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

[Millennium2002]

I keep saying this over, but do people agree or disagree if we rebuild the Pattullo Bridge as an orange arch to keep it looking unique vs all the other bridges on the Fraser River? Or should it be strictly cost-based (which may mean another cable-stayed)?

(perhaps someone can turn this into a poll)

[Metro-One]

Or it could be one of those cable / arch bridges. I think that would be a good option, putting cots lower but keeping a historical context in mind.

[go_leafs_go02]

As long as its not another cable stay bridge, I'll be happy. There are now 3 of them once then Old Port Mann is gone....

[Pinion]

Orange arches are hideous. I personally love cable-stayed and had no problem with even Lions Gate getting replaced by one. It's not like we have a shortage of bridge locations in Metro Van.

[Zassk]

I am sure there was a time in the 60's when people bemoaned "not another steel arch!"

They were distinct, but they were ugly.

I say build whatever is safest and cost-effective.

[Whalleyboy]

so who is going to the open house for this thing?
also i wonder if there will be talk about making this bridge into a park =P

[Metro-One]

Oh i will be there for this one! Been waiting to see the proposed alignment for a long time. As I said, it better be an interchange with the SFPR.

I think Surrey is actually demanding that as well.

[BCPhil]

I was thinking that a bridge that is similar to the new Lake Champlain bridge (a Modified Network Tied Arch bridge) in New York/Vermont would look great at the location and be a suitable tribute. Plus the style of construction seems to be affordable and fast for shorter span bridges (and the area the bridge is is one of the shorter spans on the Fraser).

https://www.dot.ny.gov/lakechamplainbridge

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Oh i will be there for this one! Been waiting to see the proposed alignment for a long time. As I said, it better be an interchange with the SFPR.

I think Surrey is actually demanding that as well.

The latest plans I did see included a full interchange with the SFPR, Scott Road, and King George Blvd.

[Canadian Mind]

Will the 6 lane bridge be expandable to 8?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Will the 6 lane bridge be expandable to 8?

I dont think New Westminster could handle 8 lanes, there is no way they can increase the road capacity leading up to the bridge to handle that kind of volume. I think 6 lanes is perfect. If there would be a need for more capacity to make the crossing then they should look at building a future bridge along the second proposed route over to United Boulevard/#1/Lougheed area which can handle traffic originating in North Burnaby/Vancouver and the North Shore that would otherwise use the Pattulo bridge. Another option in the future would be a new bridge just east of the Surrey docks across to Anasis island just east of the Car port and connecting up to the east West Connector, a future Tree Island bridge and the Queens Borough bridge(looking at a map it seems feasible to make a crossing there and only a few parcels of land would need to be expropriated as its all large industrial parcels even on Anacis island where the route can take the north shore of the island).

No point in the new Patullo bridge having more then six lanes imo.

[huenthar]

I really liked the design of the old Port Mann, a sleek, minimal, graceful orange arch. I'd like something similar, that contrasts with the cables of the SkyBridge.

If they build it connecting to McBride, it will be directly over the site of the potential Woodlands station on the Millennium Line... any chance they'd build the station as part of the bridge project?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I dont think New Westminster could handle 8 lanes, there is no way they can increase the road capacity leading up to the bridge to handle that kind of volume. I think 6 lanes is perfect. If there would be a need for more capacity to make the crossing then they should look at building a future bridge along the second proposed route over to United Boulevard/#1/Lougheed area which can handle traffic originating in North Burnaby/Vancouver and the North Shore that would otherwise use the Pattulo bridge. Another option in the future would be a new bridge just east of the Surrey docks across to Anasis island just east of the Car port and connecting up to the east West Connector, a future Tree Island bridge and the Queens Borough bridge(looking at a map it seems feasible to make a crossing there and only a few parcels of land would need to be expropriated as its all large industrial parcels even on Anacis island where the route can take the north shore of the island).

