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

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Of the $14B in the Provincial Transit Plan, $2B was already announced and committed for the Canada Line and "Of the $11.1 billion in new funding, the Province is committing up to $4.75 billion and is calling on the federal government for $3.1 billion, TransLink for $2.75 billion and local governments for $500 million along with supportive land use decisions."

Source: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan/Provincial_Transit_Plan_LR.pdf

It's worth noting as well that the Province called for a 6km extension of SkyTrain in Surrey, so it's incorrect rhetoric to say that South of the Fraser was being ignored.

Not ignored, but 6km vs 23km everywhere else not including Canada Line? 42km if you include Canada Line.

Clearly we're getting outstanding service and should really shut up South of Fraser</sarcasm>. I mean we only have 12.5% of the population South of Fraser so stands to reason we get 12.5% of the transit service right? Oh wait.</sacasm>

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Mininari

...

The final 'test' for the Patullo 'free alternative' is coming on Monday. Back to school, back to work, back to everything. Christmas is over, and the Grinch stole the discounted Port Mann Toll rate. How is a full-price Port Mann Bridge with fully implemented SFPR (minus the not-yet-open Tannery Road Interchange), going to alter traffic patterns. This shall be interesting.

On the bright side, maybe New Westminster should consider allowing streetside vendors to walk up and down the masses of idling trucks and cars waiting to get onto the Patullo, offering them food, coffee, newspapers, or whatever to help pass the boredom in the folly of 'free alternative.' Neither is my time.

It'll take a while for commuters to test out various route and finally settle into a pattern. That'll be after a few weeks of chaos.

Maybe New West, choking on fumes, would be more willing to accepta 6 lane Patullo?

[hollywoodnorth]

Pattullo gridlock predicted with Port Mann toll rise
$3 toll in effect for cars, pick-up trucks, and small vans as of Jan. 1

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...icted-with-port-mann-toll-rise-1.2485012

[WarrenC12]

Translink is spending $1.6M to put netting below the bridge deck to catch falling pieces of concrete(!!).

Time to ban trucks IMHO.

[Northski]

How about charging 1.5 off peak and 3$ for rush hour for both bridges.

[Tetsuo]

Get the rail companies to chip in to add a rail deck on a Sapperton Bar crossing.

The limited road options for traffic is impacting livability in New West/East bby. Kingsway, 10th ave, Canada Way and Mcbride are a mess and without significant road improvements it wouldn't be wise to replace the Patullo in its current spot with an expanded crossing.

It would be nice to see them address the mess that is truck loving Front St. (tunnel under Royal? Pipe dream)

Ideal scenario would be Tree island Queensboro replacing bridge and a Sapperton Bar bridge replacing both the Patullo and existing rail crossing.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

Get the rail companies to chip in to add a rail deck on a Sapperton Bar crossing.

The limited road options for traffic is impacting livability in New West/East bby. Kingsway, 10th ave, Canada Way and Mcbride are a mess and without significant road improvements it wouldn't be wise to replace the Patullo in its current spot with an expanded crossing.

It would be nice to see them address the mess that is truck loving Front St. (tunnel under Royal? Pipe dream)

Ideal scenario would be Tree island Queensboro replacing bridge and a Sapperton Bar bridge replacing both the Patullo and existing rail crossing.

You know what, I actually agree entirely with your bottom option. The Sapperton Bar Bridge (with SFPR interchange) would fully connect to the existing connection point in Surrey, and connect very well with a Blue Mountain / Brunette mega-interchange improvement, thereby replacing the Brunette Interchange and relieving the snarled mess along Brunette / Columbia and Front Streets. Further investment would be needed sooner for upgrading the SFPR with interchanges, etc. but in this case, just abandon the North Fraser Perimeter Road concept. It won't be needed.

The Tree Island option, discussed before, would provide the opportunity to make a much more direct connection from Alex Fraser to Marine Way, Byrne Road, Boundary Road, etc. I would argue that you could keep the Queensborough, but downgrade it to a 50km/hr bridge, and ban large trucks. Unless its about to fall down, I see no reason to remove a perfectly good bridge.

But, me thinks we're getting a new GMT first...

[Tetsuo]

Yeah a one-two punch of a Sapperton Bar bridge and Tree Island bridge will divert most of the traffic passing through New West to the city's outskirts. This would improve the city's livability in the mainland and Queensborough as traffic (especially heavy truck) would be diverted off the roads and onto Hwy 1/Marine.

