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

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

In fact the Granville Street bridge was originally designed to integrate with the proposed downtown freeway network which never materialized.

Sorry. I don't buy that. The previous Granville Street Bridge was a narrow 4-lane structure akin to the old Cambie Street Bridge. The new design expanded to 6 lanes plus 2 add-on/drop off lanes for the Howe/Seymour couplet as well as the Hemlock and Fir/West 4th couplet. That's proper engineering and design IMHO.

The Granville St. Bridge was opened in February 4, 1954 and if you trace back the construction phase as well as design and financial approval, you might be looking back as early as 1950. In 1950, the term "freeway" was likely not in the public lexicon. And highly doubtful that Vancouver had any "freeway" plans back then. The U.S. interstate system wasn't commenced until 1956.

And makr3trkr is absolutely correct. In urban/suburban areas a 4-lane crossing is a non-starter. The Alex Fraser Bridge should have been designed for 8 lanes - 3 through lanes (for a future 6-lane Hwy 91) as well as an additional add-on/drop-off lane in each direction. Same with the Knight Street Bridge, etc.

Huge volumes add-on and drop-off at each end of any metro bridge crossing bridgehead impacting through traffic. That's the point and problems that we have and face today. Ignore that matter looking 30-40 years out and additional more expensive crossings/capacity will be required.

At least the 2nd Narrows Bridge had a 6-lane cross-section when it was designed and built in the mid to late '50's in essentially a rural area back then (albeit not to current modern design standards in terms of its cross-section). Otherwise we would have been looking at a twinning a long time ago.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

The Granville St. Bridge was opened in February 4, 1954 and if you trace back the construction phase as well as design and financial approval, you might be looking back as early as 1950. In 1950, the term "freeway" was likely not in the public lexicon.

Yes, I believe you're right. I remember reading something about that bridge and the downtown freeway - perhaps the idea was to build the freeway to connect to the bridge.

At any rate, the bridge never has reached its capacity, which is why plans are being considered to turn the middle two lanes into a pedestrian / cyclist walkway.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yes, I believe you're right. I remember reading something about that bridge and the downtown freeway - perhaps the idea was to build the freeway to connect to the bridge.

At any rate, the bridge never has reached its capacity, which is why plans are being considered to turn the middle two lanes into a pedestrian / cyclist walkway.

And that is a problem? Thats what is so great about the Granville Street Bridge is because of its size it can still fulfill future needs, for vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and public transit.

[GMasterAres]

The only way to mitigate traffic accidents is to have more that 1 crossing or artery route. It doesn't matter if you have a 10 lane bridge, if a major accident happens on that structure, it will disrupt motion and cause a traffic jam especially during rush hour.

So unless they build 3 or 4 more bridges across the Fraser, a 4 or 6 lane replacement of the Patullo won't really alter what would happen in the event of an accident. A 6 lane Patullo though would be poised to handle an increase in traffic better if an accident happens on say the Port Mann or Alex Fraser, just like if you have an accident in the Tunnel, the Alex Fraser can handle the extra traffic better as a 6 lane crossing than if it were only a 4 lane.

But for an accident on the structure itself, absolutely correct, lane count is pretty much meaningless.

[Cypherus]

I think a 4 lane Patullo bridge replacement is all we need, but have Mcbridge continue down into Newcombe street in New West making a connection to Highway 1 at Gaglardi.

The completion of the SFPR should have a measurable impact on diverting a lot of long haul truck traffic off the bridge. The 3rd lane may not actually be needed if the bridge serves only local traffic.

Mcbridge is a local road and just doesn't have the capacity to expand to a six lane connector to accommodate the alignment of a new 6 lane bridge. New West wouldn't have it.

