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

[Metro-One]

Well the bridge is under Translink's jurisdiction, while the GMT is purely provincial, but I do agree that the Province (and maybe sone help from the Feds too) should be paying for the replacement.

[Meraki]

That raises the question of why is TransLink is responsible for random pieces of the road network, hampered by restrictions set by the Province while the other projects don't need a business case or referendum.

That's a thread in its own, though.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Meraki

That raises the question of why is TransLink is responsible for random pieces of the road network, hampered by restrictions set by the Province while the other projects don't need a business case or referendum.

That's a thread in its own, though.

That's because Translink was made responsible for 600km of roads part of the MRN.

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/roads_bridges/mrn_overview_map.pdf

Which makes me wonder why Translink can't tell the city of Surrey they can't build light rail down "the roads that are part of the Translink MRN"

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

...because that's the way the Provincial government set it up. Seriously, if this is such a safety risk then why can't the provincial government step up to the plate on funding?

Then you'd have the City of Vancouver asking for provincial funding for the Burrard Bridge, Granville Bridge and Cambie Bridge
- hey, they are already trying for the viaducts removal!
... or Richmond asking for Dinsmore Bridge funding, etc.

Municipalities always have their hands out for funding.

Originally Posted by Meraki

That raises the question of why is TransLink is responsible for random pieces of the road network, hampered by restrictions set by the Province while the other projects don't need a business case or referendum.

That's a thread in its own, though.

I think the principles are as follows:

Intra-municipal bridges not on Provincial Highways are the responsibility of the municipality (Burrard, Granville, Cambie, No. 2 Rd., Dinsmore, etc)
(There may be historical ownership factors at play as well, as Granville Bridge is, I think, also Hwy 99)

Inter-municipal bridges not on Provincial Highways were handed to TransLink (in place of a city to city negotiation between the 2 connected cities, the regional level of government steps in. TransLink is that regional level of government for transportation matters.
(Patullo, Golden Ears; Rieffel Island Bridge is an oddball exception, as it's all in Delta, isn't it?)

Bridges on Provincial Highways are the responsibility of the Province of BC (regardless of whether they are intra- or inter- municipal).
(i.e. intra-municipal Provincial bridges - Hwy 1 bridges in North Vancouver, serpentine River in Surrey; inter-municipal Provincial Bridges - Port Mann, GMT, Oak St., Lions Gate, 2nd Narrows)

[s211]

To add to this bridge poop-show, I'm now hearing from those in the know that New West is now privately acknowledging that four lanes are not sufficient, but that it's too late to amend the program.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by s211

To add to this bridge poop-show, I'm now hearing from those in the know that New West is now privately acknowledging that four lanes are not sufficient, but that it's too late to amend the program.

If you look at the image you'll see that it'll be built as six lanes with the outermost lane being used as a sidewalk / bike lane. The plan was to add sidewalks to the outside later when they need that lane for car traffic - now maybe they'll build them at the start...


TransLink Pattullo Bridge Replacement

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Bobert

So if theyre going north and upstream, does that mean they're building the option b approach on the New West side?

Nope, they're going with Option A

* More agreement with Option A, with participants citing improved traffic flow and less impact on the Victoria Hill neighbourhood

* Less agreement with Option B. Many participants were opposed to traffic stopping at McBride and Royal Avenue, citing increased noise and safety issues with speed and the volume of vehicles travelling through the intersection.

Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project Community Connections Phase 2 Consultation

[s211]

Originally Posted by Sheba

If you look at the image you'll see that it'll be built as six lanes with the outermost lane being used as a sidewalk / bike lane. The plan was to add sidewalks to the outside later when they need that lane for car traffic - now maybe they'll build them at the start...

From what I'm told, it's too late to change now.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by s211

From what I'm told, it's too late to change now.

Seems odd to me that you cannot amend such a feature on a project that has not even left the design phase, especially when it is a feature already being accommodated for within the design...

So what are they going to do then? Just build it as planned now, wait six months, and then waste a bunch of money and time immediately upgrading it?

Wait, this is BC, that sounds like the appropriate steps for road infrastructure...

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Seems odd to me that you cannot amend such a feature on a project that has not even left the design phase, especially when it is a feature already being accommodated for within the design...