You're right it wouldn't make sense to tear down the Queensborough bridge, as it's total removal would negatively affect the casino, residents and the retail at Queensborough landing. Perhaps a downscale of the Queensborough connector.

A Tree Island bridge would also most likely kill the No. 8 Rd/Boundary Road Crossing that has been floated from time to time (which would put further strain on farmland)

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

Pattullo gridlock predicted with Port Mann toll rise $3 toll in effect for cars, pick-up trucks, and small vans as of Jan. 1

So what happened on Monday? Was the Patullo busier than usual?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

Yeah a one-two punch of a Sapperton Bar bridge and Tree Island bridge will divert most of the traffic passing through New West to the city's outskirts. This would improve the city's livability in the mainland and Queensborough as traffic (especially heavy truck) would be diverted off the roads and onto Hwy 1/Marine.

You're right it wouldn't make sense to tear down the Queensborough bridge, as it's total removal would negatively affect the casino, residents and the retail at Queensborough landing. Perhaps a downscale of the Queensborough connector.

A Tree Island bridge would also most likely kill the No. 8 Rd/Boundary Road Crossing that has been floated from time to time (which would put further strain on farmland)

I can't imagine that it would be cheaper to do both bridges rather than a new 6 lane Patullo and a tunnel connecting through to Hwy 1. The effect would be very similar in removing cars from New West, but all the accesses would line up with existing infrastructure.

More than half of the tunnel could be cut and cover with minimal disruption. Just put a trench on the edge of Queen's Park and up from the Gaglardi interchange. EPB style TBM the rest.

[city-dweller]

More bridges? Expand the roads to take the volume in New West?

What are people smoking? We just spent billions on the #1 route and bridge.

I am with the mayor of New West who has said that they have been asking for 30+ years to fix the patullo and no one except him has suggested that maybe we don't need it now with the new Port Mann. They should just close the patullo bridge for a while and see if it still makes sense to fix it or knock it down. He has repeatedly been quoted as the traffic from people skipping the toll is harming his city livability. So you can understand he doesn't even remotely want a six lane bridge that can bring more cars faster to his city. (sorry through his city) Yes, the bridge is dangerous. Take the professional truck drivers off will help the bridge, but not taking the distracted drivers racing to work while trying to make up the time they lost skipping the PM will not deal with the safety issue. Finally, having translink go through this ridiculous process of looking at options to replace the bridge when they don't have enough money to even replace it as is. This is despite declarations of money budgeted for this project. I can't even begin to start on the mediocre transit service SOTF (partly because it would belong in another thread.) I drive to Surrey because transit is brutal away from the skytrain in north surrey.

So while translink looks at a bridge they can't afford to fix and that may not be needed, they are also optimizing service from routes that are underused to better "revenue-riders". What is their mandate again?

So in summary:

Golden Ears Bridge: tolled, built for projected demand -> underused
Port Mann Bridge: tolled, built for projected demand -> evaluation of use remains to be seen, as people are bypassing and they still haven't opened the final lanes.
Massey Crossing needed: But, Patullo promised despite a dying bridge with a questionable need.

BTW: I have a problem with people skipping the toll. I see it as tax evasion in principle. I pay much higher property taxes to live on the Burrard Peninsula which part of go to regional services. Those SOTF pay less property tax but have tolls for the new bridges. More than fair exchange. (and yes I would pay more for services and goods that I benefit from that use the bridge) No Free Lunch!

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

More bridges? Expand the roads to take the volume in New West?

What are people smoking? We just spent billions on the #1 route and bridge.

I am with the mayor of New West who has said that they have been asking for 30+ years to fix the patullo and no one except him has suggested that maybe we don't need it now with the new Port Mann. They should just close the patullo bridge for a while and see if it still makes sense to fix it or knock it down. He has repeatedly been quoted as the traffic from people skipping the toll is harming his city livability. So you can understand he doesn't even remotely want a six lane bridge that can bring more cars faster to his city. (sorry through his city) Yes, the bridge is dangerous. Take the professional truck drivers off will help the bridge, but not taking the distracted drivers racing to work while trying to make up the time they lost skipping the PM will not deal with the safety issue. Finally, having translink go through this ridiculous process of looking at options to replace the bridge when they don't have enough money to even replace it as is. This is despite declarations of money budgeted for this project. I can't even begin to start on the mediocre transit service SOTF (partly because it would belong in another thread.) I drive to Surrey because transit is brutal away from the skytrain in north surrey.

