HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 6:12 AM
Large Cat's Avatar
Large Cat Large Cat is offline
Vancouver Bus Driver
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 386
If tolling wasn't on the table, I would be totally against adding extra motor vehicle capacity on the new bridge, given the travel habits such capacity tends to encourage in commuters and the demand for more road width after and before the bridge that these habits appear to induce. But I think the move toward tolling and especially the condition of future road pricing will offset most of the serious environmental, economic, health, and aesthetic problems of the extra lanes, because it counterbalances the possibility of this demand leading to increased road width, or even the maintenance of the current road width, on either side of the bridge (Whalley Blvd, McBride, etc). Both New West and Surrey need some serious road diets, and the toll should actually enable that to happen. And there is not as much problem with added capacity on a bridge, as the space it takes up in itself literally can't be used for anything else, at least where it is over water (although we know e.g. on the new Massey Bridge the ramps over land will eat up a huge chunk of the ALR). It's the effect on surrounding communities in terms of the space-consuming logic a larger bridge enforces that's the biggest problem. And a regional turn toward tolling should, I hope, make that logic unintelligible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 7:33 AM
SOSS SOSS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 661
This is great news but I still don't understand where the 1/3rd Translink portion of funding will come from. The plebiscite failed so is it a long-term loan to be paid back in tolls?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 11:21 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOSS View Post
This is great news but I still don't understand where the 1/3rd Translink portion of funding will come from. The plebiscite failed so is it a long-term loan to be paid back in tolls?
no matter what happened with the vote translink has always had funding for this bridge replacement in mind and have had a planned budget for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 2:09 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
no matter what happened with the vote translink has always had funding for this bridge replacement in mind and have had a planned budget for it.
Sure, they've got a budget. That means they know how much it will cost. It doesn't mean they have the money for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 3:10 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by bardak View Post
Isn't Fassbender in charge of Translink? shouldn't he be the one to comment on the bridge instead of Todd Stone. I don't think it is clear whether I will be 6 lanes from the get go or if it can be expanded to 6 lanes (With New West's permission I would assume).
It's clear those two can't do anything without Christy's express approval. Both have said a few things only to retract them later after being corrected internally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 3:12 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,591
The only thing I could see happening is Translink borrowing their portion ($500M?) and recovering via tolls.

If Translink is funding 1/3 of the project, do they still have the authority to collect 100% of the tolls? I'm also guessing they would be on the hook for 100% of the maintenance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 3:28 PM
cairnstone cairnstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Large Cat View Post
If tolling wasn't on the table, I would be totally against adding extra motor vehicle capacity on the new bridge, given the travel habits such capacity tends to encourage in commuters and the demand for more road width after and before the bridge that these habits appear to induce. But I think the move toward tolling and especially the condition of future road pricing will offset most of the serious environmental, economic, health, and aesthetic problems of the extra lanes, because it counterbalances the possibility of this demand leading to increased road width, or even the maintenance of the current road width, on either side of the bridge (Whalley Blvd, McBride, etc). Both New West and Surrey need some serious road diets, and the toll should actually enable that to happen. And there is not as much problem with added capacity on a bridge, as the space it takes up in itself literally can't be used for anything else, at least where it is over water (although we know e.g. on the new Massey Bridge the ramps over land will eat up a huge chunk of the ALR). It's the effect on surrounding communities in terms of the space-consuming logic a larger bridge enforces that's the biggest problem. And a regional turn toward tolling should, I hope, make that logic unintelligible.

really! i hope you work from home and grow all your own food. No matter what we do for transit we will still need to expand road ways to service our growing population. And since buses are transit they run on roads. Land is taken out of the ALR all the time. Look at Burnaby in marine drive, the powers to be decide warehouse is better for growth and jobs than blue berries. At one time Delta council wanted to ban greenhouse development on the ALR. There is a fair share of land in the ALR that is not used for anything left fallow because its not economical to grow crops on it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 3:47 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Just on Global BC: New Westminster and Surrey agree that the new 6-lane bridge will be tolled!
A number of news stations early yesterday were mentioning four lanes. Were they wrong? I'm seeing conflicting reports.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 5:06 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by cairnstone View Post
really! i hope you work from home and grow all your own food. No matter what we do for transit we will still need to expand road ways to service our growing population. And since buses are transit they run on roads. Land is taken out of the ALR all the time. Look at Burnaby in marine drive, the powers to be decide warehouse is better for growth and jobs than blue berries. At one time Delta council wanted to ban greenhouse development on the ALR. There is a fair share of land in the ALR that is not used for anything left fallow because its not economical to grow crops on it.
Nobody is advocating getting rid of roads. All we need to do is work on reducing SOVs on the road (single occupancy vehicles). There's plenty of room for all commercial and industrial traffic if even a small dent in SOV was attainable via better encouragement through transit services.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 8:57 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: 85 floors above Metro Vancouver
Posts: 6,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
The only thing I could see happening is Translink borrowing their portion ($500M?) and recovering via tolls.
This is a $1.5B project? I find that very hard to believe... Even $500M for a generic bridge that ain't even that long sounds excessive to me...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 9:06 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,591
This link:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-2015-1.936008

