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

[jsbertram]

So my next thought is:
If you're going to TBM from Gaglardi & TCH to McBride & 6th to relieve New West & Burnaby of the traffic weaving through the local streets to get to Canada Way, North Road, SFU, &tc (ie: the drivers are heading someplace other than New West), why not TBM all the way from Gaglardi & TCH to McBride & Columbia??

like this:



Red is the new Pattullo - Gaglardi tunnels
Green is the new Pattullo bridge
Blue is the new King George connection to the new bridge


With the majority of the Surrey -to- Burnaby traffic in a tunnel, McBride and the other N-S and E-W streets in New West can go back to being local streets for residents of the area.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by 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.

You may be right that McBride doesn't need to be six lanes ... today

However,when the six lane Pattullo Bridge lands in New West, within a decade of opening (if not sooner) there will be people (drivers stuck in traffic) who will ask
"Who the H*LL builds a new six-lane bridge and connects it to an old four lane road that simply STOPS in the middle of a residential district !?!??!"

[xd_1771]

A 4-lane McBride would be fine if they limit off (or remove) any local access to New West that isn't an interchange.

[Zassk]

What is the big deal about connecting Stormont to Gaglardi? There is no existing commute pattern between them or Lougheed. The priority should be to connect Patullo to Hwy 1 by whatever route is the most pragmatic - whether that be the properties acquired by Burnaby or a tunnel or an alignment following Brunette.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Zassk

What is the big deal about connecting Stormont to Gaglardi? There is no existing commute pattern between them or Lougheed. The priority should be to connect Patullo to Hwy 1 by whatever route is the most pragmatic - whether that be the properties acquired by Burnaby or a tunnel or an alignment following Brunette.

Well, it's tons better than having traffic barelling along Canada Way and other residential streets (and for those heading to the 1 westbound, taking the NFPR/Brunette would be a longer way than Stormont).
As for the Gaglardi interchange, it's already built. New interchanges would consume more land (i.e. more forest loss)and most likely just cause weaving.

[Zassk]

My main criticism of Gaglardi is that it is tucked behind a residential neighbourhood. It doesn't really line up with the proposed connector and doesn't add much value by forcing the route to meet up with it.

[s211]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

"Who the H*LL builds a new six-lane bridge and connects it to an old four lane road that simply STOPS in the middle of a residential district !?!??!"

You're right. That madness can only exist in Vancouver proper.

[BCPhil]

If you look at the Gaglardi Way concept drawing, they've left very little room for on/off ramps for the Stormont connector. It would be pretty tight to fit in an offs ramps, plus the overpass looks like it's only 2 lanes wide.

http://www.pmh1project.com/inforoom/documents/PMH18GaglardireferenceConcept.pdf

I think it might be more efficient to just build a mirror image of this interchange a little to the west for the connector, and just add an extra lane between the two, so traffic doesn't even need to merge if they are doing Stormont to Gaglardi.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

If you look at the Gaglardi Way concept drawing, they've left very little room for on/off ramps for the Stormont connector. It would be pretty tight to fit in an offs ramps, plus the overpass looks like it's only 2 lanes wide.

http://www.pmh1project.com/inforoom/documents/PMH18GaglardireferenceConcept.pdf

I think it might be more efficient to just build a mirror image of this interchange a little to the west for the connector, and just add an extra lane between the two, so traffic doesn't even need to merge if they are doing Stormont to Gaglardi.

