Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[libtard]

Originally Posted by 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.

First responders can drive on the side of the road, not the case for a bridge. If there are no shoulders like in the case of the new patullo render, it leaves no space for them to skirt traffic. The roads also don’t have a cement median right up against the lanes. The bridge does, which causes drivers to slow down and affects the speed and flow of traffic. The bridges you’re speaking of are old. I have provided references to NEW brides being built with shoulders. It is a design feature adopted through out North America for NEW bridge construction. That is a fact and I’ve provided more than enough references. You have provided nothing for this conversation on new bridge construction

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by libtard

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

Well said.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by libtard

First responders can drive on the side of the road, not the case for a bridge. If there are no shoulders like in the case of the new patullo render, it leaves no space for them to skirt traffic. The roads also don’t have a cement median right up against the lanes. The bridge does, which causes drivers to slow down and affects the speed and flow of traffic. The bridges you’re speaking of are old. I have provided references to NEW brides being built with shoulders. It is a design feature adopted through out North America for NEW bridge construction. That is a fact and I’ve provided more than enough references. You have provided nothing for this conversation on new bridge construction

I'm mainly just pointing out your hypocrisy at wanting more space dedicated to vehicles when you are also vehemently opposed to the transport of oil. Pick one position. If you are now saying this is only a safety issue (despite other posts indicating you want better traffic flow), then you should advocate for the removal of car lanes everywhere to make room for shoulders.

While I do think all freeway bridges should have a shoulder, the Pattullo is not a freeway bridge and will funnel either side into roads with no shoulder (no, emergency vehicles do not drive on the sidewalk). So a shoulder isn't as useful as you are making it out to be. And if we have to remove shoulders anywhere, I'm OK with removing them where it is by far the most expensive to build.

But if it is important, what is your choice? Make the bridge even wider and more expensive? Or take space away from the current lanes devoted to cars? Neither option is free, and unlike you the road designers actually have to make choices which cost money from a limited pot. I'm sure they'd be quite happy to make a road to the highest standards, but someone higher up controls the purse strings.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm mainly just pointing out your hypocrisy at wanting more space dedicated to vehicles when you are also vehemently opposed to the transport of oil. Pick one position. If you are now saying this is only a safety issue (despite other posts indicating you want better traffic flow), then you should advocate for the removal of car lanes everywhere to make room for shoulders.

While I do think all freeway bridges should have a shoulder, the Pattullo is not a freeway bridge and will funnel either side into roads with no shoulder (no, emergency vehicles do not drive on the sidewalk). So a shoulder isn't as useful as you are making it out to be. And if we have to remove shoulders anywhere, I'm OK with removing them where it is by far the most expensive to build.

But if it is important, what is your choice? Make the bridge even wider and more expensive? Or take space away from the current lanes devoted to cars? Neither option is free, and unlike you the road designers actually have to make choices which cost money from a limited pot. I'm sure they'd be quite happy to make a road to the highest standards, but someone higher up controls the purse strings.

Better traffic flow isn’t an issue of expanded capacity. I’m advocating for better flow and a higher safety standard. Both are achieved by adding a shoulder. Being opposed to trans mountain doesn’t mean I should push for removing lanes in place of shoulders. These bridges and roads will still be here long after the combustion engine has been phased out and only electric vehicles are driving on them. But that is another argument completely and the fact you keep bringing it up is ruining the discussion in this thread for Vancouver residents who are interested in this bridge. Please stop shitting up this thread. As for your opinion on freeway brides, that’s your opinion. You are from out of town and have probably never driven this bridge or know of its deadly past. The current configuration is very sketchy and makes drivers very uncomfortable. The new bridge will have a median dividing opposing lanes but compared to all the other bridges being constructed around North America, it is still viewed as sub standard. Obviously cost is a factor, which is why the term value engineering is used for infrastructure construction in BC so often. But with all these other jurisdictions building bridges with shoulders maybe our planners should find out what their secret is. And as for driving on the sidewalk, no a first responders wouldn’t do that but they would drive on the side of the road on the south approach which I’ve seen before. Having a shoulder so they could continue along right to the site of an accident on the bridge would definitely be a good thing to have. Any way we can improve safety and traffic flow on this new bridge we should be actively pursuing. Let’s raise our standards here to get in line with the rest of the continent.

