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

[madog222]

Just google pictures on the Port Mann construction, it looked exactly the same before the pathways were bolted on.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by libtard

Not possible. Same reason they didn't do that for the Alex Fraser

I'm pretty sure they could do it if they planned for it. They might not have provisioned for it on Alex Fraser (not that I know), but to me this sounds rather easy.

I know a few of the designers on this, and I'm pretty sure they can figure out how to make a sidewalk that adds on to a brand new structure.

[dharper]

To me it would make more sense if they would build it 6 lanes from the start and barrier it down to 4 lanes.

also

Why couldn't they build it 5 lanes from the start? Why would New West complain about more lanes exiting New West? You think that that would ease congestion, not increase it in New West.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by dharper

To me it would make more sense if they would build it 6 lanes from the start and barrier it down to 4 lanes.

also

Why couldn't they build it 5 lanes from the start? Why would New West complain about more lanes exiting New West? You think that that would ease congestion, not increase it in New West.

You literally just said exactly what I have said many times on here.

There are three south bound merge points in a row (4 lanes into 2) on the New West approach, that spells traffic trouble from day one. Would have made sense to open with a 5th southbound add drop lane (the lane would drop as the south bound exit ramp to west bound SFPR).

And yes, the Cassiar was 4 lanes for decades until being expanded to its full 6 without any major reconstruction work required. Why not do the same here

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Why is it not possible?

For the same reason the Alex Fraser wasn't retrofitted with them

The Golden Ears bridge is different because the initial design included them. They weren't added after the fact

[Migrant_Coconut]

Aaaand the Port Mann? Both of which (old and new) had extra lanes bolted on literally after the fact?

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Aaaand the Port Mann? Both of which (old and new) had extra lanes bolted on literally after the fact?

Completely different design. And the out riggers were part of the initial design, they just got installed later due to the old bridge being in the way. There wasn't a retrofit option

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by dharper

To me it would make more sense if they would build it 6 lanes from the start and barrier it down to 4 lanes.

they did exactly that with the Alex Fraser Bridge. they ended up opening the full 6 lanes within 1yr of opening realizing they needed it.

anything that requires building a new structure on this bridge will literally be delayed for decades due to the cost and disruption required.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by libtard

Completely different design. And the out riggers were part of the initial design, they just got installed later due to the old bridge being in the way. There wasn't a retrofit option

Outriggers were most definitely not part of the 1964 Port Mann, which was retrofitted in '01 in pretty much the same way Sheba and Alex said the Pattullo might be.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by libtard

Completely different design. And the out riggers were part of the initial design, they just got installed later due to the old bridge being in the way. There wasn't a retrofit option

The addition of out riggers are also part of this design. Just look at the drawings already posted. Stop talking with such overblown authority.

There isn't a large scale bridge deck that can't have an outrigged low load extension attached. (Unless it is about to collapse.) It just requires a proper engineering solution for the attachment to accomodate the cantilever of the load. This was done on the east side of the old Port Mann to accomodate the 5th lane.

Also, the design has not changed. A few of you are misinterpreting the renderings. The H tower rendering looks like a single tower, but its not. There is a second tower, but it is located much further towards the Surrey side and doesn't register in the rendering. Remember, the bridge will be a reverse of the Port Mann in the sense that it will start high on the New West side, climb slightly over the river, and then must drop all the way down to the low elevation on the Surrey side. Again, like the Port Mann, the tower loications are not equal relative to the river width. The south tower of the Port Mann is on the ground in Surrey.

None of this is affected by the bridge still being designed. The layout and form are set; incliuding the 4 lane+side walks, AND the 6 lane+cantilevered side walks. Now the thing goes to the next level: full on stuctural design, calculation and component design of all elements from the foundations, to the piers, towers, bridge deck, cables, joints . . . everything drawn (location & sizing of main structure) and specified (calculated, material & component choices, sizing and design of all components) to the degree required for the final contracts, in order to finalize budget, schedule, subcontracts, fabricators, all permits required by all jurisdictions involved, and last - construction.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Marshal

The H tower rendering looks like a single tower, but its not. There is a second tower, but it is located much further towards the Surrey side and doesn't register in the rendering

The approach piers are visible on either side of the main span in the rendering. Just a single tower which looks to be in line with the current bridge’s southern arch foundation.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'm pretty sure they could do it if they planned for it. They might not have provisioned for it on Alex Fraser (not that I know), but to me this sounds rather easy.

I know a few of the designers on this, and I'm pretty sure they can figure out how to make a sidewalk that adds on to a brand new structure.

Yeah, why can't they do this on the AFB?

Originally Posted by Sheba

You've asked these questions before and people have answered you. New West doesn't currently have enough roadspace for it to open with six lanes - so they're opening it with four and the outer two lanes will initially be used for pedestrians and cyclists. Later they'll build a separate section for peds and bikes, cantilevered on the outside, and the outer lanes will be car lanes. Images of this have been posted.

Also notice the Skybridge in those pictures? There's no need to add rail to the Pattullo - there's barely any need to run buses over it.

I would say that there actually IS space- McBride is 6 lanes through to 16 Ave, and part of the traffic goes off to Columbia.

Not to mention these are most likely exit lanes to be going off to Columbia more than anything anyways.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

no, wont happen. grade is too steep. period.

What is the grade anyways?

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by madog222

The approach piers are visible on either side of the main span in the rendering. Just a single tower which looks to be in line with the current bridge’s southern arch foundation.

