Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[red-paladin]

Let's stick to the topic from now on!

[Alex Mackinnon]

Ooops. Didn't see mod disapproval.

[tybuilding]

I believe I started the debate with the comment that 60km/hr is appropriate on streets that have intersections that have bike lanes and sidewalks/bike paths similar to GEW leading to GEB. I am hopeful for the Patullo Bridge route that the 70km/hr zone should end before 128 street intersection due to the bike paths not having full separation at that intersection as they will likely use the existing cross walks and the intersection will likely not change too much from the present.

As long as there are no intersections and full grade separation for pedestrian facilities I am ok with 70km/hr speed across the bridge to Royal Ave.

Here are my plans for cycling routes

New Westiminster Option A:



New Westiminster Option B:



New Westiminster Option C:


New Westiminster Option D:



Surrey Option A:



Surrey Option B:

[SpongeG]

tweeted by translink:

TransLink BC ‏ @translink Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Give us your opinions & thoughts! ^DA RT @seanturvey:The New Pattullo Bridge Project webinar is this Thurs Mar 8,2012! dlvr.it/1H9krk

[adrianroam95]

Webinar begins in 15 minutes!

[go_leafs_go02]

http://www.livableregion.ca/blog/blogs/index.php

Here's something for a good laugh:

I would really like to see TransLink look seriously at upgrading the existing Pattullo Bridge instead of building a new bridge and scrapping the old one. The fact is that most steel bridges can be economically upgraded and last for a very long time, and TransLink has provided no conclusive evidence that the Pattullo is any exception. Why spend a billion dollars on a new bridge when the existing one can probably be upgraded for a mere $200 million or so? Is the Pattullo really more difficult to upgrade than the Lions Gate Bridge was?

Has this person every driven over the bridge before?

Translink's response thankfully is bang on the money.

Thank you for your comments and question to TransLink regarding our consideration and review of potentially repairing rather than replacing the Pattullo Bridge. We understand and agree that transportation and tax dollars must be allocated responsibly and carefully.

Our review of the various options for the bridge, which originally included potential repair/upgrade, is based on technical considerations, economic constraints, community impact, environmental impact and jobs and economic need for movement of goods and people. We’ve also heard clearly from the public that the Pattullo Bridge must be safe for all modes of travel; must offer a great experience for pedestrians and cyclists, in addition to drivers and, importantly, must consider ways to mitigate traffic congestion for New Westminster and Surrey.

In terms of replacement, it’s not just the steel that is degrading due to time, weather and use. Bridge and road design has evolved drastically in the 75 years since the existing bridge was built. It’s lanes are too narrow for the safety of most vehicles, it has no median leaving oncoming vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists unprotected. There are an average of 138 collisions on the bridge every year. Third-party testing has determined the bridge is vulnerable to collapse under even a moderate earthquake. Riverflow, which was also not well understood 75 years ago, has worn away and weakened it’s very foundation.

A new Pattullo Bridge must meet the social, environmental and economic needs of current and future residents of New Westminster, Surrey and the region. New Westminster forecasts its population and employment will grow 70% over the next 30 years and Surrey forecasts 80% population increase and 100% employment increase by 2041. The new six-lane Pattullo Bridge will help accommodate this significant growth, will improve public safety by meeting modern design guidelines, improve the experience and mobility of pedestrians and cyclists, improve traffic flow and decrease congestion in New Westminster and Surrey by reducing delays caused by traffic conflicts and improve the movement of goods by providing better connections to major roads, thereby reducing truck traffic on local roads.

We will continue to consult both Surrey and New Westminster as well as regional bridge users as the project progresses, and invite everyone to share their specific interests, concerns and needs. Again, we appreciate your interest and comments.

Regards
Vincent Gonsalves

Community Relations Coordinator

TransLink (South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority)
1600 - 4720 Kingsway | Burnaby, BC | V5H 4N2 | Canada

Tel: 604-453-3043 Fax: 604-453-4677

[officedweller]

He needs to learn the difference between "it's" and "its".

[DKaz]

This one is correct.

