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

[flipper316]

Wonder if they'll still keep the laughable low 50 speed limit on the Surrey side and a space for the cops to hide out .

[fredinno]

They should have added a northbound Hwy17 exit onto the bridge...

[zahav]

The capacity might be a problem, and this wasn't one of the projects I really cared much about, I think the GMT replacement is a far bigger priority. But after seeing these, I think the biggest benefit won't be the bridge, but rather the imrpovements on either side. Definitely not perfect (as mentioned by the lack of connections with Hwy. 17) but it is way better than the awful state currently. I especially like what they are doing on the New West side. The direct Columbia connection is really good, it's shocking there's never been direct access ever. The messy set-up now with McBridge and Royal is so ridiculous, the connections were so circuitous. The new design is a definite imporvement. There should also be an eastbound Columbia onramp to SB on the bridge. I feel like they could do it but it would be way more involved because at that point the bridge is already above the roadway, they'd need to have a really elevated ramp start further west on Columbia in order to merge onto the SB lanes.

Overall it will be an imrpovement, but definitely not going all the way.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by zahav

The capacity might be a problem, and this wasn't one of the projects I really cared much about, I think the GMT replacement is a far bigger priority. But after seeing these, I think the biggest benefit won't be the bridge, but rather the imrpovements on either side. Definitely not perfect (as mentioned by the lack of connections with Hwy. 17) but it is way better than the awful state currently. I especially like what they are doing on the New West side. The direct Columbia connection is really good, it's shocking there's never been direct access ever. The messy set-up now with McBridge and Royal is so ridiculous, the connections were so circuitous. The new design is a definite imporvement. There should also be an eastbound Columbia onramp to SB on the bridge. I feel like they could do it but it would be way more involved because at that point the bridge is already above the roadway, they'd need to have a really elevated ramp start further west on Columbia in order to merge onto the SB lanes.

Overall it will be an imrpovement, but definitely not going all the way.

Plenty of capacity given it doesn't really connect to a highway on either side. Maybe SFPR, but where is the volume coming/going on the New West side?

The current Patullo is horribly unsafe and ancient. This is a big improvement. I think it's a pretty good size and budget, all things considered.

[officedweller]

Good to see that there's nothing that interferes with a potential Woodlands Station.

[Metro-One]

I see there has been a slight design downgrade on the New West side. Originally the Columbia westbound off ramp south bound onto the Pattullo branched off before McBride street and had its own underpass.

Now that offramp begins after the McBridge intersection with a slower loop style on-ramp.

[officedweller]

That whole area may be clearspan under the bridge approach
- so maybe due to the proponent's design

...

Yeah, the proponent's first rendering had the loop.
It was TransLink's concept rendering that has the separate underpass.
The bridge approach looks closer to the red-roofed apartment building.

Also missing is grade separation for the Central Valley Greenway under / over McBride Ave.
There is an overpass over the loop ramp and a new overpass at Agnes St.

There looks to be less orphaned greenspace in the proponent`s design.

Originally Posted by madog222

Aecon and Acciona's Fraser Crossing Partners has been selected as the contractor.
I can't see any other new information in the press stories.

FCP's renderings from the Daily Hive article.

Here's the old TransLink concept


Artistic rendering of the new Pattullo Bridge’s road connections in New Westminster. (TransLink)
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/pattullo-bridge-replacement-acciona-aecon-contractor

and the proponent's proposal:

Originally Posted by Cypherus

DailyHive has project render updates on their recent article:
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/pattullo-bridge-replacement-design

[ilikeredheads]

still wish they would go for the 6 lanes right away instead of half assed approach.

and lack of connection with Hwy 17 other than an off ramp is disappointing

[Xrayal]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, the proponent's first rendering had the loop.
It was TransLink's concept rendering that has the separate underpass.

Looking closely it seems the loop option will be possible because it’s depicted on land currently occupied by houses plus the bridge approach has been pushed right close the red-roofed apartment.

Originally Posted by officedweller

The bridge approach looks closer to the red-roofed apartment building.

Agreed

Originally Posted by officedweller

Also missing is grade separation for the Central Valley Greenway under / over McBride Ave.

The vehicle movements to and from the bridge to East Columbia, McBride and Royal will no longer involve driving on this section of McBride. So I can understand how they can defend it as a corner crosswalk. Grade separation of the CVG would be nice though.

