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

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

The design looks fantastic and it was great to see that the design team met with city engineers of both New Westminster and Surrey and with representatives with HUB prior to releasing the designs. The collaboration is evident in the design layout.

My only suggestion is to upgrade the sidewalk along McBride to be a multi-use path which will allow cyclists travelling to Uptown and the top of the hill above Sapperton without any really steep hill climbs. Cyclists can connect to the existing trail and local street network using the existing pedestrian/cyclist overpass connecting Victoria Hill to Queens Park. I ride First Street everyday and it's not great. Downhill I am worried about my brakes failing approaching the stoplight at Royal Avenue or at Agnes, vehicles constantly make illegal turns during rush hour at Royal Avenue and the intersection is offset so it's dangerous. Going in the uphill direction most would have trouble pedaling up the hill. Upgrading the sidewalk on McBride to be a multi-use path makes the most sense and the boulevard is wide enough for at least a 3 m wide MUP.

In New West they also met with a subcommittee of the ACTBiPed committee, which I'm on, so we got to give input as well.

Which sidewalk along McBride are you talking about? They're planning on widening the sidewalk from McBride downhill from Royal to Columbia to make it a proper multi-use pathway. We made the same suggestion that you did regarding the sidewalk on the Victoria Hill side of McBride between Royal and Memorial. We were told by New West's Transportation Manager that they had looked at that as well and the ROW isn't actually wide enough along there to put in a wider pathway.

You're right in that the intersection of First and Royal is a horrible one, and I think with the upcoming Agnes Greenway that intersection needs to be revisited to make it safer for cyclists like you.

[makr3trkr]

this render should lay waste to the idea that there isn't enough infrastructure in New West to support 6 lanes.

1 lane each for each direction of - McBride, Royal, and Brunette

the extra two lanes would just be add/drop and not through

[officedweller]

Hopefully the footings for the pedestrian ramp circled here won't interfere with future construction of a Woodlands Station (
if New West ever gets their act together to support it).

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

this render should lay waste to the idea that there isn't enough infrastructure in New West to support 6 lanes.

1 lane each for each direction of - McBride, Royal, and Brunette

the extra two lanes would just be add/drop and not through

Yeah. The 3rd lane in each direction is just an add-on/drop-off lane at either end of the bridge with 2 through lanes for McBride/KGB. Makes for smoother/safer merging of traffic operations.

At least the six-lanes will initially be constructed (two for temporary pedestrian/cycling lanes) with future ability to cantilever. Still.... so Mickey Mouse. Typical of Metro Van munis.

Anyways. Just get on with it. Has dragged on for too many years. I ain't gonna use same in any event.

[urbancanadian]

Thanks for posting. I agree that this is well-designed for the most part. Since it looks like the block with the Eagle Crest tower will continue to be orphaned, I would propose some small changes to the road network.

I think they should consider extending Agnes Street east under the expressway to the orphaned block. This would become the primary access for residents, avoiding all the traffic along Royal Avenue, and providing a much more pleasant experience for pedestrians walking to the rest of New Westminster. They are already proposing a small underpass for the on-ramp and the sidewalk/greenway. It looks like they would only need to extend it a bit to be able to fit Agnes Street underneath.

It would also keep that small portion of local traffic off of Royal - they could close access from Royal altogether. It looks like right now they are proposing a right-in right-out scenario which would be a bit of a nightmare for residents.

[red-paladin]

Too bad replacing those buildings with park isn't part of the project.

[rickvug]

These orphaned buildings are the primary reason I was disappointed to see that Option A was chosen as the alignment on the New Westminster side. Option B would have allowed for another block of housing directly where the bridge now lands. This would have reconnected the orphaned properties back into the original street grid (or a slightly modified form of it). It would have also allowed for land to be re-dedicated to Queen's Park. I wish that Translink would have done renders of both options, including ideas of what could have been done with the excess land. It sounds like it is too late now.

As for the Woodland's Station, it really is a shame that there's been zero talk of working that station into the project somehow. $25M is a lot of money but isn't that much extra on a $1B project. I'm sure there would be some natural synergies. The same goes for the riverfront. Sapperton Landing was built as part of the Millenium Line construction. I'd love to see an extension of Sapperton Landing underneath this bridge as part of this construction. Perhaps call it Pattullo Park and work elements of the deconstructed bridge into it.

One can dream.

[officedweller]

I think the partially at-grade intersection with Royal Ave. (due to the grade faced by northbound traffic off the bridge) was the reason Option B was rejected - i.e. greater local impact.

The curving roadway in Option A allows for both lanes to pass under Royal Ave. at a gentler grade - with less local impact.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Too bad replacing those buildings with park isn't part of the project.

Yeah i wonder how much more efficient they could have made this if they did away with Leopold place and Bushby st, I believe the 2 houses on that street were relocated there in the early 90's, just move them into the Queens Park neighborhood. The 2 low rises are nondescript 50's apartments and as for the tower i know it needs a rainscreen and window repairs and is almost 30 years old. Knock them down and make better use of that area, I still don't like how this option cuts off so much empty land from being accessible park space or for redevelopment.

[cornholio]

The approaches look fine the design of the bridge is not. It is pathetic and shows a tremendous level of incompetence and waste with Translink and our Municipal governments. I guess that is what you get when almost no one shows up to vote for the one, and the other is not voted for at all but rather selected by the other.

