Pattullo Bridge Rehabilitation Project

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

incorrect.

the plans/talk years ago featured a spiral tunnel on the New Westminister side.

I can assure you technically it is doable. cost wise .... that's the concern

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rved_alignment

Technically it may be possible, but here in the real world where budgets are limited we'll never see this happening at this location.

[SOSS]

I would envision a train lift bridge at its current elevation with a road deck either above it or attached to the side. I have no idea of any real world examples of this.

IMHO raising the rail deck to the same level is a bit crazy and would make more sense to tunnel it.

[twoNeurons]

One of the rail ideas was actually to do a tunnel instead. 1 km Tunnel highlighted in image. Then a low-level bridge.

I'd prefer this to a Patullo combination.

http://i.imgur.com/o83yhMl.png

[GMasterAres]

Personally I think replacement Pattullo and train bridge should be separate. I also call into question the notion that a rail crossing should even be where it is now. Why can't the crossing be further up or down stream? For example crossing at Coquitlam, or crossing West either at the tip of Annacis Island or by the AFB. There is a rail line that crosses from Annacis over to the Queensborough peninsula, then again at Quayside Drive to New West.

They've now shut down elevator road to the SFPR so why not re-do that area and have a new raise/swing crossing at Elevator Road across to Annacis Island to meet up with the crossing through to Quayside.

You could then not only completely get rid of the bridge at the Pattullo but on the Surrey Side you could get rid of all the raised approaches going each direction and better develop the land down there across from New Westminster.

Just my thought.

[GMasterAres]

Here is an illustration of what I am talking about:

Orange near bottom would be the new rail crossing, purple is existing railway there already with crossings to the North (x2), Red [X]s are where you could remove all the rail approaches and crossing points if the bridge were moved. That's a lot of rail to go away allowing Surrey to develop that land better.

It would also provide a more efficient route for trains between the docks/CN yards and Annacis Island industrial land. They wouldn't need to first swing North crossing @ Pattullo then head west then swing back south crossing 2 bridges. They could instead just cut directly and cross once.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Here is an illustration of what I am talking about:

Orange near bottom would be the new rail crossing, purple is existing railway there already with crossings to the North (x2), Red [X]s are where you could remove all the rail approaches and crossing points if the bridge were moved. That's a lot of rail to go away allowing Surrey to develop that land better.

It would also provide a more efficient route for trains between the docks/CN yards and Annacis Island industrial land. They wouldn't need to first swing North crossing @ Pattullo then head west then swing back south crossing 2 bridges. They could instead just cut directly and cross once.

The problem with that is BNSF trains headed for False Creek flats (and Cascades passenger trains) would all pass through downtown New Westminster along Front Street (as well as the new waterfront residential area at the tip of Queensborough).
I suspect that would be a significant increase in traffic.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The problem with that is BNSF trains headed for False Creek flats (and Cascades passenger trains) would all pass through downtown New Westminster along Front Street (as well as the new waterfront residential area at the tip of Queensborough).
I suspect that would be a significant increase in traffic.

You're probably right. Without knowing the actual train numbers I can't really say either way. Was simply looking at geography. But fair point. Isn't the Cascades passenger train only twice a day though and the train is relatively small. The Canadian (Via) is also only twice a week during off-peak and 3 times a week during peak. I'd imagine if anything it would be the other trains (cargo).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by jhausner

You're probably right. Without knowing the actual train numbers I can't really say either way. Was simply looking at geography. But fair point. Isn't the Cascades passenger train only twice a day though and the train is relatively small. The Canadian (Via) is also only twice a week during off-peak and 3 times a week during peak. I'd imagine if anything it would be the other trains (cargo).

