[deasine]

I don't know if construction suffers the most during a recession.

One of the most... sorry. But you get my point.

[cabotp]

^ Ya I do.

I think governments spend money on infrastructure project building. Because where else could they spend money on to create jobs. They can't create a job in the white collar field.

[LeftCoaster]

Well by spending on infrastructure they indirectly suppport many white collar jobs...

Its the trickle up process I guess?

[BCPhil]

As well, funding construction in a recession has another benefit. When the recession is over, you can end construction. The private sector will pick up steam and absorb all those construction jobs building homes, offices, and malls. Then in the good times the government can ease back spending and ballance the books.

If we spend a billion this year on a bridge, next year we don't have to if all those people have private sector jobs, or we can spend a billion on something else, like a train, building a hospital, or a school. It's very fluid.

If we hire a billion dollars worth of white collar workers this year, we have to pay them again next year to do the exact same thing, with raises, and again the year after and again after that. If we committed a billion dollars to white collar workers, that's a billion we would have to commit every year, regardless of recession.

If we funded white collar jobs right now, then in a few years when times are good, you would either have to keep paying them or fire them. Construction work is contract, and contracts end in a timely manor. Office jobs or health care jobs, are infrastructure in their own right. Something that once you put in, you can't take out.

[jhausner]

Metro-one's information is incorrect. His informant is pulling his leg. The SFPR will still be built according to the plans that have been discussed here recently with a few minor changes in detailed design. No removal of the interchages, no removal of bridges, no zig-zagging around things. That's just false.

[deasine]

Good because I hope he's wrong (and he hopes so too).

[Metro-One]

:previous: No one hopes I am wrong more than myself on this one! I was not stating it as fact, but just as something I heard from a reliable source that is involved with the bidding process.

In other news, regarding the Pitt River Bridge, 4 lanes on the new structure will be open as of Oct 4th.

[Vonny]

^ Ya I do.

I think governments spend money on infrastructure project building. Because where else could they spend money on to create jobs. They can't create a job in the white collar field.

Before coming to BC, I was thinking that only socialist government were justifying spending tax payer money to provide job ;) and obviously I start to have serious concern on the BC Liberal rethoric ;)

but right, recession is a good time for a government to invest in Infrastructure, because construction cost can be lower due to lack of demand, and interest rate are low too...

It is also, a fundamental of the Keynesian ism (helicopter money)...what is a strong form of economy interventionism a la socialist.

...but that doesn't prevent to invest efficienctly

Come back to the SFPR, the cost of it is 1Billion, from it more than 40% in land purchase.

So you get 60c on the $ of economy stimulus (toward direct creation of job)...pretty poor ratio by any standard.

As mentioned by

..., or we can spend a billion on something else, like a train, building a hospital, or a school. It's very fluid...

something else pouring more money in the economy. and in the context of the SFPR, they are alternative solution which had merits and I am glad that thi NDP MLA raise the issue.

Recession can be a useful scapegoat to justify a pharaonic project, but at the end of the day, if you want a strong economy, you need to "invest" taxpayer $, not spend taxpayer$ to give job...and need to invest in the most efficient way for the society you want.

When the main argument is to give job to people, to justifying pouring concrete anywhere, public should start to have some concerns

[Spork]

Come back to the SFPR, the cost of it is 1Billion, from it more than 40% in land purchase.

So you get 60c on the $ of economy stimulus (toward direct creation of job)...pretty poor ratio by any standard.


The funds do not stop moving in the economy. If a homeowner was expropriated, they receive that money, and a new house is built due to the demand being constant (ceteris paribus), and supply decreasing (due to expropriation), and then increasing due to undersupply.

If land is purchased, this will be invested elsewhere in the economy. This may not be in good or services, but instead in capital markets, which still leads to economic growth.

[Vonny]

The funds do not stop moving in the economy. If a homeowner was expropriated, they receive that money, and a new house is built due to the demand being constant (ceteris paribus), and supply decreasing (due to expropriation), and then increasing due to undersupply.

If land is purchased, this will be invested elsewhere in the economy. This may not be in good or services, but instead in capital markets, which still leads to economic growth.

In an ideal world, it could be the case, but
1/ Lot is due to Land value, and in recession land value tend to decrease overtime.
so in such sort I have heard the government has overpaid the land by 10% if not more.
2/ It is prime waterfront land, so people can relocate on cheaper land
3/ In recession people are saving and not spending (making the occurrence of point (2) more than probable, and eventually staying away of capital market (keep invested in bond..)

Point (3) is the very reason behind Keynesianism: the government has to step-up in the economy as an actor due to lack of appetite of private actor to spend/invest their own money.

[BCPhil]

In an ideal world, it could be the case, but
1/ Lot is due to Land value, and in recession land value tend to decrease overtime.
so in such sort I have heard the government has overpaid the land by 10% if not more.
2/ It is prime waterfront land, so people can relocate on cheaper land
3/ In recession people are saving and not spending (making the occurrence of point (2) more than probable, and eventually staying away of capital market (keep invested in bond..)

Point (3) is the very reason behind Keynesianism: the government has to step-up in the economy as an actor due to lack of appetite of private actor to spend/invest their own money.

But that person who had their home expropriated are now homeless, thus they HAVE to spend their money on a new home. They can spend what they got, more, or less depending on their financial situation. But the fact is they have the money, and need shelter.

People who have money, tend to spend it. Yes in a recession, people save, especially when living paycheck to paycheck. Most people who have a lifestyle will choose to keep it. So if they had waterfront property before, they will want waterfront property after, or at least something similar in value. Just because you are leaving waterfront doesn't mean you need to spend less, you can get larger and/or more luxurious.

You also have to look at the macro effect. The highway is not just a make work project, it will have a lasting effect on the economy and livability of the region in general, well after the recession.

[officedweller]

From Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Times

Four lanes of new Pitt bridge open on Oct. 4

The Times

Friday, September 25, 2009

The new Pitt River Bridge will be partially opened on Sunday, Oct. 4 for two lanes of traffic in each direction while traffic will continue to flow on the old bridge spans.
Once the four lanes of the new bridge are open, there won't be any more counter-flow lanes in place during peak traffic hours.

The $198-million bridge project was partially funded by the provincial government and partially by the federal government and will eventually replace the current four-lane swing bridge.

When completed the new Pitt River Bridge will have three lanes of westbound traffic and four lanes of eastbound traffic. Traffic has increased from 27,000 cars daily in 1985 to 88,000 currently.

© Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Times 2009

[Zassk]

Does this bridge have space for a 4th lane westbound in the future? It seems strange that a bridge with central towers would be built for a different number of lanes on each side of the central towers.

[DKaz]

One Westbound lane is for the sidewalk. There is future provison to move the sidewalk north to the outside of the bridge if that fourth Westbound lane is ever needed.

I heard that one Eastbound lane will be for trucks only but it's not mentioned very often.

[Canadian Mind]

but instead in capital markets, which still leads to economic growth.

