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

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Mininari

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...

But it doesn't make a lot of sense from a money standpoint. You're basically constructing another multi-billion dollar bridge from Surrey to a point only 6km away from this other major bridge we just constructed, the Port Mann.

Then again, they could take the Patullo down and allow New Westminster to become a completely irrelivant city in metro Vancouver effectively cutting them off from the second largest city in the region and major jobs and industry.

*shrug*

This is exactly what will happen since Translink doesn't actually answer to the cities:

[WarrenC12]

Ban trucks on the Patullo.

Sorry, I feel the need to post the obvious immediate answer every few days.

[Mininari]

Then said trucks won't have access to a 'reasonable free tolled alternative' -- and yes, the AFB is another free alternative, but imagine the chaos at the Sunbury / SFPR intersection with truck turning traffic, and worse, the single protected, short left turn bay from Nordel Way to get onto the 91 Northbound. Youch.

On the otherhand, maybe the solution is just that. Ban the trucks from the Patullo, refurbish the Patullo, and invest the savings into Interchanges for the SFPR, and for SFPR-to-91 Northbound movements.

The Sapperton Bar Bridge WOULD cost a lot for what is a duplicate bridge if you look at it from the Coquitlam side, but from the Surrey side its connecting to the same existing infrastructure as the Patullo. The idea with it is to deflect traffic 'around' New West.

Then again, I proposing something to appease New West. I still much-prefer the new 6-lane bridge to replace the Patullo, with improved connections to existing roads on both ends.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Then said trucks won't have access to a 'reasonable free tolled alternative' -- and yes, the AFB is another free alternative, but imagine the chaos at the Sunbury / SFPR intersection with truck turning traffic, and worse, the single protected, short left turn bay from Nordel Way to get onto the 91 Northbound. Youch.

On the otherhand, maybe the solution is just that. Ban the trucks from the Patullo, refurbish the Patullo, and invest the savings into Interchanges for the SFPR, and for SFPR-to-91 Northbound movements.

The Sapperton Bar Bridge WOULD cost a lot for what is a duplicate bridge if you look at it from the Coquitlam side, but from the Surrey side its connecting to the same existing infrastructure as the Patullo. The idea with it is to deflect traffic 'around' New West.

Then again, I proposing something to appease New West. I still much-prefer the new 6-lane bridge to replace the Patullo, with improved connections to existing roads on both ends.

Get rid of the reasonable free alternative on all the bridges, who knows maybe people will actually switch to transit or drive less and this will free up room for trucks and we won't need another 6 lane bridge and a 10 lane bridge for a total of 8 more lanes crossing the Fraser.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Mininari

the AFB is another free alternative, but imagine the chaos at the Sunbury / SFPR intersection with truck turning traffic, and worse, the single protected, short left turn bay from Nordel Way to get onto the 91 Northbound.

It's already happening.

It was 20+ minutes to get off the SFPR onto the AFB this morning (while Highway 91 itself was actually moving OK)

The Nordel Connector should have been called the South Fraser Perimeter Parking Lot.

It's not going to get better over time, either.

Truckers are already trying to avoid the Patullo because of the traffic there and the narrowness of the lanes.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Or maybe building the NFPR would have been an idea.. you know a dedicated highway for truck traffic along the river that would take trucks off of local residential roads? Kind of like this thing we just finished in the region called the SFPR but on the North Side.

You reap what you sow.

Hence the part of my post where I briefly touched upon Translink responsibility:

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

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

Hence the part of my post where I briefly touched upon Translink responsibility:

You're missing my point then. My point is that it shouldn't be Translink's responsibility because you shouldn't be in this situation as it is. It is New Westminster's government and citizens that have put the city in this situation through blocking every single infrastructure upgrade within its borders including the NFPR.

You're saying it is Translink's responsibility. I'm saying it shouldn't have gotten to that point. Why should Translink waste time trying to fix a problem that would have been fixed (or at the very least working towards a major fix) by the Ministry of Transport and Province itself with the multi-billion dollar Gateway project?

Think of it this way. It's like the drugged up junkie blaming the government for not having a rehab facility for them to go in saying it is their responsibility to help him out. Unfortunately the truth is, he shouldn't have started taking drugs in the first place thus should take his own responsibilities first before starting to fling stones around.

Our society always seems to rest the blame or responsibility on the wrong group. It's very easy to pin it on the very big bad government and agencies. It becomes very difficult for each of us to look at ourselves in the mirror and take our share of the fail pie.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

It's already happening.