There is already a 10 lane bridge serving the Coquitlam and Surrey sides. Adding a new six lane Sapperton bridge would merely redistribute Hwy 1 capacity, rather than service the local capacity needs for those destined for New West or Central Surrey proper.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

While I would think a Surrey-Coquitlam Centre bus line would route via Guildford (or terminate there), this could make for a much better connection between Surrey and jobs on United Blvd. I would also think that such a bus line would better route out of Scott Rd Station (more efficient, as a shorter route could then mean more frequent service which'd make up for the short SkyTrain ride there)

currently yes you're right scott road would be better. But I am thinking if they made the future sapperton bar bridge. Note king george would likely be straighted out and head towards the new bridge instead. Thus making a straighter connection to central then scott road.

guildford is a good spot for a bus route to. but central is the focus for a core where jobs will be

[nname]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I added with a new bridge at sapperton bar they should add hov lanes which could be also serve for transit connection with a bus route between Surrey city centre and couquitlam centre...I made sure to add it would be no transfer route. The route could start at central go over the new bridge and just follow what i believe is the 169 route.

If you went to the service optimization open house, you'll notice that they really want to get rid of many of the bus routes along the Lougheed/United Blvd/Burnette corridor. There are already the 153/156/157/159/169/177/555/791 there, all traveling parallel in a very low demand area. I don't see a route like this from happening, especially after they implement the Surrey Central to Coquitlam via Guildford and PMB route, as proposed by the province.

[makr3trkr]

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Rules+need+enforced+Pattullo+Bridge/8502782/story.html

"As a retired police traffic inspector, I have some experience in the field of commercial vehicle compliance.

Since retirement I've enjoyed the opportunity to work with a myriad of developed, and so-called emerging nations. I've never seen a free-for-all like the Pattullo Bridge.

In Vancouver, we enforced designated truck routes, and large vehicles were obliged to occupy a single lane or seek authorization for a pilot car.

The only rule of law on the Pattullo Bridge seems to be "right of weight," where the largest vehicle is free to ignore the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act and bully the drivers of smaller vehicles.

Every diesel jockey with a set of dual wheels feels entitled to squeeze other traffic out of the way and crawl over the bridge in his lowest gear. The problem has grown to an intolerable level as commercial drivers avoid the Port Mann tolls.

Enforcement of Section 151 (a) of the Motor Vehicle Act (driving on a lined roadway) would resolve a source of chronic congestion and considerable danger for lawful users of that roadway, at no expense to the taxpayer.

As an added bonus, the excessive wear and tear on this aging structure would likely be reduced if truck drivers are obliged to follow the rules of the road."

[Millennium2002]

I know that TransLink is trying to narrow things down at present, but I think they missed out on one other possible alternative: 2 new four-lane bridges via both the existing Pattullo right of way and Sapperton Bar alignment.

This option would be most ideal if New Westminster remains concerned about the lack of assistance and proposed traffic upgrades along with the increase of traffic on their antiquated road network, and yet additional capacity or redundancy across the Fraser River is still required and/or the old Pattullo Bridge has to be replaced.

Of course, I cannot reliably predict the costs for the building of these two new structures, but they may be comparable to - if only a tad higher than - the option to rehabilitate the bridge and to build the Sapperton Bar crossing.

Thoughts and suggestions?

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by cornholio

When building 3x3 lanes they can initially designate two of them as HOT lanes to recoup the costs.

People would be willing to pay an extra toll on a tolled bridge? Not likely I think.

I like the idea of having more crossing points and I think 4 lanes is enough at the one crossing and 2 or 3 at the other crossing. It still is an increase in overall capacity. New Westminster can not handle more traffic in the area above the current bridge. I see the back ups on 10th ave, 8th ave, 6th ave, Canada Way and they are not backups for the bridge. They are roads that have reached their limits. So adding bridge capacity at the current location will just make these routes worse. The goal should be to reduce the number of vehicles driving in this area and not increase them.

Turning Newcombe into a highway and destroying Robert Burnaby Park is a bad idea. Direct that thru traffic to the shortest distance from Surrey to Highway 1 at the new bridge location in Coquitlam.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

People would be willing to pay an extra toll on a tolled bridge? Not likely I think.

