Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

City official mentioned that the bridge would only support 2.5m lanes in a 6 lane config. Really unsafe and narrow...he essentially confirmed that the 6 lane config will never happen. The City of Surrey is absolutely livid.

1.4 bil for a replacement without upgrading the approaches seems absurd.

Why are they livid? Since when do they care about proper roads and traffic flow? This is, of course, the same city that wants to paralyze half the city with a stupid hard on for an overpriced bus on rails.

[Firebrand]

Since they don’t care about the traffic that’s going to wreak havoc on 104 Ave, they won’t care about the traffic on the new bridge.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

City official mentioned that the bridge would only support 2.5m lanes in a 6 lane config. Really unsafe and narrow...he essentially confirmed that the 6 lane config will never happen. The City of Surrey is absolutely livid.

1.4 bil for a replacement without upgrading the approaches seems absurd.

That's completely contrary to everything I've heard about it. The way it's going to be built, if they need to expand to six lanes then they'll turn the cycling/pedestrian lanes into traffic lanes (they're plenty wide enough once you take the separator out) and then build new cycling/pedestrian lanes on the outside.

I mean seriously, the current Pattullo's narrowest lanes are 2.895 meters wide. Do you honestly think that they're going to build a new bridge such that the lanes are even narrower than that? Let's be completely realistic here, that 2.5m width is complete nonsense and out of touch with reality. If that official actually said "two and a half meters wide" then they were lying to you.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That's completely contrary to everything I've heard about it. The way it's going to be built, if they need to expand to six lanes then they'll turn the cycling/pedestrian lanes into traffic lanes (they're plenty wide enough once you take the separator out) and then build new cycling/pedestrian lanes on the outside.

I mean seriously, the current Pattullo's narrowest lanes are 2.895 meters wide. Do you honestly think that they're going to build a new bridge such that the lanes are even narrower than that? Let's be completely realistic here, that 2.5m width is complete nonsense and out of touch with reality. If that official actually said "two and a half meters wide" then they were lying to you.

That's been the depiction in every section I've seen as well. When the bridge is expanded to 6 lanes the pedestrian/biking is tacked on to the outside.

[libtard]

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.

This is simply not true. Look at all these new bridges going up around North America:

New Tappan Zee Bridge - NY

Credit: www.newnybridge.com

New Oakland Bay Bridge

Credit: www.dailymail.co.uk

New Stan Musial Bridge - St. Louis

Credit: www.hntb.com

New SR520 Bridge - Seattle

Credit: google maps

As you can see ALL new bridges in North America are spec'd with wide shoulders. It's only BC that continues to build them to lower standards

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by libtard

This is simply not true. Look at all these new bridges going up around North America:

As you can see ALL new bridges in North America are spec'd with wide shoulders. It's only BC that continues to build them to lower standards

You're also bringing up bridges that are part of major highways and freeways, which the Pattullo isn't. Think of it more of a Cambie or Granville, a local connection bridge.

[DKaz]

All that wasted space especially when there's a traffic jam.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

You're also bringing up bridges that are part of major highways and freeways, which the Pattullo isn't. Think of it more of a Cambie or Granville, a local connection bridge.

Highway bridges that don't have sidewalks - unlike our local connection bridges.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

You're also bringing up bridges that are part of major highways and freeways, which the Pattullo isn't. Think of it more of a Cambie or Granville, a local connection bridge.

And what's the reason for the Port Mann not having adequate shoulders then? Its part of a major highway



We need to stop making excuses for BC's sub standard bridge construction. Not having adequately sized shoulders is unacceptable and wouldn't be tolerated on new bridges built anywhere else in North America

Originally Posted by DKaz

All that wasted space especially when there's a traffic jam.

I don't know if this a joke or not? How is a shoulder "wasted space in a traffic jam"? That's exactly what its used for, so first responders can skirt traffic to reach an accident/traffic jam. Your response is mind boggling

Originally Posted by Sheba

Highway bridges that don't have sidewalks - unlike our local connection bridges.

3 out of the 4 bridges I listed have pedestrian paths for walking/cycling. Nice try with your fake news

[flipper316]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ment-1.4767778

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by flipper316

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ment-1.4767778

B.C. Liberal Party claims potential for $100M cost overruns on Pattullo Bridge replacement

The province says construction of the Patullo Bridge will begin in 2019 and will be complete in 2023.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Sheba

B.C. Liberal Party claims potential for $100M cost overruns on Pattullo Bridge replacement

Ya union contracts will probably cost a bit more. Up to the voter if they think it's a good use of money. But complaining about "maybe" $100M on a project this size is pretty rich coming from the group that brought us the BC Place roof (which I love BTW).

