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

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Nah. One of the defining features of the Pattullo is its blue and orange colours. Paint the cables in blue and orange to reflect that history.

Actually... colored cables can't be that much more expensive... and they would brighten up a dreary day. We could use more color in the winter in Vancouver. Everything is either dull green, gray, or white in this town.

Orange cables...



lit up blue at night!

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by rickvug

No, he was talking about Victoria Hill. Here's Victoria Hill. I don't think that anyone would disagree that McBride has characteristics of a Stroad right now. The question is how it evolves in the future and what land uses are going to be around it. This might feel like a slight tangent, but look at the land use plan around 8th Street and McBride (snazzy gif of current zoning vs. new OCP draft by CanSpice):


McBride and 8th Street are zoned for highrise (mixed use and residential) on both sides. Eventually those strip malls will go and the area will become a more prominent node. The current design of McBride is not conducive to that.

Looking back down to Victoria Hill again, there is still vacant land close to McBride. Because of the speed and nature of McBride residents of Victoria Hill favour a new bridge design that is similar to the status quo in alignment, ensuring that traffic as as far away as possible. The other alternative (called Option B during consultations) would have made for much more efficient land use around McBride and Royal. It would have also had a stop light for North bound traffic. With that bridge design and perhaps some further tweaks further down McBride, I think the road would have a much different feel. It would have also opened up a lot more land for parks and residential development, contributing to an urban feel with better connectivity between neighbourhoods (excuse my awful Skitch):



Some might feel that this is getting a little bit off topic for the Brunnette Interchange but that interchange is closely tied to the bridge, future traffic flows through New West as well as land use changes in the area.

That's exactly what i was thinking, i even emailed translink twice to explain this to them and filled out they surveys noting this. The biggest issue with B was pedestrian crossing across Mcbride but that could have been alleviated with either a pedestrian overpass bridge or underpass tunnel. If all those newly opened up lots downtown are developed east of albert crescent park then they could definitely build the Woodlands skytrain station (glad you put that in there too). Plus lots more park space that's currently cut off by the mess of current bridge connections.

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

That's exactly what i was thinking, i even emailed translink twice to explain this to them and filled out they surveys noting this. The biggest issue with B was pedestrian crossing across Mcbride but that could have been alleviated with either a pedestrian overpass bridge or underpass tunnel. If all those newly opened up lots downtown are developed east of albert crescent park then they could definitely build the Woodlands skytrain station (glad you put that in there too). Plus lots more park space that's currently cut off by the mess of current bridge connections.

Thanks @retro_orange. Glad to know I'm not the only one who was really sad and surprised that Option A was chosen. Secretly I'm still holding out hope that the decision will be "overruled".

I honestly think that folks at Victoria Hill are being shortsighted by wanting the status quo alignment. The stoplight and design of McBride would slow down the traffic there. If noise is an issue there is still room to shift McBride over towards Leopold. That would also open up more room for the Woodlands Station. Finally, they need to remember that some of the lanes of traffic would effectively be buried so the noise is only the Northbound traffic.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The new rail crossing wont be built in that area and it wont be a bridge. It will probably be a tunnel in the Coquitlam area closer to the Port man bridge. As for a new road bridge the plan has been for a long time to build a bridge from the Braid area to Surrey over the islands in the river, there are some that also want to expand and conect the islands to allow some sort of development. The problem with that is that i cant tell you that will never happen because of the importance of those islands to fish and birds, as far as fish go the area has a crap load of sturgeon and im sure they will be the species that will be used to stop any reclamation of the islands...i should know i often fish for them there.

Really the best thing to do is build a rail tunnel just west of the Portman bridge, build a new 6 lane vehicle bridge in the Braid area to Surrey and make the Patullo bridge 3 lanes(although like some have mentioned there is pretty steady traffic flow in both directions, but with a new bridge east of there it should be fine for a long time).

What new rail crossing?

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by afreak

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

you can safely go 80km/hr or higher. myself and lots of other drivers do it all the time.

[fredinno]

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.

Well, I'm pretty sure there isn't room in New West for an 8-lane, especially since we can't fill the bridge right next to it.

