Pattullo Bridge Rehabilitation Project

[CurtisVerbatim]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

I don't like it, but one planner made a good point about the roads inability to handle an increase in traffic. Imagine adding more cars to McBride, Canada Way and 10th?

The city of Burnaby owns all the property along the east side of Newcombe St. The original plan was to turn it into an arterial that connects up to highway 1 at the Gaglardi interchange. this is why McBride jogs to the left as it approaches tenth. The plan was scrapped because of NIMBY's but I think it should be re-ignited. That would alleviate some of New West's traffic problems.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by CurtisVerbatim

The city of Burnaby owns all the property along the east side of Newcombe St. The original plan was to turn it into an arterial that connects up to highway 1 at the Gaglardi interchange. this is why McBride jogs to the left as it approaches tenth. The plan was scrapped because of NIMBY's but I think it should be re-ignited. That would alleviate some of New West's traffic problems.

Last I heard is that Burnaby wants to do build it, and could care less about any complaints from residents. The original plan when they built the Stormont overpass (Gaglardi way) in the late 70's was that the McBride Connector would be built in a cut and cover trench under Newcombe. So they could pretty easily follow through with that plan. It would be a pretty short segment of cut and cover, and would complete Burnaby's master road plan. Gaglardi would then connect Hastings, Lougheed, TCH, and McBride/Pattullo.

The thing keeping it back is they need cooperation from New Westminster in re-configuring the intersection at Tenth, but New West is refusing any changes.

Also, the ROW for McBride is wide enough for a 6 lane road. It is 6 lanes from 10th to 8th, and pretty much is 5 lanes most of the rest of the way to the brdige (with those odd right turn in/out lanes northbound).

With a 6 lane McBride and a Stormont connector to the TCH, New West would lose a lot of through traffic on their side streets and really cut down on congestion.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

4 lanes seems short-sighted.

The new Pattullo will be four lanes with the option to expand it to six should traffic levels dictate it, similar to how the Alex Fraser was built.

[CurtisVerbatim]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The new Pattullo will be four lanes with the option to expand it to six should traffic levels dictate it, similar to how the Alex Fraser was built.

Traffic already dictates it

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by CurtisVerbatim

Traffic already dictates it

Since the new bridge will be tolled it remains to be seen whether the extra lanes will be needed right away. Traffic that now diverts to the Patullo to avoid the Port Mann tolls will probably revert back to the Port Mann, and some other Patullo traffic would likely divert to the Alex Fraser bridge (unless it becomes tolled as well).

[SOSS]

I thought the six lane configuration was contingent on associated improvements especially the Stormont Connector.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

What will the new bridge be like? How many lanes? Will they retain the current frame, or will it be totally rebuilt? That bridge used to give me the jitters when I drove over it...

My understanding is the bridge will almost definitely be "6 lane capable" but if it gets lined for 6 lanes or 4 lanes to start is still not firmed up entirely. New West wants 4, Surrey 6, but Translink would be completely insane to build a brand new structure that can't be expanded to 6.

Alex Fraser I believe for example was opened as 4 lanes lined to start but clearly has been expanded to 6 since then. Be similar here thought he bridge wouldn't be as large as AFB since the crossing isn't as wide with as long of approaches.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by CurtisVerbatim

Traffic already dictates it

Yes and no. Honestly major traffic bottle necks for the Pattullo are:

1. Lanes far too narrow for today's standards
2. Curve on an incline/decline (Surrey Side)
3. 2 lanes merging into 1 lane on New West side
4. On ramp (from Royal) right next to another entry point (off Columbia) too close to each other

The combination of the above necessitates traffic to slow to a crawl even without truck traffic. When you add in truck traffic, often those trucks take up 2 lanes while crossing just to be safe which holds everyone up behind and vice versa. The curve is also ridiculous.

So even a new bridge that is only laned for 4 total to start if built upstream (the plan) and to modern standards will address (1), (2), and [maybe] (3), which would result in traffic not slowing down so much or issues being caused with truck traffic and lane-lining.

I agree with you that personally they should just do 6 if it is ultimately inevitable just because with any NEW structure, it nearly always costs less today to add a bit extra than later. Case and point SFPR. To redo the interchange at the Tilbury Connector is going to cost upwards of 5 times what it would have cost had they did it all during highway construction just because it is now a working highway.

