HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1301  
Old Posted May 5, 2017, 5:58 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
actually, it is an issue. they are building it with the ability to extended the edges. i.e. not wide enough for 6, but expandable to 6. not the way the AFB was done. there is a diagram showing this many pages back in this thread. unless something has changed since then...
Exactly, the new pedestrian and cycling lanes will be added to the sides of the bridge when the 6th lane is needed.

I am guessing this alone will probably be a 6 to 12 myth project costing 20 million or more.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1302  
Old Posted May 5, 2017, 6:09 AM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
I would like to see the numbers after the bridge toll issue is resolved. as of now it's skewed because the Pattullo has no tolls so it has the appearance that there's a massive need for the bridge but in reality it's people being cheap. I'm curious what the numbers would be if they made the tolls consistent on all bridges how much the numbers would drop.

I have a feeling the justification for going for 6 lanes immediately is because the proponents are pretending that the status quo will stay the same but I have a feeling it will be the Port Mann bridge all over again once the Pattullo is tolled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1303  
Old Posted May 5, 2017, 7:50 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
The Pattullo Bridge is a little different in this regard, as the 3rd lane in each direction would have simply been add / drop lanes rather than true through lanes.

Look at the diagrams, overall a good design, but all of the awkward merges shown on the approaches (created choke points) are artificially created due to the 4 lane opening agenda (essentially the entire design of the project is obviously designed for a 6 lane structure)
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1304  
Old Posted May 6, 2017, 6:17 AM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
I would like to see the numbers after the bridge toll issue is resolved. as of now it's skewed because the Pattullo has no tolls so it has the appearance that there's a massive need for the bridge but in reality it's people being cheap. I'm curious what the numbers would be if they made the tolls consistent on all bridges how much the numbers would drop.

I have a feeling the justification for going for 6 lanes immediately is because the proponents are pretending that the status quo will stay the same but I have a feeling it will be the Port Mann bridge all over again once the Pattullo is tolled.
If they cap tolls at $500 or eliminate them all together, it will be a free for all on any of the bridges. I easily spend more than $500 a year. Watch how busy the GEB, and PMB, becomes. This would ease congestion on the current free bridges. However, who is going to make up the difference to Trio and the consortium who built and operate the GEB? Guess what?? We are one way or another.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1305  
Old Posted May 7, 2017, 1:01 AM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvug View Post
@s211 What's your source? I'm surprised to hear this.
A well-placed Translink staffer. That's all I can say.
__________________
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
     
     
  #1306  
Old Posted May 20, 2017, 5:44 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
I thought the NDP were pro transit and anti cars. Eliminating tolls on all bridges just sends the message that it is better to get back into your car and forget about taking the bus or Skytrain. Seems like Big John is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1307  
Old Posted May 20, 2017, 10:08 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainguy View Post
I thought the NDP were pro transit and anti cars. Eliminating tolls on all bridges just sends the message that it is better to get back into your car and forget about taking the bus or Skytrain. Seems like Big John is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
I totally concur.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1308  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2017, 6:03 AM
flipper316 flipper316 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 863
http://www.theprovince.com/news/loca...429/story.html

Hepner such a fraud. So it seems like according to this article the NDP is for replacing this bridge which will cost a ton of money just like GMT. So why are they seemingly for this new bridge while the tunnel is was past its due date and we all know that one might get cancelled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1309  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2017, 6:17 AM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper316 View Post
So why are they seemingly for this new bridge while the tunnel is was past its due date and we all know that one might get cancelled.
The Patullo is a lot further past it's due date than the GMT. When was the last time the tunnel caught fire?

And the claim that the tunnel needs to be replaced due to earthquake concerns seems a bit dubious given that the government's own experts said that it wasn't a concern back before they got bridge fever.

If river crossings were replaced according to their structural need then the Patullo would have been done far before the Port Mann was.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1310  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2017, 7:35 AM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
The Patullo is a lot further past it's due date than the GMT. When was the last time the tunnel caught fire?

