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

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

the bridge needs to be replaced and someone has to pay for it. It does seem unfair to only toll Surrey bridges, the new Pitt River bridge is not tolled.

I don't mean to get too technical, but the Golden Ears Bridge is between Langley and Maple ridge. I realize that the main routr comes from Surrey, but it actaully hits land in Langley

[Pinion]

When Lions Gate got refurbished, and screwed over everyone on the west side of the north shore for a generation, they just cantilevered the sidewalks farther out to make the lane width less dangerous.

[Zassk]

Can you add a 2nd deck to Patullo, so you would have 2-3 lanes in each direction on separate decks? I wonder if this is what is being looked at? I can't imagine there is any other solution to the narrow width of the bridge.

[Stingray2004]

With the Pattullo, you can't add another deck or cantilever out sidewalks. The centre thru truss prevents that. And I'm not even sure if the structure has undergone an expensive seismic retrofit.

Delcan Engineering came to this conclusion:

RETENTION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE

The technical assessment indicated that the existing Pattullo Bridge should not be retained due to the following considerations:

• The current condition of the bridge requires a significant capital cost investment to rehabilitate the bridge to obtain three standard travel lanes.

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-080731-pattullo-corridor-study.pdf

So we spend $Hundreds of Millions$ to go down to 3 lanes, which does not address capacity and reliability issues.



Source: http://www.i-move.ca/NR/rdonlyres/0E3E4772-A29E-4EED-82E1-E59FB3217B72/20/Pattulo.jpg



Source: http://www.b-t.com/images/400/pattullo.jpg

[wrenegade]

🞵🞵🞵🞵 is expensive. Tolls are inevitable. I'm sure once the Iron Workers needs replacement it will require a toll as well, especially considering the upgrades that are required at the north bridgehead, what a horrible mess they are. I'm not sure it would drive all that much traffic to the Lions Gate as it is so congested as it is. I would be against a toll there to "even things out" but would support a toll if it mean a new bridge/crossing with more travel lanes. I'd love to see a 5 lane bridge (2 southbound, 3 northbound) over the first narrows and into a cut and cover tunnel to replace the causeway through the park.

[vanlaw]

The bridge did undergo full seismic upgrades a while ago. 6-8 years ago maybe?

[DKaz]

I hate Stewardson Way, I always go on Royal Ave.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Have Canada Border services charge a re-admittance fee too for all Canadians re entrying of $10 to avoid people driving across to fill their tanks, we'll call it a cost recovery user fee . Let Americans enter for free so we don't scare them from coming.

I don't think you can do that, as it's illegal to deny a Canadian entry into Canada, but you could probably turn the first 1cm of highway into Canada into a toll highway and charge $10 bucks to use it

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by galeforcewinds

I don't think you can do that, as it's illegal to deny a Canadian entry into Canada, but you could probably turn the first 1cm of highway into Canada into a toll highway and charge $10 bucks to use it

But then you would still need a toll free alternative as per provincial legislation

[xd_1771]

Lowering from 4 lanes to 3 lanes may not be so bad an idea.
Look at it this way: There will be a new RapidBus across new PMB, and Skybridge is there only a few hundred metres south. Of course, that's not free, but neither is gas!
But definitely, never, ever, will I allow them to reduce that bridge to 3 lanes, unless transit services are improved systematically across the entire city of Surrey. I'm talking full ART connections between Newton, Whalley & Guildford, LRT serving some major routes, and BRT all over the city between every major centre.
The one other problem with narrowing to 3 lanes is that it may screw the King George Highway over (both in traffic and in its future, because with the same Pattullo still there with less lanes, there goes the highway status... taking along with it one of the fastest and the only well designed route in all of Surrey).

[officedweller]

The real loss would be a missed opportunity to upgrade the rail crossing at the same time.

[Spork]

Translink should just put a time limit on the bridge. The Provincial or Federal Governments pay up to build a new one or pay for the upgrades, or Translink shuts it down for safety reasons at the end of some time span.

[Millennium2002]

(sigh)

If we really want to improve the bridge, why not build a completely new, wider replica next door? Good upgrade right there. =P

But like everyone else here, I do not understand the logic of keeping the weakest link... and think that tolls or higher property taxes should fund the rebuild.

Which makes me wonder... why are Metro Vancouver tax rates set so unequally? I think there should be a unified rate to pay for all of these improvements rather than hitting us Vancouverites with the biggest upgrade bills. =O

[crazyjoeda]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The real loss would be a missed opportunity to upgrade the rail crossing at the same time.

Thats a good point, it the US is serious about high speed rail in the Pacific North West then BC will need to upgrade the tracks here. The Oresund Bridge between Denmark and Sweden carries both vehicles and high-speed rail, obviously its much bigger but the same idea.

[Whalleyboy]

I remember reading a file back a while ago that if the bridge was replace a possible station could be built in surrey for the high speed rail to end at. Personally if thats the fact I kinda keep my hopes up that the bridge doesnt get replaced=P

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

What does "refurbishing" the Pattullo Bridge mean anyway? You can't expand the width of the bridge, you can't shoe-horn another lane onto the deck, and the current cross-section is narrow and sub-standard. Sounds like an exercise in futility with that 73-old facility.

I wish someone would wait till all is quiet ... and blow the damn thing up. Case closed.

[Millennium2002]

Ahh I wish they didn't have that replacement concrete ramp when the tiny trestle on the South side burned a few years ago. xD

As for HSR, ehh... I'm not sure about tunneling through New Westminister... and also I think the SkyTrain tunnel is in the way. =O

[go_leafs_go02]

Haha, I was thinking the same thing. If someone burned a portion down again, and gave them NO choice but to build from scratch, it would remove any possiblity of a refurbishment.

[Pennywise604]

During the rush hours how busy is the opposite direction of general travel? I always thought about the 3 lane Lions Gate option, but it seems like the merge with Scott Rd/KGB heading into New West would be a mess in the afternoons. Morning it would work great, but afternoon would be chaos and huge delays for both directions.

Also, please stop reminding all of us, when those homeless people burned a part of the bridge. That was a horrific 2 weeks for thousands of people. Still have nightmares of seeing 64th to the AFB a complete disaster, with the line going past KGB, and that wasn't even close to the worst delay either...
I do like how Dianne Watts even said she wants a new bridge though, should make their study on upgrading instead of replacing, an easy one.

It's short-term thinking. You know, you save money today but you're going to pay for it down the road. We know that the bridge needs to be replaced, we know it's 75 years old, and there (are) significant issues with it.

[nickinacan]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

Thats a good point, it the US is serious about high speed rail in the Pacific North West then BC will need to upgrade the tracks here. The Oresund Bridge between Denmark and Sweden carries both vehicles and high-speed rail, obviously its much bigger but the same idea.

But neither way of getting across that is free either. There is no way to walk or bike across, they force you to take the train... but it is a very nice train between Copenhagen H and Malmo Central Station. It is only cost effective to drive if you are carpooling with about 3 or more people.

This whole Patullo thing is complete idiocy. Everyone knows that it will need to be replaced sooner than later. Tolling it is not an option, and if it does happen, it will be political suicide for any politician that puts it through. Regardless, I don't believe that people should be paying tolls on local bridges, it should be purely paid for by either adding a fee on top of your insurance to register your vehicle, or an additional property tax. It is not fair for the residents of only a couple cities to have to pay the bulk of the cost when these bridges benefit the region as a whole. Just sayin'.