A lot of trains pass over the bridge every day. The BNSF, Amtrak, SRY, and CN regularly use the bridge. And going through Annacis, Port Royal and New Westminster just adds to the complexity by adding 2 more bridge, and a few switching yards to the mix. Trains passing through there travel slower than they do currently over the existing bridge. As well, CN and SRY need to then backtrack further down river; with CN trains having to go down river, cross over, then back up river.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Personally I think replacement Pattullo and train bridge should be separate. I also call into question the notion that a rail crossing should even be where it is now. Why can't the crossing be further up or down stream? For example crossing at Coquitlam, or crossing West either at the tip of Annacis Island or by the AFB. There is a rail line that crosses from Annacis over to the Queensborough peninsula, then again at Quayside Drive to New West.

They've now shut down elevator road to the SFPR so why not re-do that area and have a new raise/swing crossing at Elevator Road across to Annacis Island to meet up with the crossing through to Quayside.

You could then not only completely get rid of the bridge at the Pattullo but on the Surrey Side you could get rid of all the raised approaches going each direction and better develop the land down there across from New Westminster.

Just my thought.

The majority of the traffic from the north of the current bridge, having all that traffic going through Queensborough and downtown New West would be make any increase in speed or capacity of the new crossing irrelevant.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by roger1818

TransLink should work with the Canadian Government (who own the neighbouring New Westminster Rail Bridge), and replace both bridges with a single bridge. The NSRW is over 100 years old and in even more urgent need of replacement. The new bridge could not only be used by the various passenger and freight railways that use the current bridge, but TransLink could also use the bridge for a new commuter rail service.

The Translink studies done between 2008 and 2012 examined the feasibility of all options, including a combined rail and road bridge. It found that there is no net benefit (and maybe even a detriment) to building a combined bridge.


Source: http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Docu...20Overview.pdf

The combined bridge would need to be double deck, with the train section much lower with a lift span to avoid steep/long rail approaches. Supporting the train span would also require more engineering, increasing the cost. A road span could get by with just 2 supports, the heavy load of the rail span would require a lot more.

You can't just build a bridge and slap a railway on it. It's not just a marginal increase in the load, but a significant one. You pretty much have to spend on twice the structure to make it happen. Building a combined high level bridge pretty much costs the same as building 2 bridges.

I also think the only option for a combined bridge would be at the Sapperton Bar area (so the railways can have a proper approach) which, if it were done as car only, would cost double than what a replacement at the current location would. It was upwards of $3 billion for a road only Sapperton Bar bridge (vs max $1 billion for current location) So add in a rail bridge and all those supporting structures and land acquisition and it balloons to something like a $6 billion project.

[GlassCity]

The train bridge really does need to be replaced though. It added almost 30 minutes to my Amtrak Cascades trip the last time I took it. If we want to improve speed, reliability and ridership on our side of the border the way that they are doing in Washington, then the replacement of this bridge is a must.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

whereas trains are a more intermittent service that seems to be managing adequately with those interruptions.

Given the status quo, you are correct. However, the bridge is one of the major factors preventing Amtrak from providing more than one train a day to Vancouver. Also, if we want to add commuter rail service, scheduling the lift/swing would be much more challenging (Sky Train's frequent stops make it too slow for longer distance commutes).

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Given the status quo, you are correct. However, the bridge is one of the major factors preventing Amtrak from providing more than one train a day to Vancouver. Also, if we want to add commuter rail service, scheduling the lift/swing would be much more challenging (Sky Train's frequent stops make it too slow for longer distance commutes).

Agreed, but there is currently 2 days a day into Vancouver. One in the morning, one in the evening.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Given the status quo, you are correct. However, the bridge is one of the major factors preventing Amtrak from providing more than one train a day to Vancouver. Also, if we want to add commuter rail service, scheduling the lift/swing would be much more challenging (Sky Train's frequent stops make it too slow for longer distance commutes).

Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem likely to me that it will be replaced with a high level bridge (one that doesn't have to open for marine traffic) in the foreseeable future. I just can't see how a business case could be made to justify the high cost of such a bridge.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by jhausner

You're probably right. Without knowing the actual train numbers I can't really say either way. Was simply looking at geography. But fair point. Isn't the Cascades passenger train only twice a day though and the train is relatively small. The Canadian (Via) is also only twice a week during off-peak and 3 times a week during peak. I'd imagine if anything it would be the other trains (cargo).