And I think even 6-lanes is something that's going to wait deep into the future, considering the current level of traffic is sustained by no tolling.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This has been mentioned / discussed countless times.

The cost to bring the bridge back up to code is far to high to make retaining the existing bridge an option, even for just a park.

They stated that with a new bridge or not in place come the early 2020's the bridge will have to be shut down. Not only earthquakes, but even high wind now presents a very real structural failure danger.

How did the Westminister Bridge (that ancient rail bridge) or Lions Gate Bridge survive without being shut down then? Wondering.

Originally Posted by Sheba

Most of it would be a tunnel - but where would it start after the bridge? Part of New West would still have to deal with that dreaded traffic.

Maybe their newer younger mayor will be open to it?

I guess they'll cut up New West into elevated highway or tunnel it. Both would be highly costly in terms of the neighbourhood and in cost.

It's about as unlikely as the NFPR, which in comparison was cheap and affected only the fringe of New West.

Maybe if we have a "3rd Crossing" across the Burrard as well at Ioco, it would be more viable?

Originally Posted by retro_orange

It would be great if Surrey did their own River district at the new south end of the new Pattullo bridge. Whats this planned sports complex?

*Also Pattullo is misspelled in the thread title...

It's industrial land now- something Metro Van isn't very willing to give up at the moment.

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Actually... colored cables can't be that much more expensive... and they would brighten up a dreary day. We could use more color in the winter in Vancouver. Everything is either dull green, gray, or white in this town.

Orange cables...



lit up blue at night!

We need a +1 or like feature in this forum...

[Metro-One]

The Lions Gate is kind of joke considering the important role it plays. Beautiful Structure, but really should not be one of the only two major bridges connecting the North Shore. There is an eventual plan to decommission it for regular traffic (of course at that time a new third crossing will be needed and that it too big of a pill to swallow for the current Vancouver government). It also had major expensive upgrades (having the entire deck replaced) in the late 90s I believe. It is also far more of an iconic structure than the Pattullo Bridge for our region. It will never be torn down without the help of being completely decimated in an earthquake. in the end, a real apples to oranges comparison.

Agreed that the Westminster Bridge needs to be replaced, but try and convince the rail companies on that one.

Also agreed on the need for more lighting / colour on our major bridges. To many of them simply disappear at night.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by fredinno

How did the Westminister Bridge (that ancient rail bridge) or Lions Gate Bridge survive without being shut down then? Wondering.

Lions Gate was essentially a new bridge as of 2001. It took years of nighttime/weekend closures.

The main bridge deck was replaced in 2000 and 2001 – the first time a suspension bridge's deck had been replaced. As with the earlier work, this was facilitated by a series of separate nighttime and weekend closures to replace one section at a time. The old section would be lowered to a barge, and the new one raised into place and connected. The change allowed the two pedestrian walkways to be moved to the outside of the structure and the road lanes were accordingly widened from 3 to 3.6 m (from 10 to 12 ft) each; the new sidewalks are also wider, 2.7 m (9 ft) each instead of 1.2 m (4 ft). Also, the main structural elements were moved to below the bridge deck, thus giving a much more open appearance.

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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Lions Gate was essentially a new bridge as of 2001. It took years of nighttime/weekend closures.

It was a very impressive engineering project that was the first of its kind. And for the most part it went off with very little problems. It's too bad the Pattullo can't be fixed in the same way.

[Pinion]

There's nothing worth saving on the Pattullo, including its alignment. Ugly, underbuilt bridge that should be connecting closer to Brunette ave IMO.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It was a very impressive engineering project that was the first of its kind. And for the most part it went off with very little problems. It's too bad the Pattullo can't be fixed in the same way.