It was 20+ minutes to get off the SFPR onto the AFB this morning (while Highway 91 itself was actually moving OK)

The Nordel Connector should have been called the South Fraser Perimeter Parking Lot.

It's not going to get better over time, either.

Truckers are already trying to avoid the Patullo because of the traffic there and the narrowness of the lanes.

I've noticed that. I think part of the blame also rests on the light timings. They seem to be completely out of whack right now which doesn't surprise me given a new road and the fact the road engineers simply guess at timings to start.

Tannery interchange is the same thing. When you are trying to get on the SFPR westbound, you cross the first light and then sit there. And trucks pile up. I've timed it the last 3 days and you actually wait 4.5 minutes for the light to change and let you turn onto the SFPR.

All the time, the through lanes (across the overpass) have 0 traffic at all. Not a single vehicle goes by. They then time it that after that light turns red, the off ramps get to go but they stagger it so that they don't meet green lights but instead also get stuck in the traffic trying to turn.

Then when the light _does_ turn green and let you turn left onto SFPR, it is green for about 15 seconds. So you wait 4.5 minutes to get 15 seconds to turn. Given the fact this motion is almost forced by trucks getting on the SFPR eastbound before Tannery and needing to go up the overpass, left, then left again back onto the SFPR to go westbound.

Given that motion was designed, I don't understand why they made the light accommodation 15 seconds out of 4.75 minutes. Seems asinine.

Same deal happens at the other intersections. The lights are either way too short in one direction then way too long in the other.

Hopefully in the next few months they make changes but I won't hold my breath since we're now about 1 month later and STILL NO REFLECTORS on the damned highway between Tannery and about 1km past the Viaduct.

Takes like 1 hour at night to lay reflectors if that and they can't even just do that.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Get rid of the reasonable free alternative on all the bridges, who knows maybe people will actually switch to transit or drive less and this will free up room for trucks and we won't need another 6 lane bridge and a 10 lane bridge for a total of 8 more lanes crossing the Fraser.

I don't think you're quite understanding the problem. The problem isn't just space, it is also cost. There is plenty of room on the Port Mann bridge for example. It has to do with the tolls right now. What people seem to fail to realize is the tolls for trucks aren't $3 which every regular commuter seems to complain about as it is. It isn't even $5. For all commercial vehicles it is $9 per crossing.

So in summary, for every single commercial vehicle that crosses the Port Mann bridge once, they pay what a single car pays going over it 3 times. So if they cross the bridge 2 times in a single day, they've covered a commuter's cost for 3 full days.

I still think we should toll like they do in Norway a jurisdiction with a lot of tolling. You pay the toll crossing a piece of infrastructure and it is free for you for the next few hours. That way a truck would cross and pay $9, then if they crossed again in a 30 minutes heading back to the yard they wouldn't pay another $9.

Add that up. Cross the Port Mann just 4 times in a day and you've paid $36. You do that half the working week and you've added $4680 to your yearly costs just crossing a bridge. And then people wonder why trucks are trying to avoid the bridge completely? Banning trucks on the Patullo won't solve anything either except appeasing the people of New Westminster and further accommodating their no roads mentality. All the trucks will just move to the AFB (which is already happening anyway) and you can expect the AFB, a nice 6 lane bridge, to be a parking lot all day long.

So you could have 0 cars on the Port Mann but would still have trucks avoiding it to save the money even if ultimately it doesn't actually save them money (since most people don't factor in soft costs like time and sanity).

So then what? Toll every Fraser River crossing? AFB, Tunnel, Patullo, get added to that. So then the trucks have to pay all the tolls and be thankful when you walk into the grocery store or Target and all prices have gone up 5% as they pass on those costs to you.

At that point everyone should be wishing they accepted a 1 or 2% tax increase so we could reduce tolls to reasonable levels.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ban trucks on the Patullo.

Sorry, I feel the need to post the obvious immediate answer every few days.

It's not obvious because it's actually a little crazy.

What would banning trucks on the Patullo solve? All it would do is reduce truck traffic in New Westminster of trucks trying to get from where the goods come from to where the goods are going that each and every one of us wants when we step foot into the nearest store.

Trucks from South of Fraser deliver all the goods you buy in your little Yaletown shops for example. So you drive up their costs and guess what, your cost of living goes up too. Your milk, bread, tomatoes, shampoo, video game, clothes, all start going up and up, all because we want to make New Westminster happy instead of trying to reduce costs to the blood of our region, goods transportation.

So again, what does banning trucks on the Patullo solve really?