No point in the new Patullo bridge having more then six lanes imo.

I agree, 6 lanes makes the most sense out of this project. 8 lanes is over kill for this location, but 4 lanes is also idiotic and short sighted, unless the proposal was to build 2 new 4 lane bridges a km or two apart. but again, that wold also be a waste.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/02/09/pa...m_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

The article says they're looking for sources of funding so that it doesn't have to be paid for by tolls. If they do that, then 6 lanes won't be enough because a huge amount of Port Mann traffic will divert to it.

The only politically feasible way to toll the bridge will be to claim that it's to fund construction. And they'll need to toll it if they want to avoid having the Port Mann fall victim to the same below-forecast volumes as the Golden Ears bridge.

I predict that it will be tolled.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The article says they're looking for sources of funding so that it doesn't have to be paid for by tolls. If they do that, then 6 lanes won't be enough because a huge amount of Port Mann traffic will divert to it.

The only politically feasible way to toll the bridge will be to claim that it's to fund construction. And they'll need to toll it if they want to avoid having the Port Mann fall victim to the same below-forecast volumes as the Golden Ears bridge.

I predict that it will be tolled.

If they toll it, then the Port Mann CAN'T be tolled, as there is a statement saying any road tolled needs to have a free alternative available.

if the Port Mann is tolled, and the two alternatives on either side is tolled (Golden Ears & Pattullo), then who knows.

[racc]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The article says they're looking for sources of funding so that it doesn't have to be paid for by tolls. If they do that, then 6 lanes won't be enough because a huge amount of Port Mann traffic will divert to it.

The only politically feasible way to toll the bridge will be to claim that it's to fund construction. And they'll need to toll it if they want to avoid having the Port Mann fall victim to the same below-forecast volumes as the Golden Ears bridge.

I predict that it will be tolled.

It would be a total disaster if they don't toll it. With traffic reports and real-time GPS, people would only drive over the Port Mann at peak periods killing the revenue generated from the tolls. This will also cause a traffic mess on the roads approaching the Pattullo.

With a toll, demographic changes with younger people driving less and more older people who don't need to drive as much, there is no reason for more than 4 lanes. People are also telecommuting more and this tread will continue. Also, as density on both sides of river increases, people won't need to travel as far for shopping, recreation, school, etc. further reducing the need for road space. Improved transit SoF will also help reduce traffic.

Keeping it at 4 lanes will reduce the cost so the tolls could be kept lower. Maybe $2.50 or $2.00. Enough to pay for the bridge and discourage people from going too far out of their way to pay less.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

If they toll it, then the Port Mann CAN'T be tolled, as there is a statement saying any road tolled needs to have a free alternative available.

That didn't stop them from replacing the free Albion Ferry with the tolled Golden Ears Bridge. And a "statement", even one with the force of law, can be changed by the government with due process.

And if all that fails, they could still claim that the alternative is the Queensborough / Alex Fraser.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That didn't stop them from replacing the free Albion Ferry with the tolled Golden Ears Bridge.

Pitt River bridge/Lougheed highway is an alternative for Pitt Meadows?

Four lanes and/or no toll for Patullo would be ridiculous.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That didn't stop them from replacing the free Albion Ferry with the tolled Golden Ears Bridge. And a "statement", even one with the force of law, can be changed by the government with due process.

And if all that fails, they could still claim that the alternative is the Queensborough / Alex Fraser.

You still had a free alternative to the east with the Mission Bridge, that still exists toll-free, and that would be the day that that bridge would be tolled.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

You still had a free alternative to the east with the Mission Bridge, that still exists toll-free, and that would be the day that that bridge would be tolled.

The tolled Patullo would still have a free alternative to the west (and much less distance away than your example). And thanks to the SFPR, the two bridges will be about 5 minutes' drive from each other. In fact, the SFPR very much negates any arguments against tolling, since it connects all of the bridges under discussion except the Mission Bridge.