Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Express691

I just thought that Patullo needs more interchanges rather than stop lights; I recall how horrendous it was when that section was burned down - Traffic lights were literally non existent.

How feasible would it be for the new Pat bridge to be a floating bridge? That way, we can have easier connections to Front street since thats where most truck traffic goes.

Do floating bridges ever work on powerful, huge rivers?

Ship traffic would be an issue too I think.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Do floating bridges ever work on powerful, huge rivers?

Ship traffic would be an issue too I think.

You just have to take a look at how often trains have to wait because the rail bridge is open for river traffic to imagine what a gong show a floating car bridge would be.

[Alex Mackinnon]

That's not what floating bridge are for. They're built for deep or exceedingly long crossings where it would be really hard to build a foundation or piers. Lakes or oceans.

Its easier just to do a low level bridge than make it float, but you'd have have a draw span for either option, hence it's easiest/most beneficial to do a high level bridge.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The SFPR aspect may be partly to do with the MoT, but the bizarre concept being proposed of having only the south bound lanes grade separated and the north bound lanes signalized at Royal Ave in New West is fully within Translink's control. The free-flow concept better be selected for the north approach.

Also, the survey is asking if another signalized intersection should be added at 125A street on the Surrey side..... another horrible spot for a signal.

So people, please fill out the survey asking the SFPR connection to be an interchange, for the free-flow north approach option to the chosen, and for 125 not be a signalized intersection.

Yeah, I see a narrow diamond interchange as being preferred.

I do wonder, however, if the lack of a northbound underpass is to reduce the grade for trucks heading uphill on McBride
(although they would have to stop/start at a traffic light and an underpass might mitigate noise from the uphill travel).

[officedweller]

Here are the relevant diagrams:



http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and...placement.aspx


http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and...placement.aspx


http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and...placement.aspx


http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and...placement.aspx


http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and...placement.aspx


http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and...placement.aspx


http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and...placement.aspx

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Express691

How feasible would it be for the new Pat bridge to be a floating bridge? That way, we can have easier connections to Front street since thats where most truck traffic goes.

0, The new bridge will provide the same clearance bellow for river traffic.

[CanSpice]

For the New West side's Option B, I can't see how they can suggest with a straight face that it improves pedestrian connectivity with that massive intersection to cross. That's what, nine effective lanes of pavement to cross? That's horrible pedestrian design. Honestly, both options are shitty from a pedestrian's point of view, but I guess Option A is slightly less shitty...?

[trofirhen]

With so many elements involved in this project, would it perhaps be germane to have a vote on which is better, with justifications for choice?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

For the New West side's Option B, I can't see how they can suggest with a straight face that it improves pedestrian connectivity with that massive intersection to cross. That's what, nine effective lanes of pavement to cross? That's horrible pedestrian design. Honestly, both options are shitty from a pedestrian's point of view, but I guess Option A is slightly less shitty...?

From a pedestrian's perspective, Option B would be better with both southbound and northbound in the underpass trench.
The overpass could even be widened a bit to form a "lid" with planters acting as the fence or barrier (to prevent people dropping things on the roadway below).

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

For the New West side's Option B, I can't see how they can suggest with a straight face that it improves pedestrian connectivity with that massive intersection to cross. That's what, nine effective lanes of pavement to cross? That's horrible pedestrian design. Honestly, both options are shitty from a pedestrian's point of view, but I guess Option A is slightly less shitty...?

As a pedestrian who has never had a drivers license I still prefer option B, it frees up and tidies the street grid in that area of New West and adds a new local road to the west, integrating Leopold Place and Bushby St. properly with downtown plus option B adds more cohesive and accessible park grassy area that currently is broken up and trapped by ramps. The whole area to the NW of Columbia before the bridge will be open with Albert Crescent Park where the new local road is going in plus that triangle of land in Queens Park will become more park space.

However i do agree with the qualm with the 9 lane crossing, even if it's properly timed it's still an intimidating distance to cross busy traffic, especially for someone who has trouble walking. What I think would be essential to improve that is to build a pedestrian bridge crossing as there is just a bit further up Mcbride at Victoria Hill. Maybe with an elevator and stairs at each end? Option A has several pedestrian crossings on royal where there's no signal at all and just relies on a driver seeing someone crossing which i don't like and reeks of old school suburban highway planning along with it taking up alot of unnecessary land.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

... option B, it frees up and tidies the street grid in that area of New West and adds a new local road to the west, integrating Leopold Place and Bushby St. properly with downtown ...

That's why I like Option B, too.
It's less convoluted from a roadway perspective.
I would expect any excess lands to be sold off and redeveloped.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

It's always sad when a landmark gets demolished, although the bridge is very run down and shoddy. It'd be even worse if the bridge looked like another Alex Fraser, Port Mann, Pitt Meadows or Golden Ears Bridge.

