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

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

If a Sapperton bridge is built, that "temporary" traffic light at Old Yale could languish for 15+ years. If the Pattullo is replaced, that light will probably get fixed (due to the proximity).

re: "New 6-Lane Sapperton Bar Bridge is NOT recommended for further evaluation"

You only need to look to the Queeensborough or Knight Street to see we shouldn't be building four-lane highway bridges anymore.

Without any overflow capacity, minor accidents become huge traffic snarls. If there are two through lanes, the third add-drop lane at either side is critical.

I think even if they kept the Pattullo as a two-lane bridge, there is enough volume to warrant a 6-lane Sapperton Bar Bridge.

Sad to see Richmond is opposing Tree Island, too.

Agreed 100%. Came here to say the same thing.

Spending all this money to only build a 4 lane choke point is ridiculous. I don't understand how that can even be proposed. 6 lanes or no lanes.

*also why the number one should have been designed to expand to 5 lanes + as projects like these will ultimately feed into it and use it as our networks backbone. The backbone always needs to be the networks strong point, if it fails then the whole network fails. my two cents.

[SpongeG]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/06/03/bc-pattullo-bridge-replacement.html

Pattullo Bridge replacement options rolled out by TransLink
TransLink hopes to have a plan to replace the crossing by spring of 2014

[stump]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/06/03/bc-pattullo-bridge-replacement.html

Pattullo Bridge replacement options rolled out by TransLink
TransLink hopes to have a plan to replace the crossing by spring of 2014

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong but with the Tree Island crossing, there would be Tree Island Bridge and Queensborough feeding onto Alex Fraser? That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

[twoNeurons]

Looks interesting. I wonder if any of them include a joint train-road bridge/tunnel. The Sapperton bar crossing could include a rail crossing easily.

Perhaps it could be an opportunity for cost sharing as well.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

If a Sapperton bridge is built, that "temporary" traffic light at Old Yale could languish for 15+ years. If the Pattullo is replaced, that light will probably get fixed (due to the proximity).

re: "New 6-Lane Sapperton Bar Bridge is NOT recommended for further evaluation"

You only need to look to the Queeensborough or Knight Street to see we shouldn't be building four-lane highway bridges anymore.

Without any overflow capacity, minor accidents become huge traffic snarls. If there are two through lanes, the third add-drop lane at either side is critical.

I think even if they kept the Pattullo as a two-lane bridge, there is enough volume to warrant a 6-lane Sapperton Bar Bridge.

Sad to see Richmond is opposing Tree Island, too.

Seriously? How many lanes do we need? With the Surrey Coquitlam bridge we could have a 4 lane bridge. Just 3 km away the recommendation is to keep a lane or 2 for New West to Surrey (or 2 km on the Surrey side).

Just 5 km away on the Surrey side or 3 km away on the Coquitlam side there is a TEN LANE BRIDGE!!! I would seriously question the need for such large capacities so close together.

I think a 4 lane bridge in this location with the 2-3 lane rehab of the Patullo makes the most sense. Having more points of crossing is always better than having big ones spaced further apart. If the Patullo bridge is removed from its current location that would not be good. At least not for Surrey-New West commuters including myself who cycles that direction daily.

Having a bridge at the Surrey - Coquitlam location would finally put the nail in coffin of that tunnel idea to Gagladi Way. Good riddance!

Wouldn't it make the most sense to connect this bridge to King Edward Ave overpass?

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Seriously? How many lanes do we need? With the Surrey Coquitlam bridge we could have a 4 lane bridge. Just 3 km away the recommendation is to keep a lane or 2 for New West to Surrey (or 2 km on the Surrey side).

Just 5 km away on the Surrey side or 3 km away on the Coquitlam side there is a TEN LANE BRIDGE!!! I would seriously question the need for such large capacities so close together.