Originally Posted by officedweller

There is an overpass over the loop ramp and a new overpass at Agnes St.

I kinda understand and like the compromise between the earlier renderings. The new plan provides a main active transportation route between Victoria Green and DT new west that doesn’t make you cross any busy roads. It would start on Royal crossing McBride on the less busy segment mentioned earlier then jog down to cross aligning with Agnes St. I like that it avoids the on-ramp to the bridge from Royal and includes stairs+ramp options and will be continuous with the planned east-west Agnes St greenway.

Originally Posted by officedweller

There looks to be less orphaned greenspace in the proponent`s design.

Agreed. Albert Crescent Park will be returned to its pre onramp existence.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Good to see that there's nothing that interferes with a potential Woodlands Station.

Yes. I feel the pedestrian overpass alignment works better as an access to a future station plus it looks like a great spot to get a view.

Another thing I noted was that the Southbound ramp onto the bridge from Royal begins a lot earlier. Currently shown where more houses are.

[officedweller]

At the southbound onramp from Royal, there's only 2 lanes - one ramp and one through.
So the Royal Ave RoW is probably the same - but is one lane enough eastbound?
Is there a lot of eastbound Royal to northbound McBride traffic or onward to Victoria Park neighbourhood?

Yes, also curious whether they need extra land for that loop.

[Nites]

Im assuming all the geotechnical work is done now. So we are just waiting for the construction to start in the fall per the project overview.

[Conrad Yablonski]

Thanks for posting this-much appreciated

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Nites

Im assuming all the geotechnical work is done now. So we are just waiting for the construction to start in the fall per the project overview.

There are signs up along Columbia approaching the Pattullo Bridge warning of construction that's starting today and to expect delays during the night (I think it was 10pm to 5am or something like that).

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Okay, so here are the old renderings for the south approach that have been the geneneral approved plan for the last couple years:

p3 by Ian, on Flickr


p4 by Ian, on Flickr

Now... here is the potential new plan (this is the February 2018 schematic found in the new business case. This is a major downgrade in this area:

Patullo2 by Ian, on Flickr

i was looking back at old posts through this thread, man was the Surrey side ever downgraded...

[idunno]

It's so sad. The BC Parkway connections will remain as awful as ever! And nothing for Scott Road.

[Metro-One]

Highways in general have been the NDPs worst aspect.

This project is maybe their best actually, as it’s still acceptable, but has still been largely reduced in scope (the removal of the south approach upgrades and of course opening with 4 lanes and needing deck expansion in the future to make it 6 lanes). Only saving grace is that it’s getting built.

Then things get much worse:

Cancellation of the GMB, and their new incarnation involving very few upgrades to the highway itself and retaining the shoulder bus lanes... (not to mention the decade long delay).

The reduction in scope of the Chase highway 1 twinning (reduced in length and removal of an interchange, replaced with two at grade protected Ts) all packaged with an increase in cost and 3 year delay.

The delay of the highway 1 expansion to Abbotsford (phase one to 264) and conversion of said expansion from general purpose to HOV. The HOV aspect is up for debate on if it’s good or bad, but a year after their last announcement there is still no further info on this project and how this HOV aspect will work between 216 and the 200th (for it to continue through 200th interchange westbound a new lane is needed and hopefully no existing 3rd lane “climbing lanes” are lazily converted to the HOV lanes).

The final stretch of Kicking Horse still hasn’t started construction or even had a contractor selected and the cost has now risen around another 200 million (but federal contribution is fixed, so that’s all on us).

Also sounds like the scope of other projects have been reduced, such as removing one interchange from the highway 97 expansion between Kelowna and Westbank.

[ilikeredheads]

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/331/2018/05/Business-Case.pdf

You can read about why it recommend the downgraded version (option 3) and not the full scope option (option 4). I think it's a bit flawed in the first place since it assumes the crossing is 4 lanes instead of 6.

[Marshal]

A typical document reflecting the stupidity and wastefulness of the whole process (incl., business cases and public & other consults) for large infrastructure projects. Rather than rant for a bunch, I'll just say that those 71 pages need to be reorganized: 5-10 pages of real stats/data + decision/consequence information; followed by a whole bunch of reference and appendix material.

[Nites]

Updates:

[Bobert]

Interesting that it's going through TI corp. So is this crown corp just taking over project management from MOT?

I thought they would be one and done with the Portmann/Highway 1 project