HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1021  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2014, 7:35 AM
SOSS SOSS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 661
If it wasn't for the political issues that continue to hamper translink I'm sure this bridge would be getting replaced already instead of a band-aide fix.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1022  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 5:07 PM
paulsparrow paulsparrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 61
Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see why all the hate towards New West because it won't accept 6 lanes coming over the Patullo. You could build 10 lanes it won't matter because you can't get the traffic through New West. It's a developed city.

The only real logical approach was the 6-8 lane proposal further upriver where it could easily connect with Hwy#1 and would require limited upgrade of New West roads to do so. Not sure why this was taken off the table.

The only way a Patullo replacement makes sense is if you go with an underground tunnel connecting the bridge and HWY#1.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1023  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 5:38 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsparrow View Post
Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see why all the hate towards New West because it won't accept 6 lanes coming over the Patullo. You could build 10 lanes it won't matter because you can't get the traffic through New West. It's a developed city.

The only real logical approach was the 6-8 lane proposal further upriver where it could easily connect with Hwy#1 and would require limited upgrade of New West roads to do so. Not sure why this was taken off the table.

The only way a Patullo replacement makes sense is if you go with an underground tunnel connecting the bridge and HWY#1.
My understanding is that the connector to HWY 1 would indeed be built. The land is already set aside for this connector by New West and Burnaby. I have no idea why it would be built as a tunnel, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1024  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 6:50 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk View Post
My understanding is that the connector to HWY 1 would indeed be built. The land is already set aside for this connector by New West and Burnaby. I have no idea why it would be built as a tunnel, though.
Boring a tunnel would separate the traffic from the city streets and eliminate the need to go over the fairly substantial ridge that separates the Fraser River from the Central Valley that the freeway runs through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1025  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 7:05 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,911
Stormont connector and improvements to the roads and on and off ramps would allow New Westminster to handle 3 lanes easy. There is a great deal of inefficiencies built in to the road network in New Westminster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1026  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 7:59 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,232
A bit dated, but the 1998 Consultant's Key Findings recommended a Stormont Connector that was 2+2
(but of course, this predates a new and expanded Patullo Bridge):

Quote:
New Westminster Area Study Introduction
UMA Engineering Ltd. Report (1998)

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...troduction.htm

Quote:
The key conclusions from the System-Level Analysis were:

1.The North-South Corridor should not be purely for GP traffic. Those options which had no HOV lanes were dropped for failing to achieve objectives related to efficiency, maximizing capacity, and regional goals.

2.The North-South Corridor should have not more than four or six lanes in any given road segment. Provision of more lanes would detract from the encouragement of HOVs, by providing too much SOV capacity. Thus, any new routes (Stormont-McBride Connector, Marine-10th Connector, and Tree Island Crossing) were limited to four lanes. Six lanes were still considered possible for expansion of the existing routes (10th Avenue and the Queensborough Bridge), provided that the additional capacity was in the form of HOV lanes.
...
Quote:
6.Concept 4A: Stormont-McBride Connector at-grade, 2+2 lanes

7.Concept 4B: Stormont-McBride Connector in a trench, 2+2 lanes. The trench option was introduced at the start of the Final MAE, in response to concerns regarding the at-grade concept. This Concept places the Connector in an open trench, allowing for a pedestrian overpass at 13th Avenue and a vehicular crossing at 16th Avenue. It therefore represents the "middle ground" between the at-grade and full-tunnel alternatives.

...

6.Concept 4A was the Stormont-McBride Connector with one GP and one HOV lane in either direction, on an at-grade alignment. This severed the surrounding community, had visual and noise impacts, and bisected wildlife habitat. However, it provided significant benefits by adding capacity, providing a shorter route, and encouraging HOV usage. The NPV was high, at $164 million.

7.Concept 4B was the same as above, but in an open trench alignment. With fewer intersections and a higher speed limit, this Concept increased the user benefits. It was less intrusive on the neighbourhood, and a proposed pedestrian overpass at 13th Avenue reduced neighbourhood severance when compared with Concept 4A. Construction costs were $14 million higher, but benefits increased even more so the NPV rose to $187 million.
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...est/level3.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1027  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 11:14 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Boring a tunnel would separate the traffic from the city streets and eliminate the need to go over the fairly substantial ridge that separates the Fraser River from the Central Valley that the freeway runs through.
That seems like a needless gold-plating of this project. McBride itself is already a busy commuter corridor, and the Newcombe corridor has already been pre-purchased by the City of Burnaby. The remaining part of the route would be through uninhabited land near Hwy 1. A trench makes sense, but inflating the price with a tunnel is a bit much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1028  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 3:59 AM
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,626
I had emailed the Minister of Transportation (Kevin Falcon in 2008) asking about Stormont Connector and other questions. This is the part of that email about that project:

Quote:
In regards to the Stormont Mcbride connector in New Westminster, it
remains a possibility in the long term, but is not part of any agency's
current construction horizon. That said, my ministry will continue to
review this connection as part of our ongoing planning activities with
local municipalities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1029  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 7:29 AM
SOSS SOSS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 661
I think its highly likely that they (the province) would build the Stormont connector when the Patullo gets replaced. Assuming a YES vote, the mayors have an agreement for funding, New Westminster says yes to a new 6 lane bridge (4 lanes until better connecting roads) and the entire thing can happen at once.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1030  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2015, 10:20 PM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 593
http://globalnews.ca/news/2152591/on...ttullo-bridge/

Police investigating impaired driving crash on Pattullo Bridge that damaged 30 vehicles

Justin McElroy Global News
August 6, 2015 8:34 pm

The Pattullo Bridge has fully reopened after a crash damaging approximately 30 vehicles earlier this evening.