I think a 4 lane bridge in this location with the 2-3 lane rehab of the Patullo makes the most sense. Having more points of crossing is always better than having big ones spaced further apart. If the Patullo bridge is removed from its current location that would not be good. At least not for Surrey-New West commuters including myself who cycles that direction daily.

Having a bridge at the Surrey - Coquitlam location would finally put the nail in coffin of that tunnel idea to Gagladi Way. Good riddance!

Wouldn't it make the most sense to connect this bridge to King Edward Ave overpass?

Spending 1 billion+ on a bridge that functions with a high level of service only on a sunny day, with no accidents, and light to moderate traffic doesn't make sense.

The extra lane doesn't have to be a through lane, it could be used only for merging and exiting the bridge, or for HOV, or emergency only, or just built as an extra large shoulder and reserved for future use.

If the Pattullo should fail within the next few decades, then we wouldn't have to look at building *another* bridge, rather than having a six lane bridge that actually functions well.

The Pitt River was built with 8 lanes for future flexibility, which is a good example - one lane is exit only, and one lane is for multi-modal use.

[twoNeurons]

Just skimmed over the document: http://www.pattullobridgereview.ca/wp-co...idge-Review-Display-Boards-June-2013.pdf

CBC may be reporting the three alternatives that were studied, but the REAL alternatives that came out of the study are as follows:

$330M - $375M Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge – 3 Lanes
$ in Millions
$375M - $400M Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge – 4 Lanes
$820M - 845M New 4-Lane Bridge at Existing Location
$895M - 930M New 5-Lane Bridge at Existing Location
$985M - $1.1B New 6-Lane Bridge at Existing Location
$1.4B - $1.5B New 4-Lane Surrey-Coquitlam Bridge, with a 2- or 3-Lane Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge


All the other options (including tunnels) were deemed not recommended for further study.

My guess is that Translink wanted to keep the Sapperton Bar option on the table because it really opens up a new corridor and better flow between Surrey, Coquitlam and the #1 Hwy.

Interesting that essentially, the study says a bridge at Sapperton must include a crossing at the existing location as well to meet regional transportation goals.

Also interesting that the 6-lane Sapperton + 2/3-lane Pattulo refurb was reject NOT because of cost ($2B) but rather because it would encourage auto-dependent development and further impinge on industrial lands.

The only options under serious consideration:

[TransitFreak]

The way I read the report was that the SEISMIC upgrade would occur regardless to keep the bridge operational during the construction period. This does not include any costs for rehabilitation, which would presumably mean additional scope of work. What I take from this is that in its current state, it is not structurally sound to last the duration of the replacement/construction period....

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Spending 1 billion+ on a bridge that functions with a high level of service only on a sunny day, with no accidents, and light to moderate traffic doesn't make sense.

A replacement Patullo 6-laner would be $1.1B.

A 4-lane Surrey-Coquitlam Bridge + 2/3 lane Patullo refurb would be $1.4.

Essentially, you end up with the same throughput, but you direct traffic to where it is essentially going in the first place. You reduce traffic through New West as the Patullo becomes a local bridge. You end up with better traffic flow between Surrey and Coquitlam and Brunette's congestion through Sapperton can be better utilized as well. It would be nice if a 4-lane bridge there was built with foundations to support 6-lanes, but realistically, I'm not sure if it would ever be needed with the Port Mann serving East Surrey.

This would also reduce traffic along Kingsway as more people will opt to take the Surrey-Coquitlam bridge to connect to #1. It's a very interesting proposal and I'm glad it's still on the table.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

This would also reduce traffic along Kingsway as more people will opt to take the Surrey-Coquitlam bridge to connect to #1. It's a very interesting proposal and I'm glad it's still on the table.

The argument about re-distrubuting traffic is a good one.

However, should the four lane Sapperton Bridge be built, and twenty or thirty years from now the upkeep on the Pattullo should prove too expensive, or if it is deemed unsound (or structurally fails) due to anything unforeseen, we're back to square one.