[milomilo]

You are definitely being inconsistent if you think being opposed to fossil fuel transport is compatible with promotion of car infrastructure, but never mind.

So would you prefer the new Pattullo was built even bigger than the one proposed? I get that the bridge now is a POS, and the new one is stupidly being built for six lanes but only with 4 in place. But if you want shoulders, that now means you are effectively building an 8 lane bridge, plus large pathways either side. That's a big bridge, which means expensive - even more expensive after the government's idiotic cancelling of tolls and the even stupider labour laws just introduced.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by libtard

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

Since moving to Winnipeg I've become active on the Winnipeg section, and everyone there thinks Manitoba's infrastructure is the laughing stock of North America too. Seems to me that infrastructure just has a huge grass-is-greener effect to it.

[milomilo]

Especially with roads, whatever you have can never be good enough. It's basically impossible to ever be able to build enough roads so that they are not 'embarrassing'. I'm sure most people in the US consider their roads to be inadequate. On the same coin, Vancouver's roads wouldn't look too bad in Europe.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Since moving to Winnipeg I've become active on the Winnipeg section, and everyone there thinks Manitoba's infrastructure is the laughing stock of North America too. Seems to me that infrastructure just has a huge grass-is-greener effect to it.

Edmonton has the same problem when I was there. My dad often complains about the cracks and potholes on the roads due to seasonal weather changes affecting the asphalt (I believe it's the same with Winnipeg).

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Edmonton has the same problem when I was there. My dad often complains about the cracks and potholes on the roads due to seasonal weather changes affecting the asphalt (I believe it's the same with Winnipeg).

There's that for sure, but I mean specifically with regards to infrastructure. The posters in the Manitoba section lament their lack of freeways and interchanges like it's what's holding the city down. I get if you're a driver and you want to complain about it, same way that people here complain about lights on the SFPR, but the hyperbole about embarrassment compared to everywhere else gets tiring. A lot of cities have highways with lights and bridges without shoulders.

[retro_orange]

Can we get a professional to chime in on how much the bridge would cost with and without shoulders?

WRT the pipeline debate (although off topic) Canada is burning across the country this summer and like it never has before. It surprises me how so few realize that our current state of the worlds climate woes were brought on by the existing oil production and transportation infrastructure and capacity. Now we plan on shipping up to 12X more petroleum product through a new state of the art pipeline for the duraton of it's life. Taking into account 12X more oil production growth to feed the pipeline and also taking into account that this new pipeline will last longer than the existing infrastructure, one cannot argue that the other infrastructure has been in place for over 50 years already so the impact of the new pipeline will be far less. I will be around for likely another 50-60 years and I fully understand that I WILL HAVE TO deal with all negative repercussions of this pipeline on my future health. The rate of change of our climate for the next 50 years will be an incredible multitude greater than the rate of change we saw in the past 50 years because of the amount of people worldwide consuming petroleum products is a vast multitude greater than the previous 50 and many of those people have no intention of either slowing down, taking any less than other countries had before them or live in a country that would make an effort to tackle climate change.

Who here on this forum (or unregistered readers) were born in the 80's or later or has kids that were? Majority of you all will have to deal with it for the next 50+ years too.

Really makes the quarterly profit margins worth it, right?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

There's that for sure, but I mean specifically with regards to infrastructure. The posters in the Manitoba section lament their lack of freeways and interchanges like it's what's holding the city down. I get if you're a driver and you want to complain about it, same way that people here complain about lights on the SFPR, but the hyperbole about embarrassment compared to everywhere else gets tiring. A lot of cities have highways with lights and bridges without shoulders.

I've never been to Winnipeg, but to be fair (purely looking at a map), their roads do appear to be woefully under built and poorly planned. For a city of 700,000 people to have no freeways while also having no higher order transit is pitiful.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I've never been to Winnipeg, but to be fair (purely looking at a map), their roads do appear to be woefully under built and poorly planned. For a city of 700,000 people to have no freeways while also having no higher order transit is pitiful.

My own opinion is that it's not a huge deal, but that's not really the point. Just I think "our infrastructure is the worst" is a mentality as common as "our drivers/politicians/X are the worst." People see greener grass everywhere. I guarantee there are people in the best freeway-served city in North America right now complaining about how terrible their freeway infrastructure is.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If you are now saying this is only a safety issue (despite other posts indicating you want better traffic flow), then you should advocate for the removal of car lanes everywhere to make room for shoulders.