Was it not the collapse of capital markets that lead o our current predicament in the first place?

[officedweller]

I heard that one Eastbound lane will be for trucks only but it's not mentioned very often.

An exit only lane for the intermodal yard east of the bridge maybe?

[Mininari]

An exit only lane for the intermodal yard east of the bridge maybe?

That IS what it was billed for.
But is it really TRUCK ONLY? Or just another lane that happens to terminate as a right-turn lane? I guess only trucks would want to use it anyway... save the odd right-hand passing-lane jackass.

[officedweller]

Looks to be coming along - pics from the webcam Sept 29, 2009:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7070/pittrivereast2009092913.jpg (http://img98.imageshack.us/i/pittrivereast2009092913.jpg/)

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/9084/pittriverwest2009092913.jpg (http://img16.imageshack.us/i/pittriverwest2009092913.jpg/)

And from Sept 25, 2009:

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1420/pittriverwest2009092519.jpg (http://img340.imageshack.us/i/pittriverwest2009092519.jpg/)

[Stingray2004]

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/9084/pittriverwest2009092913.jpg (http://img16.imageshack.us/i/pittriverwest2009092913.jpg/)

That's the best pic that I've seen so far. She's looking good.

I hope MoT eventually comes around to line-striping the 4th lane westbound toward the 7/7B split as an add-on/auxilary lane from the Old Dewney Trunk Rd./Kennedy Rd. intersection near the eastern bridgehead.

It just makes sense since 7 at the eastern bridgehead already has three thru lanes and the eastbound auxilary/drop-off lane for Kennedy Rd. will be striped from the get go.

[Metro-One]

Less than one week and we get to drive on this baby!

Although that is the downside of replacing existing infrastructure over building new routes, you don't get to have the huge one time opening like that of the Golden Ears bridge. Instead we get a trickle of partial openings.

[Stingray2004]

The line-striping has been completed on the bridge deck and the westbound sign gantry has also been installed:

http://www.earthcam.net/images/767b5e45c8fd9f462df740b1bc7bf171/bcmot5mpcr.jpg

[jhausner]

Part of the reason governments spend money on infrastructure in times of trouble is because it is simply the easiest and quickest solution.

1) Construction in downtimes is often one of the first industries hit so getting construction workers working is a good thing.
2) Design and construction of road/transit infrastructure often requires less time before implementation can start than a major project such as a hospital
3) Infrastructure is a design-spend-build-done prospect for the most part (of course there are some maintenance costs) compared to say building a hospital where after completion you must hire doctors, nurses, support staff, open up contracts for support within the facility and those costs go on year after year.
4) The optics of cutting funding from say health or education but building new facilities can be more negative than the uproar by environmentalists against something like Gateway or from road-based industries against new transit.

So in the grand scheme of things, it's just quick and smart to throw money into infrastructure. Let's face it all the infrastructure being done now has needed to be done for a few decades at least. So it's hard to argue too much against it all and it has stimulated the economy to a degree more than building a massive non-infrastructure based project would have.

As for the ratio of how much you get on the dollar, that's pure speculation. There are so many factors, some that have been pointed out such as those people that had their land purchased can now go out and purchase more land or additional places, or families can 'upgrade' or reduce their mortgage footprint meaning they have more money to spend on other things. Also new infrastructure can and typically does increase land value and attracts other industry into the area. More goods flow, industry decides to move into the neighborhood, people decide to move closer to industry where they work, more people to the area, more business moves in, more money into the area.

It is a cycle. Everything boils down to infrastructure and people being able to get from point A to point B. The better you make that flow (not just roads but transit, better walk ways, better area design, etc.) the more it encourages growth and efficiency.

All starts with infrastructure.

[officedweller]

The line-striping has been completed on the bridge deck and the westbound sign gantry has also been installed:


Nice.

[BCPhil]

Is the Lougheed/Marry Hill Bypass interchange ready to go too?

[Metro-One]

partially, the main superstructure (the bridge) is ready but the interchange on the west side of the bridge is incomplete and will take another month or two to be finished. Essentially the 4th is a partial opening (4 lanes of the 7 on the bridge).

[Stingray2004]

She's now partially open.

EB:

MHB - continues to utilize 2 lanes on old structure
Hwy 7 - utilizes 2 lanes on new structure

WB:

MHB - utilizes 2 lanes on new structure
Hwy 7 - continues to utilize 2 lanes on old structure

IOW, 4 lanes in each direction until MHB interchange is completed when old structures are shut down. Congestion-free flowing traffic movements starts today.

[Dave2]

Pitt River Bridge opening day:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2453/3981677816_3a1354befa.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2605/3981688188_a51885ec51.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3532/3980925201_18d61cc5f8.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3454/3980936619_efbbe1c39b.jpg


About a dozen at http://www.flickr.com/photos/69965333@N00/sets/72157622516144650/

[Metro-One]

Cool, thanks for the pics. I will be driving this tomorrow!

This must be the first time ever in Metro-Vancouver that we have had two major new bridge openings in the same year.

[deasine]

Drivers get sneak preview of Pitt River Bridge

Updated: Sun Oct. 04 2009 13:46:58

ctvbc.ca

Drivers got a glimpse into the future of travel between Pitt Meadows and Port Coquitlam Sunday with a partial opening of the new Pitt River Bridge.

The completed crossing will have three lanes heading west and four heading east. The counterflow lane will no longer exist.

The $198 million bridge is part of the province's Gateway program, which is aimed at reducing congestion. It also includes twinning the Port Mann Bridge.

Commuters are hoping the new bridge will cut down on their driving time.

"I drive over Pitt River and Port Mann to get to work so it'll hopefully alleviate a lot of congestion for me," one driver told CTV News.

The province will front $108 million of the cost for the new bridge, with the federal government kicking in the other $90 million.

The province says the new Pitt River Bridge has been designed to accommodate future rapid transit.

"I think that's the beauty of the current program," Gateway Executive Director Geoff Freer said.

"Actually there's some excellent new bike lanes and pedestrian space on the north side of the new bridge."

While drivers got a preview this weekend, the real test will be Monday's rush hour. The bridge is set to open completely sometime later this fall.

With a report from CTV British Columbia's Maria Weisgarber

Source: CTV Globemedia

[Stingray2004]

One matter that has always escaped me... How could the PRB have a 7-lane cross-section when the cable-stayed towers were equi-distant from each other. Shouldn't that equate to an 8-lane cross-section?

Anyhoo, being out in PoCo on Saturday (prior to the opening) and travelling over the old bridges and back from the Dewdney Trunk Rd./Kennedy Rd. intersection I finally received my answer.

The 4th WB lane has been corralled off by a non-cast-in-place median barrier topped with a metal guard rail to permit pedestrians/cyclists to use that lane à la the 3rd SB lane on the Burrard St. Bridge.

While the 3rd WB lane on the PRB splits off to the MHB, the MHB split expands to 2 lanes over the Hwy 7 overpass. Fancy that.