It has a $1.2B cost in 2010 dollars. "Slated for 2015". I think it's safe to say if the Liberals had not required a plebiscite for new transit funding, the replacement would be underway now, instead of this godawful maintenance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 9:12 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
This link:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-2015-1.936008

It has a $1.2B cost in 2010 dollars. "Slated for 2015". I think it's safe to say if the Liberals had not required a plebiscite for new transit funding, the replacement would be underway now, instead of this godawful maintenance.
The Portmann bridge cost like 800 million (the rest were highway improvements). At this price I expect a Stormont connector.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 9:19 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
The Portmann bridge cost like 800 million (the rest were highway improvements). At this price I expect a Stormont connector.
How do you think it will happen? They build a new bridge at a bridge factory and plunk it into place using a helicopter?

The GMT replacement bridge is $3.5B. Of course these things include the necessary upgrades to surround roads, onramps, and so on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 9:30 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
The only thing I could see happening is Translink borrowing their portion ($500M?) and recovering via tolls.

If Translink is funding 1/3 of the project, do they still have the authority to collect 100% of the tolls? I'm also guessing they would be on the hook for 100% of the maintenance.
That assumes TransLink is funding 1/3 of the project. Remember, Justin Trudeau just met with Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner, and I'd be shocked if increasing the federal portion of the Pattullo Bridge wasn't on the agenda. Could TransLink afford 20%? 15%?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 10:11 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
How do you think it will happen? They build a new bridge at a bridge factory and plunk it into place using a helicopter?

The GMT replacement bridge is $3.5B. Of course these things include the necessary upgrades to surround roads, onramps, and so on.
It includes highway widening from 91 to Oak Street Bridge. Also the bridge is 10 lanes and considerably larger/longer and has difficult soil conditions to deal with. The Pitt river bridge cost $200 mill. The Portmann cost $820 mill. The Golden Ears bridge cost $808 mill including all the new approaches. I assume construction costs have stagnated lately. At $1.5 billion I expect a 6 lane Pattulo and a 4 lane Stormont connecter (maybe at grade with a couple intersections instead of trenched to 10th). Most of the land is already assembled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 10:44 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
It includes highway widening from 91 to Oak Street Bridge. Also the bridge is 10 lanes and considerably larger/longer and has difficult soil conditions to deal with. The Pitt river bridge cost $200 mill. The Portmann cost $820 mill. The Golden Ears bridge cost $808 mill including all the new approaches. I assume construction costs have stagnated lately. At $1.5 billion I expect a 6 lane Pattulo and a 4 lane Stormont connecter (maybe at grade with a couple intersections instead of trenched to 10th). Most of the land is already assembled.
Well you can expect whatever you like, but the estimates are already out there, no doubt completed by professionals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 10:50 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: 85 floors above Metro Vancouver
Posts: 6,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
The Pitt river bridge cost $200 mill.
Thanks for this number and this is the ballpark this project should be in. It's likely going to be a very similar bridge and not even seven lanes like Pitt Bridge is.

Of course dismantling the old bridge increases the costs (why not just detonate it), but all-in-all we should still be talking about under $500M. $1.2B dollars sounds just ludicrous and someone is overpricing a lot!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2016, 11:14 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Thanks for this number and this is the ballpark this project should be in. It's likely going to be a very similar bridge and not even seven lanes like Pitt Bridge is.

Of course dismantling the old bridge increases the costs (why not just detonate it), but all-in-all we should still be talking about under $500M. $1.2B dollars sounds just ludicrous and someone is overpricing a lot!
The Pitt River Bridge is 380 meters long. The Pattullo Bridge is 1227 meters long. I believe that there are also height constraints that the Pattullo has that the Pitt River Bridge doesn't (a lot more marine traffic on the Fraser than the Pitt).

There is absolutely no way the Pattullo will be built for $500m.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 12:00 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,546
I think the Pitt River Bridge was height limited by the nearby Pitt Meadows Airport.
But agreed its a much smaller bridge than the Patullo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 12:43 AM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I think the Pitt River Bridge was height limited by the nearby Pitt Meadows Airport.
But agreed its a much smaller bridge than the Patullo.
Yeah, and the ground is relatively flat on either side of the Pitt River. The New Westminster side has a big hill that the Pattullo needs to scale, so the Pattullo needs to be naturally higher on that side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:51 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.