Talk:Port Mann Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The original text and photo were lifted from Buckland and Taylor Engineering. I'll work on bring this page up to snuff. Cacophony 07:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

hmmmm, some of that text has since reappeared. I took it out again. Cacophony 08:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New vs. Old Bridge[edit]

Should there be two separate articles? Prowsej (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be. Or at least separate sections. Currently there is information on both the old and new bridge in the first section. Rovy83 (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uniqueness[edit]

At the time of construction, it was unique in North America... Can someone elaborate on what made it so unique? - Hinto 21:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That line is from the History of Metropolitan Vancouver page. It doesn't go on to say why. You can remove that line if you like. Zhatt 22:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Some info on the bridge[edit]

When taking a river cruise the tour guide said that the original plans for the bridge were 4-5 lanes each way, government said it cost too much to make it smaller, the designers/engineers came back with 3 lanes, and again was told to drop it to two lanes each way. Appearently the first company to start building the bridge had difficulties finding bed-rock in the river because of how deep the sand was. After loosing a bunch of money another company took over, I think it was a german firm. The top of the guard rails on each side of the bridge had florescent lights the whole length, but these were turned-off because they shone in the driver's eyes and rumours have it caused some drivers to get dizzy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.113.28 (talk • contribs) 12:42, October 31, 2005

NPOV?[edit]

"This and the fact that the northbound approach span merges three lanes of traffic into one mean that the Port Mann Bridge is highly congested during rush hour."... sort of is making a point about buses being superior to cars. I think a cite for the lack of a bus route specifically being the cause of congestion might be in order. ++++Lar: t/c 04:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of buses may not be the cause of the congestion, but the congestion causes the lack of buses. (Or so says the transport ministry) 99.240.197.6 (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Very Controversial" ?[edit]

Wikipedia is generally a great resource but this article is an example of where it fails. Dramatically. The discussion of the "controversy" is clearly written by someone favourable to the opponents of the new bridge. Is the new bridge "very controversial"? I think not. The number of commuters going across it each day is enormous and anyone stuck in the line-up to get on the bridge is clearly in support of an expanded bridge. I realize that there are opponents but most of these people are part of a tiny Radical Left portion of society. Rwerner 09:57, 6 February 2009

I agree -in spirit- but in fairness the best approach would be to provide the other perspective vs. simply criticizing Wikipedia because of its open source roots. It could be said that the opponents to twinning are not necessarily or fairly labelled as 'fringe radical left' elements - as the major media report their viewpoints frequently and it is a common perspective in certain areas of Metro Vancouver.

Perhaps more fairly it could also be said ... ' Proponents for the twinning of the bridge point out that the bridge is no longer capable of handling the traffic it does today (built in 1964) and that frequent daily traffic jams are evidence of this fact. A recent study by the Ministry of Transportation found a majority (56%) support public support the twinning of the bridge.'

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2006TRAN0020-000748.htm


00:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smacg (talk • contribs)

The section needs to be reviewed and possibly some content should be removed. Specifically Stephen Reese's blog as a reference. He is now a politician and is an opponent first based on the polital idiologies rather than the science of his past career.

There maybe be other reliable sources for the cliams, but stevo should nto be included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.244.173 (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The project was very controversial, the regional district voted to "strongly oppose" it after all (by a very narrow margin). Anyone who doubts the existence of the controversy this should check out a Google media search history for some examples. As for citing people who run for public office, they still have the professional qualifications they had before. But maybe Wikipedia is meant to only contain cut and paste text from the government's media releases?Eric Doherty (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As controversial the project may be, Wikipedia promotes a neutral point of view. This means that out-rightly proclaiming in the lede that the article is highly controversial is a biased perspective. From the Straight article, it seems that you have a conflict of interest with the articles related to the Gateway Program. It's fine if you want to contribute to Wikipedia, but you must do so from a neutral perspective. Neutrality would include mentioning the groups opposed to the NFPR, and mentioning that the mayor of Coquitlam supports the NFPR. [1]  █ EMARSEE 07:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Paragrpahs[edit]

Several paragraphs have been removed from this article without sufficient explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.83.221 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Span Length[edit]

Intro: "The main span is: 366 m (1,201 ft) plus the two 110 m (360 ft) spans on either side.", whereas Infobox: "Longest span 603 m"
[it says the main span WAS, not is. Very confusing as 366 m was the main span of the old bridge]

What does the "Longest span" refer to?
[main span of 470 m between the towers plus north and south approaches, only a minority of which are cable-stay. This is PR from bridge promoters and not the way bridges are measured or ranked]

Tony Ho (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the information of 2nd longest span in North America and Western Hemisphere come from? Based on Wikipedia's List of largest cable-stayed bridges, it is the 4th largest in North America. Rovy83 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[the sentence about 2nd longest span link to Wikipedia's list is misleading as bridges are ranked by main span length, not total length. The new Port Mann is the 4th longest main span in North America. Putting this in the same sentence as PR about the total length including parts that are just raised roadways (and not even over water) is confusing]

The intro states that the bridge ties with the Bay Bridge (CA, US) for the longest bridge in North America, but none of the (as I'm writing this) three citations on that sentence seem to confirm that statement specifically. I can't find any individual span lengths from either bridge that are the same, or even particularly close, at least going by the info boxes on each of their articles here on wiki. Can anyone verify that claim? Etymographer (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the intro statement is clearly incorrect because the east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is not a cable-stayed bridge - it's a self-anchored suspension bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.172.222 (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Person to Cross the Old Port Mann[edit]

Told to me first hand the son of the engineer was the first to cross the span. The car used was the family car. It was driven across very shortly after the deck was complete. I haven't been able to find any corroboration but I am trying. Has anyone else heard this? The engineer's son would qualify as a civilian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malachite36 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Port Mann Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Port Mann Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for replacing the bridge?[edit]

Is there an explanation for replacing the bridge? After all, the old bridge was only 45 years old, and seemed to be in good condition. Does BC have money to burn? Santamoly (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The reason was it was reaching its life expectancy and at two lanes, its capacity. That should be explained in the article though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Port Mann Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second longest span?[edit]

This article claims the new bridge has 2nd longest span for this type of bridge in North America, with no reference supporting that claim. I removed that text from the lead, as there is no support. The claim remains in the article text, with citation needed flag. If a source can be found, then the fact is appropriate for the lead. There is a ref in lead about Widest Bridge, which is San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in the Guinness World Records. I think this bridge is second, but I may be wrong. Another clear and current source is needed. Text has a wiki link to the article on bridges ranked by length if span, but why? This bridge is not named in a list of 77 bridges in the world. China uses this type of bridge in many places, with long spans. It is a grand bridge, and save for these unsupported claims, it is a good article on the prior bridge, need for new bridge, construction and deconstruction. - - Prairieplant (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Mann_Bridge&oldid=1204850841"