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by jhausner

You're missing my point then. My point is that it shouldn't be Translink's responsibility because you shouldn't be in this situation as it is. It is New Westminster's government and citizens that have put the city in this situation through blocking every single infrastructure upgrade within its borders including the NFPR.

You're saying it is Translink's responsibility. I'm saying it shouldn't have gotten to that point. Why should Translink waste time trying to fix a problem that would have been fixed (or at the very least working towards a major fix) by the Ministry of Transport and Province itself with the multi-billion dollar Gateway project?

Think of it this way. It's like the drugged up junkie blaming the government for not having a rehab facility for them to go in saying it is their responsibility to help him out. Unfortunately the truth is, he shouldn't have started taking drugs in the first place thus should take his own responsibilities first before starting to fling stones around.

Our society always seems to rest the blame or responsibility on the wrong group. It's very easy to pin it on the very big bad government and agencies. It becomes very difficult for each of us to look at ourselves in the mirror and take our share of the fail pie.

Relax buddy I'm saying its Translink responsibility because it is. I'm just stating the fact that between United and Queensborough, Translink is responsible for that tract of NFPR. The MoT did their portion with Mary Hill and Pitt River. I would have been missing the point if you actually made the point earlier.

I'm not talking about how it "should be" as you are, I'm just saying at this present time, its how it is. You originally replied to my hypotheticals with a passive aggressive remark suggesting a NFPR, which I covered in my post...

You seem to be the one going off tangent here

I'm personally on the camp that Translink should just handle Public Transit, And New West is being quite illogical on the debate, instead of finding proper solutions, they prefer staying put and whining.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

It's not obvious because it's actually a little crazy.

What would banning trucks on the Patullo solve? All it would do is reduce truck traffic in New Westminster of trucks trying to get from where the goods come from to where the goods are going that each and every one of us wants when we step foot into the nearest store.

Trucks from South of Fraser deliver all the goods you buy in your little Yaletown shops for example. So you drive up their costs and guess what, your cost of living goes up too. Your milk, bread, tomatoes, shampoo, video game, clothes, all start going up and up, all because we want to make New Westminster happy instead of trying to reduce costs to the blood of our region, goods transportation.

So again, what does banning trucks on the Patullo solve really?

I maintain that $9 tolls on commercial trucks will add little if anything to the end price of goods being delivered around the region, when you factor in gas and wasted time.

What will banning trucks solve? I think it will help with traffic congestion, Patullo wear and tear, and Patullo safety. I don't even think the lanes are wide enough on the Patullo to handle trucks.

And FYI I have no personal stake in this. The patullo could collapse tomorrow and I honestly wouldn't care.

The people setting their hair on fire about the PMB tolls are what pisses me off. They are missing the big picture by a country mile.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I maintain that $9 tolls on commercial trucks will add little if anything to the end price of goods being delivered around the region, when you factor in gas and wasted time.

What will banning trucks solve? I think it will help with traffic congestion, Patullo wear and tear, and Patullo safety. I don't even think the lanes are wide enough on the Patullo to handle trucks.

And FYI I have no personal stake in this. The patullo could collapse tomorrow and I honestly wouldn't care.

The people setting their hair on fire about the PMB tolls are what pisses me off. They are missing the big picture by a country mile.

The problem is people hold grudges, and that doesn't really factor in neatly. Someone might even realise that they are wasting more time and money sitting in traffic, but will refuse to pay a toll out of *spite.*

I agree with what you said, but I also think they could tweak the system of tolling to make it more user friendly.

E.g. like someone mentioned, letting you cross as many times as you want within a "window" say of 60 minutes or 120 minutes without getting charged again.

Or, extend the 50% off during nighttime hours to light vehicles as well.

Or offer dynamic "discounts" depending on volume to incentive travelers.

Things like that could go a long way as far as good will and encouraging people to use the bridge.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

The problem is people hold grudges, and that doesn't really factor in neatly. Someone might even realise that they are wasting more time and money sitting in traffic, but will refuse to pay a toll out of *spite.*

I agree with what you said, but I also think they could tweak the system of tolling to make it more user friendly.

E.g. like someone mentioned, letting you cross as many times as you want within a "window" say of 60 minutes or 120 minutes without getting charged again.

Or, extend the 50% off during nighttime hours to light vehicles as well.

Or offer dynamic "discounts" depending on volume to incentive travelers.

Things like that could go a long way as far as good will and encouraging people to use the bridge.

All good ideas. I'm fine with a daily/weekly/monthly cap as well.

To be honest I'd be happy if the toll was left at $3 for the PMB, and set to $0.50-$1 for every other bridge in the city, provided immediate plans were put in place to replace/rebuild the Patullo and the GMT.

