|
Post by Cable Cassidy on Aug 26, 2013 9:30:47 GMT -8
Well it was just a bit of a suprise cause my g/f and I were at the PNE Saturday and we choose a hotel in Langley cause our regular hotel or any hotel around YVR was booked so we stayed in Langley but I thought oh yeah we will take highway 1 from the PNE to highway 15 to highway 10 but oh we dident know there was a toll on the Port Mann so we exited to go a different way cause we had a GPS but that dident help cause it wanted us to go back onto highway 1. We ended up in Port Coquitlam then just decided to take the Golden Ears bridge and that way out to Langley. If it wasent for the highway being backed up at 11pm we would of probably stayed on highway 1. Still took us an hour to get there and still had to or will have to pay the toll. After a long day at the PNE I was about to lose it, lol! I think it is stupid as highway 1 is the major highway out to hope and the interior and we have to pay a toll now. I dont care that much as I usually never go hwy 1 from Vancouver anyways. The Pattullo was also closed for inspections this weekend so a lot of traffic had to divert onto the Port Mann/Alex Fraser. Demolition work on the old Port Mann is moving along, and it appears most of the bridge decking has been removed (SFPR was closed last weekend so the Surrey sections could be removed).
|
|
|
Post by paulvanb on Aug 26, 2013 14:35:34 GMT -8
If you want to speak tolls, try driving on freeways in France! The major ones have been privatized, but they are in great shape and have more humane speed limits - 130kph in most spots and everyone stays in the righthand lane except to pass. No 55-60 on the 80 lanes per say. Our drive from Caen to Paris was 21.8 euros.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Aug 27, 2013 10:27:02 GMT -8
I think this bridge has made an appearance on this thread already, but since it is such an old photo, I thought I'd post it anyway. Dated 1956, all it says on the slide is "Near Hope, B.C."
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Aug 27, 2013 10:50:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Sept 15, 2013 17:45:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 15, 2013 20:32:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 17, 2013 5:11:41 GMT -8
Here's my video of driving parts of BC's highway-1 in the Thompson River and Fraser Canyon sections.
Video includes: - Walachin bridge (just off Hwy-1, near Savona BC) - narrow & winding parts of Hwy-1 in the Thompson canyon - all 7 tunnels in the Fraser canyon.
The video was recorded in a safe and responsible manner.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Sept 17, 2013 17:56:55 GMT -8
Some pictures of bridges in Portland: Photos heavy!Marquam bridge I-5 by Awesome cheese, on Flickr Fremont bridge I-405 by Awesome cheese, on Flickr Marquam bridge I-5 by Awesome cheese, on Flickr Marquam bridge I-5 by Awesome cheese, on Flickr Bridge Conustrion by Awesome cheese, on Flickr New bridge for the Portland-Milwaukie light rail projects. This bridge will only take pedestrians, bikers, MAX trains (Light rail trains), streetcar, buses and emergency vehicles. Steel bridge by Awesome cheese, on Flickr Where all the MAX lines meet.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Sept 20, 2013 11:02:44 GMT -8
Premier Clark has announced the Massey Tunnel Replacement will be a bridge. Construction Begins in 2017. Link: www.theprovince.com/touch/story.html?id=8939037I suppose this means we'll have a new vantage point to get pics of Deas Dock around 2020 or so.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Sept 20, 2013 11:23:13 GMT -8
I am pretty disappointed that the Massey Tunnel has been placed as a priority over the Pattullo. I understand that the Pattullo is under TransLink's jurisdiction, but the organization simply does not have the funds to replace the bridge. Built in 1937, with lane widths far below the provincial engineering standard, this bridge is in much greater need of replacement.
That being said, I am a daily Massey Tunnel commuter during rush hours, and it will be nice to do away with the headache of the counterflow...