[metroXpress]

Thanks for the update! Great to see these new bridges!

[DKaz]

The bridge looked pretty cool from what I could see out of my overcrowded 791 bus lol. Can't wait to drive on it to get a better look!

[SpongeG]

are all the overpasses open too? or do you still have to line up at the traffic lights?

[DKaz]

Nope, they couldn't complete the flyover until the counterflow lanes were closed. Should be another two months until that's done. I think the left turn pattern from Mary Hill Bypass to Lougheed Hwy has to wait until after the existing bridges are demolished before they are shifted to underneath the new Pitt River Bridge as per the design drawings.

[officedweller]

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Times :

Four lanes open - November for the rest

The Times


Tuesday, October 06, 2009


Two eastbound and two westbound lanes on the Pitt River bridge opened to traffic Sunday and the full bridge should be completed by the end of November.

Geoff Freer, executive director of the Ministry of Transportation's Gateway program, said it all depends on the weather.

The new bridge will have three lanes westbound, four lanes eastbound and will be 16 metres tall, 500 metres long and 45 metres wide. There will also be a 3.5 metre sidewalk for cyclists and pedestrians and allowance for a future eighth lane for HOV traffic and rapid bus or rapid transit. When the bridge is completed drivers won't have to stop at a light before travelling between the Mary Hill Bypass and the bridge.

Freer pointed out that with the new bridge there will only be two piers in the water compared to 18 with the old bridge, which he said would be "excellent" from a fisheries, environmental and marine traffic perspective.

Demolition of the old swing bridge will begin as soon as the new bridge is open and it's expected to be completely removed by June 21, 2010. Freer said there's a requirement for the bridge material to be recycled.

Councillor Craig Speirs said the new bridge will dramatically improve the quality of life of local residents and people all the way up the Fraser Valley.

Mayor Ernie Daykin said he knows there are no plans for a bridge party like was the case with Golden Ears but he said he'd still like to see some kind of celebration because the bridge is a "big deal" for local residents.

He jokingly asked if the swing bridge could be left open one more time for old time's sake.

© Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Times 2009

[lightrail]

. Congestion-free flowing traffic movements starts today.

... and will end in about 5 years when traffic builds and the bridge is once again congested. I remember when Alex Fraser Bridge opened, no lineups, diverted traffic from the tunnel. Now look at it.

Anthony Down's Triple Convergence at work - look for:
- Temporal Convergence - people who used to drive earlier or later to now drive during the peak times, increasing peak traffic on the bridge
- Spatial Convergence - people who used to drive by another route now taking this one (okay, so there aren't any other routes really so this convergence doesn't really count)
- Modal Convergence - people who used to take the bus or car pool, will now opt to drive because of the increased capacity and perceived reduction in congestion

[WarrenC12]

Why is the bridge 7 lanes and not 8?

Tolling would solve your problems, but... political suicide. :cheers:

[DKaz]

Why is the bridge 7 lanes and not 8?

Tolling would solve your problems, but... political suicide. :cheers:

Because they build the pedestrian/cycling lane inside the bridge pillars. They have the option of moving it outside and creating a 4th westbound lane if required.

[Stingray2004]

As with the Granville Street Bridge in 1954, MoT used long-term foresight in constructing an 8-lane structure, instead of a 6-lane structure for the PRB.

Currently, the PRB has a 7-lane cross-section with the 8th WB lane closed off for pedestrians/ cyslists.

[The 8th lane] would be created by converting the 3.5-metre-wide pedestrian/cycle path into the eighth lane and attaching the sidewalk, currently for cyclists and pedestrians, on to the north side of the bridge.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/mapleridgenews/news/63614162.html

During public pre-consultation studies:

There was little support for the use of HOV lanes in this transportation corridor.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/reports/PRB_MHI_Final_Rpt_EXEC_SUMMARY.pdf

However, the long-term plan is to convert one lane of the PRB for HOV/rapid bus all the way to Coquitlam to meet up with the Evergreen Line.

If the Alex Fraser Bridge was never constructed, traffic on Oak St. would be an all day parking lot probably up to 41st Ave. So much for the quality of life that would bring.

It's actually too bad that MoT did not have the foresight to construct an 8-lane AFB considering that the 91 will eventually be upgraded to 6-lanes and the 91A feeds further traffic onto the AFB and off to Nordel Way at the southern bridgehead. The 8th lane would have operated as an auxilary lane providing smoother traffic flow for 91A/Nordel Way.

Some interesting stats from today:

Canadians remain resolutely tied to their vehicles -- on average, 82 per cent still use them as their main means of conveyance to work (although urban transit usage is higher), a number that hasn't changed for at least 17 years.

On average, a public transit user in Canada will spend at least 41 more minutes each day riding than a car commuter.

http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=2071737

In Metro Vancouver, many people travel all over the region, all day long. It's no longer a suburb to downtown commute. And rapid buses utilize the same bridge crossings.

[BCPhil]

AFB wouldn't be so bad if they got rid of the light at 72nd. It really slows down traffic onto the bridge in the morning, and in the evening the fast lane is usually stopped waiting for space in the left turn lanes. It causes chaos.

However, outside peak hours, the AFB is smooth sailing and is never a problem in the reverse direction.

As well, the AFB was built before the full impact of Expo was realized. Construction started in 1983, and when it opened it was the longest cable stayed bridge in the world, quite an engineering feat. No one in their right mind would have contemplated the growth we see South of the Fraser.

Fortunately, we now know the growth potential of the lower mainland, and can finally build infrastructure that can meet future needs.

[Mininari]

AFB wouldn't be so bad if they got rid of the light at 72nd. It really slows down traffic onto the bridge in the morning, and in the evening the fast lane is usually stopped waiting for space in the left turn lanes. It causes chaos.

However, outside peak hours, the AFB is smooth sailing and is never a problem in the reverse direction.

As well, the AFB was built before the full impact of Expo was realized. Construction started in 1983, and when it opened it was the longest cable stayed bridge in the world, quite an engineering feat. No one in their right mind would have contemplated the growth we see South of the Fraser.

Fortunately, we now know the growth potential of the lower mainland, and can finally build infrastructure that can meet future needs.

72nd Ave and 91A *WAS* a priority in the Border Improvement Program, but Delta refused to accept a less-than-full-movements interchange.

What now?

[Metro-One]

... and will end in about 5 years when traffic builds and the bridge is once again congested. I remember when Alex Fraser Bridge opened, no lineups, diverted traffic from the tunnel. Now look at it.


Well lets think for a moment, when the AFB opened in 1986 metro-Vancouver's population was only 1,266,000, as of 2009 it is estimated at 2,300,000, an increase of over 1 million people. Maybe this near doubling of our metro population has something to do with congestion returning to the tunnels and now the AFB.

Also, the old Pitt River bridges were swing bridges, which would disrupt traffic for up to 30 minutes at a time (causing terrible delays) and this also causes trouble for marine traffic since they will not open the bridges during rush hours. So this project was much more than increasing lanes.