So while translink looks at a bridge they can't afford to fix and that may not be needed, they are also optimizing service from routes that are underused to better "revenue-riders". What is their mandate again?

So in summary:

Golden Ears Bridge: tolled, built for projected demand -> underused
Port Mann Bridge: tolled, built for projected demand -> evaluation of use remains to be seen, as people are bypassing and they still haven't opened the final lanes.
Massey Crossing needed: But, Patullo promised despite a dying bridge with a questionable need.

BTW: I have a problem with people skipping the toll. I see it as tax evasion in principle. I pay much higher property taxes to live on the Burrard Peninsula which part of go to regional services. Those SOTF pay less property tax but have tolls for the new bridges. More than fair exchange. (and yes I would pay more for services and goods that I benefit from that use the bridge) No Free Lunch!

So, you would prefer to make everyone who would preferrably take the bridge a 30km detour? Suddenly the SFPR is full and all the main E/W roads through Surrey, Delta and Burnaby have to deal with all that new traffic generated.

I would bike from South Burnaby to Whalley on occasion when I lived back there. That detour would more than double the distance and make an otherwise short pleasant trip, a long not so pleasant trip.

Not that much of the demand on that bridge is induced by tolls or congestion on the PMB. Some of it is just the shortest and fastest route. Demoing the bridge prior to replacement would be a huge blow to the region.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

So, you would prefer to make everyone who would preferrably take the bridge a 30km detour? Suddenly the SFPR is full and all the main E/W roads through Surrey, Delta and Burnaby have to deal with all that new traffic generated.

I would bike from South Burnaby to Whalley on occasion when I lived back there. That detour would more than double the distance and make an otherwise short pleasant trip, a long not so pleasant trip.

Not that much of the demand on that bridge is induced by tolls or congestion on the PMB. Some of it is just the shortest and fastest route. Demoing the bridge prior to replacement would be a huge blow to the region.

All we need is equal tolling that is variable based on traffic demand to provide flow metering. With the new lanes for highway 1, Golden Ears and the proposed 99 project there will be plenty of lanes crossing from the SOF.

Having more traffic go through New West does not make sense if they are just going to Highway 1 anyways. If one is travelling from Whalley to North Burnaby (Accent Inns in my example) it is only a 6 km detour to use the Port Mann for example but according to Google it takes exactly the same amount of time. If I were travelling to the same spot in North Burnaby from Newton taking the Port Mann or the Alex Fraser instead will take the same amount of time as taking the direct route of the Patullo. By providing a 6 lane bridge to move more traffic across the river would not achieve any time savings unless that tunnel is built to Galardi Way which will likely add $2 Billion to a $1 million + project.

Why do we need to spend multi-billions to improve driving from Surrey to New West or Burnaby when it is well served by rapid transit and driving in those cities will not be improved substantially anyways and to get anywhere else there are plenty of detours that will not increase the time it takes to get to those locations?

The existing Patullo should be upgraded and converted to a 3 lane bridge. I think that closing it would be a poor choice but maintaining the current location and traffic volume makes the most sense. Personally losing the cycling connection it provides would be quite painful for me as I use it everyday. Spend the money upgrading transit in the SOF instead and do something useful instead. Otherwise as I have simply proved it is a waste of money.

[city-dweller]

First of all my post is taking up the rallying cry of New West, which is a great city and not a highway exit. However, that is how it gets treated with the current plans and discussion.

As for what people would prefer, I assume people in New West are tired of people treating them as a truck stop in highway plans, that their neighbourhoods are improved and not worsen by the people who got their bridge built first, and people would actually ask them what they want improved.

As for the traffic created by my highly unlikely scenario (road building no matter the cost!), the neighbourhoods with traffic moving through them from the patulla to east to the #1 would see the current growth in traffic bypassing the Port Mann be replaced by the regular users of the patulla.

This would not clog the new #17, (are you being dramatic/sarcastic) The speed traps will more likely cause back-ups (that was sarcasm)

Not that much of the demand on that bridge is induced by tolls or congestion on the PMB.

I got to take issue with this. There has been a slow growth with the preliminary toll with an expected increase this week with traffic diversion. Heavy trucks is highlighted given their noise and size. I can't find the report right now which is irritating but this is from back in October 7 2013 Sun article:

The New West council

"formally ask the transportation ministry to immediately lower the tolls on the Port Mann Bridge, and ensure there is direct connection between the South Fraser Perimetre Road and the Port Mann to “alleviate the negative impacts to the Pattullo.”

