Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[libtard]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I'm not even sure what the benefit of having a shoulder on a bridge even brings.

And even if a bridge did have a shoulder. In a few years when traffic increased on that bridge. The shoulders would be removed and a lane added each way. Then you are back to no shoulders. So really a shoulder is only about having a cheap future capacity.

Was this post really necessary? The benefits of having a shoulder on a bridge were listed above. Learn to read. It’s standard practice all over North America, only BC doesn’t do it

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by libtard

Was this post really necessary? The benefits of having a shoulder on a bridge were listed above. Learn to read. It’s standard practice all over North America, only BC doesn’t do it

So I thought ok I'll search this thread for every post that has the word shoulder. The only benefit that I was able to see was that a shoulder is just a future lane. Which I already mentioned. I was unable to see any other benefit mentioned. But then again maybe I'm just a stupid BC resident.

Otherwise every other post was just a bunch of bickering about no shoulders on a bridge.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by cabotp

So I thought ok I'll search this thread for every post that has the word shoulder. The only benefit that I was able to see was that a shoulder is just a future lane. Which I already mentioned. I was unable to see any other benefit mentioned. But then again maybe I'm just a stupid BC resident.

Otherwise every other post was just a bunch of bickering about no shoulders on a bridge.

You seriously missed the part about first responders being able to bypass traffic to get to an accident quicker. Or broken down cars having an area to pull over without obstructing traffic? Are you blind?

Also to quote jhausner

As soon as you remove shoulders on lanes on a major highway, people slow down on curves for fear of hitting the side barriers.

Which is why you notice a slow down in traffic going westbound bound over the Port Mann at the bottom of the hill approach.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by libtard

You seriously missed the part about first responders being able to bypass traffic to get to an accident quicker. Or broken down cars having an area to pull over without obstructing traffic? Are you blind?

Even if there is a shoulder and the vehicles in an accident are put over into the shoulder. The traffic would still back up simply because people will slow down and look. So it really adds no significant major benefit. Although it is a small benefit.

As for the first responder benefit. Yes that would be a benefit if the shoulder is wide enough. But then once that shoulder is turned into a future lane. That benefit is lost and so is the other benefit. Then we are just back to the one benefit a future lane.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Even if there is a shoulder and the vehicles in an accident are put over into the shoulder. The traffic would still back up simply because people will slow down and look. So it really adds no significant major benefit. Although it is a small benefit.

As for the first responder benefit. Yes that would be a benefit if the shoulder is wide enough. But then once that shoulder is turned into a future lane. That benefit is lost and so is the other benefit. Then we are just back to the one benefit a future lane.

Having first responders able to reach accidents in a traffic jam is a huge benefit. Having an area for broken down motorists is a huge benefit. Having more room between a car and a cement barrier so the flow of traffic is smoother is a huge benefit. All the bridges I posted pictures of have no plans on expanding to more lanes by eating up the shoulders. They were simply built with shoulders. Why is that so hard for you and the bridge designers of BC to understand. The purpose of having a shoulder isn’t always to eventually convert it into another lane. It’s just a good building standard that BC has failed to adopt

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by libtard

HHaving more room between a car and a cement barrier so the flow of traffic is smoother is a huge benefit.

This is probably the biggest benefit in day to day operations. I think people underestimate the domino effect that one car slowing down has on traffic.

[WarrenC12]

At the end of the day, having all of the available pavement as driving/biking/walking lanes is the most efficient use of space. Spending tens or hundreds of millions extra to build a bridge that much wider is a waste of money if the space is used for a shoulder.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

At the end of the day, having all of the available pavement as driving/biking/walking lanes is the most efficient use of space. Spending tens or hundreds of millions extra to build a bridge that much wider is a waste of money if the space is used for a shoulder.

The Vancouver public, ladies and gentlemen. And we wonder why our infrastructure is a laughing stock of North America

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by libtard

The Vancouver public, ladies and gentlemen. And we wonder why our infrastructure is a laughing stock of North America

Yes, I can't count the number of people I've met from around the world who point and laugh at me about Vancouver infrastructure.

I'm not saying shoulders are useless, but your constant ranting about them is tiresome and pointless.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes, I can't count the number of people I've met from around the world who point and laugh at me about Vancouver infrastructure.

I'm not saying shoulders are useless, but your constant ranting about them is tiresome and pointless.

It’s hilarious how this forum can have pages and pages of debate about the color of spandrel used on a tower or the font used on an exit sign at a sky train station and no one bats an eye. But when legitimate structural and safety issues are brought up and discussed regarding our vital infrastructure people run in and call it pointless. How about you just avoid this thread then? Because you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about and if it’s tiresome then go away. I’m sure there’s a riveting discussion about the frequency of stops for the 99 b-line on Broadway that’s more to your liking

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

New West has this doublethink mentality of getting rid of truck traffic in its streets but refusing to build a bypass road to do so. It’s the stubborn middle-child of the GVRD.

