stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge (Pattullo Bridge Replacement) | U/C

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by mcj

Look at the rendering, those exist on the New West side.

there are no add drop lanes in this project

there are on/off ramps - but they are not A/D lanes, which would have significantly improved safety and congestion without unnecessarily inducing demand

that is why the 124th st interchange was cancelled - without a climbing lane the merge would have been unsafe

it is possible to add them in future at significant cost

[Bobert]

That north bound bike lane is eventually gonna have to go to make a collector for NB Bridge -> EB Columbia

[madog222]

Yeah that’s part of the design, sort of.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Bobert

That north bound bike lane is eventually gonna have to go to make a collector for NB Bridge -> EB Columbia

the craziest part is its not a simple just move the jersey barriers over. this is what was done on the Alex Fraser. it also opened with 4 lanes, but was built to its full size, with jersey barriers. 1yr later they opened the full 6 lanes.

this one needs actual construction adds on, by cantelivering the sides. its asinine and will cost lots and lots of $$$ with major construction impacts.

it is so stupid and short sighted. at least go the AFB route. sigh.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

its asinine and will cost lots and lots of $$$ with major construction impacts.

What's more asinine is dumping another lane worth of trucks and private vehicles into the second most densely populated city in the entire country without any capacity additions aside from the bridge itself.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by mcj

What's more asinine is dumping another lane worth of trucks and private vehicles into the second most densely populated city in the entire country without any capacity additions aside from the bridge itself.

its not more asinine at all. the RoWs exist for handling the bridge traffic. wouldnt be hard to address this in the future.

where as literally needing to build a cantilever on a bridge while its in use, closing lanes, closing it to pedestrians, closing it to bikes. the amount of $$ that will require, and the amount of disruption required is crazy.

it should be done the same way as the AFB was. full width, with jersey barriers to keep it 4 lanes. this would make future expansion easier for everyone, and it would address the "issue" you think exists today.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

its not more asinine at all. the RoWs exist for handling the bridge traffic. wouldnt be hard to address this in the future.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. There's hardly even space for sidewalks along Royal Avenue. 10th is just as constrained. "wouldn't be that hard" sure if you're playing SimCity and don't mind demolishing development along the RoW.

[Klazu]

It's not dumb but straight up imbecile not to add any lanes. The entire project is a joke for the cost and nothing will be different for traffic flow when the new bridge opens. Those short merges are going to have traffic crawling and cause a lot of accidents.

I really hope they will completely scrap the bikelanes to add another lane in each direction. There is so little bike traffic across the bridge, that it will make Port Mann bikelanes look busy.

Not a single car will be reduced by not building lanes, but New Westminster residents will surely continue to enjoy congestion for decades to come.

[officedweller]

I wonder if there's a possibility of closing one bike lane and installing a reversible lane in the middle?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Not a single car will be reduced by not building lanes, but New Westminster residents will surely continue to enjoy congestion for decades to come.

Not sure why you think New Westminster residents would want even more cars to be passing through their city.

But this is a tired argument. "One more lane" has been proven time and time again to not work to improve congestion. What does improve congestion is better options to get people out of cars. Taking away bike lanes in favour of car lanes is the very opposite of what we should be doing.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by mcj

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. There's hardly even space for sidewalks along Royal Avenue. 10th is just as constrained. "wouldn't be that hard" sure if you're playing SimCity and don't mind demolishing development along the RoW.

why would Royal/10th need to be expanded? most people go the route of mcbride, which has a wide RoW. its easier to do road works, than bridge works. and as develoopment happens, RoWs routinly get widen as a condition. is this not possible? guess not in your world. even though CoV does this on a crap load of roads all over the city. and why do you think that this 3rd land would all of a sudden require widening Royal/10th? it wouldnt be much different than having the on/off ramps now. it would just prevent needing to do all this merging back and forth, creating a bottle-neck on the bridge.

i also like the fact you completely ignore all the issues of having to widen later, which was designed into the bridge from the beginning, vs doing it now. you just gloss over all those points and get hung up on 1 little point. this bridge is supposed to last for 100yrs, and we arent even making it easy to expand later. it was designed for this, so clearly im not the crazy one thinking this isnt a possibility.

you also completely ignore the fact i pointed out it could be OPENED WITH 4 LANES TODAY. the only difference being WIDER sidewalks/bike paths until the future 6 lanes are needed. thats bad to you i guess. but nope, you ignore all those, get hung up on WE CANT DO ANY FUTURE PLANNING ON THIS BRIDGE OR LEAVE SPACE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION.

nope, its better to just do nothing. pretend all is good. so that in 10yrs we can just be like "i guess this new bridge needs another $100+ million, closing of sidewalks, closing of curb lanes, major disruptions, to just do what we should have done before"

this is the exact same thing that happened with the SFPR/91 interchange. we did it pretty soon after, spent way more $$$, took way longer, and caused transportation issues. if we had just done it before. but nahh, screw future planning right?