So what are they going to do then? Just build it as planned now, wait six months, and then waste a bunch of money and time immediately upgrading it?

Wait, this is BC, that sounds like the appropriate steps for road infrastructure...

Underbuilding infrastructure is a BC thing.

LOL a 4 lane bridge.....

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

Underbuilding infrastructure is a BC thing.

Not if you look at the bridges the province has been building lately. In the case of the Patullo it's a New West thing.

[red-paladin]

^

[Trainguy]

The Pattullo Bridge was never built to handle large trucks and that is what causes all the backups. Trucks with more than 2 axles should be banned from the bridge. This should be the case even when a new bridge is built. Large trucks can use the Port Mann or Alex Fraser. The problem is that the trucking industry is in bed with the government and they don't want to ruffle their feathers. Because of that everyone else suffers.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

The Pattullo Bridge was never built to handle large trucks and that is what causes all the backups. Trucks with more than 2 axles should be banned from the bridge. This should be the case even when a new bridge is built. Large trucks can use the Port Mann or Alex Fraser. The problem is that the trucking industry is in bed with the government and they don't want to ruffle their feathers. Because of that everyone else suffers.

They should post CVSE on the bridge citing drivers straddling both lanes.

If you can't stay in your lane, take another bridge.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

The Pattullo Bridge was never built to handle large trucks and that is what causes all the backups. Trucks with more than 2 axles should be banned from the bridge. This should be the case even when a new bridge is built. Large trucks can use the Port Mann or Alex Fraser. The problem is that the trucking industry is in bed with the government and they don't want to ruffle their feathers. Because of that everyone else suffers.

^^^^^ This 100%.

Although I suppose a toll on the Patullo would sort that out too. Truckers use it because it's free.

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by s211

To add to this bridge poop-show, I'm now hearing from those in the know that New West is now privately acknowledging that four lanes are not sufficient, but that it's too late to amend the program.

@s211 What's your source? I'm surprised to hear this. My understanding is that council was adamant about the 4 lane version. I'm a believer in induced demand and I don't want more traffic through New West. This said, I don't see a 6 lane bridge opening up the floodgates. 1 lane for McBride, 1 lane for Royal, 1 lane for East Columbia. All of these exits will open up to two lanes so the bridge is still somewhat of a bottleneck. Makes sense to me. I sure hope that no matter what this bridge is tolled.

[retro_orange]

Has everyone already forgotten that the plan is to build the bridge 6 lanes wide while only being set up for 4 initially ... It will be able to be easily expanded as the sidewalks will become the outer lanes and they would build a sidewalk structure along the edges of the bridge when the time comes.

Those who made past statements that it would never be expanded once built don't have much justification for that as we have had no bridge built before that will be as easily expandable in the future and regional growth will only make it more feasible.

This is a non issue.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Has everyone already forgotten that the plan is to build the bridge 6 lanes wide while only being set up for 4 initially ... It will be able to be easily expanded as the sidewalks will become the outer lanes and they would build a sidewalk structure along the edges of the bridge when the time comes.

Scroll up - I posted a pic showing exactly that.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Has everyone already forgotten that the plan is to build the bridge 6 lanes wide while only being set up for 4 initially ... It will be able to be easily expanded as the sidewalks will become the outer lanes and they would build a sidewalk structure along the edges of the bridge when the time comes.

Those who made past statements that it would never be expanded once built don't have much justification for that as we have had no bridge built before that will be as easily expandable in the future and regional growth will only make it more feasible.

This is a non issue.

actually, it is an issue. they are building it with the ability to extended the edges. i.e. not wide enough for 6, but expandable to 6. not the way the AFB was done. there is a diagram showing this many pages back in this thread. unless something has changed since then...

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Has everyone already forgotten that the plan is to build the bridge 6 lanes wide while only being set up for 4 initially ... It will be able to be easily expanded as the sidewalks will become the outer lanes and they would build a sidewalk structure along the edges of the bridge when the time comes.

but it makes zero sense to do it this way. Why build something incomplete only to spend more $$$ in the future to "expand" it. And when you do, 1 lane with from each direction will have to closed to accommodate for the construction, causing even more congestion. This new 4 lane version will not alleviate congestion because it'll remain a bottle neck in both ends of the bridge.