[GMasterAres]

The reason bridges in other jurisdictions have shoulders is two fold, (1) to allow emergency vehicles to traverse or broken down vehicles to not impede a lane of traffic and (2) to allow for lane widening when capacity needs increase in the future (midway point typically) as bridges are typically expected to last 50 years.

In BC, we under build not just our bridges but all of our roads it's that simple, and nobody can quite honestly argue otherwise with facts on their side. You can blame the Provincial Government but in all honesty, we're all to blame for that. Just take a jaunt over to the "Massey Tunnel Replacement" thread and you'll see many many posts about how the "bridge is too big!!!" or "IT IS OVER SIZED OMG WTF 10 LANES!!!" Or just look back to all the arguments against the Golden Ears "White Elephant" bridge a decade ago, or the Alex Fraser Bridge back in the 80s. The majority of vocal BC residents just seem to be allergic to infrastructure yet we whine and complain about traffic all the time.

That's our mentality in this province. There was an uproar about the widening of HWY 1. There was an uproar that the Port Mann bridge was too wide. It goes on and on. So we're all to blame for this crap.

That said, the Patullo is a local connection bridge not a major highway/freeway so one could argue the case it doesn't need to be super wide or sport shoulders.

My opinion though is that building over the Fraser River next to Surrey requires really high bridges and a lot of technical work given it is an active shipping lane. The needs and costs are far different than at False Creek, so we shouldn't entirely compare the two. To me it is better to spend now than to get stuck with a bridge that doesn't have expansion capabilities down the road. They are doing that with the Patullo bridge, in that it can be expanded to 6 lanes and push the pedestrian/cycling lanes out over the edge. It is simply going to be 2 lanes to start to make New Westminster happy, another city that complains about traffic but stands in the way of solving the traffic. They could have had the NFPR long completed by now taking nearly all truck traffic off their main roads... yet no had to kill that. Ask people against the SFPR how bad it is today and how wrong it was to build the SFPR link... you won't find anyone I bet still in that camp.

You're building a brand new bridge connecting the second largest city to North of the Fraser right near its under-construction downtown core. Either it should be built wide and expandable, or we should be planning for another 2 crossings in the next 20-25 years. But we won't, because this is BC and we're allergic to long-term planning.

Regarding shoulders though, libtard is 100% correct in the assessment that the shoulder issue on bridges is entirely a BC thing and it is because we under build. As soon as you remove shoulders on lanes on a major highway, people slow down on curves for fear of hitting the side barriers. This is partly why there is now a nearly constant traffic jam at the Ironworkers Memorial bridge on a daily basis. That too is a major bridge with no shoulders and a curve which causes people to slow right down. That in turn causes people to start lane switching which ultimately leads to heavy back ups regardless of if there is an accident or not.

Port Mann, a "state of the art" bridge has no shoulders. The only saving grace is that if they removed the concrete barrier between the express and collector flows, they _could_ add an additional lane. But go through the list of major highway bridge in BC and you'll be hard pressed to find shoulders.

William R. Bennett Bridge in Kelowna? No shoulders. Yellowhead Bridge in Prince George? No shoulders. Southern Yellowhead Hwy bridge in Kamloops? No shoulders. Mission bridge? No shoulders.

Port Mann, Oak Street, Alex Fraser, Queensborough, Lion's Gate, Iron Workers Memorial, Knight Street, Golden Ears, Patullo, Loughheed Hwy Bridges all NO SHOULDERS.

The only bridge that appears to have somewhat of the a shoulder is the Arthur Lang Bridge... that's it pretty much in all of BC.

Again on my point #2 about what shoulders are good for, on many older major bridges in the US and rest of Canada you'll also find no shoulders but it is typically because they have widened due to capacity. When they build new bridges though, they typically again build for expand-ability and thus include shoulders.

The New Champlain Bridge in Montreal? Nice wide shoulder on the right side between the main lanes of traffic and the separated bike and pedestrian lanes.

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.

[red-paladin]

Arthur Laing Bridge was built by the federal government as well.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by jhausner

The reason bridges in other jurisdictions have shoulders is two fold, (1) to allow emergency vehicles to traverse or broken down vehicles to not impede a lane of traffic and (2) to allow for lane widening when capacity needs increase in the future (midway point typically) as bridges are typically expected to last 50 years.

