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

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Express691

Bridges that lead into arterial roads are no match for the demand today, so what if there was a freeway connecting Queensboro bridge to Patullo, running as a viaduct in New Westminster.

Not a bad idea at all, IMO.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Not a bad idea at all, IMO.

That's a goddawful idea. Why are people so obsessed with blighting New Westminster so that they can move their car somewhat faster?

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

That's a goddawful idea. Why are people so obsessed with blighting New Westminster so that they can move their car somewhat faster?

Agree. Think about it, where would the expressway be built? There's no option except over Stewardson Way (no big deal but also pointless), and then over the tracks and New Westminster Pier Park. The parkade there is being partly demolished but even its total removal would leave barely enough space even if they were to cover over Front St and the park combined. Then they would have to do an expensive water installation to get under the skytrain bridge and onto the new patullo. Believe me it's not happening, even if the goals of New West's plans are completely ignored. And thank God.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Not a bad idea at all, IMO.

Up until very recently, the North Fraser Perimeter Road was actually a part of the official downtown community plan in New West.

It would have included capping the rail lines and Front Street, presumably with a park on top, all the way from the 3rd Avenue overpass to the Patullo Bridge.

You can see evidence that this was planned for - Quayside Park has high berms beside the rail tracks, which would have tied into the cap.

Yes, it would have been expensive, but ultimately better for the city than having through traffic using various routes (6th/Royal/Columbia/Front).

[Express691]

Ohh ok, I see.

Or if not, maybe we can see if it works underground. Or maybe widen the Queensboro or to just redirect cars onto the SFPR

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

That's a goddawful idea. Why are people so obsessed with blighting New Westminster so that they can move their car somewhat faster?

Originally Posted by Large Cat

Agree. Think about it, where would the expressway be built? There's no option except over Stewardson Way (no big deal but also pointless), and then over the tracks and New Westminster Pier Park. The parkade there is being partly demolished but even its total removal would leave barely enough space even if they were to cover over Front St and the park combined. Then they would have to do an expensive water installation to get under the skytrain bridge and onto the new patullo. Believe me it's not happening, even if the goals of New West's plans are completely ignored. And thank God.

Ooooooooooooops!! What I realy meant was simply to take the traffic off the arterial city streets and put it on a seperated connector.
Freeways for the sake of freeways are not my thing.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Ooooooooooooops!! What I realy meant was simply to take the traffic off the arterial city streets and put it on a seperated connector.
Freeways for the sake of freeways are not my thing.

Almost no one is ever 'freeways for the sake of freeways'. They all come with someone's connectivity justification. But, as was observed, where would the connector go? an NFPR type installation is going to ensure that the New West waterfront is never going to be accessible, and everything else is going to have to cut through some neighborhood or another.

I simply don't see how the connector is less of a blight than the traffic it diverts

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Express691

Ohh ok, I see.

Or if not, maybe we can see if it works underground. Or maybe widen the Queensboro or to just redirect cars onto the SFPR

Underground is expensive and challenging (see Seattle or the Evergreen Line or Boston). Redirecting cars onto the SFPR is the best bet, but what that needs to really take off is a connection between Highway One at the Port Mann and the SFPR. Having the only connection at 176th in Surrey is daft.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Underground is expensive and challenging (see Seattle or the Evergreen Line or Boston). Redirecting cars onto the SFPR is the best bet, but what that needs to really take off is a connection between Highway One at the Port Mann and the SFPR. Having the only connection at 176th in Surrey is daft.

I agree. It would be high-value to add west/north only ramps at the Port Mann to/from SFPR. This would be a great way to increase the number of toll-paying users of the bridge, and there seems to be plenty of land to build the connecting ramps on, on top of the old landfill beside the bridgehead. East/south could continue to use the connection at 176th.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I agree. It would be high-value to add west/north only ramps at the Port Mann to/from SFPR. This would be a great way to increase the number of toll-paying users of the bridge, and there seems to be plenty of land to build the connecting ramps on, on top of the old landfill beside the bridgehead. East/south could continue to use the connection at 176th.

That would be a hell of a climb to get from the SFPR to the PMB.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by SOSS

That would be a hell of a climb to get from the SFPR to the PMB.

Isn't there already some SFPR to PMB connector in planning? I recall it being discussed but I am not clear of its alignment.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Isn't there already some SFPR to PMB connector in planning? I recall it being discussed but I am not clear of its alignment.

I don't think that was ever on the master plan. Just connectivity via Highway 15.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by SOSS

That would be a hell of a climb to get from the SFPR to the PMB.

