Pattullo Bridge Rehabilitation Project

[SOSS]

I'm assuming they're going with the Mayor's Plan which will be a 6-lane bridge constricted to a 4-lane bridge until the Stormont Connector is figured out.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by SOSS

I'm assuming they're going with the Mayor's Plan which will be a 6-lane bridge constricted to a 4-lane bridge until the Stormont Connector is figured out.

They better. It would make me absolutely sick to my stomach if they go for a 4-lane bridge. The only way I could see a 4 lane bridge working is if they charge a $5 tool each way.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Klazu

So, four painted lanes or four real lanes wide? Short-sighted madness, if the latter. they just seem to love to underbuild stuff in here.

Relax, its the former.

[Stingray2004]

More public consultation after all that same expense occurred back in 2013? Good grief.

A highly reliable Mustel opinion poll (CATI) back then confirmed that a majority of Metro Van residents preferred a 6-lane crossing. Public consultations in North Surrey also preferred a new 6-lane bridge. Just the New West crowd, as usual, that opposes any increase in capacity.

And EVERY crossing that has ever been replaced in Metro Van has ALWAYS had increased capacity. Just common sense.

In this instance, will be 2 through lanes in either direction and a 3rd auxiliary truck lane in either direction as well.

But after all of the foregoing... this from Translink:

The replacement bridge will be designed in a manner so as not to foreclose the consideration to six lanes, subject to all-party agreement and Mayors' Council approval."

The entire matter has turned into a complete joke.

Frankly, just keep the existing 4-lane Pattullo and throw a paint job as well as pavement lift on same as it will be a complete waste of scarce capital for a new 4-lane replacement. Couldn't care less anymore as it really only involves the New West crowd and the northern Surrey crowd anyway. Not anyone else.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

And EVERY crossing that has ever been replaced in Metro Van has ALWAYS had increased capacity. Just common sense.

...although the Lion's Gate Bridge is an example of a long protracted debate over how to increase capacity that ended in a stalemate.

[WarrenC12]

4 expandable to 6 lanes is reasonable.

4 wide lanes with proper merge points and a toll on day 1 will probably see free-flowing traffic for a decade at least.

[MIPS]

Or just build it with six lanes, tell New West to ram it and wait 15 years or so until a city council with common sense widens their side.

Just have a lane on either side of the bridge divided off and left unused for garbage to collect and moss to grow on. Eventually the press, Surrey and drivers stuck in traffic looking at the unused lanes will push them to act.

[CanSpice]

The new Pattullo Bridge will be four lanes. The cities of New Westminster and Surrey have signed a Memorandum Of Understanding with TransLink stating that.

This consultation period has nothing to do with the location or size of the new bridge -- those have been figured out (upstream of the existing bridge, and four lanes). This consultation period is concerning the connections to infrastructure on either end of the bridge. If you want to see fewer or no traffic lights on the Surrey side, tell them. If you want to see a direct connection to the SFPR, tell them. If you want to see better tie-ins to cycling routes on either side, tell them. That's what this consultation period is about.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The new Pattullo Bridge will be four lanes. The cities of New Westminster and Surrey have signed a Memorandum Of Understanding with TransLink stating that.

This consultation period has nothing to do with the location or size of the new bridge -- those have been figured out (upstream of the existing bridge, and four lanes). This consultation period is concerning the connections to infrastructure on either end of the bridge. If you want to see fewer or no traffic lights on the Surrey side, tell them. If you want to see a direct connection to the SFPR, tell them. If you want to see better tie-ins to cycling routes on either side, tell them. That's what this consultation period is about.

Compromise. Make it 6-lanes wide, but make the two outer lanes bike-lanes that are car-width with a narrow barricade. Too bad freight rail can't go over it, the rail bridge is in more need of replacement due to capacity constraints (the replacement would have to be a suspension bridge to do that I think.)

I jest somewhat, but something needs to be done before the bridge collapses while people are on it. I don't entirely buy that the bridge has to be replaced "as soon as possible" but we don't want to get into a situation where it gets put off to the point that it starts to collapse during rush hour.

The "Sydney Harbour Bridge" in Australia is older and of the same design. And all they did was add strengthening steel to it to extend it's life. If you're going to replace a 4 lane bridge with a 4 lane bridge, seems silly without pushing the seismic upgrade angle... but if it's cheaper to just upgrade the bridge itself, then why bother replacing it if there's no additional capacity gained?

http://historicbridges.org/bridges/b...mbia/pattullo/ , seems to think the bridge has significant historical value and should be saved (eg switched to foot/bike traffic only) when a new bridge is built.