In terms of replacement, it’s not just the steel that is degrading due to time

[incognism]

But this one isn't :

It’s lanes are too narrow for the safety of most vehicles, it has no median leaving oncoming vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists unprotected.

[Stingray2004]

I see that New Westminster has their own "Geoff Meggs" politicos steering their helm.

New Westminster does not want a new Pattullo Bridge

Global News : Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:30 PM

"Well I'm not happy being presented with one option, being told that option is the decision and by the way we would like to consult with you," said Jaimie McEvoy [city councillor], co-chair of New Westminster transportation planning committee. "I'm asking myself, does it make sense to rebuild a bridge that was placed in 1937, because back then Kingsway was the major highway, and Columbia was the major road for the entire Lower Mainland. Does it make sense to build a new bridge in 2012 or 2014 that connects to a city designed for horse and buggy, and that's a residential community?"

And though Surrey sees the new bridge as vital, New Westminster wants nothing to do with it. Instead of rebuilding the Pattullo, New West would like to see it decommissioned.

http://www.globaltvbc.com/new+westmi...030/story.html

School board unanimously opposes Pattullo expansion

By Staff Writer - New Westminster News Leader
Published: May 23, 2012 2:00 PM

The New Westminster board of education has unanimously opposed expansion of the Pattullo Bridge.

http://www.newwestnewsleader.com/news/153258455.html

Six-lane Pattullo Bridge vital to keep business, people moving, forum hears

By Chris Bryan - New Westminster News Leader
Published: May 24, 2012 3:00 PM

New Westminster engineering director Jim Lowrie said truck traffic travelling from Deltaport to the TriCities area using the Pattullo Bridge could be significantly eased if the soon-to-open South Fraser Perimeter Road was linked at the Port Mann Bridge. Currently, it won't link up to Highway 1 until 176th Street (Highway 15) in Surrey.

But [Translink roads manager S.] Zein said this is a technical impossibility.


"Engineers can do a lot, but there are a lot of things we cannot do. The SFPR is 50 metres below the Port Mann Bridge. They cannot be connected."

New Westminster has not been participating in TransLink's consultations on the bridge replacement, opting to consult with residents first within the context of updating its Master Transportation Plan.

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/153808885.html

Yeah, linking the SFPR, which runs under the Port Mann Bridge, to the Port Mann Bridge with ramps reaching upward to over 150 feet doesn't sound practicable, esp. for loaded 18 wheelers.

Fortunately the Pattullo Bridge is part of Translink's Major Road Network and New West doesn't have much of a say concerning its replacement/connections with MRN McBride/Royal Ave.

Funny thing though - alot of New West's problems would be solved with a cut and cover tunnel under McBride directly connecting with a cut and cover Stormont Connector to Hwy 1. Nobody ever seems to proffer this solution.

[go_leafs_go02]

Does it make sense to build a new bridge in 2012 or 2014 that connects to a city designed for horse and buggy, and that's a residential community?"

What a laughable quote.

Sheesh. New West doesn't seem to get it. That you need roads of all types of classifications, local, residential, collector, and arterials to connect traffic through the city.

Design things for Horse and Buggy? C'mon now. Every place in North America was initially designed for horse and buggy. Actually, the west coast of North America developed closer to the age of the automobile than any other location, but still. New West... You're fully to blame for making the City a horrible place to drive through. Do you hear people in Burnaby complaining about New West traffic coming down Kingsway into their beloved city?

Really. I've said it before. New West needed to make McBride and 10th avenue a nice arterial roadway, with little or no residential access to get traffic through the City and onto Burnaby and beyond.

I do want to make sure that an excellent multi-use cycling and pedestrian pathway is included in the new bridge.

Is there anyone else in North American that such NIMBY thinking is so prevalent? They have that gongshow with the United Blvd. extension, and their opposition to any improvements to the Pattullo Bridge.

Thank goodness for the Major Road Network. If we didn't have that, you'd probably see Pattullo blockaded at the one end.

Oh, and this golden quote:

But Lowrie said the transportation authority has gone about things the wrong way, presenting the issue as a done deal.

