It's New Bridge Time (again)!!!

[dinosaur]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

They need to turn that wooden bridge by Braid st into an actual functioning bridge (is it still out of commission?) iirc new west has always been against turning that into a real road because they're afraid of the traffic which is

ideally instead of all the expansion/development that new west has been doing would be cancelled and instead that space should be used to expand the roads

the traffic isn't going anywhere, literally, and they're just making it worse imo by making room to expand the population but ignoring the roads that that new population is going to be traveling on






surrey new west sucks :P

That Braid bridge is now open...ish. Its pretty much hit and miss, lol. I referenced this bridge last page, I think, and it is literally a "he said, she said" fight between NW and Coq. NW wants the issue fixed, but wants Coquitlam to do some shit and Coq was its fixed and NW to do some shit.

Neither wants to do what the other city is telling them so in the meantime, we are stuck dealing with a retarded bridge from the 1500s.

[murd0c]

All the city's have to work together for the issues to be resolved. Translink is a big issue as well because it seems like they are just in it to make more money so they can receive bigger bonuses.


Hopefully this thread keeps going this way, it's nice to have an actual discussion now and not the pointless BS.

[fliptuner]

New West Connector

Hwy1, KGH/Scott, Queensborough, Marine.... problem solved

[yray]

^murrican waterfront

two levels of highway along the fraser

[melloman]

Originally Posted by dinosaur

Patullo: The Past Bridge. Should have been done years ago...not necessarily for traffic and congestion reasons, but for safety. Rush hour traffic is OK...it will likely get worse, but currently and for the next few years it will be OK. This problem is, we get an earthquake over 3.5 and everyone driving over is swimming to their grave.

If a earthquake above 5 hits the GVRD, Patullo isn't the only bridge going down. Lions Gate will have a catastrophic failure (it already gets closed due to high winds), Richmond will have liquefaction causing the foundations on the Richmond side of Knight/Oak/Arthur Lang to sink and crack the concrete (catastrophic failure) and many buildings are going down.

I wouldn't be surprised if Alex Fraser even gets into trouble with an earthquake, yet more then likely both sides will have settlement so it might beable to balance itself out...

Patullo needs to be upgraded due to population. People want to get into/out of Vancouver/Burnaby/NW and the Patullo just isn't up to par. Yet there isn't a nice way to solve the issue because Translink is in charge. Lets not forget, New Wests council proposal was to CLOSE the Patullo PERMANENTLY.

[fliptuner]

Originally Posted by melloman

Lets not forget, New Wests council proposal was to CLOSE the Patullo PERMANENTLY.

[murd0c]

I was speaking to my boss the other day and he said the Alex Fraser is going to go down when a big earthquake hits as well. He said when it was built in the 80's a different kind of concrete was used which won't allow it to bend/flex like the standards of today's bridges. I call BS but wouldnt be surprised since technology has changed so much in the past 25 years.

[PeanutButter]

The thing I don't understand is why tolls are so expensive?
Why can't they just be like $1?

If they simply reduced the toll to $1-2 round trip no one really complain and would be way more affordable for people using it. Especially, when there isn't really a free alternative to leave Surrey in that zone.

[melloman]

^^ Can't line the big bosses pockets with a $1 toll.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by murd0c

I was speaking to my boss the other day and he said the Alex Fraser is going to go down when a big earthquake hits as well. He said when it was built in the 80's a different kind of concrete was used which won't allow it to bend/flex like the standards of today's bridges. I call BS but wouldnt be surprised since technology has changed so much in the past 25 years.

I'm not an engineer but I disagree with your boss. Those cables should allow the bridge to roll with the earthquake, the panels will actually have room to move. I know when we construct buildings it's all about deflection, allowing walls and ceiling to move, I kind of see the cables working like that.

I could be totally wrong but that's just my opinion.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by predom

Vancouver+burnaby+coquitlam are gonna be up in arms over this. No one wants more traffic from surrey.
Posted via RS Mobile

Originally Posted by dinosaur

You do know there is already is an existing bridge, right?

LOL, thank you made my shitty day a little better. Some people are just that sheltered but not to sheltered to have a dumb opinion.

[Phil@rise]

if they were genuinely attempting to move people into transit and cycling as supposed to using these toll bridges they would just leave them be not build massive revenue generating wide multi lane bridges.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Fucking hell, I was waiting for this.

Glad I didn't disappoint

[bloodmack]

Originally Posted by meowjinboo

New west has to be the most depressing area of vancouver.

Probably because its still got the word New in its name even tho its not so New anymore.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Bigger bridge=more capacity=more cars.

You can never solve the problem of traffic with more capacity. Cannot win it. This argument was made with the port mann project. It's all pretty now, lanes galore. It will drive more growth in Langley, and those people will drive the bridge and be more cars on it. Eventually, you will have more gridlock(haha) as pure volume than you had before. It's not hard to see where the new bottlenecks are.

In other words, the "if you build it, they will come." Only problem with that is, if you DON'T build it, they will still come... and they will sit and idle all the way back to 200th St.

Upgrading the Port Mann had been debated for decades, and that argument was brought every time. So what happened? They kept putting it off, and the population kept growing, and the traffic long with it.

So you replace the Patullo with a 6 lane bridge, because hey! it makes sense right?

So then, we need 6 lanes of road coming off the bridge. One peels off to go to Columbia in either direction, and 2 need to be blasted through McBride to feed through into the middle of the city. So now McBride is a highway. It kind of is now, but not really. If memory serves its 2 lanes into New West from the bridge, and 1 lane onto the bridge, with one lane on from Royal.

Pretty much the gist of an email I just sent to Simi Sara following their segment on this issue:

I think the biggest problem they're going to find, regardless of which bridge option is chosen, is that there's just nowhere to go on the New West side... and New West seems to prefer it that way.