[Xerx]

i didn't know the new Pitt river bridge could handle LRT or Skytrain
New Pitt River Bridge can take SkyTrain or LRT – one direction at a time

Craig Hodge/Black Press

Text
By Phil Melnychuk - Maple Ridge News

Published: October 06, 2009 11:00 AM
Updated: October 06, 2009 11:14 AM

0 Comments

With the Pitt River Bridge now open and the RapidBus lane on Lougheed Highway soon to be built, Maple Ridge should figure out how those projects will fit with its own transit plans.

Gateway Program boss Geoff Freer told council Monday the district should start talking about those projects and work out some of the details with TransLink and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Freer updated council on the bridge, which opened four of its seven lanes on Sunday, as well as the recently announced $16-million RapidBus lane.

That new lane on the north side of Lougheed Highway will run from Golden Ears Bridge to Harris Road, then connect with the third lane on Lougheed, farther west.

"This is all with the long-term view to RapidBus being all the way to Coquitlam to meet Evergreen [line]. That's kind of the long-term plan," Freer said.

The Evergreen Line is the long-awaited SkyTrain line that's still awaiting complete funding.

Once a RapidBus lane is built, buses would have priority signal access at Kennedy Road on to the Pitt River Bridge and later, if needed, could use an eighth lane on the bridge for a dedicated busway.

That lane would be created by converting the 3.5-metre-wide pedestrian/cycle path into the eighth lane and attaching the sidewalk, currently for cyclists and pedestrians, on to the north side of the bridge.

The eighth lane could also be used for light rail or SkyTrain.

Initially, that lane would serve trains running in both directions, with a switch controlling access at each end. But a light rail line in each direction is also possible, Freer said.

The bridge is structurally designed to handle trains, he said later.

That resulted from past Maple Ridge mayors lobbying for that capacity.

Actually, much of the work for the RapidBus lane was done two years ago. Gateway now just has to review and update those plans.

After Sunday's opening of the $198-million Pitt River Bridge, with two lanes running in each direction, the congestion and counterflow no longer plague motorists.

"Everybody seemed to be moving very smoothly this morning," Freer said. "We'll be more pleased when it fully opens in November."

That's expected earlier in November rather than later, depending on the weather, he added.

Maple Ridge residents have been waiting for the Pitt River Bridge almost as long as they've waited for the Golden Ears, which opened in June, said Maple Ridge Mayor Ernie Daykin.

He praised the contractor, Peter Kiewit Sons, for their work habits, noting that everything was neatly stored anytime he drove by.

"That's probably the cleanest construction site I have seen … very well done."

Coun. Judy Dueck added that traffic seemed to move smoothly any time she travelled across, despite the work underway.

Once the Pitt River Bridge construction is complete, the dismantling of the old swing bridge begins, with completion of that by next spring.

Coun. Al Hogarth wondered if parts of the old bridge could be used for bridges in Maple Ridge's trail system.

Pitt River Bridge project director Rob Ahola said there has been some interest in parts of the bridge being used as salvage, but the challenge is getting a big enough piece removed that would be useful elsewhere.

Lead paint on the metal must also be removed. Some of the concrete from the old towers will be recycled on site.

Hogarth also suggested that an overpass at Allen Way and Lougheed Highway, across the CP Rail container yards, could speed traffic towards the Golden Ears Bridge.

The Gateway Program is the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure's system of regional road projects, including the Pitt River Bridge, the Port Mann Bridge, Hwy. 1 widening, and South Fraser Perimeter Road.

The latter, which runs from Delta Port along the south shore of the Fraser River to Hwy. 1 and the Golden Ears Bridge, now has preloading on 18 of 35 kilometres.

Once open, "You will be able to drive from here to Tsawwassen in about 25 minutes," Freer said.


Source: Phil Melnychuk,http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/mapleridgenews/news/63614162.html

[twoNeurons]

The Alex Fraser was called the bridge from nowhere to nowhere. It was politically hard enough to get it through in the first place. And let's face it, it's not THAT bad... most of the congestion results from the roads leading up to it.

[DKaz]

lol Lougheed EB on the bridge was backed up today.

[Political_R]

That's because Lougheed EB at the end of the bridge gets squeezed down to one lane and still has a light on it. Literally, it is counterflow all day for those using Lougheed EB.

[Pennywise604]

AFB wouldn't be so bad if they got rid of the light at 72nd. It really slows down traffic onto the bridge in the morning, and in the evening the fast lane is usually stopped waiting for space in the left turn lanes. It causes chaos.

However, outside peak hours, the AFB is smooth sailing and is never a problem in the reverse direction.

As well, the AFB was built before the full impact of Expo was realized. Construction started in 1983, and when it opened it was the longest cable stayed bridge in the world, quite an engineering feat. No one in their right mind would have contemplated the growth we see South of the Fraser.

Fortunately, we now know the growth potential of the lower mainland, and can finally build infrastructure that can meet future needs.


It's really too bad that Hwy 91 @ 72nd was designed with a light. The best solution would be to allow Northbound 91 traffic to be elevated over 72nd so it wouldn't be stopped. The light could still stay for cars turning from 91 onto 72nd and vice versa. It'd be almost impossible to construct without affecting the bog though. I hate living at 64th and hwy 91, and trying to get over the AFB anytime in the morning rush, but the afternoon rush is even worse. It barely moves since the light for NB 91 is timed to be alot shorter than in the morning rush. I agree though that outside of peak periods the light hardly ever affects traffic.
I love living right beside the bog, but I wouldn't care if we got rid of some of it, too improve that intersection.

[cabotp]

The problem with the AFB bridge from the beginning was all the stupid traffic lights that got built with it. Instead of spending the extra cash they tried to save a few $ and build traffic lights instead. After 22 years we finally got rid of the light at 91A and Howes street.

Only in metro vancouver would we build a freeway with a traffic light.

Which made me just think. Imagine what traffic would be like today if we still had the traffic lights on freeways.

ie -- The Left turn light at 91 and 91A. 91A and Howes Street. But how about the Hwy 1 and West View, Hwy 1 and Lonsdale lights. But the grand daddy of them all Cassiar and Hastings.

[Pennywise604]

Are you serious! I never heard of there being lights in any other place than along 91. I remember the one for the East-West Connector, that was horrific on it's own, I can't begin to imagine Cassiar@Hastings. The Connector light I remember as it would back up accross the bridge. The Howes one was bad too but it still jams up even after the interchange was built, but it moves about 5 times faster now. The others I'm too young to know about, but I find that funny. I couldn't imagine a light now for Westview@Upper Levels either. If it was still there today, in the afternoon rush it'd be jammed up all the way back to Abbotsford, on a good day...