Cars diversion estimated about 5000 a day, but again I don't want to go running with this without the original source. My point is all of this was in the fall with the preliminary tolls. I expect the diversion number to go up this spring.

Delta and Burnaby have to deal with all that new traffic generated.

Yes and no.

Yes, new traffic is being generated, they built a new kick-a$$ highway and upgraded the #1 for a good reason.....what was it again?.....Oh right to aid the movement of goods stuck in traffic.

No, I doubt the new capacity on 17 couldn't take the east-west. The choke-points are still the same on the north side. I may be misreading your point about Burnaby.

Bike connection -> yeah, good point there. It would create a gap in the regional bike network. I would totally support them to just green the bridge for bikes and peds. Not sure the minimum cost for maintaining it. I would love to see a bike/ped bridge somewhere around there. I just think that would be an expensive piece of bike infrastructure as a six lane bridge. The Massey Tunnel is the current gap in the regional system...different thread.

Demoing the bridge prior to replacement would be a huge blow to the region.

Okay, locals (like those having to drive 30km east) who use is sure. The region, I doubt it (depending if the PMB had full lanes by then). The approximately 500 heavy trucks daily would adjust as would car traffic accordingly. Again, I doubt they can rehabilitate it without closing it so it is going to be close it or build a new one anyway. Given the provinces, is singing "we have no money" translink will be footing the bill, which is favouring unofficial a retrofit, i.e. same capacity. This shouldn't be a surprise given with the cancellation of the NFPR there is not very good supporting network for more capacity.

[officedweller]

Obviously no engineers on New West council - the grade separation is pretty steep between SFPR and Johnston Hill.

"formally ask the transportation ministry to immediately lower the tolls on the Port Mann Bridge, and ensure there is direct connection between the South Fraser Perimetre Road and the Port Mann to “alleviate the negative impacts to the Pattullo.”

[s211]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

First of all my post is taking up the rallying cry of New West, which is a great city and not a highway exit. However, that is how it gets treated with the current plans and discussion.

Bullcrap. New West thinks it can 🞵🞵🞵🞵 at the teat of the region and not contribute as it should, given its strategic transporational location.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

This would not clog the new #17, (are you being dramatic/sarcastic) The speed traps will more likely cause back-ups (that was sarcasm)

Cars diversion estimated about 5000 a day, but again I don't want to go running with this without the original source. My point is all of this was in the fall with the preliminary tolls. I expect the diversion number to go up this spring.

No, I doubt the new capacity on 17 couldn't take the east-west. The choke-points are still the same on the north side. I may be misreading your point about Burnaby.

Bike connection -> yeah, good point there. It would create a gap in the regional bike network. I would totally support them to just green the bridge for bikes and peds. Not sure the minimum cost for maintaining it. I would love to see a bike/ped bridge somewhere around there. I just think that would be an expensive piece of bike infrastructure as a six lane bridge. The Massey Tunnel is the current gap in the regional system...different thread.

Point #1 - SFPR has no direct connection to PMB and has no contingency for this.

Point #2 - 5000 cars per day is a fart in a hurricane compared with overall bridge traffic. That's 1 lane for 2-3 hours of capacity.

Point #3- My point about Burnaby is that cars would end up diverting through South Burn to the AFB. Nordel would pick a fair bit of slack as well.

Point #4 - A high level pedestrian bridge likely be over $100M on its own. Economies of scale are huge for bridges, hence why the new PMB is 10 lanes instead of 5.

[officedweller]

Hmm - maybe part of the reason that everyone passes through New Westminster is because not many people actually work there?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

There has been a slow growth with the preliminary toll with an expected increase this week with traffic diversion.

I'm still waiting to hear from someone as to whether or not the feared "Patullo gridlock" has actually manifested itself to any degree. The fact that I'm not hearing anything leads me to suspect that it didn't.

[red-paladin]

I think New Westminster has squandered it's responsonsibility when it comes to transportation planning and management, and the Province and Surrey should simply tell them that 'no bridge' is not an option. If they don't want to participate constructively, they can sit on the sidelines while the adults plan the bridge replacement. Demanding impossible traffic routing changes in other cities that would only benefit them, blocking the Stormont connnector, and doing everything they can to kill the NFPR should be proof enough.