Another problem is people in this city have no idea how to merge... Even if the daily traffic was half of what it is now, six lanes would still be a necessity for a good level of service.

At the time, everyone thought four lanes were enough for Oak Street Br, Knight Street Br, Massey Tunnel, Queensborough, Pattullo, even Alex Fraser, which only had four lanes when it opened. All of those crossings are insufficient now.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Spending 1 billion+ on a bridge that functions with a high level of service only on a sunny day, with no accidents, and light to moderate traffic doesn't make sense.

The extra lane doesn't have to be a through lane, it could be used only for merging and exiting the bridge, or for HOV, or emergency only, or just built as an extra large shoulder and reserved for future use.

If the Pattullo should fail within the next few decades, then we wouldn't have to look at building *another* bridge, rather than having a six lane bridge that actually functions well.

The Pitt River was built with 8 lanes for future flexibility, which is a good example - one lane is exit only, and one lane is for multi-modal use.

Plus you add the fact after the pattullo becomes a 2/3 lane bridge it should become a no truck crossing. So all trucks have now been pushed on to the new bridge. Lots of people don't like passing trucks let alone over a bridge. so having only 2 lanes you've now made a choke point when one guy is to scared to pass the truck

[Metro-One]

Well I hope everyone here who is complaining / wishes to see this link get built properly has filled out the online survey, leaving their concerns / comments. I just did mine.

This is the big comment I left at the end:

The only options worth considering are the ones that involve a new bridge being constructed. I do also like the idea of retaining the existing bridge for cyclists, pedestrians, and possibly 2 lanes of traffic.

I feel any new structure should be built with 6 lanes, not 4, as having extra capacity is always better than having less than what is needed. The extra 2 lanes could be used as rapid bus / transit lanes, commercial vehicle only lanes with dedicated ramps, HOV, etc...

Also, any new structure better be built with a full movement interchange on the south shore with the SFPR (which would be very beneficial for commercial traffic) not a traffic light!!!!!

On the north approach, if possible (for the new Coquitlam-Surrey options link only), it would be nice to have it free flowing into a new interchange at Blue Mountain with the #1 and potentially United Boulevard. This would potentially end the need for the New West section of the NFPR. Also, it is the Ministry of Transportation's long term plans to build an interchange at Blue Mountain, and close the Brunette interchange. Therefore, if this link is built it would make sense to work in cooperation with the MoT to build the new Blue Mountain interchange, linking it directly to this project, at the same time. That would create a free flow link (no traffic lights) from the #1 / United Boulevard to the SFPR.

[Whalleyboy]

I did the one for city speaks for surrey.

I added with a new bridge at sapperton bar they should add hov lanes which could be also serve for transit connection with a bus route between Surrey city centre and couquitlam centre...I made sure to add it would be no transfer route. The route could start at central go over the new bridge and just follow what i believe is the 169 route.

So its a win win since it can add transit use increase. We all know transfers are the biggest turn off for transit. I know for a fact translink knows too with how much they talk about them in meets i've went to. So i made sure to feed them that to think about.

[makr3trkr]

An eight lane bridge is an impossibility given the climate in New West, but it seems like some of the reasoning in the discussion guide is politically motivated rather than fact-based:

"The capacity of the (8-lane) bridge would likely exceed that of the connecting street network, leading to increased volumes, congestion and delay."

First of all, we already have increasing volume, congestion, and delay with a four lane bridge.

Secondly, one only needs to look to the Granville Street bridge to see that is demonstrably not true. While there are neighboring bridges to help distribute traffic demand, the reality is that the Granville Street bridge functions extremely well - and also happens to have the most lanes of the three bridges downtown.

I agree that widening roadways can "induce demand" and cause congestion, but once that congestion is created, wouldn't road users find ways to avoid it? (which ironically happens to be the argument used to support tearing down aging highways)

[Canadian Mind]

Constructing a new Bridge for a Surrey New West crossing gets my vote, even if it is only to meet current demand.