Even a bit further off-topic but the MacDonald Bridge in Halifax, the east coast twin to the Lions Gate, is currently undergoing the exact same deck-replacement program. They're calling it The Big Lift.

https://www.hdbc.ca/redecking/

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The Lions Gate is kind of joke considering the important role it plays. Beautiful Structure, but really should not be one of the only two major bridges connecting the North Shore. There is an eventual plan to decommission it for regular traffic (of course at that time a new third crossing will be needed and that it too big of a pill to swallow for the current Vancouver government). It also had major expensive upgrades (having the entire deck replaced) in the late 90s I believe. It is also far more of an iconic structure than the Pattullo Bridge for our region. It will never be torn down without the help of being completely decimated in an earthquake. in the end, a real apples to oranges comparison.

Agreed that the Westminster Bridge needs to be replaced, but try and convince the rail companies on that one.

Also agreed on the need for more lighting / colour on our major bridges. To many of them simply disappear at night.

The Westminister bridge just had a major upgrade on the surrey side and currently upgrading section on the new west. Thats the reason for the lan closure being on going on the low rd. I also believe the main span was also done

[cairnstone]

The Patullo Bridge was determined not economical to repair after some of the cost figures came in. So the last few contracts for work have only been as needed. Anything beyond safety is a waste. That was why there was an overlay done with concrete. Cheap repair instead of upgrading to a lighter more durable product. If one was to want to keep the current bridge it would need to be downgraded to 3 lanes.

Back in the late 80s the bridge should have been replaced and the Skytrain been directed over it this was a proposal from the local infrastructure builders. But do to government and nimbyism we got what we got.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Lions Gate was essentially a new bridge as of 2001. It took years of nighttime/weekend closures.



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

But the thing is Lion's Gate, like Pautello, was a Depression-Era bridge, and the actual structure was still from that era.

The Pautello's structure is falling apart.


If there was ever a historical bridge to keep, it was the Port Mann. Lead Paint or not, there was still life in that thing and the Port Mann Bridge should have been twinned instead.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by fredinno

But the thing is Lion's Gate, like Pautello, was a Depression-Era bridge, and the actual structure was still from that era.

The Pautello's structure is falling apart.


If there was ever a historical bridge to keep, it was the Port Mann. Lead Paint or not, there was still life in that thing and the Port Mann Bridge should have been twinned instead.

Pattullo! It's right in the thread title.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Pattullo! It's right in the thread title.

I'm not writing a paper. Ie. I don't care.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by fredinno

But the thing is Lion's Gate, like Pautello, was a Depression-Era bridge, and the actual structure was still from that era.

The Pautello's structure is falling apart.


If there was ever a historical bridge to keep, it was the Port Mann. Lead Paint or not, there was still life in that thing and the Port Mann Bridge should have been twinned instead.

How do you know this about the Port Mann?

(2cents says - spelling always counts.)

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Marshal

How do you know this about the Port Mann?

(2cents says - spelling always counts.)

Spelling gives credibility to your argument as well.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by fredinno

If there was ever a historical bridge to keep, it was the Port Mann. Lead Paint or not, there was still life in that thing and the Port Mann Bridge should have been twinned instead.

What?! That 1960s POS that sunk shortly after construction? Who cares about the paint, it was pretty ugly and had no historical significance.

The only 2 bridges with that are the Lions Gate and Burrard IMO.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The Lions Gate is kind of joke considering the important role it plays. Beautiful Structure, but really should not be one of the only two major bridges connecting the North Shore. There is an eventual plan to decommission it for regular traffic (of course at that time a new third crossing will be needed and that it too big of a pill to swallow for the current Vancouver government). It also had major expensive upgrades (having the entire deck replaced) in the late 90s I believe. It is also far more of an iconic structure than the Pattullo Bridge for our region. It will never be torn down without the help of being completely decimated in an earthquake. in the end, a real apples to oranges comparison.

Agreed that the Westminster Bridge needs to be replaced, but try and convince the rail companies on that one.

Also agreed on the need for more lighting / colour on our major bridges. To many of them simply disappear at night.

Any chance of a 3rd crossing on Burrard, or a 1st Narrows twinning?

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What?! That 1960s POS that sunk shortly after construction? Who cares about the paint, it was pretty ugly and had no historical significance.

The only 2 bridges with that are the Lions Gate and Burrard IMO.

It looked more or less like the Pautullo, and spurred development far more than its counterpart.