I like the idea of having more crossing points and I think 4 lanes is enough at the one crossing and 2 or 3 at the other crossing. It still is an increase in overall capacity. New Westminster can not handle more traffic in the area above the current bridge. I see the back ups on 10th ave, 8th ave, 6th ave, Canada Way and they are not backups for the bridge. They are roads that have reached their limits. So adding bridge capacity at the current location will just make these routes worse. The goal should be to reduce the number of vehicles driving in this area and not increase them.

Turning Newcombe into a highway and destroying Robert Burnaby Park is a bad idea. Direct that thru traffic to the shortest distance from Surrey to Highway 1 at the new bridge location in Coquitlam.

We already have backups on 10th, 8th, 6th, and Canada Way. The traffic is here, and it isn't going away. Personally I'd like New West to just get what it really wants, and have cars and trucks eliminated on the bridge. They can have it for bikes only, or pedestrians, or a park ... whatever they want, with the proviso that they pay for upkeep on the bridge (or share it somehow with Surrey) and the rest of the region can move on.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

I think a 4 lane Patullo bridge replacement is all we need, but have Mcbridge continue down into Newcombe street in New West making a connection to Highway 1 at Gaglardi.

The completion of the SFPR should have a measurable impact on diverting a lot of long haul truck traffic off the bridge. The 3rd lane may not actually be needed if the bridge serves only local traffic.

Mcbridge is a local road and just doesn't have the capacity to expand to a six lane connector to accommodate the alignment of a new 6 lane bridge. New West wouldn't have it.

There is already a 10 lane bridge serving the Coquitlam and Surrey sides. Adding a new six lane Sapperton bridge would merely redistribute Hwy 1 capacity, rather than service the local capacity needs for those destined for New West or Central Surrey proper.

The problem with this thinking is that, we need a 4 lane bridge now. But Surrey will, in 20-25 years have 600,000 people give or take. Unless you are advocating a replacement Patullo bridge only have a shelf life of 15-20 years and then be replaced with a new 6 lane in the future when capacity is required, I think it short sighted to simply say "let's replace the current bridge with a brand new bridge that possibly only meets today's needs."

Unless we're constructing a new crossing along with the Patullo I think that thinking just has us reacting like we always do in Metro Vancouver, build for yesterday not tomorrow.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

I know that TransLink is trying to narrow things down at present, but I think they missed out on one other possible alternative: 2 new four-lane bridges via both the existing Pattullo right of way and Sapperton Bar alignment.

This option would be most ideal if New Westminster remains concerned about the lack of assistance and proposed traffic upgrades along with the increase of traffic on their antiquated road network, and yet additional capacity or redundancy across the Fraser River is still required and/or the old Pattullo Bridge has to be replaced.

Of course, I cannot reliably predict the costs for the building of these two new structures, but they may be comparable to - if only a tad higher than - the option to rehabilitate the bridge and to build the Sapperton Bar crossing.

Thoughts and suggestions?

Or New West could get with the 21st century and actually invest in their antiquated road system. They are adding more and more people, more and more high rises, and they don't expand a single road anywhere and wonder why traffic is garbage. Almost all their roads are single lane horse-and-buggy roads.

Not sure why the entire region has to suffer because they refuse to actually invest in roads which unfortunately aren't going away in the next 50-100 years.

1) You have old roads
2) You add more and more people
3) You add no more transit
4) You add no more roads
5) You wonder why traffic is horrible

Same happens with traffic on 64th and 72nd streets through Delta. When you have 1 lane major roads, you have traffic issues. It amazed me how bad New West's roads were in just on the weekend when I had to go to downtown New West at the top of the hill. It took me more time to get from McBride and 8th to 6th street and 6th avenue, than it did from Surrey Central to McBride and 8th.

And this was on a Saturday, not the middle of rush hour.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Sorry. I don't buy that. The previous Granville Street Bridge was a narrow 4-lane structure akin to the old Cambie Street Bridge. The new design expanded to 6 lanes plus 2 add-on/drop off lanes for the Howe/Seymour couplet as well as the Hemlock and Fir/West 4th couplet. That's proper engineering and design IMHO.