I might as well contribute to this thread though since the SFPR does affect me. It'll be really nice once it's built to not have to sit in the mess on River Rd. Last Friday I watched traffic since I was going westbound backed up from River Rd@90th (Top of hill) all the way back past Nordel Way. I had to turn onto Nordel but it was backed up way past Nordel as well. (Had nothing to do with a train either) I've been on the other end of that before though, thats a solid 45 minutes of crawling along a 2 km stretch. This road will drastically speed things up, it can't be built soon enough

[cabotp]

Yup I am serious, about the Westview and lonsdale and Cassiar lights. The cassiar light was finally replaced with the current tunnel in 91. The other 2 lights I believe were removed around the mid 90's.

The cassiar light was the busiest intersection in all of Canada. It generally took an hour or more to get through that light during rush hour. What made it even worse is the fact that the PNE, Playland and Canucks and distant past Lions and Whitecaps all played near there. So not only was there all this traffic. There was all these people crossing at the intersection.

[WarrenC12]

Ahh the good old days. Yes the Cassiar/Hastings intersection was a gong show.

And yes, the AFB was a bridge to nowhere at the time because of the lack of a "total plan" like the Gateway project.

That being said, the 6 lane bridge should be plenty for the areas the AFB serves, it's all about planning the surrounding feeder routes.

[twoNeurons]

The should put a light leading up to the Port Mann. It wouldn't make much of a difference in traffic speed anyway. :D

[DKaz]

Maybe like a wait light at Peace Arch? Have people shut off their engines while waiting in queue to get onto the Port Mann Bridge.

[clooless]

It's really too bad that Hwy 91 @ 72nd was designed with a light. The best solution would be to allow Northbound 91 traffic to be elevated over 72nd so it wouldn't be stopped. The light could still stay for cars turning from 91 onto 72nd and vice versa.

That is pretty much what the province proposed to do about six years ago, sans traffic light, with funding from the federal Border Infrastructure Program, but the project fell through when the City of Delta objected to the interchange design as westbound traffic on 72nd would no longer have access to southbound 91.

It'd be almost impossible to construct without affecting the bog though. I hate living at 64th and hwy 91, and trying to get over the AFB anytime in the morning rush, but the afternoon rush is even worse. It barely moves since the light for NB 91 is timed to be alot shorter than in the morning rush. I agree though that outside of peak periods the light hardly ever affects traffic.
I love living right beside the bog, but I wouldn't care if we got rid of some of it, too improve that intersection.

I don't see why the bog would have to effected at all. A flyover from either westbound 72nd to southbound 91 or from southbound 91 to eastbound 72nd would all that would needed, in addition to elevating northbound 91, and it could be accommodated within the existing intersection footprint.

[DKaz]

They've started laying foam blocks to complete the approach to the new Lougheed to MHB flyover. No other further work yet on the east and west approaches to the new Pitt River Bridge.

[Zassk]

Only in metro vancouver would we build a freeway with a traffic light.

I don't have any inside information, but it seems pretty obvious to me that 91/91A was rushed for Expo 86. When they ran out of time to finish overpasses, they planted traffic lights instead. Many sections of the freeway had little or no preloading, therefore it sunk unevenly into the bog and has been that way since the year it opened. The east-west section of 91 wasn't even finished until about 2 years later.

I still see Vanderzalm's face in my mind whenever I drive the Delta part of 91.

[cabotp]

What ever the reason. Because of bad foresight it became a problem from day 1.

[BCPhil]

That is pretty much what the province proposed to do about six years ago, sans traffic light, with funding from the federal Border Infrastructure Program, but the project fell through when the City of Delta objected to the interchange design as westbound traffic on 72nd would no longer have access to southbound 91.



I don't see why the bog would have to effected at all. A flyover from either westbound 72nd to southbound 91 or from southbound 91 to eastbound 72nd would all that would needed, in addition to elevating northbound 91, and it could be accommodated within the existing intersection footprint.

It could be simpler than that. Just have 2 single lane flyovers from 72nd. On the outside of 91 SB you have a long (really long) exit lane that raises up and over 91 then down onto 72nd EB. It only needs to be single lane because 72nd is single lane and keeping it all single lane will improve flow because people in Surrey don't know how to merge.

Then from 72nd to SB 91 have another flyover over the other one and down onto 91 SB. Single lanes wouldn't expand beyond the current ROW, and using some kind of steel structure would probably be cheaper than raising the 91 NB over a left exit (which are always horrible IMO) and rerouting NB 91 during construction would probably cut into the green space on the east side of the ROW.

[mezzanine]

the 91 does have some quirks

- the curves at the north end of the Alex fraser can get really tight. if it is dark and snowing it is downright treacherous. Every few weeks you see a concrete divider pushed out of place with paint marks on it...
-agree about the preloading - it's really bad on the richmond/lulu island side.
-the shoulders seem very narrow - a nice safety margin to have. compare it to the westview/tunnel areas of Hwy 1 - wide shoulders.

[Zassk]

^ I think the Westview and tunnel areas of Hwy 1 have such wide shoulders simply because both stretches were built for an additional lane, which has not been painted onto the surface yet. Those are not normal highway shoulders.

[Metro-One]

Besides the bridge itself, the entire project is poorly designed.

For me, the absolute worse part is the Eastbound 91 off ramp to Northbound 91A (AKA - Driving from Richmond to New Westminster). It is beyond horribly, it is akin to a country road where someone simply laid down a thin sheet of asphalt on an uneven surface. This ramp dips and bumps, has no curbs or shoulders, uses no reflectors, is poorly lit and has no barriers. Instead the edges just sluff off. Even the lane markings are non existent where it merges onto the 91A, I would hate to be someone out of town using this ramp.

[Zassk]

^That 91A ramp is one of the early pieces of the project, and just another example of how it was rushed and shoddy and minimally repaired afterward.

The 99/91 interchange is a much better example of a properly built piece of highway. They spent an extra 1.5 years after Expo building that part, and it shows.

[Stingray2004]

Many sections of the freeway had little or no preloading, therefore it sunk unevenly into the bog and has been that way since the year it opened.

The section through the bog between Nordel Way and Hwy 10:

1. Initial removal of bog material;

2. Subsequent placement of 10 - 20 feet of sawdust/woodchips;

3. Subsequent placement of 10 - 20 feet of pre-load sand;

AFAIK, that is standard construction practice through a bog and that section has fared relatively well with the exception of the split-level/banked curve between 64th Ave. and Hwy 10.

[Pennywise604]

That is pretty much what the province proposed to do about six years ago, sans traffic light, with funding from the federal Border Infrastructure Program, but the project fell through when the City of Delta objected to the interchange design as westbound traffic on 72nd would no longer have access to southbound 91.

That's pretty brutal, but does make sense to me. I have to use that left turn from 72nd onto 91 SB at least once a day. I'll admit that not very many cars use it, but a few times during the afternoon rush you can have a good 7 or 8 cars queue for it, and it's a very fast light only 4 or 5 cars get through if they are fast enough, then if you don't make it through, you have to wait 5 more minutes. What I wouldn't mind seeing though is finding a way for cars to easily turn left onto Westview from 72nd, and having that portion of Westview maybe 2 lanes going SB all the way to 64th so that cars can turn right onto 64th and get on the highway that way. I would have no idea how to design that though, without affecting traffic on 72nd in any way, allowing residents along Westview parking space for their cars, and keeping NIMBY's in Sunshine Hills (myself included) happy. If 72nd was maybe 2 lanes all the way up the hill than maybe a light at Westview wouldn't be so bad, but if not traffic would back up accross the AFB every day.