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Sept 20, 2013 12:51:42 GMT -8
Premier Clark has announced the Massey Tunnel Replacement will be a bridge. Construction Begins in 2017. Link: www.theprovince.com/touch/story.html?id=8939037I suppose this means we'll have a new vantage point to get pics of Deas Dock around 2020 or so. So now we're going to have another cable-stayed bridge on the Fraser River? Gee whiz, before you know it, all the highway bridges across the Fraser River are going to be cable-stayed. (Oh wait, they pretty much are already.) I was particularly disappointed that the old Port Mann Bridge, a very nice-looking arch bridge, was replaced with an imposing cable-stayed bridge. The new bridge looks like an eyesore, while the old was pleasing to look at. I completely agree that the old arch bridge was well over capacity, but I don't see why they didn't just keep the arch span and built a second bridge right next to it. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to build a parallel bridge that would be smaller? WSDOT did this when they built a second span for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that opened in 2008. I must admit, however, that I have no idea what structural condition the arch bridge was in, so maybe replacing it was justified. I also get that it was about as old as the 520 floating bridge, but the 1963 floating bridge was in poor condition structurally. OTOH, it seems that floating bridges don't last as long as other bridges and are more prone to the elements, especially windstorms. Two of Washington's floating bridges have fallen victim to windstorms. Unlike with ferries, there is no good reason to standardize bridge types. It's good to have some variety. I know I'm just biased because I like arch bridges, but it's unnecessary to have all the major bridges across the Fraser River be cable-stayed. If I become a civil engineer, I wouldn't be so quick to design a cable-stayed bridge, but I would go for the other types of bridges.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Sept 20, 2013 16:13:15 GMT -8
Pros and Cons for the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel Cons: Expensive; Better transit plan; Close the tunnel when it built. I don't know about this con.
Pos: Helps during peak period; Safer than the tunnel; HOV lane.
But the port should help pay for it because it will allow larger ocean going freights to dock in Surrey port.
|
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289
|
Post by Mayne on Sept 20, 2013 16:31:45 GMT -8
Pros and Cons for the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel Cons: Expensive; Better transit plan; Close the tunnel when it built. I don't know about this con. Pos: Helps during peak period; Safer than the tunnel; HOV lane. But the port should help pay for it because it will allow larger ocean going freights to dock in Surrey port. I do not understand this post, better transit plan a Con? Is a bridge more expensive then a tunnel? And I really can't see them leaving the tunnel open after the replacement is constructed (And I do not understand how that is a Pro or a Con)
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 20, 2013 16:42:04 GMT -8
Premier Clark has announced the Massey Tunnel Replacement will be a bridge. Construction Begins in 2017. Link: www.theprovince.com/touch/story.html?id=8939037I suppose this means we'll have a new vantage point to get pics of Deas Dock around 2020 or so. So now we're going to have another cable-stayed bridge on the Fraser River? Gee whiz, before you know it, all the highway bridges across the Fraser River are going to be cable-stayed. (Oh wait, they pretty much are already.) I was particularly disappointed that the old Port Mann Bridge, a very nice-looking arch bridge, was replaced with an imposing cable-stayed bridge. The new bridge looks like an eyesore, while the old was pleasing to look at. I completely agree that the old arch bridge was well over capacity, but I don't see why they didn't just keep the arch span and built a second bridge right next to it. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to build a parallel bridge that would be smaller? WSDOT did this when they built a second span for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that opened in 2008. I must admit, however, that I have no idea what structural condition the arch bridge was in, so maybe replacing it was justified. I also get that it was about as old as the 520 floating bridge, but the 1963 floating bridge was in poor condition structurally. OTOH, it seems that floating bridges don't last as long as other bridges and are more prone to the elements, especially windstorms. Two of Washington's floating bridges have fallen victim to windstorms. Unlike with ferries, there is no good reason to standardize bridge types. It's good to have some variety. I know I'm just biased because I like arch bridges, but it's unnecessary to have all the major bridges across the Fraser River be cable-stayed. If I become a civil engineer, I wouldn't be so quick to design a cable-stayed bridge, but I would go for the other types of bridges. I would echo this sentiment about the mass evolution of cable stayed bridges. For what it's worth, the Fremont bridge in Portland is actually a near duplicate of the old Port Mann, and engineers from Oregon studied the Port Mann as a basis for their I5 bridge in Portland. Also, the Port Mann had also been seismically upgraded, but that did not seem to add to its life span. There are also cases of bridges being twinned with spans that are visually similar, one notable one being the Bluewater Bridge which is also an international bridge between Canada and the US, and one city in China deliberately built an arch bridge because they realized they wanted something different. In the end, these days, cable-stayed always seems to come out as the cheapest type of bridge to build, so it is the one governments will sooner go for. Now I just wonder what the toll will be on this new bridge.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Sept 20, 2013 17:23:30 GMT -8
I must admit, however, that I have no idea what structural condition the arch bridge was in, so maybe replacing it was justified. I also get that it was about as old as the 520 floating bridge, but the 1963 floating bridge was in poor condition structurally. OTOH, it seems that floating bridges don't last as long as other bridges and are more prone to the elements, especially windstorms. Two of Washington's floating bridges have fallen victim to windstorms. If the second floating bridge you're talking about is the first I-90 bridge, then let me tell you that it didn't sink because of a windstorm but rather because of really heavy rain (literally, the rain was too heavy so it sank). Floating bridges are also exposed to water (even saltwater for the hood canal), so it's kind of like a boat (except it doesn't move at all and doesn't get drydock time every few years). That explains the fact that they need to be replaced more frequently. As for the 520 bridge, not only is the bridge in poor condition but it is (or at least was, before the toll) WAY over capacity, so that might be another factor.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Sept 20, 2013 18:05:41 GMT -8
