stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge (Pattullo Bridge Replacement) | U/C - Page 39

Zassk · #**761** Posted **Jul 22, 2013, 9:20 PM**

We just built the widest bridge in North America a short distance away from Sapperton Bar. It seems like a huge luxury to build two new bridges so close to each other.

If we are going to build a new bridge so close to an existing one, then I would rather see it built near Queensborough instead, since that is an old bridge that already has capacity issues. e.g. Tree Island.

Mininari · #**762** Posted **Jul 22, 2013, 9:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zassk

We just built the widest bridge in North America a short distance away from Sapperton Bar. It seems like a huge luxury to build two new bridges so close to each other.

If we are going to build a new bridge so close to an existing one, then I would rather see it built near Queensborough instead, since that is an old bridge that already has capacity issues. e.g. Tree Island.

Yes, it is true, building a brand new bridge virtually beside the Port Mann is a little silly. I just don't know (and no one knows) how to quell the "New Westminster Problem" -- Queensborough is the same problem... at least the Tree Island crossing (which is opposed by at least one city in the mix, can't remember which one), would have a better connection to Burnaby / New West fringes.

New West... whats the solution? $4B tunnel connection to Hwy 1?
Is that all they'll accept? What *DO* they want anyway?

I guess we really need the fully built South Fraser Perimeter Road in action, with traffic fully adjusted before making the call on what to do with the Patullo. Unfortunately, time is, well kind of running out to replace the darn thing!
I sincerely believe we are one magnitude 6 earthquake away from a condemned Patullo.

WarrenC12 · #**763** Posted **Jul 22, 2013, 10:03 PM**

Although the Patullo is older, if New West isn't going to cooperate, the next major project should be the replacement of the Massey tunnel. I don't know if there are many stats on the topic, but I'm betting part of the reason the AFB is so busy is people avoiding the tunnel.

If the 99 crossing becomes fast, that may relieve pressure on the AFB, which can then take pressure off the Patullo.

Of course the new 99 crossing will be tolled... does anybody know after the dust has settled for 6 months, how many daily crossings are made on the Patullo and the PMB compared to last year?

huenthar · #**764** Posted **Jul 22, 2013, 11:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mininari

I guess we really need the fully built South Fraser Perimeter Road in action, with traffic fully adjusted before making the call on what to do with the Patullo.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said in the UBE consultations a couple years ago, that it's probably premature to build NFPR segments until we can see some of the effects of the SFPR & Gateway on travel patterns. I think the only way to get NW in on any Patullo plan anyways is to have it as part of a complete NFPR project plan similar to Gateway or SFPR (much smaller scale, of course)

GMasterAres · #**765** Posted **Jul 23, 2013, 3:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mininari

Yes, it is true, building a brand new bridge virtually beside the Port Mann is a little silly. I just don't know (and no one knows) how to quell the "New Westminster Problem" -- Queensborough is the same problem... at least the Tree Island crossing (which is opposed by at least one city in the mix, can't remember which one), would have a better connection to Burnaby / New West fringes.

New West... whats the solution? $4B tunnel connection to Hwy 1?
Is that all they'll accept? What *DO* they want anyway?

I guess we really need the fully built South Fraser Perimeter Road in action, with traffic fully adjusted before making the call on what to do with the Patullo. Unfortunately, time is, well kind of running out to replace the darn thing!
I sincerely believe we are one magnitude 6 earthquake away from a condemned Patullo.

Easy. Ignore them. That's how you quell them. Again democracy and majority rules in a democracy. If they don't like it they can vote next election against whoever. Way too much talk about "avoiding New West" when they simply should be ignored. Replacing the bridge where it is at is in the best interest of the entire region.

aberdeen5698 · #**766** Posted **Jul 23, 2013, 6:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mininari

I sincerely believe we are one magnitude 6 earthquake away from a condemned Patullo.

We survived a 2-week closure, I'm sure we can survive a 2-year one.

Mininari · #**767** Posted **Jul 23, 2013, 8:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

We survived a 2-week closure, I'm sure we can survive a 2-year one.

Yes, but think of the complaining re: "forced to use a toll bridge"!

Jebby · #**768** Posted **Jul 23, 2013, 9:28 PM**

I just noticed that the Apple Maps app on my ipad calls this bridge the "Patello Bridge"

officedweller · #**769** Posted **Oct 5, 2013, 12:08 AM**

Quote:

TransLink sets aside $300m to fix Pattullo Bridge

By Jeff Nagel - Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: October 04, 2013 3:00 PM
Updated: October 04, 2013 4:13 PM

TransLink is earmarking nearly $300 million to rehabilitate the aging Pattullo Bridge over the next three years even though the structure could be torn down soon after the work is done.

