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

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If you look closer it looks as if option 4 would have also grade separated the rail spur that currently runs across the SFPR.

-snip-

I can't see that happening with any of the options. You would need a fairly large clearance and long ramps to fix that rail mess. There's at-grade and elevated tracks about 50M apart, along with the sky bridge sandwiching you in from the west.

Aside from that, I'm disappointed to see that there wasn't a bigger effort made to connect King George, Scott Road and Highway 17 in a more cohesive manner. These are fairly large commuter routes and their flow is not being addressed at all.

Day 1 traffic flows over this bridge wont be all that much different than today.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Bobert

Day 1 traffic flows over this bridge wont be all that much different than today.

Yeah, capacity won't increase in any direction and there will be long line-ups from Day 1. All we get for $1.3 billion is basically a 50-year lifespan extension for a bridge across the water.

The money would have been much better spent on Skytrain expansion anywhere, than this shit. But this is what you get when you elect anti-development idiots. I am absolutely convinced that NDP will manage to stall all economic growth in BC during their stint in power.

[Pinion]

Can't stall what's already stalled. The BC Liberals killed everything but real estate.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Bobert

I can't see that happening with any of the options. You would need a fairly large clearance and long ramps to fix that rail mess. There's at-grade and elevated tracks about 50M apart, along with the sky bridge sandwiching you in from the west.

Aside from that, I'm disappointed to see that there wasn't a bigger effort made to connect King George, Scott Road and Highway 17 in a more cohesive manner. These are fairly large commuter routes and their flow is not being addressed at all.

Day 1 traffic flows over this bridge wont be all that much different than today.

I thought the same regarding the rail spur, but if you look carefully at option 4 the rail spur is highlighted where it crosses the road, whereas in option 1, 2, and 3 (the one chosen) it is not.

Again the schematics are pretty low resolution, but this must mean something, and the logical conclusion would be some form of grade separation.

And yes, aside from the Patullo South bound to SFPR (17) West bound the southern approach connections will be problematic from day one.

The North side is fine.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Bobert

I can't see that happening with any of the options. You would need a fairly large clearance and long ramps to fix that rail mess. There's at-grade and elevated tracks about 50M apart, along with the sky bridge sandwiching you in from the west.

Aside from that, I'm disappointed to see that there wasn't a bigger effort made to connect King George, Scott Road and Highway 17 in a more cohesive manner. These are fairly large commuter routes and their flow is not being addressed at all.

Day 1 traffic flows over this bridge wont be all that much different than today.

Don't forget the newly reconfigured KGB and Bridgeview/128th intersection. What a joke that is. If you're going north on KGB you gotta wait for the dual turn lane heading to Bridgeview, then Bridgeview traffic with a green, then 128th traffic with a green. I wouldn't be surprised if the new light configuration are like a 2 minute plus wait. And vice versa for KGB traffice heading south.
I don't get what was wrong with the old configuration. It seemed faster.

[oy1234]

Sorry if this is a dumb question. Why did the province pick up the whole tab for this? Isn't the federal government willing to kick in 40%? Even if there's no Translink money couldn't it have been 60/40?

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by oy1234

Sorry if this is a dumb question. Why did the province pick up the whole tab for this? Isn't the federal government willing to kick in 40%? Even if there's no Translink money couldn't it have been 60/40?

The Patullo bridge was never eligible for federal money because it's not a new transit infrastructure project.

[Sheba]

Three projects at once might have been too much - but are two projects too much now that the bridge is being taken over by the province... ?

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Vancouver Sun

7 January 2018
Talk of Delaying TransLink Projects Borders on Nonsense

Vancouver British Columbia - The mayors of Surrey and Vancouver are pushing back on any possible slowdown on the Broadway subway or Surrey light-rail transit following statements made by Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan that raised questions on the future of both mega-projects.

Corrigan, the new chair of the TransLink Mayors' Council on Regional Transportation, said its first priority is to replace the aging Pattullo Bridge and suggested it was unrealistic to do all three projects concurrently, which is the vision laid out in the mayors' council 10 year plan.

...


In an interview with Postmedia News on the weekend, Corrigan suggested it wasn't possible to embark on the projects at the same time.

"I don't know if there is any organization across Canada capable of doing three major projects like that simultaneously and doing them well," he said.

...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Yeah, capacity won't increase in any direction and there will be long line-ups from Day 1. All we get for $1.3 billion is basically a 50-year lifespan extension for a bridge across the water.

The money would have been much better spent on Skytrain expansion anywhere, than this shit. But this is what you get when you elect anti-development idiots. I am absolutely convinced that NDP will manage to stall all economic growth in BC during their stint in power.

It was not an option to do nothing and only spend the money on transit. The bridge is literally way past it's service life. Given that the NDP removed the tolls on the underused PMB, it makes sense not overbuild the nearby Patullo. It's been pretty clear for a while that transit spending was going to take precedence of new roads both federally and now provincially. I'm not sure why people seems surprised by this.

