I predict that those 2 lanes each way, while safer than the existing bridge lanes , will re restriped into 3 narrower lanes each way within 3 years of opening.
Plan is to move bike and pedestrian to davits on outside of bridge and thus opening up the 3rd lane each way. But rather than completing it in one go, NDP likes to spend money and tie up traffic needlessly. So they decided on the more expensive option of doing the sidewalks and bike lane twice.
@@timeymundson9061 I think part of it is the refusal of New West city council to be willing to widen the north side bridge approaches. This meant they would only allow a 4 lane bridge. But this capability to widen will be available if New West allows a couple extra approach lanes some day.
@@timeymundson9061 I think part of it is the refusal of New West city council to be willing to widen the north side bridge approaches. This meant they would only allow a 4 lane bridge. But this capability to widen will be available if New West allows a couple extra approach lanes some day.
Did they do proper feasibility study.. why spend millions of dollars for two way lane.. the surrey population is increasing.. they should have made 3 way lane each side.
Due to induced demand for traffic, more lanes does not solve traffic congestion. Providing safe, reliable and desirable alternative modes of transport like cycling, walking and public transit will.
@@Somethingaweful They could consider HOV lanes like in the US. Also, one or two more lanes on a bridge can make quite a difference as river crossings tend to be major traffic bottlenecks.
I asked a trucker about this practise. He said the drivers that do that are just a bunch of amateurs. However, if a transport is northbound at the north end and with a 53' trailer, it's not possible to stay in one lane since the curve is too tight.
Same as the next comment. Spend how much money and only 4 lanes. When is BC going to get out of the horse and buggy infrastructure realm and get into building some real bridges and highways.
New West council wants a more Green approach to transportation. So let's keep that merge point on McBride Blvd to slow down cars and add more pollution along with the Columbia St on ramp that has to also merge on the bridge. You need traffic flow, not traffic slow downs.
@@gurinderpurewal3047 What kind of foresight is that? If New Westminster does not want additional lanes, they don't need a new bridge. Nobody is forcing the government to build a new equally congested bridge.
Insane design. The product is the same number of lanes and now featuring no flow onto McBride. Plus the wonderful feature of a screen on each side to prevent enjoyment of the beautiful river views. This seems horrible.
You're right. It could have been so easy to give the north end a straight shot onto McBride. The bridge deck is wide enough to support 3 lanes each way. It won't be long before they reconfigure it.
@@centinelroads You are so blindly wrong. When you add more people to the region, you need more traffic lanes. Just like you need more transit trains and buses.
@@centinelroads So what you're saying is that this structure will increase the revenue stream from fuel taxes because of all the excess burned account congestion. When they make mistakes like this rest assured they'll do the same with transit.
I predict that those 2 lanes each way, while safer than the existing bridge lanes , will re restriped into 3 narrower lanes each way within 3 years of opening.
put your money where your mouth is big talker
Plan is to move bike and pedestrian to davits on outside of bridge and thus opening up the 3rd lane each way. But rather than completing it in one go, NDP likes to spend money and tie up traffic needlessly. So they decided on the more expensive option of doing the sidewalks and bike lane twice.
@@timeymundson9061 I think part of it is the refusal of New West city council to be willing to widen the north side bridge approaches. This meant they would only allow a 4 lane bridge. But this capability to widen will be available if New West allows a couple extra approach lanes some day.
@@timeymundson9061 I think part of it is the refusal of New West city council to be willing to widen the north side bridge approaches. This meant they would only allow a 4 lane bridge. But this capability to widen will be available if New West allows a couple extra approach lanes some day.
@@dmfraser1444 you wrote a duplicate comment
What a great animation. Thank you! I've been taking drone footage of the construction. It's so interesting!
Is there going to be weigh scales for the trucks.
I'm amazed that Acciona Was allowed to tender on this project after walking away from the North Shore Sewage Plant debacle
Did they do proper feasibility study.. why spend millions of dollars for two way lane.. the surrey population is increasing.. they should have made 3 way lane each side.
Just one more lane bro, I swear. It'll will fix traffic.
Due to induced demand for traffic, more lanes does not solve traffic congestion. Providing safe, reliable and desirable alternative modes of transport like cycling, walking and public transit will.
@@lesliengo8347 no, 3 lanes would have made sense.
@@lesliengo8347 Cycling is not transport!
@@Somethingaweful They could consider HOV lanes like in the US. Also, one or two more lanes on a bridge can make quite a difference as river crossings tend to be major traffic bottlenecks.
In the future six lanes the new pattullo bridge 😊
Along with wider sidewalks and safer spaces for cycling.
Trucks driving down the middle of 2 lanes is really a 21st century.
Before that most trucks were able to stay in their lane.
I asked a trucker about this practise. He said the drivers that do that are just a bunch of amateurs.
However, if a transport is northbound at the north end and with a 53' trailer, it's not possible to stay in one lane since the curve is too tight.
Same as the next comment. Spend how much money and only 4 lanes. When is BC going to get out of the horse and buggy infrastructure realm and get into building some real bridges and highways.
Why not just construct a twin of the existing bridge with wider lanes and modern features?
Should have been 6 lanes MINIMUM!!! planners have zero foresight
Planners had foresight; New Westminister said no to the additional lanes.
New West council wants a more Green approach to transportation. So let's keep that merge point on McBride Blvd to slow down cars and add more pollution along with the Columbia St on ramp that has to also merge on the bridge. You need traffic flow, not traffic slow downs.
@@gurinderpurewal3047 What kind of foresight is that? If New Westminster does not want additional lanes, they don't need a new bridge. Nobody is forcing the government to build a new equally congested bridge.
@@owinstan the current bridge is literally collapsing with a net underneath it to catch falling parts - it has long outlived its service life
@@wesleyyiu6962 Lack of maintenance will do that. Properly maintained, the original bridge could go on for many decades.
Insane design. The product is the same number of lanes and now featuring no flow onto McBride. Plus the wonderful feature of a screen on each side to prevent enjoyment of the beautiful river views. This seems horrible.
You're right. It could have been so easy to give the north end a straight shot onto McBride.
The bridge deck is wide enough to support 3 lanes each way. It won't be long before they reconfigure it.
Same company that did the water treatment in North Vancouver fiasco. Acciona
Over budget like every government project and programs
Time for government accountability at all levels of government
Bridge expired 1986. And this is what we have, another 4 lane bridge. Thanks Translink
Unfortunately, adding more lanes will not improve traffic in the long term. What will fix congestion is active transport and public transport!
@@centinelroads You are so blindly wrong. When you add more people to the region, you need more traffic lanes. Just like you need more transit trains and buses.
@@centinelroads So what you're saying is that this structure will increase the revenue stream from fuel taxes because of all the excess burned account congestion.
When they make mistakes like this rest assured they'll do the same with transit.
Why does every project cost taxpayers more than other countries like germany, japan or even US?!