking about building roads forever. many people think there need so be some connectors, projects that would improve neighbourhoods from more than just a traffic point. but pollution, walkability, bikeability, safety of kids playing, safety of people crossing the street, etc.

but so many jump to the extreme, and its just a false and misleading narrative; there is a middle ground.


imagine how much nicer Strathcona would be if the viaducts connected to a trenched freeway in the Grandview cut instead of dumping all the cars/trucks/etc. into their niehgbourhood. it would even take cars off of Hastings. you could build a roof over it, and then create a long linear park as one idea even.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Name changing for the sake of political correctness always ages poorly.

Yes, because Kitchener aged so poorly. Do people even realise it was renamed because of turn of the century political correctness?

As for the proposed connector, do the benefits outweigh the costs? I don't personally see much in the way of benefits, nor really costs other than dollar signs.

[BCPhil]

(Just copying over what I said in the roads thread)

I'm disappointed, but I can see why Burnaby wouldn't want to invest in such a significant road investment. No other municipality in the region is singlehandedly on the hook for a similar project. Translink or the province should take it over.

And I disagree that it would be unused or encourage more driving. There are already a lot of drivers, and the route from Northern Burnaby to Southern Burnaby is difficult.

I used to live in the area and it was a nightmare getting around. People speeding through neighborhoods, making turns on dangerously narrow streets. It's awful.

But to me the biggest problem are trucks.

I think they are ignoring the dangerous role trucks play in Burnaby. Right now the only real Truck route from the Pattullo to North of TCH is Burnette. Other than that, trucks cut through (sometimes illegally) on the side street.

Trucks are allowed to use 8th Ave ane E. Columbia Ave during daytime hours. At night, there is no real quick option for them to go from the Pattullo to WB Lougheed, so they will cut through residential areas illegally.

How many more people need to die at the intersection of Holmes and Columbia?

I would compare it to the SFPR. My biggest argument for it was getting trucks off Surrey Streets that were just driving through. And it worked. There are way fewer trucks driving through residential neighborhoods and past schools. And I've heard far fewer stories of people being killed as a result.

This connector and the NFPR and United Blvd connector need to be built. Not to encourage people to drive cars, but to get the ever increasing volume of trucks away from homes and schools. Seriously, won't someone think of the children.

[whatnext]

Renaming a new bridge is fine. Does anyone even know or care who Arthur Laing or Alex Fraser were? This isn’t a matter of naming a bridge after some leader of national or provincial significance. Pattulo sounds pretty clearly anti-Semitic and Chinese. There’s no reason a new structure should keep his name. It would be great to name a bridge after the Indigenous place name, I’m not aware of any bridge that reflects pre-contact history.

And let’s bury the old saw that building more roads makes more people drive. What puts more people on the road is our continually increasing population. Those studies are never based on areas with static populations.

[Migrant_Coconut]

So long as you can actually pronounce the new name just by looking at it, by all means. The last thing you want to do is have traffic & weather updates give up and call it "the Pattulo replacement" like they do with the Art Gallery plaza.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

we have almost no access to the waterfront as it is. its port lands and railyards all the way from Howe - New Broughton Park. other than the tiny little CRAB Park, which the Port at any time can close as they own the land and the park and the City has no say in.

but i wasnt talking about large freeway projects. i was talking about little projects, like the stormont connector, or a sunken freeway in the Grandview cut for a Vancouver example. then you could remove all the traffic from Prior, Venables, Hastings and traffic calm them. turn them into walkable streets, bikeways, etc with no trucks and not a lot of cars.

there always seems to be this weird thing in Vancouver where people are like NO WE CANT HAVE ROADS!!! WE CANT BULLDOZE THE CITY FOR ROADS!!! NO ROADS EVER!!!

you know, there is a middle ground. but i find a lot of Vancouver people seem to forget that. they always take it to extremes. Aberdeen shows this with his response to Klauz. no one was talking about building roads forever. many people think there need so be some connectors, projects that would improve neighbourhoods from more than just a traffic point. but pollution, walkability, bikeability, safety of kids playing, safety of people crossing the street, etc.

but so many jump to the extreme, and its just a false and misleading narrative; there is a middle ground.


imagine how much nicer Strathcona would be if the viaducts connected to a trenched freeway in the Grandview cut instead of dumping all the cars/trucks/etc. into their niehgbourhood. it would even take cars off of Hastings. you could build a roof over it, and then create a long linear park as one idea even.