On the topic of Surrey people not being able to merge properly. I couldn't agree more :) On 72nd EB it's annoying when drivers fly up ahead of traffic in the afternoon rush trying to squeeze in from the right lane, since the right lane turns right onto Westview. I'm the one who almost crashes into them, because they'll fly up the hill at 90, than slam on the breaks the second they see a possible space. They are completely oblivious to anyone behind them. What's worse is that left turn from 72nd onto 91 SB. I hate the drivers that decide to merge at 40 km/h into the fast lane on hwy 91 SB. Do they 1 not know that it's the fast lane of the highway, and 2 THE TRAFFIC IS MOVING FASTER THAN 110 KM/H, what good is merging in at 40, when traffic is flying by you at over 70 km/h faster... It's dangerous, I always refuse to merge with people at that spot. I would rather wait 5 minutes in rush hour to be the first car at the light, than risk my life merging onto a highway with retarded people. When I merge on to the 91, I slam the gas pedal and make sure I'm doing no slower than 110 by the time I merge in. People give you respect that way, and the highway doesn't become a death trap for 30 seconds while everyone merges.

[cabotp]

Well either they have to completly replace the light at 72nd Ave and 91 with some kind of on and off ramp system.

If that is not possible shut that whole intersection down, and force people either down 64th or down nordel.

Every time I've gone 91 SB at 72nd I've gone into the right lane for the very reason of idiots merging at such slow speeds from 72nd.

[Zassk]

How about a frontage road connecting 72nd with 64th, and close the 72nd intersection with 91?

[Pennywise604]

Well either they have to completly replace the light at 72nd Ave and 91 with some kind of on and off ramp system.

If that is not possible shut that whole intersection down, and force people either down 64th or down nordel.

Every time I've gone 91 SB at 72nd I've gone into the right lane for the very reason of idiots merging at such slow speeds from 72nd.

The thing about Nordel and 64th is that they get very congested in the afternoons/mornings regardless of 72nd. I live right where the 2 lanes from the off-ramp at 64th merge into 1 to go up the hill. Long story short: It's a very slow crawl up the hill everyday at rush hour. I would be happy if the hill was 2 lanes each way up and down. Than that could work. But telling people that they can't use 72nd anymore would be chaos. When the Patullo was closed for those 2 weeks, in the morning rush, the backups for the AFB were scary. Nordel jammed to King George (someone told me 152nd at one point, but I didn't believe them), 72nd jammed to King George, 64th jammed until King George, 91 backed up onto the 99. These are not related to shutting down 72nd, but forcing cars to take a different route that isn't customary is a bad idea. Lots of cars take 72nd to get onto and off the highway. It's just as congested down the hill in the morning as it is going up in the afternoon.

The more I keep thinking of a way they might solve the stupid light, the more I realize it's a very hard problem to fix. There's only one reasonable solution, but Delta will not allow it. So I'm guessing the backups will just get longer and longer. :(

[Dave2]

Are you serious! I never heard of there being lights in any other place than along 91. I remember the one for the East-West Connector, that was horrific on it's own,

In the very beginning, there was a light at 91/91A for all traffic, eventually they built a partial interchange that allowed some free-flow movement such as 91 E/B to 91A N/B, but it wasn't until they *finally* built a 2nd bridge across Annacis Channel that they got rid of the traffic light for *all* directions... and still, nearly 25 years later, we're still waiting on 72nd Ave :yuck:

[cabotp]

The thing about Nordel and 64th is that they get very congested in the afternoons/mornings regardless of 72nd. I live right where the 2 lanes from the off-ramp at 64th merge into 1 to go up the hill. Long story short: It's a very slow crawl up the hill everyday at rush hour. I would be happy if the hill was 2 lanes each way up and down. Than that could work. But telling people that they can't use 72nd anymore would be chaos. When the Patullo was closed for those 2 weeks, in the morning rush, the backups for the AFB were scary. Nordel jammed to King George (someone told me 152nd at one point, but I didn't believe them), 72nd jammed to King George, 64th jammed until King George, 91 backed up onto the 99. These are not related to shutting down 72nd, but forcing cars to take a different route that isn't customary is a bad idea. Lots of cars take 72nd to get onto and off the highway. It's just as congested down the hill in the morning as it is going up in the afternoon.

The more I keep thinking of a way they might solve the stupid light, the more I realize it's a very hard problem to fix. There's only one reasonable solution, but Delta will not allow it. So I'm guessing the backups will just get longer and longer. :(

I will admit I don't want to see 72nd closed. But if safety becomes a concern at that intersection. And because of certain people they don't want to build an over pass system. The only other alternative would be to shut it down. But like you said and I do agree that would cause a major traffic problem on Nordell and 64th.

[officedweller]

FYI - the transit only bus ramp to Goverment Road from Hwy 1 is definitely ON. I saw a sign on Hwy 1 for it near North Road.

[cabotp]

So do any of you think they should set up a cameras on these truck or bus only ramps to catch and ticket those people who try and cheat and use the ramps with their personal vehicles :rolleyes:

Assuming that is possible of course. :)

Because I know there are people who are going to use them.

[DKaz]

Thread topic changed to "Gateway Program Discussion: Anything except SFPR/NFPR/PRMH".

So do any of you think they should set up a cameras on these truck or bus only ramps to catch and ticket those people who try and cheat and use the ramps with their personal vehicles :rolleyes:

Assuming that is possible of course. :)

Because I know there are people who are going to use them.

Replied here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4503600#post4503600

[Mininari]

New Pitt River Bridge opens Sunday
Seven lanes; Pedestrian and cyclist lanes also available
Dave White VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) | Saturday, October 24th, 2009 9:45 pm
Bookmark
The new Pitt River Bridge (News1130 Photo)
The new Pitt River Bridge (News1130 Photo)

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - It was partially opened just a few weeks ago, now the ribbon on the new Pitt River Bridge will be officially cut tomorrow. Traffic will start flowing sometime after a grand opening event, scheduled for 10 a.m.

It will also have cycling and pedestrian lanes - the old swing bridges will be removed. It will be seven lanes with three heading west into Port Coquitlam and four lanes heading east to Pitt Meadows.

The $198-million span has been in the works since 2006 and includes an interchange to replace traffic signals at the Mary Hill Bypass. Designed to reduce congestion, the province also says the new bridge will allow for future rapid transit. It's the first completed project under the province's Gateway Program.

[WarrenC12]

Great news. Any reason this wasn't a toll bridge?

[Stingray2004]

Yep, the first stand-along Gateway Project now completed. It's not a tolled facility as provincial policy dictates that another non-tolled facility must be extant as a reasonable alternative and none exists.