That would require a Japanese style spiral ramp system. I could see heavy vehicles not being allowed.

Honestly, metro-Vancouver is an area crisscrossed with rivers and inlets, I dont understand why people think having fewer crossings is a good idea (especially in a earthquake zone).

The Patullo should be replaced with a 6 lane structure (4 through lanes and 2 add / drop).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Almost no one is ever 'freeways for the sake of freeways'. They all come with someone's connectivity justification. But, as was observed, where would the connector go? an NFPR type installation is going to ensure that the New West waterfront is never going to be accessible, and everything else is going to have to cut through some neighborhood or another.

I simply don't see how the connector is less of a blight than the traffic it diverts

Most of the traffic coming off the Pattullo is heading in all the other directions; heading to Stewardson is probably where the least amount of traffic is heading off the bridge.

The major part of the NFPR would be between the Pattullo and Highway 1. The next busiest option is heading into New West/Burnaby on Canada Way or Kingsway via Mcbride/Royal.

So the NFPR along Front Street would not be that busy (comparatively). It is mostly truck traffic that is already doing it. As such, it wouldn't be a wide road; mo more major than Royal is.

Also, the train tracks are right there already. And they don't let you cross them anywhere except Begbie, except by overhead walkway. So there is already an obstacle there, and it's not going away. So is having a difficult to cross boulevard right not to an impossible to cross railway really a big visceral blight?

That said, you could use Royal as the NFPR. It is already wide enough in most parts. You might just need to tear down a building or two to make it perfect for the NFPR.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by SOSS

That would be a hell of a climb to get from the SFPR to the PMB.

The ramps can just circle up around the sloping vacant land east of the PMB bridgehead. No need for Japanese spiral structures.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The ramps can just circle up around the sloping vacant land east of the PMB bridgehead. No need for Japanese spiral structures.

It is pretty steep there. Not only that, but you also need ramps to and from the SFPR. Then you need to squeeze in some more over passes and merging lanes near the PMB. And where would they go? The express lanes, the collector lanes, both? I don't think there is enough space for any more lanes or structures between 152nd and where the bridge approach starts. It is physically impossible without reworking the 152 ramps.

It just seems overly complicated, complex, and expensive, to solve a problem for just a few drivers. And even those drivers wouldn't do it, because they are trying to avoid the toll in the first place.

Once a new Pattullo is built, that traffic pattern is completely useless (and there will be a new Pattullo) as both are tolled.

That money would be better spent on upgrading Columbia/Brunette between the new bridge and TCH. That would actually make a huge difference for a much larger number of people (and the people ramps to the PMB would help too).

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

That money would be better spent on upgrading Columbia/Brunette between the new bridge and TCH. That would actually make a huge difference for a much larger number of people (and the people ramps to the PMB would help too).

Upgrading Columbia/Brunette between the Pattullo and the TCH is going to happen relatively soon. As a part of the upgrade to Royal Columbian Hospital (which backs onto Brunette), the province and New Westminster signed a memorandum of understanding that would improve access to the hospital. I've been unable to find this MoU anywhere, but I've heard from a very good source that this means that Brunette is going to be expanded in some way, and there's some kind of discussions with the car lots / repair shops at the corner of Brunette and Columbia.

[officedweller]

Remember that the entire purpose of the 1990s renovation to add a "climbing lane" to the Port Mann Bridge was to accommodate slow acceleration for trckcs entering the freeway from Pacific Reach Business Park - that was just for the grade of the bridge. The Johnson Hill part of the highway from the elevation of the bridge has extra lanes for hill climbing too.

Now adding an even steeper hill from SFPR seems like it would require a 2-3 lane on-ramp just to accommodate a truck lane and a slow vehicle lane and/or passing lane.

[cornholio]

They should tunnel from where Brunett and Columbia meet to Stewardson and 20th with a major under ground interchange at Patullo bridge.
Something like Europe would do like this...1.5km longer then what New Westminster needs, just opened and a huge success.

This video shows the new section and a part of the older section which is also in a tunnel.
• Video Link
*by the way this is only the newest section of the longest city highway tunnel network in Europe. http://video.idnes.cz/?idvideo=V150921_160524_prahah_cet
http://i.idnes.cz/15/093/cl5/JB5e240b_okruh.jpg

Anyways the new Pattullo bridge and New Westminster really need something like this. They are located in important area and are a huge bottle neck. Things will only get worse. I would say something like this should take priority over stuff like the Broadway skytrain line.

[Express691]

Patullo is closed in both directions as of now.

I think this is a good simulation for when they start to close it down and build a new bridge.