In BC, we under build not just our bridges but all of our roads it's that simple, and nobody can quite honestly argue otherwise with facts on their side. You can blame the Provincial Government but in all honesty, we're all to blame for that. Just take a jaunt over to the "Massey Tunnel Replacement" thread and you'll see many many posts about how the "bridge is too big!!!" or "IT IS OVER SIZED OMG WTF 10 LANES!!!" Or just look back to all the arguments against the Golden Ears "White Elephant" bridge a decade ago, or the Alex Fraser Bridge back in the 80s. The majority of vocal BC residents just seem to be allergic to infrastructure yet we whine and complain about traffic all the time.

That's our mentality in this province. There was an uproar about the widening of HWY 1. There was an uproar that the Port Mann bridge was too wide. It goes on and on. So we're all to blame for this crap.

That said, the Patullo is a local connection bridge not a major highway/freeway so one could argue the case it doesn't need to be super wide or sport shoulders.

My opinion though is that building over the Fraser River next to Surrey requires really high bridges and a lot of technical work given it is an active shipping lane. The needs and costs are far different than at False Creek, so we shouldn't entirely compare the two. To me it is better to spend now than to get stuck with a bridge that doesn't have expansion capabilities down the road. They are doing that with the Patullo bridge, in that it can be expanded to 6 lanes and push the pedestrian/cycling lanes out over the edge. It is simply going to be 2 lanes to start to make New Westminster happy, another city that complains about traffic but stands in the way of solving the traffic. They could have had the NFPR long completed by now taking nearly all truck traffic off their main roads... yet no had to kill that. Ask people against the SFPR how bad it is today and how wrong it was to build the SFPR link... you won't find anyone I bet still in that camp.

You're building a brand new bridge connecting the second largest city to North of the Fraser right near its under-construction downtown core. Either it should be built wide and expandable, or we should be planning for another 2 crossings in the next 20-25 years. But we won't, because this is BC and we're allergic to long-term planning.

Regarding shoulders though, libtard is 100% correct in the assessment that the shoulder issue on bridges is entirely a BC thing and it is because we under build. As soon as you remove shoulders on lanes on a major highway, people slow down on curves for fear of hitting the side barriers. This is partly why there is now a nearly constant traffic jam at the Ironworkers Memorial bridge on a daily basis. That too is a major bridge with no shoulders and a curve which causes people to slow right down. That in turn causes people to start lane switching which ultimately leads to heavy back ups regardless of if there is an accident or not.

Port Mann, a "state of the art" bridge has no shoulders. The only saving grace is that if they removed the concrete barrier between the express and collector flows, they _could_ add an additional lane. But go through the list of major highway bridge in BC and you'll be hard pressed to find shoulders.

William R. Bennett Bridge in Kelowna? No shoulders. Yellowhead Bridge in Prince George? No shoulders. Southern Yellowhead Hwy bridge in Kamloops? No shoulders. Mission bridge? No shoulders.

Port Mann, Oak Street, Alex Fraser, Queensborough, Lion's Gate, Iron Workers Memorial, Knight Street, Golden Ears, Patullo, Loughheed Hwy Bridges all NO SHOULDERS.

The only bridge that appears to have somewhat of the a shoulder is the Arthur Lang Bridge... that's it pretty much in all of BC.

Again on my point #2 about what shoulders are good for, on many older major bridges in the US and rest of Canada you'll also find no shoulders but it is typically because they have widened due to capacity. When they build new bridges though, they typically again build for expand-ability and thus include shoulders.

The New Champlain Bridge in Montreal? Nice wide shoulder on the right side between the main lanes of traffic and the separated bike and pedestrian lanes.

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.

This province is filled with fucknuts who couldn’t grasp the concept of having shoulder lanes in bridges. “The New Port Mann bridge is the state of the art”; “state of the art” my ass. No wonder why BC is the laughingstock of the infrastructure world.

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.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

This province is filled with fucknuts who couldn’t grasp the concept of having shoulder lanes in bridges. “The New Port Mann bridge is the state of the art”; “state of the art” my ass.

Well it was the widest bridge in the world for a brief period of time. That doesn't exactly shout "underbuilt" to me...

[libtard]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Well it was the widest bridge in the world for a brief period of time. That doesn't exactly shout "underbuilt" to me...

That means nothing when the actual driving conditions of the bridge are terrible.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by libtard

That means nothing when the actual driving conditions of the bridge are terrible.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What’s the point of bringing up a meaningless record when the fact still remains the bridge doesn’t have shoulders

[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.