Given that instant revenue, there's no reason that couldn't happen.

Furthermore, the BC Govt needs to "nut up" and take over all roads and bridges from Translink in the name of the MOT. Translink should be in the public transit business, nothing else.

[makr3trkr]

http://www.royalcityrecord.com/news/new-...h-premier-about-pattullo-bridge-1.789077

January 14, 2014

"The City of New Westminster has asked TransLink to ban heavy trucks on Royal Avenue 24 hours a day, aside from those making local deliveries. On Monday, council directed staff to proceed with the technical analysis and consultation process needed to remove the road as a truck route.

“We met with TransLink. They have indicated to us what they see as a reasonable process as to how to best attain that,” said Jim Lowrie, the city’s director of engineering. “It involves consultation with industry and other agencies and the public.”

Since tolls were introduced on the Port Mann Bridge, the city has experienced an increase in truck traffic on city streets, particularly Royal Avenue. The Queen’s Park Residents’ Association has also written to B.C. Transportation Minister Todd Stone asking that the current 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. truck ban be extended to 24 hours a day.

The city is concerned that the introduction of tolls on the new Port Mann Bridge has encouraged motorists, including many trucks, to take the free Pattullo Bridge to cross the Fraser River.

On Jan. 13, council approved a motion to request a meeting with Premier Christy Clark and the transportation minister to discuss the Pattullo Bridge.

In addition to banning trucks on Royal Avenue, the city has also asked TransLink to ban heavy trucks on the Pattullo Bridge, if it continues to experience increased traffic volumes due to the diversionary effects of the Port Mann Bridge and to establish regional tolling as a travel demand management measure for the Metro Vancouver area as an immediate priority."

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Add that up. Cross the Port Mann just 4 times in a day and you've paid $36. You do that half the working week and you've added $4680 to your yearly costs just crossing a bridge. And then people wonder why trucks are trying to avoid the bridge completely

Absolutely an issue at face value. However, that extra $5,000 in truck costs is not accurate, as you would have to incorporate the fuel savings from taking the Port Mann bridge, and the likely opportunity costs of having additional time to take that extra delivery and earning additional revenue. In addition to the tax savings on the deductible toll expenses, you would probably find that $5,000 figure in extra transportation costs for trucks cut down in half or reasonably reduced to zero.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by jhausner

But it doesn't make a lot of sense from a money standpoint. You're basically constructing another multi-billion dollar bridge from Surrey to a point only 6km away from this other major bridge we just constructed, the Port Mann.

Then again, they could take the Patullo down and allow New Westminster to become a completely irrelivant city in metro Vancouver effectively cutting them off from the second largest city in the region and major jobs and industry.

Think of it like this - a Sapperton crossing from Bridgeview to United Blvd would be 2-3 km.

If you took the SFPR + Port Mann instead it's ~25 km (10 times the distance).

That's assuming a Sapperton crossing replaced the Pattullo instead of supplementing it.

Tearing down the Pattullo and building a tolled Sapperton bridge (along with a regional tolling strategy, and eventual twinning of the Queensborough) wouldn't be a bad thing - just removing New West from the equation.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

That's assuming a Sapperton crossing replaced the Pattullo instead of supplementing it.

Tearing down the Pattullo and building a tolled Sapperton bridge (along with a regional tolling strategy, and eventual twinning of the Queensborough) wouldn't be a bad thing - just removing New West from the equation.

Maybe, but what about the King George Highway heading north-south, and its direct connection with the Pattullo, and, by extension, New West itself?
At the end of the day, I think a new Pattullo with modernized on and off-ramps, plus space for rrt line on it, might be an option (although Utopic, I admit).

[go_leafs_go02]

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/province-to-help-pay-for-pattullo-bridge-replacement-1.848297

SURREY — The Ministry of Transportation is willing to fund a third of the cost of replacing the Pattullo Bridge - if the cities of Surrey and New Westminster are able to come to an agreement.

The announcement was made by B.C. Transportation Minister Todd Stone last week during his press conference on potentially moving the transit referendum.

- See more at: http://www.thenownewspaper.com/province-...eplacement-1.848297#sthash.eAnIqzGV.dpuf

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/province-to-help-pay-for-pattullo-bridge-replacement-1.848297

If the Port Mann tolls are causing people to take the Pattullo instead, and if the bridge is in fact starting to weaken and crumble as the news article says ...
doesn't that point up the need to get onto a replacement project ASAP ... like before there's some horrific structural failure and resultant injuries / deaths?