Pros and Cons for the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel Cons: Expensive; Better transit plan; Close the tunnel when it built. I don't know about this con. Pos: Helps during peak period; Safer than the tunnel; HOV lane. But the port should help pay for it because it will allow larger ocean going freights to dock in Surrey port. I do not understand this post, better transit plan a Con? Is a bridge more expensive then a tunnel? And I really can't see them leaving the tunnel open after the replacement is constructed (And I do not understand how that is a Pro or a Con) Better transit is con because they could have done study to see if TransLink could have increase ride ship on routes that go from South of the Fraser to Bridgeport. I do not know about the second one. The closer of the tunnel will happen during the construction period if it is going in the same spot. But if it increase transit after is built it would Positive to South of the Fraser.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Sept 20, 2013 18:10:00 GMT -8
I must admit, however, that I have no idea what structural condition the arch bridge was in, so maybe replacing it was justified. I also get that it was about as old as the 520 floating bridge, but the 1963 floating bridge was in poor condition structurally. OTOH, it seems that floating bridges don't last as long as other bridges and are more prone to the elements, especially windstorms. Two of Washington's floating bridges have fallen victim to windstorms. If the second floating bridge you're talking about is the first I-90 bridge, then let me tell you that it didn't sink because of a windstorm but rather because of really heavy rain (literally, the rain was too heavy so it sank). Floating bridges are also exposed to water (even saltwater for the hood canal), so it's kind of like a boat (except it doesn't move at all and doesn't get drydock time every few years). That explains the fact that they need to be replaced more frequently. As for the 520 bridge, not only is the bridge in poor condition but it is (or at least was, before the toll) WAY over capacity, so that might be another factor. And adding just an HOV lane will help with the SR 520 bridge capacity? If WSDOT add an addition two lane each way non-HOV on the bridge it would decrease it capacity since any car can go in 4 lanes each way.
|
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289
|
Post by Mayne on Sept 20, 2013 18:16:06 GMT -8
I do not understand this post, better transit plan a Con? Is a bridge more expensive then a tunnel? And I really can't see them leaving the tunnel open after the replacement is constructed (And I do not understand how that is a Pro or a Con) Better transit is con because they could have done study to see if TransLink could have increase ride ship on routes that go from South of the Fraser to Bridgeport. I do not know about the second one. The closer of the tunnel will happen during the construction period if it is going in the same spot. But if it increase transit after is built it would Positive to South of the Fraser. They would never close the tunnel if the new bridge was not compleate that would create a chaos, I would asume they would build it next to the tunnel much like the Portman. And I don't think translink could have enough buses run to alleviate the kind of congestion that we see during rush hour.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Sept 20, 2013 18:20:06 GMT -8
Better transit is con because they could have done study to see if TransLink could have increase ride ship on routes that go from South of the Fraser to Bridgeport. I do not know about the second one. The closer of the tunnel will happen during the construction period if it is going in the same spot. But if it increase transit after is built it would Positive to South of the Fraser. They would never close the tunnel if the new bridge was not compleate that would create a chaos, I would asume they would build it next to the tunnel much like the Portman. And I don't think translink could have enough buses run to alleviate the kind of congestion that we see during rush hour. Re for TransLink could never have enough buses run during rush hour. By buying more buses for Richmond or adding more 60 ft buses to the Richmond fleet to run during peak period or TransLink could extended the Canada line from Bridge-House to South Surrey Park and Ride.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Sept 20, 2013 21:31:39 GMT -8
If the second floating bridge you're talking about is the first I-90 bridge, then let me tell you that it didn't sink because of a windstorm but rather because of really heavy rain (literally, the rain was too heavy so it sank). Floating bridges are also exposed to water (even saltwater for the hood canal), so it's kind of like a boat (except it doesn't move at all and doesn't get drydock time every few years). That explains the fact that they need to be replaced more frequently. As for the 520 bridge, not only is the bridge in poor condition but it is (or at least was, before the toll) WAY over capacity, so that might be another factor. And adding just an HOV lane will help with the SR 520 bridge capacity? If WSDOT add an addition two lane each way non-HOV on the bridge it would decrease it capacity since any car can go in 4 lanes each way. HOV lanes are much more developed on freeways here in Seattle rather than in Vancouver (based on my own experience, but don't think that what I said is that there are no HOVs in Vancouver, because there are). 520 sees a bus every 5 minutes in either direction in mid-day and much more in the peak hours so getting the buses through IS important (you probably know that with the buses not stuck in traffic means that they can run more trips in the same amount of time etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if the HOV lanes carried more people than the other ones, actually. Say, at an average of 50 people/bus at 12 bus an hour it carries 600 people plus the HOVs. That's in non peak. Peak would be close to 1,500 with all the expresses. Not very far from the 2000/lane for SOVs. Sometimes adding lanes isn't always the solution. Transit is.