You are right! I didn’t see the pier at the south end. I will get back to my source at New West City Hall as I must have misunderstood what she said.

A single tower would at least make it unique among the crowd of cable stayed bridges, and maybe a better pairing with the two towered Skybridge.

[Marshal]

I just found a this article on
http://fraservalleynewsnetwork.com/2020/...t-partially-finance-new-pattullo-bridge/
showing a full rendering of a single tower design.

It’s weird that there is a pier right on the Surrey shoreline that is beneath the cable supported span.

[officedweller]

For clarity, in the before and after scenarios, the cables will be where I've inserted the red lines.

By comparison, for the most recent expansion, the Alex Fraser started out in the "after" scenario, that's why they had to narrow lanes to create a 7th lane.



*********

Here's another webpage documenting the cantilevering of the 5th lane on the Old Port Mann Bridge:

To increase the capacity of the 2093m long structure, a fifth lane was added for eastbound H.O.V. traffic only. The extra lane was achieved by removing the existing sidewalks and installing cantilevered steel brackets from the main girders on the approaches.

Additional steel braces and diaphragms were added to reinforce the bridge due to the extra lane and for seismic upgrading to modern safety standards. A total of 3000 tonnes of steel was added.

http://www.kwhconstructors.com/project-gallery/port-mann-bridge/

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

For clarity, in the before and after scenarios, the cables will be where I've inserted the red lines.

By comparison, for the most recent expansion, the Alex Fraser started out in the "after" scenario, that's why they had to narrow lanes to create a 7th lane.



*********

Here's another webpage documenting the cantilevering of the 5th lane on the Old Port Mann Bridge:


http://www.kwhconstructors.com/project-gallery/port-mann-bridge/

The sidewalks on the AFB are inside its towers, though...

[libtard]

Originally Posted by officedweller

For clarity, in the before and after scenarios, the cables will be where I've inserted the red lines.

By comparison, for the most recent expansion, the Alex Fraser started out in the "after" scenario, that's why they had to narrow lanes to create a 7th lane.



*********

Here's another webpage documenting the cantilevering of the 5th lane on the Old Port Mann Bridge:


http://www.kwhconstructors.com/project-gallery/port-mann-bridge/

This is ridiculous. You can't just add your own mark ups to a design and say that's how its going to turn out. There is no design showing how they will add out riggers to an H frame design.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Marshal

The addition of out riggers are also part of this design. Just look at the drawings already posted. Stop talking with such overblown authority.

There isn't a large scale bridge deck that can't have an outrigged low load extension attached. (Unless it is about to collapse.) It just requires a proper engineering solution for the attachment to accomodate the cantilever of the load. This was done on the east side of the old Port Mann to accomodate the 5th lane.

Also, the design has not changed. A few of you are misinterpreting the renderings. The H tower rendering looks like a single tower, but its not. There is a second tower, but it is located much further towards the Surrey side and doesn't register in the rendering. Remember, the bridge will be a reverse of the Port Mann in the sense that it will start high on the New West side, climb slightly over the river, and then must drop all the way down to the low elevation on the Surrey side. Again, like the Port Mann, the tower loications are not equal relative to the river width. The south tower of the Port Mann is on the ground in Surrey.

None of this is affected by the bridge still being designed. The layout and form are set; incliuding the 4 lane+side walks, AND the 6 lane+cantilevered side walks. Now the thing goes to the next level: full on stuctural design, calculation and component design of all elements from the foundations, to the piers, towers, bridge deck, cables, joints . . . everything drawn (location & sizing of main structure) and specified (calculated, material & component choices, sizing and design of all components) to the degree required for the final contracts, in order to finalize budget, schedule, subcontracts, fabricators, all permits required by all jurisdictions involved, and last - construction.

You're clearly confused. Look at the renders again.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I just found a this article on
http://fraservalleynewsnetwork.com/2020/...t-partially-finance-new-pattullo-bridge/
showing a full rendering of a single tower design.

It’s weird that there is a pier right on the Surrey shoreline that is beneath the cable supported span.

Nice find! I really like the look of asymmetrical bridge designs.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The sidewalks on the AFB are inside its towers, though...

Doesn’t matter, they are outside of the cable stays which can not be moved.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by libtard

This is ridiculous. You can't just add your own mark ups to a design and say that's how its going to turn out. There is no design showing how they will add out riggers to an H frame design.

The H-frame tower design would really only factor into how much load the towers can support through the cables.
It's the design of the deck and how the deck can be extended outwards.

Although a suspension bridge, the same can be seen when the Lions Gate Bridge deck was replaced.
The original sidewalk was placed inside the stringers, and the new sidewalk was placed outside the stringers
and make a diversion around the outside of the towers.
On a suspension bridge, the stringers are the vertical cables hanging from the suspension cables.
For the new Patullo Bridge, instead of the stringers, you'd have the cable stays.

Original Lions Gate Bridge deck where sidewalks were inside stringers and inside the towers:

https://ingeniumcanada.org/archives/details/X-23190

New Lions Gate Bridge deck with sidewalks outside the stringers and inside and outside the towers:

https://www.straight.com/news/1156656/cl...ironworkers-memorial-bridges-improve-new

Here's a pic showing the new outside sidewalk going around a tower:

https://www.nsnews.com/news/the-bridge-s-heavy-burden-1.750789