Well remember, that's the first concept, as in it could've changed since then.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

If you look at the Gaglardi Way concept drawing, they've left very little room for on/off ramps for the Stormont connector. It would be pretty tight to fit in an offs ramps, plus the overpass looks like it's only 2 lanes wide.

http://www.pmh1project.com/inforoom/documents/PMH18GaglardireferenceConcept.pdf

As a matter of fact, the new 2-lane Gaglardi overpass can be twinned to accommodate a future Stormont Connector. From the City of Burnaby:

The Province has indicated that the new Gaglardi overpass will accommodate anticipated demand excluding the Stormont-McBride Connector, and that the contractor will be required to demonstrate that the chosen design can be expanded when necessary (e.g., by the construction of a parallel overpass) to accommodate the requirements of the Connector.

http://www.city.burnaby.bc.ca/__shared/assets/Transportation_-_Gateway_-_2008_Sep_154757.pdf

I think it might be more efficient to just build a mirror image of this interchange a little to the west for the connector, and just add an extra lane between the two, so traffic doesn't even need to merge if they are doing Stormont to Gaglardi.

Actually that's not a bad idea as it's a direct routing. Since we are talking a trumpet interchange here - a NB Stormont to WB Hwy 1 directional ramp above a WB Hwy 1 to SB Stormont directional ramp might make better sense.

To top it off, a short 2+4+4+2 c/d system could be implemented between these two interchanges (due to their close proximity) in order to keep only one access point to/from Hwy 1 for both interchanges and prevent weaving.

[red-paladin]

I would've been the first to say it it should connect at the existing Gaglardi interchange. However, since I've read the last few posts, I'm not so sure. How many cars can be expected to travel down Gaglardi heading for the Patullo, and vice versa? After all, since the route doesn't exist at all at this point, how do we know if it would be a popular route? If the road can go straight up Newcombe to Highway 1, that would be a shorter route.

However, if there is even a bit of direct traffic is expected to travel north-south from Patullo to SFU, I would say that it's best to make the existing interchange the connection to Highway 1.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

You may be right that McBride doesn't need to be six lanes ... today

However,when the six lane Pattullo Bridge lands in New West, within a decade of opening (if not sooner) there will be people (drivers stuck in traffic) who will ask
"Who the H*LL builds a new six-lane bridge and connects it to an old four lane road that simply STOPS in the middle of a residential district !?!??!"

The Hwy 1 approaches onto the Second Narrows Bridge are good examples... even though it's only 2 lanes northbound getting onto 3 lanes, there is still a backup because of competing traffic getting on from Hastings and McGill. The traffic jam is not on the south end of the bridge when 3 lanes turns back to 2, it's always getting onto the bridge. Same thing with the Patullo. Bridges are ALWAYS the biggest bottle neck because in the case of the Patullo you have 4 lanes of traffic converging to two, then two lanes converging back to 4. This applies to almost every other bridge out there.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I would've been the first to say it it should connect at the existing Gaglardi interchange. However, since I've read the last few posts, I'm not so sure. How many cars can be expected to travel down Gaglardi heading for the Patullo, and vice versa? After all, since the route doesn't exist at all at this point, how do we know if it would be a popular route? If the road can go straight up Newcombe to Highway 1, that would be a shorter route.

However, if there is even a bit of direct traffic is expected to travel north-south from Patullo to SFU, I would say that it's best to make the existing interchange the connection to Highway 1.

Having Gaglardi continue (in a tunnel) through New West to the new Pattullo would let that traffic access other E-W routes that are difficult to get to today from New West (ie from McBride & 10th Ave):
a) Trans Canada Highway
b) Lougheed Highway (also Lougheed Mall & Austin Ave)
c) Broadway / Clarke Rd / North Rd / Como Lake Rd
d) Use Gaglardi / Burnaby Mountain Parkway & to get to Hastings St.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

To top it off, a short 2+4+4+2 c/d system could be implemented between these two interchanges (due to their close proximity) in order to keep only one access point to/from Hwy 1 for both interchanges and prevent weaving.

They won't build it.
Heck, they already cancelled the Willingdon C/D system and Burnaby is already trying to downsize on other interchanges (just look at the Sprott/Kensington interchanges - though they move traffic pretty efficiently they'll just be the same thing in the end with a couple more lanes). Since at this intersection (unlike Grandview/Willingdon) most of the traffic will actually be staying on the Stormont Connector/Gaglardi (which could make weaving very hard), a C/D system would be very needed. I wouldn't approve of having it continue on a shorter route to Route 1 unless they confirm a C/D system WILL be built.