A woman from Surrey was driving northbound over the bridge when she crossed over the centre line and pilon dividers and collided with several southbound vehicles in Surrey and sever more vehicles in New Westminster.













Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1031  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2015, 10:31 PM
faston faston is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 81
How can there not be video of this?? Sounds like she just got tired of waiting and just drove down the centre knocking down bollards and bouncing off cars all the way across the bridge until she hit the concrete divider at the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1032  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2015, 8:05 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by faston View Post
How can there not be video of this?? Sounds like she just got tired of waiting and just drove down the centre knocking down bollards and bouncing off cars all the way across the bridge until she hit the concrete divider at the end.
Quoting the Global News article:

Quote:
She just wanted to overtake, and just slammed through the poles,” said Noor Makhani. He was driving in the southbound lane, afraid he would be hit by the car.
I mean I don't get it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1033  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2015, 8:19 AM
logicbomb logicbomb is offline
Joshua B.
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 961
Many are blaming the bridge, and yeah that may be true and there may be a need to just install jersey barriers with a counterflow system.

Still though, I've had to pay a hefty amount to fix up my car after an erratic driver swerved and scratched the side of my car. I was fortunately able to keep control of my car, but this is why I just say "**** it" and just pay the tolls on the PMB nowadays.

It's no secret that many idiots (mostly drunk drivers) opt to take that bridge. Actually, I saw someone running into the temporary pylons last Saturday evening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1034  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2015, 9:04 PM
Nites Nites is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Surrey, BC
Posts: 1,558
I've taken this bridge for a a year now daily to work. It's like riding the roller coaster every day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1035  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2015, 9:16 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicbomb View Post
Many are blaming the bridge, and yeah that may be true and there may be a need to just install jersey barriers with a counterflow system.

Still though, I've had to pay a hefty amount to fix up my car after an erratic driver swerved and scratched the side of my car. I was fortunately able to keep control of my car, but this is why I just say "**** it" and just pay the tolls on the PMB nowadays.

It's no secret that many idiots (mostly drunk drivers) opt to take that bridge. Actually, I saw someone running into the temporary pylons last Saturday evening.
Why do drunk drivers opt for this bridge specifically?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1036  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2015, 10:23 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by osirisboy View Post
Why do drunk drivers opt for this bridge specifically?
Because Surrey?

The central part, in and around Whalley is where the more original, true Surreyians live. So stereotypes would dictate that they are drunk poor rednecks, and that is the closest bridge to them, so it has more drunk drivers.

A more logical assumption would be that there are equal drunk drivers on every bridge, but the lanes on other bridges are wider so it is harder to notice someone swerving, because they don't leave their lane that much. Whereas on the Pattullo, the lanes are tiny, so any swerving is noticed (drunk or not), and as a result of the narrow lanes, it is much easier to accidentally brush up against a car in another lane, then overcompensate the recovery and end up going into oncoming traffic (again, drunk or not). And because it is Surrey, it is easy to assume the cause is a drunk driver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1037  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2015, 4:33 PM
paulsparrow paulsparrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
Because Surrey?

The central part, in and around Whalley is where the more original, true Surreyians live. So stereotypes would dictate that they are drunk poor rednecks, and that is the closest bridge to them, so it has more drunk drivers.

A more logical assumption would be that there are equal drunk drivers on every bridge, but the lanes on other bridges are wider so it is harder to notice someone swerving, because they don't leave their lane that much. Whereas on the Pattullo, the lanes are tiny, so any swerving is noticed (drunk or not), and as a result of the narrow lanes, it is much easier to accidentally brush up against a car in another lane, then overcompensate the recovery and end up going into oncoming traffic (again, drunk or not). And because it is Surrey, it is easy to assume the cause is a drunk driver.
I would throw in that Surrey is home of the worst drivers in the lower mainland too so accidents are higher on bridges coming out of the south of the fraser (AF, Pattullo, PM) than anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1038  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2015, 7:02 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsparrow View Post
I would throw in that Surrey is home of the worst drivers in the lower mainland too so accidents are higher on bridges coming out of the south of the fraser (AF, Pattullo, PM) than anywhere else.
Well, there are more people travelling from the SOF than from many other places, so if accident rates per driver stayed constant in the entire population, of course there will be more accidents on the Fraser river bridges.

It also has to do with the design and nature of the bridges. On the AFB it's usually because once you get on the bridge, traffic clears up, so you can start driving 100km/h after spending the last 20+ minutes stop and go on one of the feeders. So everyone guns it up the bridge, then gravity pulls them down the other side, and when someone realizes they are in the wrong lane and slow down or quickly change, it causes accidents because people have to break from a highspeed going down a pretty steep hill. Other bridges don't have the same problem because they don't have to go up and down so much so quickly.

Not leaving enough space while travelling at a high speed is pretty common all over the lower mainland. There seems to be lots of accidents around the Second Narrows, on the cut, and at the Cassiar too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1039  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2015, 7:50 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,042
That isn't really answering why logicbomb says idiots and drunk drivers opt to take the patullo versus other bridges. I have absolutely no idea Im just curious why he thinks that
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1040  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2015, 8:29 PM
logicbomb logicbomb is offline
Joshua B.
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 961
Quote:
Originally Posted by osirisboy View Post
That isn't really answering why logicbomb says idiots and drunk drivers opt to take the patullo versus other bridges. I have absolutely no idea Im just curious why he thinks that
There tend to be more people that get busted for DUI at road blocks which are set up at KGB near 108th or on the south approach of the bridge than roadblocks off 152nd St.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:44 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.