Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[invisibleairwaves]

*sigh* If the Sea-to-Sky project was tolled like it should have been, there wouldn't be this perception that Surrey is getting unfairly targeted and tolls wouldn't be so politically dangerous. Translink is broke and the province isn't likely to cough anything up, so unless it's tolled, this thing isn't getting built in the next decade.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Pinion

When Lions Gate got refurbished, and screwed over everyone on the west side of the north shore for a generation, they just cantilevered the sidewalks farther out to make the lane width less dangerous.

Not really. They didn't want to pay a toll so the province just upgraded the bridge instead of building a tunnel with two lanes in each direction.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

*sigh* If the Sea-to-Sky project was tolled like it should have been, there wouldn't be this perception that Surrey is getting unfairly targeted and tolls wouldn't be so politically dangerous. Translink is broke and the province isn't likely to cough anything up, so unless it's tolled, this thing isn't getting built in the next decade.

As someone who drives the Sea-to-Sky every week I agree with this. If it was tolled we could have got a better highway than we did. Obviously I am very happy to have the upgrades, the highway is faster (53 minutes to Creekside last weekend) but the section from Lions Bay to Squamish is still garbage. Many sections you are stuck doing 50-60km/h in light traffic.

As for political suicide, I don't think I agree with that. This is a Translink bridge, and don't they have an unelected board? In order to recoup costs without a toll an increase in property taxes might be one of the solutions, something that could be viewed as politically damaging. The Evergreen Line has been delayed for just this reason. The Mayors don't want to increase property taxes to pay for the updates for fear of reprisal.

[officedweller]

Looks like New West also wants a new bridge - one that's tolled so that traffic doesn't gush towards the free option.

From the New West Record:

New Westminster's mayor prefers new Pattullo Bridge

By Theresa McManus, New West Record
February 10, 2011

TransLink may be reexamining its plan to build a new six-lane Pattullo Bridge, but mayors on either side of the bridge believe a new bridge is needed.

TransLink spokesperson Ken Hardie said a business case is being prepared for two options - refurbishing the existing bridge or building a new four-lane crossing.

"Our position is quite simply, why spend good money on a bad thing to do?" said Mayor Wayne Wright. "The safety issues won't be addressed."

Wright said he believes it's shortsighted to refurbish the existing Pattullo Bridge because it's already more than 70 years old. He said Surrey's mayor shares his belief that a new bridge is the best solution in the long-term.

"Dianne Watts and I had a talk about it yesterday," he told The Record Wednesday. "We are both on the same page."

TransLink was set to hold public consultation about plans for a replacement Pattullo Bridge last fall, but postponed those meetings.

At the time, Hardie told The Record that TransLink has taken a step back from the planning for a replacement Pattullo Bridge because some engineers had indicated that opportunities for rehabilitation to the existing structure exist and should be considered.

Hardie told the Vancouver Sun that the public consultation process will get underway in June. He said TransLink is exploring alternatives that would likely cost less, and, in the case of refurbishing the bridge, reduce the potential for tolls on another Surrey crossing.

"What we've said all along is particularly for a new bridge, if we can't find another source of revenue to pay for [it], that tolls are an option," Hardie said.

The City of New Westminster supports tolling of a new Pattullo Bridge.

"I think the city has gone on record so far as to suggest if a new bridge is constructed, it should be tolled," said Jim Lowrie, the city's director of engineering. "We don't want the Pattullo to be a free alternative to the Port Mann Bridge."

Lowrie said the tolls would assist TransLink in developing a sustainable truck route through the city.

"The Pattullo Bridge and its connection to the street grid in New Westminster is an issue for us," Lowrie said. "In order for us to firm up our plans for the North Fraser Perimeter Road we need to know how the Pattullo Bridge is going to connect to that facility or how the road is going to connect to the bridge. If both connections stay the same, tying into Royal Avenue, we would like to know what he impacts of that are. If a new bridge is going to be constructed, ideally it should be connected to the North Fraser Perimeter Road. If that does occur and there is a connection to the North Fraser Perimeter Road the city would also be seeking improvements to that corridor."