[Stingray2004]

Finally figured out how the new PB is able to connect with the SFPR via an interchange. The SFPR alignment currently passes under the existing Pattullo with a considerable height differential - that height differential will also exist with the new PB. The height is simply too great for connecting ramps even though the preliminary Delcan study shows same.

After reviewing the Transportation Committee minutes from Surrey dated May, 2010, in conjunction with some recent media pronouncements by Translink's Ken Hardie, the configuration will likely shape up as follows:

1. Scott Road will now pass over the new King George Blvd. alignment as part of a new interchange and then Scott Rd. will also be extended NE to meet up with the SFPR at another full movement interchange. That makes sense.

BTW, it appears that the new SFPR/Scott Rd. interchange and the SFPR/Tannery Road interchange to the west will together be relatively closely spaced.

http://www.surrey.ca/nr/shared/ifilepro.asp?param=pattullo%20bridge

[BurnabyAaron]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I would've been the first to say it it should connect at the existing Gaglardi interchange. However, since I've read the last few posts, I'm not so sure. How many cars can be expected to travel down Gaglardi heading for the Patullo, and vice versa? After all, since the route doesn't exist at all at this point, how do we know if it would be a popular route? If the road can go straight up Newcombe to Highway 1, that would be a shorter route.

However, if there is even a bit of direct traffic is expected to travel north-south from Patullo to SFU, I would say that it's best to make the existing interchange the connection to Highway 1.

Even if there is very little traffic that would travel between the Patullo bridge and Gaglardi it still makes sense to have the road connect at that overpass. One thing that is certain is that overpasses create congestion and reduce speed along the highway as people are changing lanes to exit HW1 and doing the same as they enter it.

The only way for us to reduce this as much as possible would be to either use the same overpass or implement a 2+4+4+2 c/d system as Stingray mentioned.

I really like the idea of this bridge connecting to HW1 - it will really reduce congestion along Canada way and Kingsway. Last year I was doing some construction around Surrey Central station and driving from burnaby to the site was painful, even going the opposite way of the main flow of traffic.

[Mininari]

One would have to wonder what a directly-connected Patullo, feeding additional traffic onto Highway One will do during the morning rush hour. I'm already seeing great potential for offramp overloading at Grandview, and First Ave, as we'll now an 8-lane highway dispersing traffic instead of the present 6.

But I'm sure Burnaby and New West can agree reducing traffic on local streets, and Canada Way would be a big bonus to them.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Finally figured out how the new PB is able to connect with the SFPR via an interchange. The SFPR alignment currently passes under the existing Pattullo with a considerable height differential - that height differential will also exist with the new PB. The height is simply too great for connecting ramps even though the preliminary Delcan study shows same.

After reviewing the Transportation Committee minutes from Surrey dated May, 2010, in conjunction with some recent media pronouncements by Translink's Ken Hardie, the configuration will likely shape up as follows:

1. Scott Road will now pass over the new King George Blvd. alignment as part of a new interchange and then Scott Rd. will also be extended NE to meet up with the SFPR at another full movement interchange. That makes sense.

BTW, it appears that the new SFPR/Scott Rd. interchange and the SFPR/Tannery Road interchange to the west will together be relatively closely spaced.

http://www.surrey.ca/nr/shared/ifilepro.asp?param=pattullo%20bridge

From the way it sounds, I think Scott Road will basically link up with Bridgeview Drive. Bridgeview is a pretty beefy road, and will have an intersection or interchange with the SFPR. And the talk of the Pattullo on the Surrey side has it making changes to 128 St (which is Bridgeview). So my gut feeling is that Scott Road will go under/over King George and continue on Biridgeview to link with the SFPR. SFPR -> Bridgeview -> King George -> Pattullo will actually be shorter/faster/cheaper/easier than having SFPR directly connect with the Pattullo bridge underneath it with some insane ramps.