Everything I've read from Translink though seems to point toward it being much like the AFB in the sense it can be re-laned to 6 lanes aka if it does end up being 4 lanes to start they will be REALLY WIDE 4 lanes.

[roger1818]

TransLink should work with the Canadian Government (who own the neighbouring New Westminster Rail Bridge), and replace both bridges with a single bridge. The NSRW is over 100 years old and in even more urgent need of replacement. The new bridge could not only be used by the various passenger and freight railways that use the current bridge, but TransLink could also use the bridge for a new commuter rail service.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by roger1818

TransLink should work with the Canadian Government (who own the neighbouring New Westminster Rail Bridge), and replace both bridges with a single bridge. The NSRW is over 100 years old and in even more urgent need of replacement. The new bridge could not only be used by the various passenger and freight railways that use the current bridge, but TransLink could also use the bridge for a new commuter rail service.

Great idea, but wouldn't such coordination necessitate massive collaboration between all levels of government, industry, and engineers? Therefore pushing back any new bridge by years.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by SOSS

Great idea, but wouldn't such coordination necessitate massive collaboration between all levels of government, industry, and engineers? Therefore pushing back any new bridge by years.

In Europe this level of co-ordination is expected to save money and better serve the public. Here in Canada we build silos.

[WarrenC12]

The train bridge and tracks would require untold re-work to get to the elevation of the Patullo or a Patullo replacement, in order to allow Fraser River traffic to pass. The train bridge at current elevation swings open to let ships through.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The train bridge and tracks would require untold re-work to get to the elevation of the Patullo or a Patullo replacement, in order to allow Fraser River traffic to pass. The train bridge at current elevation swings open to let ships through.

Yeah, people seem to keep forgetting this issue. To get to the elevation of the car bridge deck you'd literally need miles of elevated approach for the rail line, which would mean a massive increase in cost. And if you built it as a low level bridge then it takes away a lot of the motivation to combine it with the Patullo.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yeah, people seem to keep forgetting this issue. To get to the elevation of the car bridge deck you'd literally need miles of elevated approach for the rail line, which would mean a massive increase in cost. And if you built it as a low level bridge then it takes away a lot of the motivation to combine it with the Patullo.

Just do a lift span under the road deck. It has been proposed before for this crossing. As long as the span is double tracked and has higher speed limit it will be a huge improvement.

[CurtisVerbatim]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Yes and no. Honestly major traffic bottle necks for the Pattullo are:

1. Lanes far too narrow for today's standards
2. Curve on an incline/decline (Surrey Side)
3. 2 lanes merging into 1 lane on New West side
4. On ramp (from Royal) right next to another entry point (off Columbia) too close to each other

The combination of the above necessitates traffic to slow to a crawl even without truck traffic. When you add in truck traffic, often those trucks take up 2 lanes while crossing just to be safe which holds everyone up behind and vice versa. The curve is also ridiculous.

So even a new bridge that is only laned for 4 total to start if built upstream (the plan) and to modern standards will address (1), (2), and [maybe] (3), which would result in traffic not slowing down so much or issues being caused with truck traffic and lane-lining.

I agree with you that personally they should just do 6 if it is ultimately inevitable just because with any NEW structure, it nearly always costs less today to add a bit extra than later. Case and point SFPR. To redo the interchange at the Tilbury Connector is going to cost upwards of 5 times what it would have cost had they did it all during highway construction just because it is now a working highway.

Everything I've read from Translink though seems to point toward it being much like the AFB in the sense it can be re-laned to 6 lanes aka if it does end up being 4 lanes to start they will be REALLY WIDE 4 lanes.

#3 is what would be improved if the new structure had 3-4 lanes out of new west. imagine how much smoothly traffic would move if McBride had 1-2 lanes, and Royal and Columbia had their own lanes as well. This wouldn't necessitate having four lanes INTO new west though. maybe just 2-3 but I would prefer 3

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The train bridge and tracks would require untold re-work to get to the elevation of the Patullo or a Patullo replacement, in order to allow Fraser River traffic to pass. The train bridge at current elevation swings open to let ships through.

Certainly a valid point. It isn't insurmountable, but I agree that it isn't trivial either. Since only the centre span swings, only the centre of the bridge needs to be high enough for water traffic to pass, so some of the elevation change could be done on the bridge itself, since trains don't like steep grades.