TransLink announced in 2008 that it would replace the aging Pattullo with a six-lane bridge, saying it was better value for money than fixing up the crossing, which was built in 1937.

Transportation Minister Shirley Bond said Wednesday the provincial engineers are "offering their expertise" to help design a bridge that is affordable, safe and will meet the needs of future growth, perhaps one similar to the upgraded Lions Gate Bridge.

"We have to deal with the Pattullo; it's an aging structure," she said. "When you're going to invest potentially $1 billion in a new structure, you have to look at every viable option. This is part of doing your homework before you invest money in a new project."

Bond wouldn't say whether the province preferred a four-or a six-lane bridge - or a refurbished structure.


With files from Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun

© Copyright (c) New West Record

[Metro-One]

Ok, here it is, my proposal for the New Patullo Bridge to be constructed along with the NFPR

My feelings on the NFPR have changed of recent, and I now feel that with the proposed replacement of the Patullo Bridge I have created below along with the new SFPR being constructed, there is no need for the NFPR to be built any further west than the new Patullo Bridge.

To compliment my design below, I would like for there to be a free flow Japanese style expressway built between the #1 / United Boulevard and the New Patullo Bridge (essentially upgrading Brunette from the #1 and Columbia to the new Patullo Bridge into a 4 lane controlled access expressway.) This short expressway would have only 60km / h speed limits due to the fact in order to conserve space it would have narrow shoulders and that it is running through an increasingly densifying urban area.

Ok, now to the Bridge:

Please do not make fun of the quality of my map, I do not have ArcMap at home, so I had to use Photoshop (essentially, please don't bother pointing out to cartographical mistakes, I am well aware of them), hehe





So, as you can see here I have aligned the New Patullo Bridge east of the rail bridge.

Starting from south to North, the King George highway will enter into an elevated 4 lane viaduct from the Surrey escarpment, reducing 2 hills from the new alignment (going down the bridge to land on the flats and going up the escarpment). At this point the speed limit will be 80km hour. There will be two at grade ramps at this southern landing. They will be accessing the now local road replacement of the old King George Highway.

The next major feature will a a complete free flow interchange with the new SFPR (eliminating the need for the NFPR to go through New Westminster to the Queensburough). This ramps will obviously be elevated in order to reduce their impact on the industry below and to to reach the elevated King George viaduct. (The exact alignments / curves of these ramps is for debate, this is just a rough proposal).

After this point we enter the bridge itself which will be 6 lanes (2 lanes added, which both meet their end at the SFPR interchange via ramps)

Then, there will only be 2 ramps connecting to the Patullo Bridge from Columbia, and they will be Columbia Westbound to Patullo South Bound and Patullo Northbound to Columbia Eastbound. This is being done to further reinforce the NFPR, Patullo Bridge and SFPR connection as the highway thoroughfare. It is also being done to restrict traffic from entering Columbia west though New West, in order to help recreate that section of Columbia as a local road, not a highway. The speed limit is now reduced to 60km hour and the road width is again 4 lanes. To accommodate all other traffic flows, there will be an at grade, traffic light controlled intersection just north of the Patullo Bridge's northern landing with Royale Ave.

And of course there will be bike and pedestrian paths on the bridge.

So that is what I have so far, I hope to make a more detailed map soon.

Tell me what you think!

But in all honesty I believe this is the best solution, for it keeps commercial traffic and New West's interests both in mind.

Also please keep in mind the exact location of the southern landing i do not know, it all depends on the preferred viaduct elevation, and the exact alignment of the King George viaduct could also be tweaked to reduce the impact on local business. Again, just a basic representation of my preferred idea.