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Having Gaglardi continue (in a tunnel) through New West to the new Pattullo would let that traffic access other E-W routes that are difficult to get to today from New West (ie from McBride & 10th Ave):
a) Trans Canada Highway
b) Lougheed Highway (also Lougheed Mall & Austin Ave)
c) Broadway / Clarke Rd / North Rd / Como Lake Rd
d) Use Gaglardi / Burnaby Mountain Parkway & to get to Hastings St.

The problem with a tunnel is that Gaglardi/Pattullo can be more useful than a direct connection to the bridge.

You list some good destinations on the North Side of the connector, but there are just as many on the South side. Like going from Gaglardi to New Westminster. Currently you either have to go around and down Canada Way, or down North and take 10th or 8th through residential neighborhoods or stay on the nightmare that is Columbia. Taking Stormont to 10th or 8th or 6th would save a lot of time and reduce traffic through the more residential areas and ease traffic around the Hospital on E. Columbia.

Taking Stormont to 10th would be an amazing route to go from North East Burnaby through to South West. 10th directly connects through to Marine, Griffiths, Kingsway, and Canada Way.

And you can predict how much traffic there would be on the Stormont connector. The connector would replace Cariboo Road. Most of the traffic on Cariboo road is using it as a shortcut connection between North and South. Half the traffic gets on/off Cariboo at 16th (bound for Burnaby) and at least 1/3 heads straight down 10th to McBride for the Pattallo.

So I think if Stormont connected directly with Gaglardi it would be very popular as a straight through route (going over highway 1). But that worries me a little in that with the way it's laid out and the room that's left, that it would add light controlled intersections to the interchange. It might become some traffic nightmare like 200 St in Langley or Willingdon.

So I think having 2 interchanges with a proper C/D system might be a better solution than having an interchange with 2 controlled intersections. But if Gaglardi can be enhanced to make it fully free flow, that would be best. If to get to McBride from EB Hwy 1, you had to go all the way to Gaglardi, deal with an intersection/merge/yield, then backtrack to McBride, many people might still just exit at Kensington onto Canada Way.

The thing I like most about Gaglardi Way is that the exit is so smooth, there is never any panic breaking or waits or major slowdowns or backups onto the freeway. It was probably be best exit on Hwy 1 pre-Gateway.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Mininari

One would have to wonder what a directly-connected Patullo, feeding additional traffic onto Highway One will do during the morning rush hour. I'm already seeing great potential for offramp overloading at Grandview, and First Ave, as we'll now an 8-lane highway dispersing traffic instead of the present 6.

But I'm sure Burnaby and New West can agree reducing traffic on local streets, and Canada Way would be a big bonus to them.

There would be little change. Most people, as stated earlier, already get on the highway at ~Canada Way. This way they'd get on the highway (rather than use the local streets) a bit earlier.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Mininari

One would have to wonder what a directly-connected Patullo, feeding additional traffic onto Highway One will do during the morning rush hour. I'm already seeing great potential for offramp overloading at Grandview, and First Ave, as we'll now an 8-lane highway dispersing traffic instead of the present 6.

But I'm sure Burnaby and New West can agree reducing traffic on local streets, and Canada Way would be a big bonus to them.

I wonder if this is actually _additional_ traffic being added to the TCH, or will the more direct connection of Pattullo to Gaglardi shift the current traffic (that right now is using all the local New West and Burnaby streets & Canada Way or Brunette to get to TCH) to a smarter connection to TCH @ Gaglardi (and points north of TCH).

Perhaps some people using Port Mann today to get to Port Moody from Surrey will use Pattullo / Gaglardi / Clarke (coming from the West) instead of Port Mann / Lougheed/ Barnett (coming from the East)