Having it integrated with the Patullo bridge would make it easier, especially on the west end, where the tracks have to do a sharp Y.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yeah, people seem to keep forgetting this issue. To get to the elevation of the car bridge deck you'd literally need miles of elevated approach for the rail line, which would mean a massive increase in cost.

There is nothing specal about car bridges that make them require higher elevation. It is the water traffic under the bridge that necessitates that, and that would be the same for both trains and cars.

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Just do a lift span under the road deck. It has been proposed before for this crossing. As long as the span is double tracked and has higher speed limit it will be a huge improvement.

One of the factors that limits the speed on the bridge is the fact that it is a swing bridge. Changing it to a lift bridge won't help all that much. If we want trains to travel across it at a reasonable speed, a change in elevation is necessary.

One option would be to keep the existing bridge for freight traffic, as it definitely can't handle steep grades, and only have track for passenger trains on the new bridge, as they aren't as heavy and can handle steeper grades. Optimally it would be combined with a new approach into the station

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Just do a lift span under the road deck. It has been proposed before for this crossing. As long as the span is double tracked and has higher speed limit it will be a huge improvement.

If you do that you loose most of the benefits of combining the two bridges by requiring more complex bridge piers and two decks. Might as well just leave the bridges separate with the design of each optimized for it's own needs.

And the speed limit isn't really that big an issue since the real problem with running scheduled trains is the need to wait for marine traffic, which as the senior transport mode has priority.

Originally Posted by roger1818

There is nothing specal about car bridges that make them require higher elevation. It is the water traffic under the bridge that necessitates that, and that would be the same for both trains and cars.

The difference between the car and train bridges, at least at this particular crossing, is that the cars form a continuous flow which I think pretty much everyone agrees we don't want to interrupt every time a ship needs to pass, whereas trains are a more intermittent service that seems to be managing adequately with those interruptions.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Certainly a valid point. It isn't insurmountable, but I agree that it isn't trivial either. Since only the centre span swings, only the centre of the bridge needs to be high enough for water traffic to pass, so some of the elevation change could be done on the bridge itself, since trains don't like steep grades.

Having it integrated with the Patullo bridge would make it easier, especially on the west end, where the tracks have to do a sharp Y.

So let's do the math. The height of the Pattullo Bridge deck is about the same as the SkyBridge, which is at 45 meters above the Fraser River. The centre of the rail bridge would need to be this high, as you say. Grades on rail lines are very low, with a 2% grade being fairly rare, so let's put it at a 1.5% grade (which would still be fairly steep for a train). That means that to climb to 45 metres you need a three kilometre run. Oh, and if you add a curve to the run it needs to be longer.

Three kilometres on the Surrey side puts the beginning of the climb at the rail yards north of the SFPR at roughly 132 Street, or if you go downstream, it's deep into the industrial.

Three kilometres on the New West side puts the beginning of the climb at Poplar Island, at the far end of the switching yard along Stewardson Way. If you go upstream, three kilometres puts you into Coquitlam, or almost to the Braid SkyTrain Station.

No, there's no way that you're getting a rail bridge at that location that doesn't have a swing or lift span.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

So let's do the math. The height of the Pattullo Bridge deck is about the same as the SkyBridge, which is at 45 meters above the Fraser River. The centre of the rail bridge would need to be this high, as you say. Grades on rail lines are very low, with a 2% grade being fairly rare, so let's put it at a 1.5% grade (which would still be fairly steep for a train). That means that to climb to 45 metres you need a three kilometre run. Oh, and if you add a curve to the run it needs to be longer.

Three kilometres on the Surrey side puts the beginning of the climb at the rail yards north of the SFPR at roughly 132 Street, or if you go downstream, it's deep into the industrial.

Three kilometres on the New West side puts the beginning of the climb at Poplar Island, at the far end of the switching yard along Stewardson Way. If you go upstream, three kilometres puts you into Coquitlam, or almost to the Braid SkyTrain Station.

No, there's no way that you're getting a rail bridge at that location that doesn't have a swing or lift span.

incorrect.

the plans/talk years ago featured a spiral tunnel on the New Westminister side.

I can assure you technically it is doable. cost wise .... that's the concern

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rved_alignment