Where would you put a bypass road? New West is pretty built out, it doesn't really have room for more pavement.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by libtard

Having first responders able to reach accidents in a traffic jam is a huge benefit. Having an area for broken down motorists is a huge benefit. Having more room between a car and a cement barrier so the flow of traffic is smoother is a huge benefit. All the bridges I posted pictures of have no plans on expanding to more lanes by eating up the shoulders. They were simply built with shoulders. Why is that so hard for you and the bridge designers of BC to understand. The purpose of having a shoulder isn’t always to eventually convert it into another lane. It’s just a good building standard that BC has failed to adopt

You're very pro car infrastructure for someone who is so against the transport of oil to Vancouver. You can't have it both ways. If you truly want to stop oil production, you should be targetting demand, and be for the reduction of space dedicated to cars.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You're very pro car infrastructure for someone who is so against the transport of oil to Vancouver. You can't have it both ways. If you truly want to stop oil production, you should be targetting demand, and be for the reduction of space dedicated to cars.

I’m merely advocating for the bridge to be built to higher standards. Having a shoulder doesn’t induce any more demand, it’s a design speed/safety concern. And don’t worry, electric cars will be able to drive on these roads too

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by libtard

I’m merely advocating for the bridge to be built to higher standards. Having a shoulder doesn’t induce any more demand, it’s a design speed/safety concern. And don’t worry, electric cars will be able to drive on these roads too

99% of roads don't have a shoulder so it's a red herring. I'm not saying they are not a good idea, bit fighting for more road capacity is the opposite of what you should want if you don't want oil being transported to your city - electric cars are years away before they start making a difference.

But if safety provided by shoulders really is a concern, then all these bridges should just have lane in each direction replaced with a shoulder.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Where would you put a bypass road? New West is pretty built out, it doesn't really have room for more pavement.

What about underground? I think the best case scenario would be to have the NFPR with expressway or freeway standard from Marine Way and Stewardson, via a tunnel under Royal Ave, and then coming back out closer to Brunette, finally making a seamless connection to Mary Hill. It would be great if they call this route Hwy 7B. This would greatly benefit people living in PoCo, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Mission to have seamless freeway access to YVR and Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal via Queensborough Bridge.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by milomilo

99% of roads don't have a shoulder so it's a red herring. I'm not saying they are not a good idea, bit fighting for more road capacity is the opposite of what you should want if you don't want oil being transported to your city - electric cars are years away before they start making a difference.

But if safety provided by shoulders really is a concern, then all these bridges should just have lane in each direction replaced with a shoulder.

We’re not talking about roads in this thread. You clearly haven’t being paying attention. I just stated I am advocating for shoulders on the new patullo BRIDGE.. Look back at all the pictures of new bridges going up around North America. It’s a common practice that exists on new bridges built everywhere else in North America except BC. And the fact BC refuses to adopt this standard needs to be addressed.

Render of the new 9th ave bridge in Calgary

Credit: cbc.ca

Note the shoulder

New harbour bridge in Corpus Christi

Credit: flatironcorp.com

Note the shoulder

The new harbour bridge has no increased capacity over the old current bridge. It is simply built to a higher standard. I shouldn’t have to keep repeating myself in this thread. You must understand by now the point I’m trying to make

For everyone in this thread I went back through it and yes I sound like a broken record but I hope the members can see I’m only responding to people that keep provoking me. Every time I try and bring up what I feel is a legitimate concern I’m shot down by other users. Their response? It’s mostly drive by comments with no facts, they simply want to provoke me. This quote from jhausner really sums it up well

Originally Posted by jhausner

It would be nice if people that comment in these infrastructure threads actually looked outside their small town to see what other jurisdictions are doing before they try to argue against facts.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

What about underground? I think the best case scenario would be to have the NFPR with expressway or freeway standard from Marine Way and Stewardson, via a tunnel under Royal Ave, and then coming back out closer to Brunette, finally making a seamless connection to Mary Hill. It would be great if they call this route Hwy 7B. This would greatly benefit people living in PoCo, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Mission to have seamless freeway access to YVR and Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal via Queensborough Bridge.

Interestingly enough that's listed as a long-term alternative to removing Front Street from the regional truck route in the Master Transportation Plan -- an east-west tunnel from roughly Brunette to Stewardson. It's Map 4.12 if you want to take a look at it.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by libtard

For everyone in this thread I went back through it and yes I sound like a broken record but I hope the members can see I’m only responding to people that keep provoking me. Every time I try and bring up what I feel is a legitimate concern I’m shot down by other users. Their response? It’s mostly drive by comments with no facts, they simply want to provoke me.

I think it's because you're the only one beating this drum. Yes, we understand that you think BC bridges are underbuilt. You don't really need to keep bringing it up.

[milomilo]

Irrelevant. A road bridge is still a road, and if 99% of the roads have no shoulder, it makes little difference if a bridge like Pattullo has no shoulder too, especially when that shoulder is on the most expensive form of road. Do you support all roads having wide shoulders too?

But if it is important, then just reduce the number of lanes. Bridges are expensive, it's not like that shoulder comes cheap, so you have to choose whether the lanes are worth the money more than a shoulder.

There are tonnes of bridges in Calgary with little/no shoulder, by the way. That one you posted only has one because it is stupidly being built wide enough for 4 lanes, with only 3 planned on being used. So there is needless extra room.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I think it's because you're the only one beating this drum. Yes, we understand that you think BC bridges are underbuilt. You don't really need to keep bringing it up.

People keep quoting me though. It’s not like it’s my opinion. I’m only stating the facts and providing references