Look at the Braid St. Bailey bridge - Coquitlam built a nice, wide, smooth United Way up to their side of it... and New West initially responded by putting up a locked gate on their side (eventually removed, ostensibly for safety concerns from the fire department).

Many of your callers mentioned how hard it is to get around IN New West as well... on the Queensborough bridge, one side empties nicely onto Hwy. 91 for smooth traffic flow... the other end either puts you (slowly) onto Marine Way (not too bad), or onto the headache that is Stewardson Way.

And similarly with the Patullo: going east, when you leave the bridge, you immediately have some fairly high-flow options to get away from the area... going West, you're stuck on narrow, twisty, crowded surface streets. A new bridge, as much as it's needed, would only exacerbate the problem, making it quick and easy to LEAVE New West, but a nightmare to get anywhere in or beyond the city.

You will never win.

We are a city, with rivers and water. It's never going to be pretty in terms of traffic. Never. In the middle of land, you can have ring roads, and 50 highways leading in and out.

NOT building new infrastructure is not the solution. Unfortunately too often, what NEEDS to get done gets reduced to half-measures and half-assed solutions that don't even half-solve the problem, and then people look and say, "See, we did all that, and it's no better".

If you put a new six-lane bridge in but don't give people anywhere to go, it's going to be a clusterfuck. They got it right (mostly) with the new Port Mann, by not JUST building a new bridge, but by upgrading the highway on both sides, an greatly improving the on- and off-ramp network. Cape Horn has been re-aligned two or three times in the last 25 years, but never FIXED until now. The only remaining problem there is access to downtown: they're funneling cars more efficiently to 1st Ave. and East Hastings, where it will just get worse with the majority of freeway traffic heading downtown.

But on the upside... it may be that if you build it, they will come... but they can also leave. I've had it takeover an hour just to get from Grandview to the Brunette exit, because traffic was always plugged up getting over the bridge and through Surrey. New bridge, wider road, and better access means once it's done, traffic OUT of Vancouver/Burnaby should flow a lot smoother too. Ditto a new Patullo, will not just bring people into New West more easily, it will reduce the problems with them leaving.

[PeanutButter]

Originally Posted by melloman

^^ Can't line the big bosses pockets with a $1 toll.

Wouldn't the revenue just go back to the government though? It's not like the bridge is privately funded/operated, is it?

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by melloman

Why does it matter if you live with your parents or not? If I'm taking the bridge to work, I still end up losing just as much money as you do. I might not need to pay rent, but that was YOUR CHOICE to move out. It's a "luxury you chose. Blah blah blah, bitch and moan. /end.

Sorry, but not everyone wants to be 30 and have their mom doing their laundry.

Some of us in the real world had parents, that for some unknown reason had their own lives and couldn't maintain a home until whenever for you to come and go as you need.

All of which has absolutely sweet fuck all to do with a BRIDGE

[dinosaur]

I'd like to see .50-$1 tolls. $3-4 is too much.

People will always bitch about tolls...but less would bitch about 50 cents. I think people can see the justification at 50 cents per use for a new bridge.

Can't wait for the announcement that the tolls are going up in a few years

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by melloman

You have some complete garbage points, and some good ones.

Why does it matter if you live with your parents or not? If I'm taking the bridge to work, I still end up losing just as much money as you do. I might not need to pay rent, but that was YOUR CHOICE to move out. It's a "luxury you chose. Blah blah blah, bitch and moan. /end.

Not everyone gets the "choice" to live at their parents well into their 20's.
Posted via RS Mobile

[unit]

Originally Posted by murd0c

Every city has its good and bad parts. I find it funny how people talk smack about someones home when they truely don't know how it is. I have lived in Surrey (Fleetwood) for 25yrs. It's nice and laid back with some crime but every place deals with those exact issues.

I don't understand why a topic about a bridge replacment has to bring up how crappy a city is by someone they doesn't deserve a point of view since they only take the bridge a couple times a year.

It's not about which city is better it's about what is best for everyone which right now isn't working what so ever.

i lived in surrey for about 13 years, and asides from fraser heights, fleetwood (these days), and south surrey, it pretty much lives up to its reputation.
i live in richmond now and i gotta say theres nothing like going for a run and never thinking twice about what neighborhood you're in.
i would not go for a night run in most parts of whalley or guildford.

[murd0c]

Originally Posted by unit

i lived in surrey for about 13 years, and asides from fraser heights, fleetwood (these days), and south surrey, it pretty much lives up to its reputation.
i live in richmond now and i gotta say theres nothing like going for a run and never thinking twice about what neighborhood you're in.
i would not go for a night run in most parts of whalley or guildford.

I would be more worried about getting into a car accident in Richmond then I am driving around anywhere at any time in surrey

Lets keep this on track tho

[bcedhk]

Originally Posted by murd0c

I would be more worried about getting into a car accident in Richmond then I am driving around anywhere at any time in surrey

Lets keep this on track tho

I rather be in a car accident then get in the mist of a drive by shooting.

[minoru_tanaka]

Originally Posted by murd0c

I would be more worried about getting into a car accident in Richmond then I am driving around anywhere at any time in surrey

Lets keep this on track tho

If we can fail people for saying Surrey and New West are bad then we can fail them for saying Richmond and we all know you mean chinese drivers are bad.

[Mike Oxbig]

If tolls keep Surrey people out of Vancouver, i'd vote to have toll to be higher up price. Would suck to live in Surrey and work in Vancouver.

[Lomac]

Let's keep the Surrey/Richmond hate of of this, m'kay? It's bloody tiresome seeing good threads derailed in such a way.

There's a reason Fight Club exists.