[Henbo]

Originally Posted by dpogue

The Patullo bridge was never eligible for federal money because it's not a new transit infrastructure project.

TransLink did submit an application to the NTCF for the Pattullo Bridge
https://bctrucking.com/bulletin/2017/12/...investments-national-trade-corridor-fund

But keep in mind that this current round of funding is only $400 million
https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2017/08/national_trade_corridorsfundntcf.html

Which is to be spent on projects all across the country

[Metro-One]

So Surrrey supports this plan but they are still asking the province to consider 6 lanes on opening day.

Now, looking at the selected design, I think a 5 lane opening would be a very appropriate compromise.

The 5th lane should be an add / drop on the west side heading south. On the north approach you have the direct on ramp coming from Columbia west bound. Instead of forcing a merge given the likely high volume using this ramp it should continue as a 5th lane. This lane would then exit via the direct SFPR west off ramp.

It seems so logical looking at the diagrams.

Patullo1 by Ian, on Flickr

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

...looking at the selected design, I think a 5 lane opening would be a very appropriate compromise.

The 5th lane should be an add / drop on the west side heading south.

You'd think that New Westminster would be on board with that - it expedites cars leaving their city!

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You'd think that New Westminster would be on board with that - it expedites cars leaving their city!

Haha, I didn’t even think about that!

[s211]

Originally Posted by dpogue

The Patullo bridge was never eligible for federal money because it's not a new transit infrastructure project.

I'd contest that, based on the buckets and buckets the Feds coughed over for that bridge replacement in Montreal.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So Surrrey supports this plan but they are still asking the province to consider 6 lanes on opening day.

Unfortunately for Surrey they signed a Memorandum Of Understanding with New Westminster and TransLink stating that the replacement Pattullo will be 4 lanes at opening.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by dleung

Port Mann and Golden Ears are all over-built. What's severely under-built is RAPID TRANSIT. Why are we building road capacity for more sprawl south of the Fraser? 6 lanes for the GMB is plenty - there will never be need for skytrain provisions for such a sparse part of the metro. I don't believe in dedicated rapid bus lanes - too much infrastructure for too little ridership.

Do you actually ever drive over the Port Mann? To think it is overbuilt tells me you don't. It is definitely not overbuilt not at all given it is busy nearly every time I cross, sees traffic jams already from time to time, has a collector system that works great, needs to last 50 years in a region that will gain 1+ million people in that time, and is our #1 highway that links Metro Vancouver to the rest of Canada.

GEB likely was overbuilt at the time but it is getting busier and busier every year and with the growth again in Langley, Surrey, and now Maple Ridge and Coquitlam, I am certain in 10-15 years, much like the Alex Fraser, we'll be ecstatic the bridge was built 6 lanes vs 4. Few people remember (or were even alive to remember) that the Alex Fraser bridge was accused of being a White Elephant that was overbuilt and went nowhere when it opened.

Could you imagine the region without it today? It is a vital crossing and they are even trying to expand it with a movable 7th HOV lane it is that busy.

As for the urban sprawl debate, that's a pointless debate at this stage. The region is growing and growth = sprawl because quite frankly Vancouver is out of space, and Burnaby is very much close behind in being out of space. The only real space to build are in the suburbs and a large bulk of the population doesn't want to live in high rises.

I own a high rise apartment but am raising my family in a townhouse because I want the space. So not building roads will not discourage urban sprawl and in fact will have just as much affect on increasing sprawl as expanded infrastructure meaning... it really has no overall impact on urban sprawl.

Has been shown in many cities around the world. Expanding or contracting infrastructure has little to no affect on urban sprawl. Housing costs and land constraints contribute considerably more.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Unfortunately for Surrey they signed a Memorandum Of Understanding with New Westminster and TransLink stating that the replacement Pattullo will be 4 lanes at opening.

Which is fine but the Province can overrule that and say "6 lanes." I doubt they will.

[Tetsuo]

NDP went with this** fully since it benefits 10 ridings won, perfect to play defense for these ridings with a brand new Patullo

(** other than the fact that the bridge NEEDs to be replaced)

tbh they are half assing this replacement, I like the New West side interface though.

[flipper316]

Kind of overpriced with that price and it does nothing to really improve the interchanges at both ends. Most of the congestion is caused due to the merging. Just make it 6 lanes like everyone agrees here and use those 2 extra lanes as add/drop down lanes. Why doesn't the government see that?

[DKaz]

While there will still be slowdowns, it massively improves the situation for those merging from E. Columbia by providing a proper merge lane so traffic can at least zipper through. I would have also preferred also seeing 6 lanes but just the wider lanes alone should bump the speed limit on the bridge up to 60 or 70. I'd have to bet though that it never gets widened to 6 lanes.

Has the Patullo Bridge situation improved since the Port Mann Bridge tolls were taken off? When I had a 49cc scooter living in Surrey, it was terrible.