Public dialogue should have started a couple of years ago, he said, by framing it as a problem to be resolved collaboratively. In his wrap up, he asked attendees to look at an aerial map of New Westminster, with its 19th-century road network and urban form.

"Would you put a six-lane bridge there today if you were starting over?"

[huenthar]

Since when do school boards pass motions on transportation infrastructure decisions anyways? I thought their job was to deal with, you know, education issues?

Apparently, everyone's an expert.

[Mininari]

Here we go...

[jsbertram]

New West should be careful about what they wish for.

They may end up with a new Pattullo Bridge that sends traffic right into a new "New West Bypass" tunnel under McBride with a southern portal around McBride & Columbia St and the the northern portal at Robert Burnaby Park so the new tunnel connects directly to the Trans Canada Highway.

Surrey gets an easier connection to Burnaby & points north.
New West gets disconnected from Surrey.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

New West should be careful about what they wish for.

They may end up with a new Pattullo Bridge that sends traffic right into a new "New West Bypass" tunnel under McBride with a southern portal around McBride & Columbia St and the the northern portal at Robert Burnaby Park so the new tunnel connects directly to the Trans Canada Highway.

Surrey gets an easier connection to Burnaby & points north.
New West gets disconnected from Surrey.

Failing to see a downside for New West here...

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

New West should be careful about what they wish for.

They may end up with a new Pattullo Bridge that sends traffic right into a new "New West Bypass" tunnel under McBride with a southern portal around McBride & Columbia St and the the northern portal at Robert Burnaby Park so the new tunnel connects directly to the Trans Canada Highway.

Surrey gets an easier connection to Burnaby & points north.
New West gets disconnected from Surrey.

Heh. Pair that with a government takeover of the project aka Evergreen Line... Then we're realllly moving forward...

[tybuilding]

From a cycling perspective the Patullo bridge is definitively needed. Either that the sky bridge or the train bridge will need to be refurbished/replaced with a structure that will allow cycling and pedestrians.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Failing to see a downside for New West here...

Businesses don't really only on locals - they draw from a broader trading area. Make access too difficult, operations become diffiicult or customers dry up and businesses will move.

The question is whether New West still has businesses that are transport dependent. Labatt's closed, as did the Lucerne plant. Most of teh retail in new West is locally oriented. Could be that there may not be much impact.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

From a cycling perspective the Patullo bridge is definitively needed. Either that the sky bridge or the train bridge will need to be refurbished/replaced with a structure that will allow cycling and pedestrians.

Absolutely. I hope to see a Golden Ears Bridge type of concept for the new Pattullo.

It's funny, because while it may not be a significant portion of New West, I can say I know quite a few people in New Westminster who work in Surrey and rely on that bridge to get there.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Businesses don't really only on locals - they draw from a broader trading area. Make access too difficult, operations become diffiicult or customers dry up and businesses will move.

The question is whether New West still has businesses that are transport dependent. Labatt's closed, as did the Lucerne plant. Most of teh retail in new West is locally oriented. Could be that there may not be much impact.

I would say businesses in New West are frequented by many people who live in Surrey. As much as the city would like to disagree, there isn't really a downtown Surrey. There is no place you can go in the evening, walk around, and pick and chose between several places to eat or drink (unless you are looking for sleazy strip clubs on East Whalley Ring Road). You can in New West on Columbia. So for those in Surrey, New West is a pretty close destination for people looking for a casual night out. If you close the bridge (or restrict access), I can easily see business dropping as high as 25% on Columbia (which is a service businesses profit margin).

If I were translink, I would build the bridge but make it as free-flow as possible onto Columbia to the east. If you want to get to Columbia or Royal to the West, then go through an interchange/intersection. Then upgrade Columbia/Brunette to be the NFPR, by closing all the intersections on that road with New West (so it is basically a free-flow highway). Then build the United overpass for the benefit of the trucking industry so that trucks can get from the industrial lands in Coquitlam to the dock lands in Surrey without going through any lights (greatly reducing greenhouse gas emissions).

Then people who want the bridge the most get the most benefit, and people in New West don't have to deal with any extra traffic in their city (and residents who use Columbia to get home can now feel what it's like when people are dicks to them).