IMO, it's 30 years older than the Port Mann was, which was also the same kind of design, which suggests that the Port Mann was prematurely replaced.

The Pattullo is the same age as the Lions Gate bridge is, yet the designs are significantly different.

So not everything adds up.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Kisai

So not everything adds up.

Answer: politics!

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Kisai

IMO, it's 30 years older than the Port Mann was, which was also the same kind of design, which suggests that the Port Mann was prematurely replaced.

The Pattullo is the same age as the Lions Gate bridge is, yet the designs are significantly different.

So not everything adds up.

Port Mann was replaced because the gov't figured out it was cheaper to replace now with a marginally larger bridge, than to replace in 30 years and maintain the old bridge.

Pattullo has corrosion problems and foundation/scour issues. If you'll notice the Sydney bridge is entirely built on land and doesn't face a seismic threat.

Lions Gate has had extensive rebuilding and has a design inherently better at dealing with seismic loads. Only the south tower is built into the water, and it should be pretty close to bedrock, so scour isn't likely to be a problem. '

It all adds up to me.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The new Pattullo Bridge will be four lanes. The cities of New Westminster and Surrey have signed a Memorandum Of Understanding with TransLink stating that.

Wasn't aware of any MOU - so just read same... and the salient points:

Business Case:

As a requirement to provincial and federal funding, a business case is required that will assess various laning options, including a 6-lane bridge. The absence of a business case comparison between a 4- and 6-lane bridge will not allow an evidence-based decision to be made on the laning of the replacement bridge.

Stakeholders and public officials must fully understand the benefits and disbenefit of the laning decisions.


When and How - Expansion to Six Lane:

According to the Mayors’ Council investment plan, the design of the 4-lane bridge must accommodate future expansion to 6-lanes. The key consideration would include the development and agreement of criteria for expansion, and the timing of expansion once conditions are met for expansion and possible funding. It has been noted that future expansion of a bridge operated by a concessionaire could pose financial and design challenges.

http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcounci..._2016-R048.pdf

Reading between the lines, an independent business case must be provided (benefits/disbenefits) of a 4 v. 6-lane new crossing, which must be provided to both the feds and province in their decision to provide proportionate capital funding. Based upon previous reports hereto, the incremental cost of going from 4 to 6 lanes is, relatively speaking, not that much.

And since the likely design of the new crossing will be cable-stayed (cost-effective/superior seismic design), any "expansion to 6-lanes" must be incorporated into the structure from the get-go. IOW, one cannot "expand" a cable-stayed structure "later on"... unlike a cantilever design such as the Knight Street Bridge.

After reading the MOU, I now suspect that the new crossing will be a 6-lane design... line-striped for 4-lanes initially akin to the opening of the AFB (originally line-striped for 4-lanes) or the Pitt River Bridge (8-lanes but only line-striped for 7-lanes until the sidewalk is eventually cantilevered over the east side, when traffic warrants).

That's basically the crux of the matter, from the MOU dated March, 2016, as I see it.

[urbancanadian]

I think having the bridge replaced with 4 lanes on day one will be sufficient, so long as there is a toll, and that the approaching connections are properly designed. It'll be quite simple to add two lanes once demand warrants it, instead of inducing demand before we know it's actually there (the toll will help us figure it out soon enough).

Regardless, if/when the Stormont-McBride Connector is built, a third lane in each direction will certainly be needed. If the lanes are expanded before the connector is built (and inevitably fill up), it could potentially mean that the connector would only add to an existing bottleneck (and maybe even nixed for good).

But just to repeat some of what was said above: The bridge will have an ultimate capacity of 6 lanes. Regardless of what the configuration is on day one, 6 lanes will always be possible. So I hope people stop fixating on that issue.

Also, the current New Westminster council is much more receptive to an eventual expanded bridge than previous ones. I hope people understand that they have changed their tunes to a degree and are being cooperative. IIRC the mayor, Jonathan Cote, has a background in transportation planning.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

I think having the bridge replaced with 4 lanes on day one will be sufficient, so long as there is a toll, and that the approaching connections are properly designed. It'll be quite simple to add two lanes once demand warrants it, instead of inducing demand before we know it's actually there (the toll will help us figure it out soon enough).

Regardless, if/when the Stormont-McBride Connector is built, a third lane in each direction will certainly be needed. If the lanes are expanded before the connector is built (and inevitably fill up), it could potentially mean that the connector would only add to an existing bottleneck (and maybe even nixed for good).

