I seriously doubt we'll go farther than a cut and cover tunnel for the underground Mcbride-Gaglardi connector for all of these cost reasons...
I thought Burnaby had bought all, or almost all, the properties along Newcombe street so it can be widened for the connector. I think the only part you should tunnel is the intersection at 10th Ave. There is a hill there so you could put the road in a trench and put 10th over it. It would ease the grade on the connector and simplify the busiest intersection on McBride.
Until they actually build a replacement Patullo... get the big trucks off of it. They don't belong there.. if they can't fit in one lane, it's too big for the bridge.
Or.. go Lions Gate with it - three lanes, with lane control.
Holy —, I always thought Translink would procrastinate on this concept and start building it around 10-15 years down the line. But this! I cannot believe.
Since it's gonna be built this soon, I'm thinking they're just going to keep with the McBride routing in New West. and make the bridge 6 lanes, with 2 lanes being ramps to and from Royal Ave. Here's to another cable stayed bridge across the Fraser! Cheers!
Even though cable-stayed bridges are cost-efficient for medium-span crossings, I rather see a bridge with some sort of arch element in it. I think the look especially fine alongside an urban environment, which should go well with New Westminster. Vancouver already has many cable-stayed bridges, but there won't be any substantial arch bridges left after Port Mann and Pattullo are taken down.
Unfortunately, they probably do cost more to build and maintain.
Until they actually build a replacement Patullo... get the big trucks off of it. They don't belong there.. if they can't fit in one lane, it's too big for the bridge.
Or.. go Lions Gate with it - three lanes, with lane control.
That's exactly what I thought at first with the 3 lane option. But if you think of how busy traffic is NB during the afternoon rush (opposite commuters), it would back KGB way up the hill into Whalley, and Scott Rd. would be a parking lot every afternoon. It'd be typical NB morning commute back-ups, except move twice as slow, which would solve absolutely nothing, only worsen the problem. It seemed like such an easy idea, but the city of Surrey didn't bother pursuing any part of it.
In my previous post I didn't realize that Translink also did a document dump on their website on November 21.
Interesting to note that a combined road/rail bridge is not in the cards due to complex cost/engineering issues and ownership issues.
BTW it is mentioned that the "Stormont-McBride Connector is not part of the scope of the Pattulo Bridge Replacement Project". So that's obviously still in the cards down the road by BC MoT perhaps.
And the 6-lane option is the obvious preferred candidate due to capacity/connectivity issues.
That's exactly what I thought at first with the 3 lane option. But if you think of how busy traffic is NB during the afternoon rush (opposite commuters), it would back KGB way up the hill into Whalley, and Scott Rd. would be a parking lot every afternoon. It'd be typical NB morning commute back-ups, except move twice as slow, which would solve absolutely nothing, only worsen the problem. It seemed like such an easy idea, but the city of Surrey didn't bother pursuing any part of it.
You have to get the big trucks off it as well... they turn the bridge into a single lane anyway.
Force all trucks on KGB to turn onto SFPR to go to another bridge...
Once the SFPR is in open, there won't be many trucks on KGB, except those serving local destinations in Surrey. The only reason trucks take the Patullo now is because the PMB and Front street get so slow that if you are heading to the industrial lands in South Burnaby it is faster to drive through Surrey, over the PB and through New West, than stay on TCH. The only reason they use the Patullo is because going over that and dealing with New West is faster than driving all the way through Surrey and Delta to the 91. Once the NFPR is open, I think most of the trucks will vanish from the Patullo on their own, no need to force them.
Well, it's been named one of the top 5 worst roads, bridges and tunnels in Canada by autoblog
Quote:
Pattullo Bridge - New Westminster
As one of a few bridges spanning the Fraser river, the Pattullo bridge is considered extremely dangerous. Connecting New Westminster with Surrey, this truss bridge sees a staggering amount of traffic in two lanes each way with no centre median. With dangerous driving or bad weather, the oncoming lanes can become a serious hazard and there have been several injuries and fatalities in it's 74 year history. The lanes are considered too narrow even for cars and commercial vehicles are banned from using it. In 2009, a fire was set under the bridge damaging some of the wooden structure causing total commuter chaos for weeks. It was decided that the Pattullo bridge was too far gone and it will no longer be repaired in favour of a new bridge
A few errors in that writeup - first, trucks are welcome on that bridge 24/7, and second, that bridge fire damage was fixed in a week, although it did cause significant chaos out there.
Once the SFPR is in open, there won't be many trucks on KGB, except those serving local destinations in Surrey. The only reason trucks take the Patullo now is because the PMB and Front street get so slow that if you are heading to the industrial lands in South Burnaby it is faster to drive through Surrey, over the PB and through New West, than stay on TCH. The only reason they use the Patullo is because going over that and dealing with New West is faster than driving all the way through Surrey and Delta to the 91. Once the NFPR is open, I think most of the trucks will vanish from the Patullo on their own, no need to force them.
Was thinking Hwy 91 NB @ 72nd would lose a lot of the trucks too. From Roberts Bank in the pm peak, there is only 3 viable options for them. Deal with the hour long delays at the Massey Tunnel NB, crawl along River Rd. which can take upwards of 40 minutes on a good day, or go to the 91 and get through it and into East Richmond in under 15 minutes of delays. But the SFPR should keep them off the 91 with the exception of traffic coming from South Surrey. I am sure the delays at the 91 will never go away until the traffic light is gone, but the delays will move a lot faster than they do now if truck traffic is significantly reduced.
A few errors in that writeup - first, trucks are welcome on that bridge 24/7, and second, that bridge fire damage was fixed in a week, although it did cause significant chaos out there.
And a few gramatical/logical errors.
Quote:
"As one of a few bridges spanning the Fraser river, the Pattullo bridge is considered extremely dangerous."
The sentence implies that the bridge is dangerous because it crosses the Fraser River. I never realized that the river was so treacherous. Someone really needs to take some college English classes.
I don't see anything about freight rail sharing the bridge. I thought that there was a road/rail option, allowing replacement of the 1904 New Westminster rail bridge. If the bridge is to align with McBride, the current rail bridge is quite close. Might there be thoughts of relocating the rail crossing east, using the abandoned Port Mann Bridge to hang a lower deck, as suggested by rail historian, Barrie Sanford.
Prev
Holy —, I always thought Translink would procrastinate on this concept and start building it around 10-15 years down the line. But this! I cannot believe.
Linear Mode