But officials at the regional transportation authority insist they will try not to spend the money unnecessarily and are hopeful the bulk of the outlay can be averted if a decision on replacing the Pattullo with a new bridge can be made soon enough.

The projected amount to be spent repairing the bridge has doubled from a previous estimate of $150 million to $299 million after work on the span this summer gave TransLink a better idea of what is needed.

Executive vice-president of policy and strategic planning Bob Paddon said the rehab work could begin as soon as 2015 and he hopes a decision on the Pattullo's replacement will be made in 2014.

...

http://www.northshoreoutlook.com/news/226527141.html

Stingray2004 · #**770** Posted **Oct 5, 2013, 12:34 AM**

I have to say that if cash-strapped Translink does decide to spend $300 million to rehabilitate the PB and then subsequently makes a decision to replace same - that would be the biggest financial boondoggle of all time.

Cypherus · #**771** Posted **Oct 5, 2013, 6:24 AM**

Seems financially irresponsible to budget $300 million in capital expenditures for a bridge that may be torn down in the near future. Such money, if spend even over 3 years, cannot seriously be considered as being allocated to its highest valued use. Does Translink want its own fast ferry legacy?

GeeCee · #**772** Posted **Oct 5, 2013, 7:06 AM**

I'm pretty sure that they're setting this money aside in case they end up not being able to replace the bridge in the short term. Given that we're now looking at $300 million to make the structure seismically stable, it makes a lot more sense to replace it entirely. They won't do both in case they end up being jerked around by the province which almost never happens!

Spork · #**773** Posted **Oct 5, 2013, 7:09 AM**

If it takes $300m to fix it, shut the damn thing down until a replacement can be agreed upon.

VanCvl · #**774** Posted **Oct 5, 2013, 3:11 PM**

If I was a betting man, I'd say that they are using the $300M earmarked for "repairs" when the intention is to leverage the feds and the province to match $300M each to build a new bridge.

aberdeen5698 · #**775** Posted **Oct 5, 2013, 3:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanCvl

If I was a betting man, I'd say that they are using the $300M earmarked for "repairs" when the intention is to leverage the feds and the province to match $300M each to build a new bridge.

Yep, that seems likely.

Alex Mackinnon · #**776** Posted **Oct 5, 2013, 8:48 PM**

Good ol' brinkmanship, I hope...

The fact that they say these repairs must occur before 2015 is rather daft though. You would think that with the amount of physical inspection they give this bridge that they could time replacement to happen before significant a giant repair program has to be made.

If this isn't just brinkmanship then having to put about 15% of the replacement capital cost into maintenance in the last 5 years of operations is probably the single dumbest waste of money in BC's transportation history. This is nearing fast cat levels money (although not in inflation adjusted terms). At that point we might just want to can everyone involved with the decision to stretch out replacement.

What do you guys think Translink is after here? Get MOTI to jump in on Patullo before GMT? The announcement timing seems a little bit coincidental.

Klazu · #**777** Posted **Oct 7, 2013, 2:28 AM**

(posted in wrong thread)

GMasterAres · #**778** Posted **Oct 7, 2013, 5:00 AM**

I'm with you guys in at least hoping it is some brinksmanship to get the Provincial government to go "wow that is insane, ok here is some money from us along with the feds." Or at the very least speed the process up.

It would make sense as the Province started talking about the PB then kind of went "That's Translink's problem even though we control translink... HEY LOOK NEW TUNNEL!!!!"

And Translink is sitting there going "—?"

tybuilding · #**779** Posted **Oct 8, 2013, 8:22 PM**

http://www.news1130.com/2013/10/08/new-west-wants-lower-port-mann-tolls-to-ease-pattullo-crunch

New West wants lower Port Mann tolls to ease Pattullo crunch
City report says truck traffic on Pattullo up 10 per cent since tolls introduced

Maybe we should place tolls on the Patullo already to set some more money aside and cure this problem?

aberdeen5698 · #**780** Posted **Oct 8, 2013, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tybuilding

http://www.news1130.com/2013/10/08/new-west-wants-lower-port-mann-tolls-to-ease-pattullo-crunchMaybe we should place tolls on the Patullo already to set some more money aside and cure this problem?

Nah, that makes too much sense and deflates the argument for building more bridges.