The Granville St. Bridge was opened in February 4, 1954 and if you trace back the construction phase as well as design and financial approval, you might be looking back as early as 1950. In 1950, the term "freeway" was likely not in the public lexicon. And highly doubtful that Vancouver had any "freeway" plans back then. The U.S. interstate system wasn't commenced until 1956.

And makr3trkr is absolutely correct. In urban/suburban areas a 4-lane crossing is a non-starter. The Alex Fraser Bridge should have been designed for 8 lanes - 3 through lanes (for a future 6-lane Hwy 91) as well as an additional add-on/drop-off lane in each direction. Same with the Knight Street Bridge, etc.

Huge volumes add-on and drop-off at each end of any metro bridge crossing bridgehead impacting through traffic. That's the point and problems that we have and face today. Ignore that matter looking 30-40 years out and additional more expensive crossings/capacity will be required.

At least the 2nd Narrows Bridge had a 6-lane cross-section when it was designed and built in the mid to late '50's in essentially a rural area back then (albeit not to current modern design standards in terms of its cross-section). Otherwise we would have been looking at a twinning a long time ago.

1950s was when highways were all the rage. LA's highway system was designed in 1947. My mom was one of the people who successfully protested highways/freeways here.


raisethehammer.com

I can't find evidence that Granville specifically was gonna be a highway but that image says it all.

In the period 1954-1967 the City of Vancouver and the Provincial government, together with various private interests, started promoting and planning a massive 8-lane freeway that would enter the downtown core from the east, cutting through the Strathcona, Gastown, and Chinatown neighbourhoods, and follow False Creek before turning north at Thurlow Street to cut through the West End and connect to a proposed third crossing of Burrard Inlet at Stanley Park.

Much of the freeway would have been built in a massive 'ditch' below grade level, and its construction would have involved the wholesale demolition of (mostly poorer) neighbourhoods. This project, known variously as Project 200, or the East End Penetrator, was estimated to cost at least $300 million (over $1.5 billion in today's dollars).

http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1427/a_distant_mirror:_40_years_of_urbanism_in_vancouver


raisethehammer.com

Gotta admit I'm not sure we made the right choice. It's only gonna get more ugly out there, and we're one of the few places where unlimited sprawl is impossible. We do agree though - make every new bridge wider than it needs to be.

[CoryHolmes]

One thing I'm really getting tired of is nearly being butted out of the way by queue jumpers using the Scott Road access lanes to speed past any lineups at the bottom of Johnson Hill.

Same with Royal Ave / McBride coming back into Surrey. I'm really, really sick of having to be the one to slam on my breaks because some impatient <censored> decides that he can't be bothered to wait like the rest of us and he's coming into my driving lane NOW!.

I wonder who'd be at fault if I have to slam on my breaks one day and get rear-ended by the guy behind me...

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by CoryHolmes

I wonder who'd be at fault if I have to slam on my breaks one day and get rear-ended by the guy behind me...

The person behind you is always at fault unless you're going backwards. You have to maintain a safe distance.

My only at-fault accident was in 2003 when someone jumped into traffic on Lions Gate and four of us rear-ended each other. We were all at fault for hitting the car ahead of us.

[moosejaw]

Its been my experience to just let the que jumpers in. Its annoying but not worth the aggravation and it only leads to road rage.
Getting in a an accident with a que jumper only results with each party paying for their own damages as it's either partys word agasint the other. Also getting rear ended by an innocent party is fun for the other person either. This is one of the reasons i invested in a dashcam.

Enough about que jumpers.........Lets hear more about the Patullo Bridge.

[makr3trkr]

http://www.newwestnewsleader.com/business/211408531.html

"Public open houses about the future of the Pattullo Bridge were jammed last week and discussions were lively. Reena Meijer-Drees, a New Westminster Environmental Partners past president, said while it’s clear TransLink is listening—even a four-lane replacement of the Pattullo Bridge would add traffic to New Westminster because the lanes would be wider and more attractive to drivers."

