stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge (Pattullo Bridge Replacement) | U/C

[SpikePhanta]

Ah ok then, so once it reaches 17 ave, it will just cut through the forest until it connects to gaglardi(sp?)?

[Stingray2004]

Yeah, that's the expectation.

From Hansard -July 7, 1980 - then Highways Minister Alex Fraser made the following statement concerning the Stormont-McBride Connector:

Stormont-McBride - this three-kilometre graded street connection from the Trans-Canada to the Cariboo Road interchange to McBride Avenue at 10th Avenue in New Westminster - is an element in Burnaby's major street network. Considerable design work has been done.

Current suggestions from Burnaby and local citizens to lower the grade for about one kilometre of the route are not cost effective. I have invited the ratepayer group representatives for discussion; I think you referred to that. That is where that stands. We are in the design stage of it, but there has been no authorization to proceed with construction or anything like that.

http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/32nd2nd/32p_02s_800707p.htm

So somewhere within BC's legislative vault the dust-covered preliminary designs for the Stormont-McBride Connector are situate.

BTW, I still get a chuckle from this History of Metropolitan Vancouver website - Never trust your history sources:

October 24 [1978]The Stormont Connector was officially opened. It pushed McBride Boulevard (which links to the Pattullo Bridge) through Burnaby to hook up with Highway 1 at Gaglardi Way. Highways Minister Alex Fraser cut the ribbon.

http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/chronology1978.htm

[twoNeurons]

If I'm not mistaken, it won't go near the hospital or the high school... but rather just continue up NewCombe to 16th. Then, it will be a new road through the forest.

Here's where I gather the entry point to the new road would be: google streets link

Newcombe is a strange street.

[paradigm4]

So, I'm kind of confused - is this supposed to be an at-grade upgrade of Newcombe and an extension to connect with Gaglardi, or is it supposed to be underground?

[BCPhil]

The last plan I heard involved getting the MoT to build a new interchange just for the Stormont-McBride connector on Hwy 1 just west of Gaglardi. That way Burnaby doesn't have to plow through the forest to get to Gaglardi, which I'm not sure kept enough space reserved for the connector with the upgrades it's getting in Gateway.

But personally, I would be happy with ANY form of Stormont-McBride connector. I would love a free flow express way from the bridge to Hwy 1, but it could be surface streets with intersections and it would really improve getting around the area.

What slows down the traffic is all the turning that needs to be done, if McBride just simply went straight through to Hwy 1 it would eliminate most of the turning traffic. No more thousands of cars using 10th, 8th, and 6th to between the bridge and Canada Way, or North Road. Straight through traffic flows the best through intersections, and most of it would become straight through traffic. Most traffic would use either Hwy 1/Stormont-McBride to get to the bridge or use the Front street ramps to get to a hopefully built NFPR. No more traffic weaving through New Westminster.

[DKaz]

It would greatly improved the untolled alternative to the Port Mann Bridge. Canada Way is already backed up with New Westminster and Burnaby residents, never mind the new influx of more Surrey and valley residents.

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

BTW, I still get a chuckle from this History of Metropolitan Vancouver website - Never trust your history sources:

http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/chronology1978.htm

lol. Maybe Gaglardi Way just opened at that time?

[paradigm4]

So I was rumagging through transportation reports from the MoT and found some info on the Stormont-McBridge Connector. According to a study done in 1998, they looked at at-grade, tunnelled, and open trench options. The concept was to have two general lanes and two HOV lanes.

The tunnel added $46 million to the cost was but the was preferred option due to reduced noise and neighbourhood disturbance. As an intermediary step, a trench was proposed, which would only be $14 million more than building it at-grade.

For consistency in meeting the demand over the length of the corridor, Marine-10th Connector and Stormont-McBride Connector should each have four lanes. These two routes plus 10th Avenue should each have one GP lane and one HOV lane in either direction. Inclusion of the HOV lanes will increase the routes’ person-carrying capacity, increase travel time savings and reduce vehicle-kilometres.

Tunnel and at-grade alignments were considered for the Stormont-McBride Connector. The primary trade-off is between the cost of the tunnel and the increased noise and community severance associated with the at-grade option. Based on an additional cost of $46 million for tunnelling, and the ability to mitigate the noise impacts of the at-grade alignment, the latter was preferred. (An intermediate option, with the Connector in an open trench, was added as part of the Final MAE process which is discussed subsequently.)

Concept 4A was the Stormont-McBride Connector with one GP and one HOV lane in either direction, on an at-grade alignment. This severed the surrounding community, had visual and noise impacts, and bisected wildlife habitat. However, it provided significant benefits by adding capacity, providing a shorter route, and encouraging HOV usage. The NPV was high, at $164 million.

Concept 4B was the same as above, but in an open trench alignment. With fewer intersections and a higher speed limit, this Concept increased the user benefits. It was less intrusive on the neighbourhood, and a proposed pedestrian overpass at 13th Avenue reduced neighbourhood severance when compared with Concept 4A. Construction costs were $14 million higher, but benefits increased even more so the NPV rose to $187 million.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

The tunnel added $46 million to the cost was but the was preferred option due to reduced noise and neighbourhood disturbance. As an intermediary step, a trench was proposed, which would only be $14 million more than building it at-grade.