The PRB is also not in the same league as its other $1 billion counterparts (Golden Ears, PMB, Pattullo, etc.).

http://www.earthcam.net/images/64132cce3532e267a9cce0162c4f07eb/bcmot5mpcr.jpg

[WarrenC12]

Yep, the first stand-along Gateway Project now completed. It's not a tolled facility as provincial policy dictates that another non-tolled facility must be extant as a reasonable alternative and none exists.

The PRB is also not in the same league as its other $1 billion counterparts (Golden Ears, PMB, Pattullo, etc.).

I figured that was the answer, but it's a slippery slope. They eliminated the albion ferry after the GEB came in. And the Patullo is hardly a "reasonable alternative" for the PMB. Oh well.

It is not super expensive, so maybe a 25-50 cent toll would be appropriate, but that might cost more to administer than it brings in.

[Mininari]

Noting that there are still traffic lights on Lougheed for the MHB-to-Lougheed left turn, I wonder what the time frame is for demolishing the old bridgeheads and getting the left-turn movement of the interchange finished.

I.e. how long are we stuck with that temporary light on Lougheed?
Any clues out there?

[Stingray2004]

They eliminated the albion ferry after the GEB came in. And the Patullo is hardly a "reasonable alternative" for the PMB. Oh well.

In that vein, they also eliminated the Ladner/No. 5 Rd. (Woodward landing) ferry when the George Massey Tunnel came on-line in 1959.

The Pattullo would not be a reasonable alternative for the tolled PMB IMHO. At Hwy 15/Hwy 1, the SFPR expressway will commence and it will be a quick trip over to the AFB and the associated highway network on the north side of the Fraser's southern arm - Hwy 91A, Hwy 91, Hwy 99, the Knight Fwy, etc.

[Metro-One]

Nice! I get to drive over this tomorrow morning on my way to school! No more swing bridges! :banana:

[officedweller]

Couple of pics from News1130:

http://www.news1130.com/images/2009/10/PittBridgeGordonCampbell.JPG

http://www.news1130.com/images/2009/10/PittBridgeSignPresentation.JPG

http://www.news1130.com/images/2009/10/PittBridgeTraffic.JPG

[hollywoodnorth]

Go Gordo Go!

[Stingray2004]

http://www.news1130.com/images/2009/10/PittBridgeTraffic.JPG

For the past ~15 years, BC MoT finally 'got' into the groove and has been installing proper highway signage in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) guidelines.

However, recently they have diverted from ther own guidelines and have been installing inferior signage just south of the Oak St. Bridge, along the Hwy 91A Queensborough Bridge/new Queensborough interchange and now this. (Golden Ears also has similar signage)

What's wrong with the above signage? These skimpy overhead signs should be nearly double the width to make them readable for high speed traffic and the arrows show be both 'short' and be pointing downward in accordance to MUTCD.

I have no idea what has gotten into BC MoT. :rolleyes:

The proper signage for the new Hwy 7/MHB split should have followed similar signage at the Hwy 91/91A split:

Prior to the split:

http://www3.telus.net/bcpl8s/BC91/91_13.jpg

At the split:

http://www3.telus.net/bcpl8s/BC91/91_14.jpg

Source: bcpl8s

[Zassk]

Those 91/91A signs pre-date the switchover to these new, annoying, arrows. I agree with everything you said about how annoying the upward arrows are. The fundamental problem is that you cannot easily tell which lane is referred to by which arrow.

The BC Ministry is simply following the lead of Ontario in this, I would guess.

When I lived in Ottawa in 1993, I was appalled to watch all of the downward-pointing arrows gradually replaced with upward-pointing arrows along the 417 throughout that summer. I believe Ontario has switched their entire freeway network to upward-pointing arrows in the years since then.

I don't know why Ontario is considered worthy of following. I think they made a huge mistake in changing away from the American standard.

[amor de cosmos]

from the official announcement:
Features of the new Pitt River Bridge:

The project is on time and on budget.
The new cable-stayed bridge is constructed between the existing bridges and has three lanes of westbound traffic and four lanes of eastbound traffic. The bridge has been built to accommodate eight lanes in the future.
The design for the bridge and interchange incorporates pedestrian and cycling features, including bicycle lanes across the bridge. In addition, the bridge is engineered to accept light rail transit at a later date.
Peter Kiewit and Sons Co. won the competitive bidding process for this design-business project. Construction started in February 2007.
Seismic improvements were extensive, with the interchange built to accommodate a 1-in-500-year earthquake. The new bridge is deemed a lifeline structure and is built to accommodate a 1-in-2,475-year quake.
The original (southern) span of the bridge was built in 1956. The second (northern) span was built in 1978. Following construction, these existing swing bridges will be removed in 2010.
The $198-million project is being cost-shared between the provincial and federal governments. The federal Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative is providing up to $90 million. The Province is providing $108 million.

Pitt River Bridge by the numbers:

190 metres – Length of the main span of the bridge (cable tower to cable tower).
380 metres – Length of the cable-stayed span of the bridge (end to end of cable sections).
500 metres – The entire length of the bridge including the bridge approach spans. The width will be 45 metres.
16 metres – Height above the water (marine clearance).
60 metres – Height of the six main bridge towers.
100 metres – Depth of the piles (metal posts used to provide a foundation for the structure), which are some of the largest and deepest ever driven in British Columbia.
1,200 - Approximate number of jobs created over the life of the project.

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2009PREM0056-000533.htm

[SpongeG]

i prefer the downward arrows a little more obious when you are driving

[wrenegade]

Was today opening day? Yesterday? Either way, I was actually out there this afternoon and drove over it. It is fantastic. Although on my way back I was taking the 7B Mary Hill Bypass exit (which is two lanes) and the minivan in front of me slammed on the brakes and swerved across both lanes to get back on the Lougheed Hwy portion. I guess some people haven't gotten the hang of it yet. Glad I had my brakes replaced a couple weeks ago.

[Pennywise604]

Are there any plans to make Dewdney Trunk @ Hwy 7 an interchange? Since the new bridge will allow free flowing traffic now at Mary Hill @ Lougheed, to me it just seems like a bad idea if Dewndey is kept as a light. I only ask though since it's 4 lanes EB, traffic will not be stopped at the 7 @ 7B light anymore, way more cars will be allowed to travel EB at the same time than the old bridge. I don't travel to Maple Ridge very often at all, but that light can back up EB during rush hour, so now to me it seems like it will. WB backs up to 203rd/Harris every morning, so it'd make sense to convert Dewdney to a full interchange.

[Metro-One]

:previous: That is the long term plan in the "North Perimeter Road Project." Essentially they will be making Lougheed Highway from the Golden Ears Interchange a freeway to the Pitt River Bridge, and from there they plan to make the Mary Hill Bypass a freeway to the #1. If it happens, we will have to wait and see. I have a bad feeling it will be the one piece of the Gateway Project not to go through because of a change in government.