---- just tear it down and don't replace it then ... don't even know how to react to that --- as if the current situation with trucks and cars jockeying around a hairpin curve on a dilapidated bridge without a barrier is preferable

"James Crosty, past-president of the Quayside Community Board, noted combining a refurbished Pattullo with a Surrey-Coquitlam crossing and a Tree Island crossing (between Burnaby and Queensborough) would result in three crossings that could be tolled at a preliminary estimated cost of less than $2.5 billion."

--- at least someone isn't completely out to lunch

[makr3trkr]

Hopefully the absolutely insane traffic on the Queensborough bridge in the morning and afternoon the last few days is convincing a few of our elected officials of the utility of a 6-lane replacement bridge (I hope).

I think the odds are probably 50/50 right now for a 6-lane replacement, just because both Surrey and Translink (and I assume the MoTI) would prefer it, even if New West doesn't want it.

Heck, even a *5* lane bridge would be preferable. At least they could set up a rush hour system.

The issue with a four lane bridge is on the Surrey side, you would have trucks trying to climb up the approach. On the New West side, any trucks would already be at the top of the hill almost, so a climbing lane wouldn't be as necessary.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Seriously? How many lanes do we need? With the Surrey Coquitlam bridge we could have a 4 lane bridge. Just 3 km away the recommendation is to keep a lane or 2 for New West to Surrey (or 2 km on the Surrey side).

Just 5 km away on the Surrey side or 3 km away on the Coquitlam side there is a TEN LANE BRIDGE!!! I would seriously question the need for such large capacities so close together.

I think a 4 lane bridge in this location with the 2-3 lane rehab of the Patullo makes the most sense. Having more points of crossing is always better than having big ones spaced further apart. If the Patullo bridge is removed from its current location that would not be good. At least not for Surrey-New West commuters including myself who cycles that direction daily.

Having a bridge at the Surrey - Coquitlam location would finally put the nail in coffin of that tunnel idea to Gagladi Way. Good riddance!

Wouldn't it make the most sense to connect this bridge to King Edward Ave overpass?

Don't entirely disagree, but you have 21 lanes worth of bridges and 2 viaducts feeding downtown Vancouver from the rest of the region. I don't entirely see how 18 lanes feeding Surrey would be 'unreasonable' given downtown Vancouver really just has car and bus traffic going through it whereas Surrey center has car, bus, and truck traffic as most of the industry has moved out here.

You make it seem like it would be absolutely crazy. We're talking 3 less lanes than Vancouver already has not including the viaducts and physical connections to the rest of the region. *shrug*

Also keep in mind the infrastructure to access all those crossing and that TEN LANE BRIDGE is not really in place and won't be anytime soon. The SFPR will _not_ connect to the TEN LANE BRIDGE. So to access the Port Mann you still have to go through the city or drive all the way on the SFPR to 176th then double back. And on the Coquitlam side, the road infrastructure leaves much to be desired especially through New West and given New West doesn't seem to want to add a single land anywhere in the city limits. I'm all for bigger crossings. Adding a couple more lanes doesn't change the price drastically.

You are right though that more crossings would be better than 1 massive one. I just happen to think we'd be better served with a 6 lane Saperton and 3 lane Patullo. I just think from a city perspective, putting a 3 lane Patullo will be cutting off New West from Surrey much like the Lion's Gate cuts off North Vancouver from downtown Vancouver. It _does_ have a SkyTrain link so that will help, but we see how many complaints about the Lions Gate litter these forums.

We just think so short termed unfortunately. May seem unreasonable today, but in 20-30 years, Surrey will have 600,000 people. Heck if you believe the current projections, Surrey will have 750,000 people in 20 years. I don't think I believe it will grow that quickly, but you never know. Just imagine North Vancouver wanting the Lions Gate bridge removed and not replaced. How do you think that would work out for North Vancouver? New West is lucky to have a back side touching Coquitlam, Burnaby, and a major highway so it won't be nearly as bad off. But you remove a crossing or limit it drastically over a major river to the second (and eventually first) largest city in BC, I think you're cutting your city off from a lot of benefits down the road.

Then again with so few people going to new West in the future, maybe they could have their wish of removing all roads entirely and having New West become a pedestrian only mountain.