But just to repeat some of what was said above: The bridge will have an ultimate capacity of 6 lanes. Regardless of what the configuration is on day one, 6 lanes will always be possible. So I hope people stop fixating on that issue.

Also, the current New Westminster council is much more receptive to an eventual expanded bridge than previous ones. I hope people understand that they have changed their tunes to a degree and are being cooperative. IIRC the mayor, Jonathan Cote, has a background in transportation planning.

I think a tolled 4 lane bridge will have much less traffic than it does now. People naturally have this resistance to paying tolls, even if it means paying much more in gas (than the cost of the toll) and time to satisfy their psychological thinking of using a so called FREE alternative.

Once tolls are in place, the PM will pick up some of the former traffic and the Alex Fraser as well. Unless individual commuting patterns are analysed, they won't really know how busy the bridge will be until it opens with tolls. For example, if commuter A lives closer to the PM, they will most likely use that bridge since he/she pays going either way. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out once the dust settles.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I think a tolled 4 lane bridge will have much less traffic than it does now. People naturally have this resistance to paying tolls, even if it means paying much more in gas (than the cost of the toll) and time to satisfy their psychological thinking of using a so called FREE alternative.

And so of course the obvious question: why not toll the bridge today, say it's to raise revenue for a replacement, and solve the congestion problem immediately without having to wait several years?

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And so of course the obvious question: why not toll the bridge today, say it's to raise revenue for a replacement, and solve the congestion problem immediately without having to wait several years?

Because Krusty Christie won't allow it!!

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I jest somewhat, but something needs to be done before the bridge collapses while people are on it. I don't entirely buy that the bridge has to be replaced "as soon as possible" but we don't want to get into a situation where it gets put off to the point that it starts to collapse during rush hour.

http://historicbridges.org/bridges/b...mbia/pattullo/ , seems to think the bridge has significant historical value and should be saved (eg switched to foot/bike traffic only) when a new bridge is built.

So not everything adds up.

Have you ever been across that bridge on foot? you would think it will collapse with the next big truck; its crumbling apart, full of cracks that flex and very rusty. It was not maintained as well as others. I have seen some old pics of the New West. side and it had some neat art deco style lanterns but theyre long gone and the concrete structure is in bad shape.

Plus if they convert it to a foot bridge, where would one go walking from/to? The New West side is nice but across is just a trailer park, home depot or a scrap yard on the Surrey side... not worth the investment unless Surrey plans on redeveloping the area.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Regardless, if/when the Stormont-McBride Connector is built, a third lane in each direction will certainly be needed. If the lanes are expanded before the connector is built (and inevitably fill up), it could potentially mean that the connector would only add to an existing bottleneck (and maybe even nixed for good).

Also, the current New Westminster council is much more receptive to an eventual expanded bridge than previous ones. I hope people understand that they have changed their tunes to a degree and are being cooperative. IIRC the mayor, Jonathan Cote, has a background in transportation planning.

Kindly spare the BS. Knowing your previous comments on this site... you have almost cultist-like attributes.

New West's mayor Cote was only elected for 2 reasons - a hardcore enviro NDP anti-roads type and with CUPE support. Hell, I personally know the prez of an NW CUPE local that heavily supported his campaign.

And Cote has a background in "transportation planning"? Yep. The kind that involves bike lanes ...

Cote opposes the new Pattullo Bridge crossing. In fact, if it goes ahead it will only be "4 lanes" or nothing. And Cote opposes any Stormont Connector concept. And opposes the United Blvd Extension. A total lost cause for the region.

Do your homework/due diligence before ya post your typical crap again on here man.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Have you ever been across that bridge on foot? you would think it will collapse with the next big truck; its crumbling apart, full of cracks that flex and very rusty. It was not maintained as well as others. I have seen some old pics of the New West. side and it had some neat art deco style lanterns but theyre long gone and the concrete structure is in bad shape.

Plus if they convert it to a foot bridge, where would one go walking from/to? The New West side is nice but across is just a trailer park, home depot or a scrap yard on the Surrey side... not worth the investment unless Surrey plans on redeveloping the area.

I actually have walked across that bridge before on foot.

My point was that the option to retrofit it has always been available, to replace a 4-lane bridge with yet another 4-lane bridge doesn't improve the traffic situation on either side.

If they're really going to build a new bridge that is effectively 6 lanes wide, but painted as 4, fine, that's a solution that can be solved at some point when different city councils can agree to expanding it. But it seems like not solving the rail traffic is going to be a missed opportunity.

[Metro-One]

4 lanes expandable to 6 will be just fine. Excited to see the designs when they are released.