Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

I wouldn't be surprised if NW's estimate includes the Royal Ave tunnel and other upgrades.

I know next to nothing about bridge construction, but it seems pretty obvious to me that an extra lane on the bridge means you need to provide extra lanes on the approaches too. That either means new approaches or upgrades to the existing ones. So it's perfectly reasonable to include costs like the Royal Ave. overpass in the cost of the 6-lane bridge. Those kinds of costs wouldn't be incurred in a 4-lane bridge if the alignment was reasonably close.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I know next to nothing about bridge construction, but it seems pretty obvious to me that an extra lane on the bridge means you need to provide extra lanes on the approaches too. That either means new approaches or upgrades to the existing ones. So it's perfectly reasonable to include costs like the Royal Ave. overpass in the cost of the 6-lane bridge. Those kinds of costs wouldn't be incurred in a 4-lane bridge if the alignment was reasonably close.

NW is very keen on a tunnel running under Royal Ave to get trucks onto Patullo/Stewardson/Columbia and off Front St. + the surface

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

NW is very keen on a tunnel running under Royal Ave to get trucks onto Patullo/Stewardson/Columbia and off Front St. + the surface

Unfortunately, 6-lane bridge+tunnel was not one of the options presented.



4 or 6 lane bridge (neither option with tunnel)

OR

underwater crossing (4 lanes) with tunneled connections (cost prohibitive)

OR

Sapperton Crossing (4 lanes) with future tunneled connection

The 6-lane and 4-lane crossing have the same number of ramps, but the 6-lane crossing eliminates the need for traffic to merge at the bridgehead (similar to the Second Narrows).

[makr3trkr]

from Globalairphotos, 1998

Photo of old exit ramp to Brunette.

[makr3trkr]

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/...tance-1.912664

Surrey is drafting it's own position paper on the Pattullo Bridge following New Westminster coming out with its own.

Surrey city staff have taken issue with several points in the New Westminster paper, saying the Royal City "played tricks on the numbers" and overstated the cost for the six-lane bridge option, as well as understated the benefit of a larger bridge option.

Paul Lee, Surrey's rapid transit and strategic projects manager, said TransLink is promising to conduct reactive public consultation later on this spring, but expects that won't materialize until early fall.

As for the paper, Lee said Surrey disputes New Westminster's characterization of the role and function of the bridge.

"New West is treating the bridge like a road, basically, just saying it connects North Surrey to downtown New West... where clearly the Pattullo Bridge has a regional function."

He pointed to Langley and South Surrey residents who use the bridge to get to Burnaby and other parts of Vancouver.

Rasode asked if New Westminster let Surrey know they were working on anything outside of the TransLink process, prior to releasing the position paper, and staff said no.

Lee also said Surrey disputes New Westminster's position that a six-lane bridge is cost ineffective, adding that "they play tricks on the numbers" in the paper.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/...tance-1.912664

Surrey is drafting it's own position paper on the Pattullo Bridge following New Westminster coming out with its own.

Surrey city staff have taken issue with several points in the New Westminster paper, saying the Royal City "played tricks on the numbers" and overstated the cost for the six-lane bridge option, as well as understated the benefit of a larger bridge option.

Paul Lee, Surrey's rapid transit and strategic projects manager, said TransLink is promising to conduct reactive public consultation later on this spring, but expects that won't materialize until early fall.

As for the paper, Lee said Surrey disputes New Westminster's characterization of the role and function of the bridge.

"New West is treating the bridge like a road, basically, just saying it connects North Surrey to downtown New West... where clearly the Pattullo Bridge has a regional function."

He pointed to Langley and South Surrey residents who use the bridge to get to Burnaby and other parts of Vancouver.

Rasode asked if New Westminster let Surrey know they were working on anything outside of the TransLink process, prior to releasing the position paper, and staff said no.

Lee also said Surrey disputes New Westminster's position that a six-lane bridge is cost ineffective, adding that "they play tricks on the numbers" in the paper.

Looks like a war of words and stubborn ways from both sides of the table. This will ensure nothing gets done for a few years.

[Steveston]

Yep, can't wait till Corrigan chimes in.

[Nites]

They should make a 8 lane double decker bridge

[twoNeurons]

I think a tunnel or 4-lane bridge makes the most sense. If it's tolled, it will be fine for capacity.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I think a tunnel or 4-lane bridge makes the most sense. If it's tolled, it will be fine for capacity.

I would be too however the the province has used this no provincial as a scapegoat for tolling the Port Mann. To go up to a 6 lane bridge there would need to be substantial work on the new west side of the bridge to actually let the new two lanes of traffic go somewhere.

[CoryHolmes]

After all the uproar over the tolls on the new Port Mann bridge, any provincial government that authorized tolls on a replacement Patullo can kiss their re-election hopes goodbye.

As for New West, I say forget them. Put a new 6-lane bridge from Surrey along to Sapperton Bar and from there into Coquitlam. Link it up with the King Edward overpass and there's easy connection to Lougheed Highway, from there through the new Mary Hill Bypass exchange onto Highway 1...

[whatnext]

I'm surprised so many posters are in favour of a bigger repalcement, or replacement at all. We know the Port Mann and Golden Ears are being underutilized. The Deas Tunnel replacment is more important for trade. Why not just do the Deas Bridge and put the Patullo money into better transit south of the Fraser? If you're serious about wanting to reduce car traffic, you have to make transit an appealing, practical option. Right now it's not for most.