I'm definitely not anti-road*. I've been very critical of Hwy.1 between Chilliwack and Surrey for awhile now. It's a pathetic excuse for the most important highway leading in to the city. It's become hazardous due to how underbuilt it is.

I just don't see the need to have a freeway destroy Vancouver's oldest neighbourhoods and a portion of its waterfront. We have the US to look to, and see how that ends up; hacked up downtowns with absolutely awful freeway gridlock.

*I am of the mind that roads and bridges will be the horseshoes of the modern age though. Within 30 years, most of us will be airborne in automated drones.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by giallo

Within 30 years, most of us will be airborne in automated drones.

I certainly hope not, traffic is bad enough in two dimensions let alone three.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by giallo

I just don't see the need to have a freeway destroy Vancouver's oldest neighbourhoods and a portion of its waterfront. We have the US to look to, and see how that ends up; hacked up downtowns with absolutely awful freeway gridlock.

but who is advocating for that? i certainly wasn't. and i don't remember seeing anyone else mention this, other than the anti-road people saying they don't want any roads, and saying that as an example... as i said... there is middle ground...

[giallo]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

but who is advocating for that? i certainly wasn't. and i don't remember seeing anyone else mention this, other than the anti-road people saying they don't want any roads, and saying that as an example... as i said... there is middle ground...

Not you, it was CivicBlues that was suggesting that the freeway through downtown would have been a better idea than no freeway at all.

[Sheba]

Ok, getting back on topic - I'm for doing some colour matching on bridges 'cause I'm sick of all the greyscale that's happening. For the Pattullo that would be some green and orange. Yeah I know it's a minor cosmetic thing but...

[officedweller]

The best you can hope for is coloured sleeves on the cables.
The tower looks to be bare concrete like the Alex Fraser.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The best you can hope for is coloured sleeves on the cables.
The tower looks to be bare concrete like the Alex Fraser.

They mixed a colourant into the concrete for the Cambie Street bridge to make it a little more attractive, I think it turned out pretty nicely. I wonder what the cost differential would be?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

They mixed a colourant into the concrete for the Cambie Street bridge to make it a little more attractive, I think it turned out pretty nicely. I wonder what the cost differential would be?

its quite expensive to do. that's why very few do it. i heard for it to be done right, you have to use white concrete with is expensive. i don't see them doing this here. i doubt they'll do any colouring of anything. or lighting. that's just unnecessary costs.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[mattropolis]

Some bridges that have been replaced on the same alignment have gotten new names. The old Cambie Bridge was called the Connaught Bridge. I think almost 90 years is a pretty good run for Pattullo. I support a different name.

A lot depends on who wins the October 24 election. The premier will have the final say on the name.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Name changing for the sake of political correctness always ages poorly.

An example? In your imagination? According to your feelings?

I think most people roll with the punches, learn, and adapt, frankly.

History does not favour the neanderthal.

This situation is even more of a non-issue because I'm pretty sure 99.9% of Lower Mainlanders have no idea who Patullo is anyways.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

This situation is even more of a non-issue because I'm pretty sure 99.9% of Lower Mainlanders have no idea who Patullo is anyways.

Nor can they pronounce or spell them name.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

This situation is even more of a non-issue because I'm pretty sure 99.9% of Lower Mainlanders have no idea who Patullo is anyways.

I grew up in Abbotsford and had no idea who he was. It didn't even cross my mind that it might have been named after someone, it was just the name of the bridge as far as I was concerned. Renaming the new one wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Name changing for the sake of political correctness always ages poorly.

Can you name an instance?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mattropolis

Some bridges that have been replaced on the same alignment have gotten new names. The old Cambie Bridge was called the Connaught Bridge. I think almost 90 years is a pretty good run for Pattullo. I support a different name.

A lot depends on who wins the October 24 election. The premier will have the final say on the name.

Amazon Web Services bridge, $100M sponsorship!