Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

false, the City of Vancouver will NOT approve it. they have 0, nilch, nada, no how, no way interest in any added lanes into/around the city if they can prevent it. 100% guaranteed they would never approve a Boundary Road Bridge.

their fears aren't about backed up streets, they are anti-car and dont want any more lanes. their idea is less lanes = less traffic because people will switch from cars to transit/biking/walking.

Brilliant logic on the part of Gregor and his pals. (I'm sure Geoff Meggs would be happy too).
Bicycles, transit, and walking - Oh My !!!! Bicycles, transit, and walking - Oh My!!!
.... §§§ ... Somewhere, Over the Rainbow .........

[urbancanadian]

^???
T, you realize there is no actual proposal to build a bridge connecting with Boundary Road right?

Anyways, technically a new bridge wouldn't bring any new lanes into the city as the inbound lanes would be on the Burnaby side.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Not according to the latest documents released by Translink. They fully intend to make a 4 lane bridge, that if necessary can be widened to 6 lanes by adding cantilevered sidewalks onto the structure through an upgrade project.

It's completely a political decision.

Err the physical bridge itself in that report shows that it is built for 6 lanes of traffic. Remember cars and trucks weight a heck of a lot more than bikes and people + quite frankly not a lot of people cross that bridge on foot or by bike compared to the cars.

So my main concern is that the physical bridge doesn't need expansion. The report shows that the cantilevered sidewalks just open up that extra lane space. But cantilevered sidewalks being added to a bridge is way way easier than magically needing to structurally add 2 new physical lanes to the bridge.

It is a 6 lane bridge with 2 of the lanes as "sidewalks" for now and the other 2 lanes for vehicle traffic. They want to make it a 6 lane in the future, then add the sidewalks on the side, blamo the old sidewalks get removed and become the new lanes. So yes you are technically correct it will open as a 4 lane bridge but as I said, look at the design and construction, it is physically a 6 lane capable bridge from the get-go.

Political absolutely, but to me acceptable.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Err the physical bridge itself in that report shows that it is built for 6 lanes of traffic. Remember cars and trucks weight a heck of a lot more than bikes and people + quite frankly not a lot of people cross that bridge on foot or by bike compared to the cars.

So my main concern is that the physical bridge doesn't need expansion. The report shows that the cantilevered sidewalks just open up that extra lane space. But cantilevered sidewalks being added to a bridge is way way easier than magically needing to structurally add 2 new physical lanes to the bridge.

It is a 6 lane bridge with 2 of the lanes as "sidewalks" for now and the other 2 lanes for vehicle traffic. They want to make it a 6 lane in the future, then add the sidewalks on the side, blamo the old sidewalks get removed and become the new lanes. So yes you are technically correct it will open as a 4 lane bridge but as I said, look at the design and construction, it is physically a 6 lane capable bridge from the get-go.

Political absolutely, but to me acceptable.

Not really acceptable because it still needs money. Like when they opened the AFB as 4 lanes, when it became clear they needed 6, they just repainted the lines (probably took them a night or 2).

If they figure they need the 6 lanes, it will have to go to tender, and they will need to find money, get the cities to agree, probably upgrade and alter the approaching structures to change merge points... it will take a decade to happen, after they spend a decade ignoring the problem and pretending it doesn't exist.

[ClaytonA]

Just a link confirming the Patullo's design and the project itself remains unfunded.

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Docu..._june_2016.pdf

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Just a link confirming the Patullo's design and the project itself remains unfunded.

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Docu..._june_2016.pdf

Painful thinking the funding still isn't there, hopefully in the fall something will be announced. That document is from June too.

[CanSpice]

The Pattullo Bridge will be reopening on August 29, about a month earlier than scheduled.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The Pattullo Bridge will be reopening on August 29, about a month earlier than scheduled.

Hopefully in other words that means they gave up on doing extensive work on the bridge and they will be focusing their energy and money on it's replacement!

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Hopefully in other words that means they gave up on doing extensive work on the bridge and they will be focusing their energy and money on it's replacement!

Any replacement is at least 10 years away. The voters will reject any referendum to fund the thing if they have to go that route.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Any replacement is at least 10 years away. The voters will reject any referendum to fund the thing if they have to go that route.