Exactly. Build the same bridge as a 4-lane bridge with shoulders instead of a 6-lane bridge. Libtard will be happy, to hell with everyone else.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You are definitely being inconsistent if you think being opposed to fossil fuel transport is compatible with promotion of car infrastructure, but never mind.

So would you prefer the new Pattullo was built even bigger than the one proposed? I get that the bridge now is a POS, and the new one is stupidly being built for six lanes but only with 4 in place. But if you want shoulders, that now means you are effectively building an 8 lane bridge, plus large pathways either side. That's a big bridge, which means expensive - even more expensive after the government's idiotic cancelling of tolls and the even stupider labour laws just introduced.

Yes it would mean an increased price tag on the bridge. Obviously. A shoulder would add extra space which would mean more material which means higher cost. An ideal shoulder size would be a little more than half a lane. I’m advocating for a break from value engineering jeez how many times have I had to tell you that? Are you dense?

It would also be cheaper to run the proposed broadway sky train line above ground but how many people are advocating the more expensive tunnel boring route? Everyone.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by libtard

It would also be cheaper to run the proposed broadway sky train line above ground but how many people are advocating the more expensive tunnel boring route? Everyone.

Not me.

[SpongeG]

Public is invited to comment on Pattullo Bridge’s environmental plan

Theresa McManus / Tri-City News SEPTEMBER 3, 2018

Work on the Pattullo Bridge replacement project is set to ramp up this fall.

The public is invited to learn about and comment on the application for an environmental assessment certificate for the proposed Pattullo Bridge replacement project. In addition to an open house in Surrey on Tuesday, Sept. 18, an open house is set to take place in New West on Wednesday, Sept. 19 from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Sapperton Pensioner’s Hall, 318 Keary St.

...

https://www.tricitynews.com/news/pub...lan-1.23420747

[flipper316]

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news...e-replacement/

[misher]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Not me.

Me neither. I’m ok with underground to Alma, after that above ground to UBC makes sense as there’s only a forest to go through. Also if we ever expand UBC it would be much easier to add a stop.

Would actually be kind of cool to have a forested landscape greet you on your way to UBC. If the whole way along Broadway to UBC was underground it would waste the windows they put into sky trains.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by flipper316

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news...e-replacement/

Thanks.

TY Lin designed the new Port Mann Bridge, new Oakland Bay Bridge and the new Champlain Bridge.
https://www.tylin.com/en/projects/regions

COWI is the successor to Buckland & Taylor (Alex Fraser Bridge and others)
https://www.cowi.com/tags/bridges

I thought Buckland & Taylor designed the Alex Fraser Bridge - bit the TY Lin website says that it provided design services for it. Odd.

Here's the link for Leonhardt, Andrä und Partner Beratende Ingenieure VBI AG:
https://www.lap-consult.com/en/bridges-and-tunnels.html

In a release from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the three bidding teams were announced as Fraser Community Connectors, Flatiron/Dragados/Carlson Pattulo JV and Fraser Crossing Partners.

Within each team, there is the respondent, the design-build contractor and the long-span bridge design contractor.

For Fraser Community Connectors, the respondent is Kiewit Canada Development Corp., the design-build contractor is Kiewit Infrastructure BC ULC and the long-span bridge design contractor is T.Y. Lin International and Bridge Technologies, Inc.

For Flatiron/Dragados/Carlson Pattullo JV, the respondent and design-build contractor is a joint venture of Flatiron Constructors Canada Limited, Dragados Canada Inc. and Carlson Construction Group, Inc. and the long-span bridge design contractor is COWI North America, Ltd.

Among the potential contractors for Fraser Crossing Partners is SNC-Lavalin. Acciona Infrastructure Canada Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Capital Inc. are the respondents. Acciona Infrastructure Canada Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Constructors (Pacific) Inc. are the design-build contractors. SNC-Lavalin Inc., Leonhardt, Andrä und Partner Beratende Ingenieure VBI AG, Hatch Corporation, EXP Services Inc. and Acciona Infrastructure Canada Inc. are the long-span bridge design contractors.
...

[retro_orange]

It's about time. I was thinking it was delayed AGAIN.