Oh, and the bridge would obviously be tolled

Cheers

[xd_1771]

Stack interchange?
At-grade intersection at the end that could back up and block off-ramp?
Not to be rude but I think a lot of this is unnecessary or unfeasible!

If you check out the Pattullo in my idea, (on the Surrey side) Scott Road is relocated, interchange ramps are spaced wisely so as not to be redundant, to avoid weaving, to save space, and to not look like too much of an eyesore.

[Whalleyboy]

Personally I'm not a fan of the idea for king george. Surrey one day would like to build up in the south westminster area. Adding a viaduct would just push that possibility away and that area would stay this really trashy looking area. Which is sad when you look back into the history in that area. I would much prefer it stay a 60 main road like what it is kinda only thing i'd really want to see changed is the king george and scott road area. Instead of taking up so much place with roads all over the place scott road could have an over pass with on and off ramps as to not slow traffic down. on king george. Beside we just recently got rid of the king george hwy name=P

[Metro-One]

The intersection at the end would not block the off ramp because the off ramp would have the dedicated third lane on the bridge deck.

And a stacked interchange is the best solution there to keep traffic free flowing, especially since this would eliminate the need for the NFPR to continue west past the Patullo. This is primarily an industrial area, aesthetics take a back seat to functionality.

Of course if we wish to turn yet another industrial area into a residential one, reducing the point behind the SFPR, we could have this concept essentially end just south of the SFPR free flow interchange.

[cornholio]

I still think the plan to rebuild the Patullo bridge or to only refurbish it is short sighted. They have already had plans to build a bridge from Brunet avenue linking up with the number one. This bridge would be no more complicated and work much better. It would also remove the need for the likely super expensive stormont connector, at the most they could build a stormont light conector, just a road connecting Newcombe and upgrading the road to create a better connect New Westminster and take pressure off Cariboo hill road and Canada way.

Once this bridge would be built they could shut Patullo down completely and take their time refurbishing it and reduce it to three lanes and simpler connection with Downtown New Westminster and Edmond's area to King Geroge highway in Surrey. Im sure the cost of a simple refurbishment like that would be a fraction of the cost if the bridge was closed to traffic and there was no time constraints. It could then be tolled to cover maintenance and be used as more of a luxury connection for its users. The new bridge around Brunet would meanwhile be better located for probably 80% of the users now.

Also it would remove huge amounts of traffic from the center of New Westminster, a darn good thing, and any expanded bridge in the Patullo area will be fought by New Westminster regarding number of added lanes and traffic etc. Trust me. Im sure the reason they are now calling it a 4 lane bridge instead of 6 lane bridge is because New Westminster told them that they will not support added lanes, they have done the same with many other projects also such as Queens Borough bridge, North Fraser perimeter road, and United Boulevard/Brunet connection.

I think there are way to many benefits to avoiding the current location of the bridge, and it would also seem good to keep the current bridge and simply use it as a alternative(tolled to recover costs) instead of just tearing it down.

[cornholio]

Also the rail bridge has been refurbished and is good until 2020 for now. There have been studies done to replace it, they were $110mill for a new bridge with a higher clearance and a $420 mill option for a tunnel. Plus for both options $70 mill for other improvements in the area, all in 2004 dollars. Also I think if they looked in to a tunnel option in the Coquitlam area then the price would drop significantly but they havent gone that far as far as I know. At this point the plan has been to wait for the feds to step in and contribute money.

[xd_1771]

ONLY one lane?
Then I am highly disappointed with this design. Have you seen the mess that is Columbia NB where it splits into North Road and Brunette?
There's a reason that with the current Pattullo, the small interchange at Royal works so well. A lot of local traffic from the Pattullo (myself sometimes too) takes that road. For the very least please keep it that way.