Yeah, I posted that link earlier, but doubt very much that moving from a 4-lane surface route along Newcombe to a 4-lane highway in a 10 - 20 foot deep trench, with extensive excavation, concrete retaining walls, etc. would be only $14 million more. That figure seems way too low.

Again with the additional $46 million figure for a 4-lane cut-and-cover tunnel option. I would think at least $100 - $150 million more would be required with these options over a surface route.

[Zassk]

I guess it depends... will the whole route be cut-&-cover from the bridge to Hwy 1? Or just the part through the residential neighbourhood? Is McBride included or excluded from the tunnel? Is the forest included or not? You could certainly build a few blocks of cut & cover for $50 million if it were really limited to 4 lanes (which would be insane). Building for future 6 lanes + shoulders like Cassiar tunnel would vastly inflate the project (but be a better choice).

[Millennium2002]

The best idea would be to ensure that the route is free-flowing at all sections... or in other words, a cut-and-cover tunnel for the entire length that isn't in the forest. Might cost significantly more but both surface and underground connections will be more reliable.

[paradigm4]

I would suspect the low numbers are a result of just building it either trenched or tunnelled between 10th and 17th. The route doesn't need to be trenched in the forest section and I personally feel McBride as is doesn't need much change. Tunnelling the residential section is the most important aspect IMO.

[Stingray2004]

Yeah, a cut and cover tunnel from the new PB bridgehead to the forest would be the ideal candidate. And hopefully, the new PB will be the catalyst that finally results in the construction/completion of "the missing link".

Politics will also be a factor as New West will oppose the connector unless something is done with McBride. Traffic modeling by New West has shown a considerable increase in traffic along McBride with the construction of the connector and New West residents will oppose same. Ditto for Burnaby residents if the Newcombe section is not cut and covered.

Again, this is all speculation and conjecture at this point in time.

BTW, when the original Pattullo was opened it was a tolled structure and was known as the PAY-TOLL-O Bridge. Looks like history will repeat itself.

As an aside, here are some newspaper headlines concerning the Stormont-McBride Connector over the last 30 years:

1. LETTER: "CUT AND COVER" REJECTED"
BURNABY TODAY ... Wednesday, 6TH August, 1980

2. "EAST BURNABY FIGHTS CONNECTOR"
SUNDAY NEWS ... Sunday, 25TH March, 1990

3. "STORMONT CONNECTOR NEAR?"
BURNABY NOW ... Wednesday, 6TH March, 1991

4. "STORMONT DECISION LOOMS"
BURNABY NOW ... Sunday, 17TH March, 1991

5. "STORMONT NEARS START"
BURNABY & NEW WEST NEWS ... Wednesday, 20TH March, 1991

6. "STORMONT CONNECTOR RE-EMERGES AS ISSUE"
BURNABY & NEW WEST NEWS ... Wednesday, 16TH October, 1991

7. "CROSS BURNABY CONNECTOR BY 2006"
BURNABY & NEW WEST NEWS ... Wednesday, 4TH October, 1995

8. "LETTER FROM JACKIE PEMENT, MINISTER, RE STORMONT CONNECTOR" BURNABY & NEW WEST NEWS ... Wednesday, 1ST November, 1995

9. "STORMONT STILL A PRIORITY FOR NDP"
BURNABY NOW ... Wednesday, 22ND October, 1997

10. "STORMONT WON'T BE BUILT WITHOUT TALKS"
BURNABY NEWS LEADER ... Sunday, 9TH November, 1997

11. "STORMONT TUNNEL IDEA IS PROPOSED BY EBRP"
BURNABY NOW ... Wednesday, 29TH April, 1998

12. "RESIDENTS VOW STORMONT FIGHT"
BURNABY NEWS LEADER ... Wednesday, 29TH April, 1998

13. "LETTER RE STORMONT-MARINE WAY TUNNEL PROPOSAL"
BURNABY NOW ... Sunday, 10TH May, 1998

14. "ROADBLOCKS STILL AHEAD FOR STORMONT CONNECTOR"
BURNABY NEWS LEADER ... Sunday, 19TH March, 2000

15. "STORMONT CONNECTOR MISSING FROM OCP"
BURNABY NEWS LEADER...Saturday, 24TH July, 2004

Source: http://ipac.city.burnaby.bc.ca:8080/ipac...ch&ri=1&source=~!municipal&1284160969882

[yesheh]

Ummm...

http://www.translink.ca/en/About-TransLi...ic-Sessions-ReScheduled-to-November.aspx

Pattullo Bridge Public Sessions Re-Scheduled to November
September 10, 2010

Two open house sessions for the public that TransLink had scheduled for September 14th and 21st to present plans for a new Pattullo Bridge will be moved to new dates in November.

The purpose of the meetings in Surrey and New Westminster is to give the public information and request their feedback on TransLink’s proposed option for a replacement for the 73-year-old crossing. The change in dates for the open houses will take advantage of an opportunity to have the plan reviewed by senior engineers from other agencies.