According to The System in 2030 - Rail, the New Westminster Rail Bridge (NWRB) carries ~ 46 freight trains / day with an estimated capacity of ~ 60 trains / day. That is pretty close to capacity and doesn't leave much room for additional trains. Adding more trains will increase the potential for delays due to the bridge being open for water traffic.

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Agreed, but there is currently 2 days a day into Vancouver. One in the morning, one in the evening.

While Amtrak currently has 2 trains a day, they want to increase this to 6 (3 in each direction). Also both VIA Rail and Rocky Mountaineer run trains over the NWRB. The biggest user could be a new commuter rail service (similar to the West Coast Express) south of the Fraser, which could operate 10 to 20 trains a day (5 to 10 in each direction) or more if they could get permission to run trains all day long (with appropriate upgrades).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by roger1818

According to The System in 2030 - Rail, the New Westminster Rail Bridge (NWRB) carries ~ 46 freight trains / day with an estimated capacity of ~ 60 trains / day. That is pretty close to capacity and doesn't leave much room for additional trains. Adding more trains will increase the potential for delays due to the bridge being open for water traffic.

While Amtrak currently has 2 trains a day, they want to increase this to 6 (3 in each direction). Also both VIA Rail and Rocky Mountaineer run trains over the NWRB. The biggest user could be a new commuter rail service (similar to the West Coast Express) south of the Fraser, which could operate 10 to 20 trains a day (5 to 10 in each direction) or more if they could get permission to run trains all day long (with appropriate upgrades).

Are you getting it right? There are 4 Amtrak trains a day (2 leave, 2 arrive every single day).

Don't get me wrong, I do think the rail bridge needs replacing, but I don't think it needs to be a high level bridge combined with a new Pattullo. I think that would move the Pattullo too far up river, and cost more.

According to that link, a replacement of the NWRB would cost $110 million (in 2005). That seems low, so it is probably for a bridge that is very similar but double (or even triple) tracked with a wider lift span (like the one at Second Narrows). There is no way you could build the rail viaducts needed for a high level bridge for that much.

If you built a combined bridge it would need to be at the Sapperton Bar. That more than doubles the cost of Translinks share. So a combined bridge at a new location is going to be over $3 billion all said and done (probably 4). If the build at the current location, Translink builds a $1 billion bridge, and the government builds a new rail bridge for $200 million. Even if you build a taller rail bridge at Sapperton (probably still with a lift span to keep it from going insane expensive) and a Pattullo at the current location, that puts Translink's cost at $1 billion and a high end cost of $1 billion for the rail bridge.

And a lift span isn't bad. Much of the river traffic as it is can pass under the NWRB as it is. The tugs that operate on the river are designed to fit under the closed bridge; their mast fold back so they can limbo under. They even bring the long log booms up river under the solid span close to shore (as to not take up the opening spans). A new bridge could be made just a few feet higher and it could allow even more boats under it without opening.

[Klazu]

First day of Pattullo closure and Queensborough Bridge was already a mess. I didn't drive Alex Fraser Bridge, but they said on the radio that it was just as busy as during weekday rush hour. Surprisingly also Oak Street Bridge was backed up all the way to Shell Road.

Seems like it's going to be a summer of congestion in the Metro.

[AForce]

I was coming from the airport and saw the mess at Oak. I think it was an issue on bridgeport that spilled over onto the hwy.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by AForce

I was coming from the airport and saw the mess at Oak. I think it was an issue on bridgeport that spilled over onto the hwy.

i drove there at about 3pm yesterday and there was nothing on bridgeport, just a lot of people on the freeway and people merging at the bridge head. it was moving, but slowly.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Klazu

First day of Pattullo closure and Queensborough Bridge was already a mess.

I was under the impression that the bridge was going to close down completely for the entire period until the fall, but they seem to be trying to keep 1 lane per direction open during the week. Is that a change of plans? Or is it just my lousy memory?