[cornholio]

Are they seriously that stupid to build a 4 lane bridge instead of a 6 lane bridge with merging lanes at the deck level? Can they be that stupid? If people only knew how much harm these "planners" and "mayors" were doing to the region, to peoples lives and how much money they were squandering they would be livid. Not one of these options is acceptable. /rant

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Probably because they want people to use the Skytrain, regardless if commuters live close to one.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

Probably because they want people to use the Skytrain, regardless if commuters live close to one.

That does not make sense. They are creating a bottleneck and safety issue where none is needed. There should be two through lanes coming on to the bridge from McBride and Royal avenue and one lane coming on from Columbia street. There should be no merging. All three lanes need to go all the way across the bridge. Anything else is ridiculous. It makes no rational or logical sense and benefits no one. It doesn't benefit any residents. Doesn't benefit transit users. Doesn't benefit pedestrians. Doesn't benefit the bridge users. I lose more and more respect for the mayors, planers and leaders within this region every day.

No one here can justify 4 lanes with merging at the bridge deck instead of 6 lanes from the start. I challenge anyone here to justify this.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Are they seriously that stupid to build a 4 lane bridge instead of a 6 lane bridge with merging lanes at the deck level? Can they be that stupid? If people only knew how much harm these "planners" and "mayors" were doing to the region, to peoples lives and how much money they were squandering they would be livid. Not one of these options is acceptable. /rant

Exactly. I just foresee more congestion during rush-hour.

Right now, we should be:
-Extending Skytrain to Langley and to UBC
-Laying down new rail lines, purchasing or working out agreements for existing rail lines in preperation for High Speed Rail
-Upgrading the SFPR to include full interchanges. Build the NFPR with full interchanges. Build a 6 lane Patullo Bridge to the Stormont Connector.

Instead, we see the province is broke despite billions of dollars of foreign money flooding our economy.

Translink is broke.

The municipalities have different agendas, mostly aimed at eliminating road infrastructure and capacity in a stupid attempt to "ease congestion" or force drivers to switch to alternative modes of transportation. None of our governments are on the same page...

The frustrating thing is that there is an abundance of money out there for these projects, yet we are only averaging 1 new bridge every 10 years, and a new skytrain line every 9 years or so.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by cornholio

That does not make sense. They are creating a bottleneck and safety issue where none is needed. There should be two through lanes coming on to the bridge from McBride and Royal avenue and one lane coming on from Columbia street. There should be no merging. All three lanes need to go all the way across the bridge. Anything else is ridiculous. It makes no rational or logical sense and benefits no one. It doesn't benefit any residents. Doesn't benefit transit users. Doesn't benefit pedestrians. Doesn't benefit the bridge users. I lose more and more respect for the mayors, planers and leaders within this region every day.

No one here can justify 4 lanes with merging at the bridge deck instead of 6 lanes from the start. I challenge anyone here to justify this.

May I add that since time is money tax payers dollars will be wasted (given the Time Value of Money) the longer they delay six lanes of bridge traffic.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by cornholio

That does not make sense. They are creating a bottleneck and safety issue where none is needed. There should be two through lanes coming on to the bridge from McBride and Royal avenue and one lane coming on from Columbia street. There should be no merging. All three lanes need to go all the way across the bridge. Anything else is ridiculous. It makes no rational or logical sense and benefits no one. It doesn't benefit any residents. Doesn't benefit transit users. Doesn't benefit pedestrians. Doesn't benefit the bridge users. I lose more and more respect for the mayors, planers and leaders within this region every day.

Not sure if you are disagreeing or agreeing with what I said.

But I meant to say they are probably keeping 4 lanes to force people to use transit, which I think is wrong.

[trofirhen]

Making the new bridge only 4 lanes, without the possibility of expanding to 6, or running transit down the middle if need be? That's bass-ackwards, stupid, and typical nutty BC, IMHO.
With rare exception, road engineers here can't seem to count above four. Why, I do not understand. It's a syndrome: local, short sighted, and outright bizarre.

[Trainguy]

The current configuration of on-ramps/off-ramps both northbound and southbound is ridiculous to say the least!! Any new bridge needs to be built to address the bottlenecks that currently exist. Of course that would only happen if the decision makers are interested in improving the flow of traffic. Mind you, a tolled bridge will reduce the traffic flow somewhat by toll avoiders. Also, who would pay to cross a new bridge that really improves nothing?

Any new bridge should have a direct connection to Columbia East without going around a loop and 2 lights. Large trucks often come off Scott Road and hook up with the #1 through Columbia. New West would love to have no bridge at all and make people use transit, PM, or AF.