[mcj]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

why would Royal/10th need to be expanded? most people go the route of mcbride, which has a wide RoW.

Because those are the western feeder routes for truck traffic for this bridge and they both cut through residential areas of NW. Ever look at a map and see where McBride goes? It's not some magical road where all the traffic on it disappears after a kilometer or two. Not to mention McBride also has residential areas, Queen's Park, our only aquatic and community centre, and a middle school along it. Increasing the road width would put all of these places that residents use and enjoy closer to vehicular noise/plastic/emissions pollution which is known to have severe impacts on residents health. Not really interested in sacrificing all that so someone from Surrey can race through to Burnaby (or vice versa) slightly more conveniently.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by mcj

Because those are the western feeder routes for truck traffic for this bridge and they both cut through residential areas of NW. Ever look at a map and see where McBride goes? It's not some magical road where all the traffic on it disappears after a kilometer or two. ...

Sigh... the missing Stormont Connector

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/mcbride-connector-burnaby-pattullo-bridge

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/bu...-highway-1-thoroughfare-proposal-3128703

https://pub-burnaby.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=48818


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/mcbride-connector-burnaby-pattullo-bridge

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Not sure why you think New Westminster residents would want even more cars to be passing through their city.

But this is a tired argument. "One more lane" has been proven time and time again to not work to improve congestion. What does improve congestion is better options to get people out of cars. Taking away bike lanes in favour of car lanes is the very opposite of what we should be doing.

“One more lane” certainly helped the port Mann bridge and highway 1 thru Surrey, Coquitlam, Burnaby etc. hardly any complete standstills now. So yeah, it does work. People don’t just obtain more vehicles because a new lane is added to a highway they don’t use.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Bobert

Feels like they easily could've added in a WB HWY 17 -> Bridge connection, and maybe loop in a Bridge -> EB HWY17 connection in there. Wasted opportunity to make some better connections.

Have the feeling folks will be making those and similar statements for a while with this project until its properly (and expensively) re-adjusted to the format it should have been from day one.

[Metro-One]

Given the design they went with, the bridge at bare minimum should have been opened with 5 lanes. The southbound on ramp to the west bound 17 off ramp add drop lane should have been included on opening day.

The Surrey side though lost out the most on this project, the dropping of the new interchanges and free flow components for all directions to and from the SFPR was the worst after the NDP were elected and took control of the project.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by mcj

Because those are the western feeder routes for truck traffic for this bridge and they both cut through residential areas of NW. Ever look at a map and see where McBride goes? It's not some magical road where all the traffic on it disappears after a kilometer or two. Not to mention McBride also has residential areas, Queen's Park, our only aquatic and community centre, and a middle school along it. Increasing the road width would put all of these places that residents use and enjoy closer to vehicular noise/plastic/emissions pollution which is known to have severe impacts on residents health. Not really interested in sacrificing all that so someone from Surrey can race through to Burnaby (or vice versa) slightly more conveniently.

Don't you love having the same argument every five years with people who just look at a map and say "yeah let's blast a six lane highway straight through there"?

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

“One more lane” certainly helped the port Mann bridge and highway 1 thru Surrey, Coquitlam, Burnaby etc. hardly any complete standstills now.

That's because the roads feeding that section of the TCH weren't expanded, so the capacity constraint just shifted down the road (i.e., to the IWMB, to the two lane highway through the Fraser Valley, to congested on/off ramps at Grandview Highway, etc.).

Maybe it was shortsighted to not cantilever the Pattullo from the get go. But without turning KGB, Royal Avenue, McBride, and Columbia/Brunette into free-flowing roadways the extra vehicles crossing the Pattullo on the additional lanes would just get stuck sitting in traffic somewhere else.

I really think the Pattullo should be tolled. Not just to pay it off, but also as a congestion mitigation measure. Wherever possible, traffic cutting through New West or Surrey should be encouraged to avoid the city centres by taking the TCH, the 91, the 99, or transit. There is a massive park-and-ride lot right at Scott Road station yet plenty of Surrey residents drive right past this lot on their way to work in downtown Vancouver.

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

“One more lane” certainly helped the port Mann bridge and highway 1 thru Surrey, Coquitlam, Burnaby etc. hardly any complete standstills now. So yeah, it does work. People don’t just obtain more vehicles because a new lane is added to a highway they don’t use.

I do agree that it helped on the Port Mann. Specifically, imho it is the elimination of merges that has helped there. When your bridge (or tunnel) is a pinch point then there will be backups.

One more lane is really only "one more lane" if it expands the number of lanes over the length of the highway.

That being said New Westminster doesn't want another two additional lanes of traffic coming directly into the city. Port Mann is different in that there is highway at both ends of that bridge.

[makr3trkr]

6 lane bridge does not equal 6 lanes of through traffic.

1 lane could go directly to/from McBride, 1 lane to Royal, and 1 lane to Columbia/Front, and it would be far safer and less congested than 4 lanes without requiring any "increased throughput" or road upgrades / freeway