Doing this review first will give residents in Surrey and New Westminster a plan that will move traffic efficiently and effectively, and then provide them an opportunity to discuss refinements that will work best for their streets and neighbourhoods.

TransLink will announce and advertise the new open house dates in November well in advance.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by yesheh

Ummm...

http://www.translink.ca/en/About-TransLi...ic-Sessions-ReScheduled-to-November.aspx

It's today!?
Nooo it's probably done already by the looks of it

[huenthar]

If they build it aligned with McBride, they had better design it with the eventual construction of Woodlands station on the Millennium Line in mind (it would be just south of the current end of McBride, right at the skytrain tunnel portal, more or less under the future bridge).

Heck, if they're aligning with McBride I think they should throw in Woodlands station as part of the bridge project (as the "green"/public transit contribution, like the Hwy 1 RapidBus or the Langley-Maple Ridge express bus that was part of Golden Ears). They need to build proper pedestrian/bike routes, over/underpasses, etc. for the bridge anyways... and transit from that tower/condo/neighborhood area is piss-poor (there's just the C3 route I believe). Add an extra $20 million to a 1.2 billion project and instead of having just an over/underpass for pedestrians, have a SkyTrain station right there as well... design it to integrate with the looks and structure of the bridge... sounds good to me!

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

I would suspect the low numbers are a result of just building it either trenched or tunnelled between 10th and 17th. The route doesn't need to be trenched in the forest section and I personally feel McBride as is doesn't need much change. Tunnelling the residential section is the most important aspect IMO.

Looking at my local map, the distance to tunnel under Newcombe St from 10th Ave to Wedgewood St (effectively 20th Ave) before continuing on a ground-level road to a new interchange with the Trans Canada Highway is the same distance if you were to build a tunnel starting at the the strip mall at the intersection of Sangster Pl & McBride and head compass north to 16th Ave and end the tunnel at the land between the Derby Centre and the Englewood Mews (north side of 16 Ave opposite the hockey rink at Cariboo Hill).

From the northern portals at 16th Ave, a surface road would connect to the Gaglardi & TCH interchange.

These NB and SB tunnels would have to be built using a TBM machine, since you can't Cut 'n' Cover through all those homes, towers and the school along this alignment, but the added expense of TBM tunnelling would be offset by not having to build a new interchange with the TCH (which would be necessary with the Stormont Connector)

Tunnelling technology has improved substantially in the half century that the Stormont Connector has been talked about, so why not use these new techniques to build a smarter connection between McBride and Gaglardi?

[Alex Mackinnon]

As far as I know all routes look to connect to Gaglardi regardless. You can see the cloverleaf stubs from where they built ahead on the 1. Having a 2nd interchange would cause a lot of weaving with the Gaglardi interchance so close anyways.

[Stingray2004]

Pattullo Bridge Public Sessions Re-Scheduled to November

The change in dates for the open houses will take advantage of an opportunity to have the plan reviewed by senior engineers from other agencies.

Doing this review first will give residents in Surrey and New Westminster a plan that will move traffic efficiently and effectively

That's an abrupt cancellation after only one week when the open houses received media exposure.

Since Translink is already dealing with the engineering/planning depts. of both Surrey and New West, I suspect that the "senior engineers" from "other agencies" probably refers to Burnaby and MoT.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

As far as I know all routes look to connect to Gaglardi regardless. You can see the cloverleaf stubs from where they built ahead on the 1. Having a 2nd interchange would cause a lot of weaving with the Gaglardi interchance so close anyways.

From an earlier message on this page:

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The last plan I heard involved getting the MoT to build a new interchange just for the Stormont-McBride connector on Hwy 1 just west of Gaglardi. That way Burnaby doesn't have to plow through the forest to get to Gaglardi, which I'm not sure kept enough space reserved for the connector with the upgrades it's getting in Gateway.

But personally, I would be happy with ANY form of Stormont-McBride connector. I would love a free flow express way from the bridge to Hwy 1, but it could be surface streets with intersections and it would really improve getting around the area.

What slows down the traffic is all the turning that needs to be done, if McBride just simply went straight through to Hwy 1 it would eliminate most of the turning traffic. No more thousands of cars using 10th, 8th, and 6th to between the bridge and Canada Way, or North Road. Straight through traffic flows the best through intersections, and most of it would become straight through traffic. Most traffic would use either Hwy 1/Stormont-McBride to get to the bridge or use the Front street ramps to get to a hopefully built NFPR. No more traffic weaving through New Westminster.

With the talk of the new bridge, I'm hearing that it will be six lanes so I won't be surprised to see that McBride is widened to 6 lanes also, with a chunk of Queens Park getting sliced off for the wider roadway.

I'm not sure how easily a wider McBride can be created north of 6th Ave, but with expropriation New West and Burnaby can build a six lane road and/or tunnel right to the TCH.

[DKaz]

McBride does not need to be 6 lanes... 4 lanes of the bridge would be for McBride and the other two for the Royal, Front, and Columbia approaches.