Was today opening day? Yesterday? Either way, I was actually out there this afternoon and drove over it. It is fantastic. Although on my way back I was taking the 7B Mary Hill Bypass exit (which is two lanes) and the minivan in front of me slammed on the brakes and swerved across both lanes to get back on the Lougheed Hwy portion. I guess some people haven't gotten the hang of it yet. Glad I had my brakes replaced a couple weeks ago.

Exact same thing happened to me today, the truck in front slammed on their brakes and swerved over to the lanes going to Poco. It is amazing how despite this project being under construction for years and the painfully obvious westbound off ramp being built on the north side of the westbound bridge lanes and several new signs that display which lanes go where, people are still able to screw it up!

[go_leafs_go02]

Ontario does it this way:

In Advance before any lane splits or re-configurations:
http://onthighways.com/hwy_401_images/401_dv_183-5_west.jpg

Right where the lanes split off:
http://onthighways.com/hwy_401_images/401_dv_183_west.jpg

[Mininari]

How is the Kingsway / MHB intersection holding up now that the interchange ramp is open?

Also, your assessment on the future NFPR freeway upgrade is probably true. The liberals are really cooking in some hot HST oil now (and also as all governments running a deficit usually are). Furthermore, this could turn into one another highway 91, where one or two at-grade intersections are left forever and ever and ever...

[DKaz]

I went to work later than the West Coast Express ran today so I had to drive to work... gave me a great excuse to try out the new flyover. They obviously still have to finish the approach to the bridge and the end of the flyover and most importantly dismantle the bridge and build the new ramp from MHB to Lougheed WB but overall it's pretty cool so far. :) I'll be taking the bus tomorrow morning at rush hour to see what traffic is like during rush hour.

[Pennywise604]

I had a hockey game in Maple Ridge last night. Hwy 7 @ 105th ave. Way down there... My route took me from Hwy 91 @ 64th, down Scott Rd, Pattulo, Columbia, Brunette, Hwy 1, Mary Hill, PRB, Haney BP. I got my first look of the new PRB and it's really quite amazing if your headed Eastbound. It was a very quick drive over with hardly any traffic, eventhough it was 7:30pm on a Sunday. I like that they are widening the highway Eastbound, to what almost looked like 4 lanes until Harris... It's already 3 lanes but they were widening it even more. It looked like it was being widened to 3 lanes until Maple Meadows Way (That's what it looked like). Westbound though was untouched, but with the HOV I guess there's no need right now. I took the GEB home like normal from Maple Ridge, saves over 20 minutes... :)

What really pissed me off though... I was running a bit late so I had to speed quite a bit. WHY THE HELL IS THE SPEED LIMIT 60 KM/H FROM 207TH UNTIL THE HANEY BYPASS. What idiot decided to do that? Seriously. I knew it was a dark/long stretch of road with absolutely no traffic in either direction, and the speed limits 60? I'm doing 90 having to worry about police since it's so dark... That is the stupidest thing I have ever seen, I know in rush hour it's a busy stretch, but they should think of having variable speed limits on that stretch of road. There is no one travelling at 60 on that portion of Hwy 7 at 7:30pm on a Sunday night. Now I know anything over 100 would be dangerous since there are a few intersections (not traffic light) but at least 80, so everyone can travel at 90 or 100 and not have to worry. The slowest I saw anyone driving when I actually saw another car in either direction was 80...
I-5/I-90 in Seattle are very good with variable speed limits, if there's rain on the road it's 55, if not it's 65. Hwy 7 from 207th to Haney needs one, and Hwy 1 east of Abby needs one.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Maple Ridge is full of retarded speed limits. There is a 1km section of the Lougheed that runs up the hill just north of Kanaka Way, here it is a 4 lane highway with no driveways and a median running along the middle with a 50kmh speed limit!

[WarrenC12]

Don't forget the GEB! Lots of 60 km/h stretches.

[Pennywise604]

lol, I've driven that stretch from Kanaka Way to wherever the McDonalds is WB. I don't remember caring about it though since I was in no rush. I would admit that 50 is stupid, but if it is never changed that makes sense too. The Haney Bypass saves an incredible amount of time, and the speed limit was 60, but at the times I was driving last night, 60 was a mere suggestion to everybody.

The one thing I did love when I took the Mary Hill Bypass, people know how to drive on it (at least when I took it). If you don't want to drive at 120 along the whole stretch, than you get the hell out of the way and stick to the right. That's the first highway stretch I can honestly say that not one driver held anybody up. I had 6 cars in front of me cruise at 120, no need to tailgate since the speed limits 80. It's the biggest miracle I have ever seen while driving in Metro Vancouver... I think we all drove it in under 5 minutes.

[Metro-One]

Here are some Pitt River Bridge shots I took today


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2484/4073842722_c071d8f1d9_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2760/4073844622_56682e6dbf_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2549/4073087369_ec2ff39552_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2756/4073858180_fd897021ac_b.jpg


And here are some pics of the old North side Pitt River Bridge, soon to be no more.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/4073849922_ed8becbddd_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2733/4073864512_76b440137a_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/4073861394_e72fb1c8e1_b.jpg


And here is the growing Coquitlam Skyline from the Bridge


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2517/4073096785_a08ffc3f9d_b.jpg


A beautiful bridge on a beautiful day! All pics are my own

Cheers

[metroXpress]

^ impressive shots! Thanks :)

[Metro-One]

Here is another something i made today, a video time lapse of the new Pitt River bridge.

All images and shots are my own.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DpcLgTcjeso&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DpcLgTcjeso&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Cheers!

[Pennywise604]

hmmm.. Global News Traffic just showed what stated what I thought would happen at the new PRB. Traffic EB flows fine up to and over the bridge but after, jammed from Maple Meadows Way until Dewdney. It wouldn't take a highly intelligent person to figure out that an interchange should of been constructed at Dedney at the same time. It is at least in planning though.

Since I live right at Hwy 91 @ 64th and can see the mess at 72nd from my house, I realized something. The reason why the light at 72nd jams up so much in rush hour, is beacuse those big semi trucks occupy BOTH lanes to get through the light... I see it all the time, in fact I've learned to stay in the right lane when it's jammed to 64th, it moves a minute or so faster... Once the SFPR is finished, trucks should be prohobited on Hwy 91 until Nordel Way NB. I know it sounds stupid but Delta won't allow an interchange to be built, so at least increase traffic flow through the light. Semi trucks are so slow off the light, and since the light is timed to be short due to heavy traffic heading EB on 72nd from SB Hwy 91, it jams up very quickly, and moves very slowly in the afternoon. Would that even be a consideration? It's not that much of an inconvenience to truckers. I know about Annacis Island, but Nordel Way is a truck route, Scott Rd is a truck route, and the SFPR is obviously a truck route too. They can still get on the AFB very easily since the SFPR is a full Highway with no lights from Hwy 17 through to Nordel.

[Zassk]

^ I'm confused by the 72nd situation. What say does Delta have in a provincial highway upgrade?