They are replacing a insufficient 4 lane bridge with another 4 lane bridge, and to add insult to injury are creating unsafe major merge points on the main bridge deck. It does not get much stupider then that.

Here is what will happen. They will waste hundreds of millions of dollars on inadequate infrastructure that does nothing to improve the current situation and better our region. They will directly contribute to congestion for the next decade. And then they will spend even more money to correct the issue and add the third lane.
Who ever is responsible should be dragged through the city streets and be pummeled with lettuce.

As proposed we are better not building anything. Just fuck it. Let the region choke like some third world hell hole. Maybe by some miracle our economy will not choke as well years from now.

my two cents

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The approaches look fine the design of the bridge is not. It is pathetic and shows a tremendous level of incompetence and waste with Translink and our Municipal governments. I guess that is what you get when almost no one shows up to vote for the one, and the other is not voted for at all but rather selected by the other.

They are replacing a insufficient 4 lane bridge with another 4 lane bridge, and to add insult to injury are creating unsafe major merge points on the main bridge deck. It does not get much stupider then that.

The locations of the merge points are not set in stone at this point in time. All of the plans to date are guidelines created by TransLink that will be taken by the design/build company and turned into proper plans. If there are unsafe merge points after those proper design plans are in place, then you can start getting angry.

The new bridge, even though it's still four lanes like the current one, will help ease congestion because it will be built to modern standards, allowing for higher speeds over the bridge. The lanes will be wider, which means that large trucks will no longer straddle both lanes. The bridge will also be much safer, leading to fewer collisions and bridge closures.

I'm not sure that your hyperbolic post is really warranted in this case.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The locations of the merge points are not set in stone at this point in time. All of the plans to date are guidelines created by TransLink that will be taken by the design/build company and turned into proper plans. If there are unsafe merge points after those proper design plans are in place, then you can start getting angry.

The new bridge, even though it's still four lanes like the current one, will help ease congestion because it will be built to modern standards, allowing for higher speeds over the bridge. The lanes will be wider, which means that large trucks will no longer straddle both lanes. The bridge will also be much safer, leading to fewer collisions and bridge closures.

I'm not sure that your hyperbolic post is really warranted in this case.

You never know. Translink will become 1st class idiots and implement a 50km/h speed limit on the new bridge and let traffic slow down even more. Look at that pathetic 50km/h on the 17 under the Pattulo.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The locations of the merge points are not set in stone at this point in time. All of the plans to date are guidelines created by TransLink that will be taken by the design/build company and turned into proper plans. If there are unsafe merge points after those proper design plans are in place, then you can start getting angry.

The new bridge, even though it's still four lanes like the current one, will help ease congestion because it will be built to modern standards, allowing for higher speeds over the bridge. The lanes will be wider, which means that large trucks will no longer straddle both lanes. The bridge will also be much safer, leading to fewer collisions and bridge closures.

I'm not sure that your hyperbolic post is really warranted in this case.

The biggest problem still remains: The choke point associated with the merging of 2 lanes into 1 on McBride southbound close to the entrance of the new Pattulo will still be there. To be honest, the new Pattulo bridge should've been 6 lanes at opening and expandable to 8 lanes in the future. Translink and the City of New West have been utterly incompetent from Day 1. Translink should have never been given responsibility in designing and managing road networks. We know that they are extremely biased in only promoting transit options without investing in roads and they will do anything to force cars off the road including artificially force traffic congestion.

[afreak]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

Look at that pathetic 50km/h on the 17 under the Pattulo.

That speed limit exists because there is an active rail crossing. If said crossing wasn't there then the limit would not exist.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

The biggest problem still remains: The choke point associated with the merging of 2 lanes into 1 on McBride southbound close to the entrance of the new Pattulo will still be there. To be honest, the new Pattulo bridge should've been 6 lanes at opening and expandable to 8 lanes in the future. Translink and the City of New West have been utterly incompetent from Day 1. Translink should have never been given responsibility in designing and managing road networks. We know that they are extremely biased in only promoting transit options without investing in roads and they will do anything to force cars off the road including artificially force traffic congestion.

Wow. I don't know where to begin with that asinine statement. Someone else?

[Meraki]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Wow. I don't know where to begin with that asinine statement. Someone else?

Well to start:

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

Look at that pathetic 50km/h on the 17 under the Pattulo.

TransLink has nothing to do with the SFPR, try again?

[urbancanadian]

Translink built the Golden Ears Bridge and associated arterial roads and freeway. Most seem to agree that it is one of the better designed roads in the region. I think you could argue though that the speed limits are too low.

One difference is that there is no merge coming from 201 Street onto the bridge - it becomes the third northbound lane crossing the river.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Translink built the Golden Ears Bridge and associated arterial roads and freeway. Most seem to agree that it is one of the better designed roads in the region. I think you could argue though that the speed limits are too low.

One difference is that there is no merge coming from 201 Street onto the bridge - it becomes the third northbound lane crossing the river.

Exactly. The GEB was very well designed.

The general design for the Pattullo replacement is also very good. It also suggests that an ultimate build out of 6 lanes is firmly in mind. It is only because of New Westminsters misunderstanding of how a 6 lane bridge does not equate to 6 through lanes that this is being opened as 4 lanes.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but why don't they fix up the bridge and make it like the high line in New York? It would be something interesting to have and keep the heritage structure. They can definitely fix the bridge up structurally.

[red-paladin]

If it was up to Translink, it would be a 6 lane bridge.