My rational for this is that if a Sapperton Bar crossing is a possibility now (I never knew it was possible) then it may still be a possibility 20-30 years down the road when demand has once again outstripped capacity.

[cornholio]

When building 3x3 lanes they can initially designate two of them as HOT lanes to recoup the costs.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I added with a new bridge at sapperton bar they should add hov lanes which could be also serve for transit connection with a bus route between Surrey city centre and couquitlam centre...I made sure to add it would be no transfer route. The route could start at central go over the new bridge and just follow what i believe is the 169 route

While I would think a Surrey-Coquitlam Centre bus line would route via Guildford (or terminate there), this could make for a much better connection between Surrey and jobs on United Blvd. I would also think that such a bus line would better route out of Scott Rd Station (more efficient, as a shorter route could then mean more frequent service which'd make up for the short SkyTrain ride there)

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

An eight lane bridge is an impossibility given the climate in New West, but it seems like some of the reasoning in the discussion guide is politically motivated rather than fact-based:

"The capacity of the (8-lane) bridge would likely exceed that of the connecting street network, leading to increased volumes, congestion and delay."

First of all, we already have increasing volume, congestion, and delay with a four lane bridge.

Secondly, one only needs to look to the Granville Street bridge to see that is demonstrably not true. While there are neighboring bridges to help distribute traffic demand, the reality is that the Granville Street bridge functions extremely well - and also happens to have the most lanes of the three bridges downtown.

In fact the Granville Street bridge was originally designed to integrate with the proposed downtown freeway network which never materialized. As a result, it's never gotten anywhere near its capacity, which means we paid a lot more for it than we needed to.

I think that's the point that's being made here. We don't always "have" to increase capacity. Vancouver didn't build it's freeway network and the sky didn't fall, and you'll find that a lot of people believe Vancouver is a much nicer place to live because of it.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

In fact the Granville Street bridge was originally designed to integrate with the proposed downtown freeway network which never materialized. As a result, it's never gotten anywhere near its capacity, which means we paid a lot more for it than we needed to.

I think that's the point that's being made here. We don't always "have" to increase capacity. Vancouver didn't build it's freeway network and the sky didn't fall, and you'll find that a lot of people believe Vancouver is a much nicer place to live because of it.

It is true that the capacity is underutilized today - but the middle lanes could be used for street cars, or converted to pedestrian only or bike use in future. The point is the flexibility is built in. The minimal cost of adding another lane (compared to building another bridge) would not be a waste at all, either in the case of Granville Street, or the Pattullo.

Whether the daily traffic count is 40,000 or 100,000, a six lane bridge is warranted just on the basis that it is a point where traffic *converges* - it is the merging and mingling of traffic that causes problems, not only the volume.

If you have an accident on a 4 lane bridge, one side stops instantly. One lane (or both) will be blocked due to an accident, and the other lane will be occupied by emergency vehicles. The surrounding area is suddenly paralyzed.

Infrastructure shouldn't be built for ideal conditions, it should function well under adverse conditions, too.

Either building wider bridges is a waste and they will be under-utilized, or they will cause increased congestion and delay. One or the other. It can't be both.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

If you have an accident on a 4 lane bridge, one side stops instantly.

The reality of the situation is this: If you have an accident on a six-lane bridge then the best you can hope for is one clear lane to travel through on the side of the accident (and you don't always get that). If you think three rush-hour lanes lanes trying merging into one is going to be a walk in the park then you're sadly mistaken. The overall impact on people is going to end up being in the same ballpark once you account for the fact that more people will be regular users of the six-lane bridge compared to those who would have used a four-lane bridge.

Accidents happen and they cause traffic havoc, period - no matter how many lanes you have - unless you wildly overbuild beyond the capacity of the surrounding road network to supply traffic, which is a colossal waste of money IMHO.