[osirisboy]

You're overthinking it. We just like big shiny new bridges

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm surprised so many posters are in favour of a bigger repalcement, or replacement at all. We know the Port Mann and Golden Ears are being underutilized. The Deas Tunnel replacment is more important for trade. Why not just do the Deas Bridge and put the Patullo money into better transit south of the Fraser? If you're serious about wanting to reduce car traffic, you have to make transit an appealing, practical option. Right now it's not for most.

Because Patullo is essential for keeping trip lengths down. Without it you have to take bridges that are a long way off the desire line. Driving or Cycling an extra 20km hardly seems a good option.

Also, region wide transit will continue to be marginal until the network hits critical mass. It's not going to do that for decades. We're more than a few RRT lines away from that in my opinion. Definitely way farther away than what the Pattullo would buy in terms of LRT.

24 hour service would also be a must if decommissioning the big parts of the road network were to work, and all major routes would have to have functional alternatives. If you're forcing transit on the majority it needs to at least as reliable as what we currently have for a combined road/transit network.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Because Patullo is essential for keeping trip lengths down. Without it you have to take bridges that are a long way off the desire line. Driving or Cycling an extra 20km hardly seems a good option.

Also, region wide transit will continue to be marginal until the network hits critical mass. It's not going to do that for decades. We're more than a few RRT lines away from that in my opinion.

24 hour service would also be a must if decommissioning the big parts of the road network were to work, and all major routes would have to have functional alternatives. If you're forcing transit on the majority it needs to at least as reliable as what we currently have for a road network.

An important point to consider is that an improved Patullo could actually *remove* a lot of truck traffic between the Queensborough and through downtown New West.

Rather than having trucks rumble down Front Street, Stewardson Way, and Royal Avenue, they could be efficiently diverted onto the SFPR / Brunette (one or more of those trucks routes could eventually be removed, allowing New West to further revitalize their waterfront).

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Because Patullo is essential for keeping trip lengths down. Without it you have to take bridges that are a long way off the desire line. Driving or Cycling an extra 20km hardly seems a good option.

Also, region wide transit will continue to be marginal until the network hits critical mass. It's not going to do that for decades. We're more than a few RRT lines away from that in my opinion. Definitely way farther away than what the Pattullo would buy in terms of LRT.

24 hour service would also be a must if decommissioning the big parts of the road network were to work, and all major routes would have to have functional alternatives. If you're forcing transit on the majority it needs to at least as reliable as what we currently have for a combined road/transit network.

We could refurbish the existing bridge though at a price for 1/4 of a shiny 6 lane bridge. Cycle paths remain.

People should not be using the Patullo to go from Langley to Vancouver. Pure stupidity. The only reason is the toll avoidance. Lets face it that the provincial tolling policy is stupid. All of the bridges should be tolled. The toll rates should be variable based on congestion. Driving at night should be basically free and rush hour should make people consider alternatives.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

We could refurbish the existing bridge though at a price for 1/4 of a shiny 6 lane bridge. Cycle paths remain.

People should not be using the Patullo to go from Langley to Vancouver. Pure stupidity. The only reason is the toll avoidance. Lets face it that the provincial tolling policy is stupid. All of the bridges should be tolled. The toll rates should be variable based on congestion. Driving at night should be basically free and rush hour should make people consider alternatives.

Agree. The solution does not need to be complex and this would alleviate a lot of the issues. Sometimes though people think you need a complex solution or that it costs millions of dollars.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Because Patullo is essential for keeping trip lengths down. Without it you have to take bridges that are a long way off the desire line. Driving or Cycling an extra 20km hardly seems a good option.

Also, region wide transit will continue to be marginal until the network hits critical mass. It's not going to do that for decades. We're more than a few RRT lines away from that in my opinion. Definitely way farther away than what the Pattullo would buy in terms of LRT.

24 hour service would also be a must if decommissioning the big parts of the road network were to work, and all major routes would have to have functional alternatives. If you're forcing transit on the majority it needs to at least as reliable as what we currently have for a combined road/transit network.

The masses have shown they are willing to drive miles out of their way to get a freebie on the Patullo vs. the Port Mann. Turnabout is fair play.

Why would it make 24 hour service a must? After 8 pm having to take a slightly longer vehicle route over the Alex Fraser or Port Mann would add a negligible amount of time.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The masses have shown they are willing to drive miles out of their way to get a freebie on the Patullo vs. the Port Mann. Turnabout is fair play.

Why would it make 24 hour service a must? After 8 pm having to take a slightly longer vehicle route over the Alex Fraser or Port Mann would add a negligible amount of time.

Slightly? How about double the distance, and double the carbon emissions with it. Plus, 95000ish cars are buckling down and paying the tolls every day.

Why does only the 9 to 5 crowd deserve good transit? If you start early or end late you'd get doubly screwed. Poor roads, inaccessible transit.

Why isn't 24 hour service a must is a better question? Cities run all night believe it or not. Even LA has this. Volumes drop off, but people have to work shutting down or starting up shop every day.

If big chunks of the road network can be removed, public transit is elevated to an essential service. 24/7/365. Just look at NYC.

[SFUVancouver]

My photo, taken March 20th, 2014.