A full stack interchange may not be necessary - perhaps to serve Pattullo > SFPR movements, but no need for it for travellers coming in from Surrey, really. Otherwise that would be way too many overpasses. Once again, have a look at the Surrey-side connections in:

It would work pretty well, I assure you.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Also the rail bridge has been refurbished and is good until 2020 for now. There have been studies done to replace it, they were $110mill for a new bridge with a higher clearance and a $420 mill option for a tunnel. Plus for both options $70 mill for other improvements in the area, all in 2004 dollars. Also I think if they looked in to a tunnel option in the Coquitlam area then the price would drop significantly but they havent gone that far as far as I know. At this point the plan has been to wait for the feds to step in and contribute money.

i wish they would reopen the top deck of the rail bridge - it used to be where the cars went - and use it for pedestrians and cyclists - that wpuld make a great connection there

[Whalleyboy]

The idea of shutting down this location is just insane and will never happen its the first real crossing across the river Its has history of being there and will always be there

[SpongeG]

not forever just time to refurbish it while people use the brand new bridge

[Smooth]

No big surprise here...

TransLink: Pattullo Bridge needs replacing
All alternative options for the span have been exhausted

Dave White 2011/05/18

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - The Pattullo bridge needs to be replaced, that is what TransLink is saying after months of research. The transit authority says it's not worth it to pour more money into repairs.

A new bridge will cost about a billion dollars, says TransLink's Ken Hardie, but he feels it's worth it when you consider the hundreds of millions it would cost to repair the span or put in a counter-flow system.

As for the issue of tolling, they'll try to avoid that. "Tolls would only remain as an option if another way can't be found to build us a new Pattullo Bridge."

He says the existing 73-year old bridge would need widening and seismic upgrading.

The province had asked TransLink to go back to the drawing board on a new life for the Pattullo, but Hardie says all the alternatives have been exhausted.

"It would take an awful lot to get that bridge up the point where it was adequately handling traffic," says Hardie. "You total up all that cost, it would not look good next to the decision to build a new one."

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts is thrilled with TransLink's decision.

"For me, I never did support the refurbishing, because you can spend millions of dollars refurbishing it and then a few years down the road, you will have to replace it anyway," says Watts.

She points out the bridge is far too old and narrow, and has been the site of numerous fatal accidents.

The project is part of the larger North Fraser Perimeter Road plan, which also involves the controversial United Boulevard Extension.

That part of the project is under public consultation right now and Hardie says when it the time comes, the bridge will be too.

TransLink hopes to break ground within the next decade.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...eeds-replacing

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Smooth

No big surprise here...


http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...eeds-replacing

beat me to it...refurbishing would put me over the edge. Hate that bridge with a passion....

[Metro-One]

within the next decade.....

Well, there goes the breaking ground within 5 years proposed over a year ago...

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

within the next decade.....

Well, there goes the breaking ground within 5 years proposed over a year ago...

Well it wouldn't surprise me if the people behind the curtains at Translink would rather get work started on the Broadway Corridor before the Pattullo. People don't want tolls, so the bridge would be money losing through increased taxes, or they would put a toll on it and it might just break even for Translink.

But the Broadway line will get more paying riders for Translink and reduce operating costs of the bus network on the street resulting in most likely a profitable exercise (when you only think about Translink's year to year budget and not all the other monies from other levels of government).

The only way they would start work on the Pattullo within 5 years is if other governments kicked in most of the money or if Translink was able to charge a profit generating toll on the new bridge (ie proper road pricing), or if it was part of a larger spending package to get more tax revenue from the cities. Until then, this is on Translink's backburner set on simmer.

[Whalleyboy]

I'm betting it will be fast tracked with some government backing. Once the port man opens this bridge will take a huge jump in traffic people will get mad at waiting so long to cross they'll start blaming the government since most people dont know its translinks property. So to help gain votes they propose some sort of stimulus package thats gonna help rebuild this bridge and win some votes through promises on soemthing that jsut should have been done in the first place.

[go_leafs_go02]

Heard somewhere that Translink is looking to replace the Pattullo Bridge with...a new 4 lane bridge......