inane Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 In all fairness both need to happen, we need a North Fraser Perimeter road as well for that matter. I just disagree, and so does research. More roads = more cars. It is not a sustainable approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 It seems to be improving though. There's more and more density coming along the major routes (Scott Road, King George, 152 etc) and the re-vitalization/densification (is that a word?) of the Whalley area is slowly taking form etc. Langley centre is a bit of a mess though for how many people/much stuff moves through there. Oh if I can't get my yard in New West I will resort to Whalley don't worry. Why let my ghetto street cred go to waste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I just disagree, and so does research. More roads = more cars. It is not a sustainable approach. IF the north and south fraser transit divorce and we toll the screen line it would be cruel and unusal to not put in perimeter roads along the screenline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) I just disagree, and so does research. More roads = more cars. It is not a sustainable approach. So take some other crappy side ones away then or re-purpose them with wider sidewalks, bike routes, cafes yadda yadda. Better roads = better movement of people/goods. Right now we have a lot of bass-ackwards roads systems and not streamlining them in to something better is stupid. Edited February 10, 2011 by J.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 So take some other crappy side ones away then or re-purpose them with wider sidewalks, bike routes, cafes yadda yadda. Better roads = better movement of people/goods. Right now we have a lot of bass-ackwards roads systems and not streamlining them in to something better is stupid. I agree better roads = better movement of people/goods. Better however does not equal more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I agree better roads = better movement of people/goods. Better however does not equal more. No but it does not preclude it, and reducing supply is not the only transporation demand measure out there. (Like the screenline for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I agree better roads = better movement of people/goods. Better however does not equal more. No one said more but you. Those are your words. If the Stewardson, Columbia, Front, Colmbia (again) and Brunette mess were cleaned up and made in to a proper route then the "downtown" New West area could have much reduced traffic, bike lanes, transit lanes, wider sidewalks etc, etc . North of Columbia from say 1st to 10th would be all the better for it AND traffic would move better. Win, win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 No one said more but you. Those are your words. If the Stewardson, Columbia, Front, Colmbia (again) and Brunette mess were cleaned up and made in to a proper route then the "downtown" New West area could have much reduced traffic, bike lanes, transit lanes, wider sidewalks etc, etc . North of Columbia from say 1st to 10th would be all the better for it AND traffic would move better. Win, win. Yay! Although it seems a lot of planners for some stupid reason like to think "more traffic = less cars". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 No one said more but you. Those are your words. If the Stewardson, Columbia, Front, Colmbia (again) and Brunette mess were cleaned up and made in to a proper route then the "downtown" New West area could have much reduced traffic, bike lanes, transit lanes, wider sidewalks etc, etc . North of Columbia from say 1st to 10th would be all the better for it AND traffic would move better. Win, win. It's not my words, it's the billions being paved into the earth this very moment. I don't know New West enough to say anything intelligent about it, but I can assure you putting a new highway through a City is not going to improve anything in the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 It is improving, which makes the hwy 1 expansion/gateway/sfpr all the more tragic. It's forcing the whole south fraser to take massive steps back after struggling to take steps forward.... The tragic part is that it should have been done 20 years ago unfortunately city planners and engineers are like mechanics they only tell you whats wrong at the moment not what's going to happen. But they tell you how to avoid that by regularly scheduled maintenance.Know what has happened is that you didn't keep up with what you should have done and we are paying for it know by increased costs of construction and land prices.` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Pattullo rehab means no toll Costs of modernized or new bridge A toll will not be required on the Pattullo Bridge if the aging structure is rehabilitated instead of being replaced by a new, six-lane, billion-dollar crossing, according to TransLink. Spokesman Ken Hardie said Wednesday the transportation authority still considers a new, six-lane bridge to be the best option. But detailed business cases are being done for rehabilitating the current fourlane bridge to modern four-lane standards or for building a new four-lane bridge. "I think it's safe to say that if we went with a rehab we would not be looking at tolls," said Hardie, adding that "if the cost of a rehab was too high, it would be far more economical to build something new." A new bridge would require tolls. It would also require a supplement to TransLink's plans, triggering a need for approval by the professional board that runs the organization and then approval from the regional Mayors' Council on Transportation. On Wednesday, Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts was surprised to hear there was consideration for four lanes instead of six. "We do need a solution, that is the bottom line," she said. "It's 75 years old, it doesn't function the way a bridge should function," said Watts. The Pattullo, which crosses the Fraser River between New Westminster and Surrey, was built in 1937. Its four lanes pose a safety hazard because they are narrower than modern standards. TransLink included a six-lane replacement for Pattullo in its long-term planning because it was expected to be funded by tolls and a replacement was anticipated by 2020. The decision to look at other options came last year from a steering committee on the project that included provincial engineers and their TransLink counterparts. The province's engineers suggested more analysis and a detailed business case be conducted on either rehabilitating the existing structure or building a new four-lane bridge instead of a new six-laner. "If you're going to invest taxpayers' dollars or you're going to ask consumers to pay, you want to make sure you'd checked all the options," said provincial Transportation Minister Shirley Bond. Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/Pattullo+rehab+means+toll/4255900/story.html#ixzz1DYazStHZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 It's not my words, it's the billions being paved into the earth this very moment. I don't know New West enough to say anything intelligent about it, but I can assure you putting a new highway through a City is not going to improve anything in the long term. As you said, you don't know enough to say anything intelligent about the area... A proper highway through there would VASTLY improve that area. The traffic's coming through there regardless so why not have a faster, safer, direct route that doesn't force people through residential streets they shouldn't be on in the first place. A large amount of the time they're illegally speeding and driving in an unsafe manner making it even worse for pedestrians etc. You push the traffic right to the waterfront and problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Pattullo rehab means no toll Costs of modernized or new bridge A toll will not be required on the Pattullo Bridge if the aging structure is rehabilitated instead of being replaced by a new, six-lane, billion-dollar crossing, according to TransLink. Spokesman Ken Hardie said Wednesday the transportation authority still considers a new, six-lane bridge to be the best option. But detailed business cases are being done for rehabilitating the current fourlane bridge to modern four-lane standards or for building a new four-lane bridge. "I think it's safe to say that if we went with a rehab we would not be looking at tolls," said Hardie, adding that "if the cost of a rehab was too high, it would be far more economical to build something new." A new bridge would require tolls. It would also require a supplement to TransLink's plans, triggering a need for approval by the professional board that runs the organization and then approval from the regional Mayors' Council on Transportation. On Wednesday, Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts was surprised to hear there was consideration for four lanes instead of six. "We do need a solution, that is the bottom line," she said. "It's 75 years old, it doesn't function the way a bridge should function," said Watts. The Pattullo, which crosses the Fraser River between New Westminster and Surrey, was built in 1937. Its four lanes pose a safety hazard because they are narrower than modern standards. TransLink included a six-lane replacement for Pattullo in its long-term planning because it was expected to be funded by tolls and a replacement was anticipated by 2020. The decision to look at other options came last year from a steering committee on the project that included provincial engineers and their TransLink counterparts. The province's engineers suggested more analysis and a detailed business case be conducted on either rehabilitating the existing structure or building a new four-lane bridge instead of a new six-laner. "If you're going to invest taxpayers' dollars or you're going to ask consumers to pay, you want to make sure you'd checked all the options," said provincial Transportation Minister Shirley Bond. Read more: http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz1DYazStHZ For those waiting for the results allow me to do some fortunetelling. Even if you just rehab it your going to need a toll, the bridge is literally falling apart. To fix it would be super expensive and if you have no toll revenue the business case will be extremely poor. Replacing it with a four or six lane structure is more or less the same thing. Might as well make it six and have hov lanes. If they ARE doing a business study they should look at fixing the adjacent 100 year old rail bridge. This would increase our river and rail shipping capacity which last I looked is just the kind if thing recomended by those anti highway types (and in this case they would be spot on). Of course that means the real bill is like 2 billion dollars. It would win the cost - benefit ratio contest though. It should be mentioned that even if you have some sort of fairy dust that could rehab the existing bridge at low cost and eliminate any tolling (and that would be some impressive fairy dust) that simple supply and demand would ensure that the untolled bridge will be cronically congested. Why pay a toll if there's a nearbye free option? Tolling the Port Mann pretty much mandates tolling the Putello IMO. Might as well get something for the money. Combine that with river front redevelopement and make sure you have bike/ped crossings on the bridge and it could actually end up being super cool. Edited February 10, 2011 by ronthecivil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Totally agree Ron. I mean I'm glad they're "doing their homework" but I think we're at the if it quacks like a duck stage here. If someone thinks that "modernizing" it is a good/fiscally wise/viable option... they're looking through some awfully rosy glasses! So are you suggesting they design the new bridge to incorporate the rail as well (say below car traffic)? Sort of "double deck" but with mixed use (auto on top, rail, ped and bike below)? I like it! Add in the NFPR and I'm sold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Totally agree Ron. I mean I'm glad they're "doing their homework" but I think we're at the if it quacks like a duck stage here. If someone thinks that "modernizing" it is a good/fiscally wise/viable option... they're looking through some awfully rosy glasses! So are you suggesting they design the new bridge to incorporate the rail as well (say below car traffic)? Sort of "double deck" but with mixed use (auto on top, rail, ped and bike below)? I like it! Add in the NFPR and I'm sold! There's a reason I say 2 billion. That's a LOT of money. And I don't know if it would be one bridge with cars on top and rail below or two side by side bridges. The big deal in fact would be that if you raise the rail bridge to allow for navigation (which would be the only realistic option if your spending the big dollars, the retractible bridge ends up loosing the cost-benefit contest if you want to analyse that) is that you would have to rejig the road and rails for miles around. So if you're doing that you at it might as well do the north fraser perimeter road while your at it. And if we're doing that might as well do the riverfront greenway from Coquitlam to the Vancouver border Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 So side by side is more viable then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 As you said, you don't know enough to say anything intelligent about the area... A proper highway through there would VASTLY improve that area. The traffic's coming through there regardless so why not have a faster, safer, direct route that doesn't force people through residential streets they shouldn't be on in the first place. A large amount of the time they're illegally speeding and driving in an unsafe manner making it even worse for pedestrians etc. You push the traffic right to the waterfront and problem solved. You want a highway along the waterfront?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 You want a highway along the waterfront?!?!? Have you seen the New West waterfront? That would be why it's called the North Fraser PERIMETER Road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 You want a highway along the waterfront?!?!? Urban arterial. Not highway. Kind of like marine way in Burnaby where the road is near the water but the waterfront is actually a park with a greenway in it. Incidently, New West drew up plans where they would build their downtown core overtop of the road, so even if it was highway standard it wouldn't be in the way. That way the road (whatever form) isn't in the way, and people going through new west don't jam up the whole town (default setting for New West). And you still keep your waterfont access. Win win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 So side by side is more viable then Whether you build it side by side, independant, or one super bridge (I like that option the best myself) you are still going to have to rejig a whole bunch of road and rail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now