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Sept 20, 2013 21:55:39 GMT -8
speaking of bridges I received a statement in the mail for a toll when I crossed the Golden Ears Bridge a few weeks ago. I just thought that was funny but I guess that is the only way they can make people pay.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 20, 2013 21:59:35 GMT -8
speaking of bridges I received a statement in the mail for a toll when I crossed the Golden Ears Bridge a few weeks ago. I just thought that was funny but I guess that is the only way they can make people pay. You pay an extra fee for making them hunt you down through your licence plate to get your postal address. If you pay online within 7 days (ie. before they have to hunt you down), you save that extra fee. - this is for the Port Mann bridge, and I assume that the Golden Arches bridge is the same.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Sept 21, 2013 5:19:58 GMT -8
And adding just an HOV lane will help with the SR 520 bridge capacity? If WSDOT add an addition two lane each way non-HOV on the bridge it would decrease it capacity since any car can go in 4 lanes each way. HOV lanes are much more developed on freeways here in Seattle rather than in Vancouver (based on my own experience, but don't think that what I said is that there are no HOVs in Vancouver, because there are). 520 sees a bus every 5 minutes in either direction in mid-day and much more in the peak hours so getting the buses through IS important (you probably know that with the buses not stuck in traffic means that they can run more trips in the same amount of time etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if the HOV lanes carried more people than the other ones, actually. Say, at an average of 50 people/bus at 12 bus an hour it carries 600 people plus the HOVs. That's in non peak. Peak would be close to 1,500 with all the expresses. Not very far from the 2000/lane for SOVs. Sometimes adding lanes isn't always the solution. Transit is. There is a career for you in transportation planning. I couldn't have said it better myself. As it relates back to the Massey Tunnel, Hwy 99 carries one Frequent Transit Network Route (every 15 minutes/7 days a week), a few standard routes, and a plethora of rush hour routes - so, similar to the 520 Bridge, buses are operating through the tunnel every 1-3 minutes at the height of the rush. I foresee an 8-lane bridge: 1 center HOV, 2 travel lanes, and 1 drop lane (exit-only lanes for Hwy 17 and Steveston Hwy) in either direction. I would also like to dispel of a couple rumours that are not true: - Canada Line is not getting extended anywhere - not to Ladner, or Tsawwassen Ferry, or South Surrey P & R. The south side of the tunnel does not have an urban anchor big enough for a rapid transit line, and even if it did, the spaces in between are far too rural, making rail an inefficient choice. This area is best served by bus. - I don't think Route 351 (the tunnel's FTN) is going to see any dramatic increases to service over the next four years. Hopefully by 2017, the King George B-Line will be extended to South Surrey, so that will likely help alleviate some crowding. That being said, I use the 351 to get to/from school during off-peak, and it is always busy and tough to get a seat. Regarding tolls: Road pricing is important, and it's something that we're going to see unfold over the next decade or so. The problem is that it's being implemented with no real strategy, so congestion will be a concern on the Alex Fraser particularly. I hope tolls are used as a way of controlling traffic flow and creating revenue; as opposed to just being installed whenever we put up a new bridge. Regarding cable-stayed bridges: Not only are they cost efficient, but they are also the safest type of bridge in an earthquake. They might not be the prettiest, but they are by far the best choice from most standpoints.
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Sept 21, 2013 6:41:51 GMT -8
Canada Line should go to Tsawwassen! lol!
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Sept 21, 2013 7:34:45 GMT -8
Canada Line should go to Tsawwassen! lol! This would be a hugely inefficient waste of resources, considering large passenger loads arrive only every 45-60 minutes - otherwise, the trains would be empty. Not to mention a massive investment. Again, better served by buses.
|
|