One can dream...

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Any replacement is at least 10 years away. The voters will reject any referendum to fund the thing if they have to go that route.

Yeah, any replacement is going to have to wait until the George Massey bridge is finished.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Any replacement is at least 10 years away. The voters will reject any referendum to fund the thing if they have to go that route.

TransLink's schedule says 2023. It's coming a lot quicker than you think.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

TransLink's schedule says 2023. It's coming a lot quicker than you think.

Do they have the funding set aside for it? For the size of this project, the timeline is "approved funding + 5 years" IMO. Always a moving target until the funding is figured out.

Same goes for the Arbutus/UBC line. I'd say funding + 6 years for that one.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do they have the funding set aside for it? For the size of this project, the timeline is "approved funding + 5 years" IMO. Always a moving target until the funding is figured out.

Same goes for the Arbutus/UBC line. I'd say funding + 6 years for that one.

I think a big part of the funding for the UBC line will magically appear in the weeks before May 9th, 2017.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

TransLink's schedule says 2023. It's coming a lot quicker than you think.

Wait. You're trusting Translink?

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Wait. You're trusting Translink?

Haha, take a screenshot while you can!

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do they have the funding set aside for it? For the size of this project, the timeline is "approved funding + 5 years" IMO. Always a moving target until the funding is figured out.

Same goes for the Arbutus/UBC line. I'd say funding + 6 years for that one.

Construction for Golden Ears started in 2006 and the bridge was finished in 2009, and the project would be a lot more simple than the 14km of new road at Golden Ears. Much of the preliminary design work has been done, they winning bid just needs an engineer to design the actual structure.

Even without funding in place today, 6 years is very achievable.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Wait. You're trusting Translink?

Their numbers are a lot more reasonable than random people on an Internet forum.

[retro_orange]

http://www.newwestrecord.ca/news/new...plan-1.2334765

New West wants safety of Pattullo considered in replacement plan
THERESA MCMANUS / NEW WEST RECORD

AUGUST 31, 2016 12:56 PM

TransLink continues to motor along with plans to build a replacement Pattullo Bridge by the end of 2022.

Jeff Busby, TransLink’s director of engineering services, said TransLink consulted with citizens in June and July about options for connecting the future bridge to local road networks on either side of the river. In New Westminster, two connections have been proposed, with Option A being similar to today’s alignment and Option B being more aligned with McBride Boulevard.

“I would say the results were mixed with both options, with slightly more favourable agreement for Option A and slightly greater disagreement towards Option B,” he told city council Aug. 29. “We are doing a more detailed technical analysis of these two options and would like council’s feedback.”

TransLink plans to return to city council in September and share its preferred option and get the city’s feedback. In October, TransLink will consult with the public about the preferred option, as well as the prosed pedestrian and cycling connections, with the hope of finalizing the concept in December.

Coun. Patrick Johnstone said the design must reflect the fact that the bridge connects to an urban area where people live, attend school and play at a nearby park. He said the current bridge has a less than optimal design and its replacement needs to alert drivers to the fact they are entering an urban area.

“People still go 70 or 80 kilometres an hour on that bridge when traffic is flowing,” he said. “They carry that speed into our residential areas and surface streets. That makes the area it goes through feel less safe, feel less comfortable. It is difficult for people who live in adjacent neighbourhoods.”

Bushby assured council that the design of the bridge to promote safety it a top consideration at TransLink.

Coun. Chuck Puchmayr said it’s great to hear people from Surrey and New West thinks of the bridge’s potential alignment, but he’s most interested in what people who living next to the bridge think, as they’re the ones whose lives and property values are most impacted.

While this summer’s consultation focused on connections to the bridge, Bushby said TransLink has also heard from local residents who are interested in tolling, want the bridge to accommodate more pedestrian and cyclist connections or have concerns about traffic congestion and impacts on communities closest to the bridgehead. He said TransLink’s goal is to have the project fully defined by the end of this year so it can devote most of 2017 to the procurement process to get ready for the replacement.

- See more at: http://www.newwestrecord.ca/news/new....Ggf2O5Ad.dpuf

[retro_orange]

Good to know this is moving along and at a good rate. I liked option B better for it's layout.