And the claim that the tunnel needs to be replaced due to earthquake concerns seems a bit dubious given that the government's own experts said that it wasn't a concern back before they got bridge fever.

If river crossings were replaced according to their structural need then the Patullo would have been done far before the Port Mann was.
They're both past their prime but the GMT is much more important piece of infrastructure that needs to be replaced before the Patullo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1311  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2017, 3:14 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
They're both past their prime but the GMT is much more important piece of infrastructure that needs to be replaced before the Patullo
LOL, so wrong. The bias from some posters is hilariously obvious on this forum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1312  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2017, 11:34 PM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
LOL, so wrong. The bias from some posters is hilariously obvious on this forum.
Bingo. It was a loaded troll comment. Not worth starting a rebuttal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1313  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 12:21 AM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,484
libtard might seem to troll (often?), but he is also largely correct on this. Both are high priority, both are past due, and the GMT crossing is the larger connection. (I use the Patullo considerably more than the tunnel.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1314  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 8:09 AM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal View Post
libtard might seem to troll (often?), but he is also largely correct on this. Both are high priority, both are past due, and the GMT crossing is the larger connection. (I use the Patullo considerably more than the tunnel.)
They call me a troll. Why is it so important to replace a bridge leading into new Westminster when they haven't played ball with any transportation plans in the past. Is the NFPR included in this Patullo proposal? If not then screw them they should be happy if the Patullo becomes unuseable it'll mean less cars driving through their precious city. GMT is part of a major transportation corridor with the ROW already set aside and prepped.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1315  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 8:14 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
Bingo. It was a loaded troll comment. Not worth starting a rebuttal.
Haha. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You are one the most well-known trolls on SSP. I know that. Others know that. Time to shape up or ship out.

Last edited by Stingray2004; Jul 16, 2017 at 8:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1316  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 8:54 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
They call me a troll. Why is it so important to replace a bridge leading into new Westminster when they haven't played ball with any transportation plans in the past. Is the NFPR included in this Patullo proposal? If not then screw them they should be happy if the Patullo becomes unuseable it'll mean less cars driving through their precious city. GMT is part of a major transportation corridor with the ROW already set aside and prepped.
Both are pretty well used...

Patullo is a ticking time bomb without factoring in seismics. GMT is a time bomb when you factor in seismics.

I'd worry more about Patullo than GMT, but I agree about New West historically being difficult about it.

Burnaby does however have the RoW for the Stormont Connector ready to go. It wouldn't take much for it to be full expressway between Patullo and Gaglardi.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1317  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 5:51 PM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Haha. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You are one the most well-known trolls on SSP. I know that. Others know that. Time to shape up or ship out.
Oh stop being a crybaby because I created an unbiased political discussion where I don't bash others.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1318  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 9:00 PM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
They call me a troll. Why is it so important to replace a bridge leading into new Westminster when they haven't played ball with any transportation plans in the past. Is the NFPR included in this Patullo proposal? If not then screw them they should be happy if the Patullo becomes unuseable it'll mean less cars driving through their precious city. GMT is part of a major transportation corridor with the ROW already set aside and prepped.
Well, there you go. I agreed with your prioritization, but this characterization is just stupid. You are back on the hyperbolic idiot list.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1319  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 11:26 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
Bingo. It was a loaded troll comment. Not worth starting a rebuttal.
That wasn't at all a loaded troll comment, at all! Some of you need to calm down. What he said was totally valid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1320  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 11:53 PM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
Both are pretty well used...

Patullo is a ticking time bomb without factoring in seismics. GMT is a time bomb when you factor in seismics.

I'd worry more about Patullo than GMT, but I agree about New West historically being difficult about it.

Burnaby does however have the RoW for the Stormont Connector ready to go. It wouldn't take much for it to be full expressway between Patullo and Gaglardi.
I classify the Stormont Connector in the same category as a bridge at the bottom of Boundary. We shouldn't even entertain the idea because it's never going to happen.
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 11:47 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.