Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[Metro-One]

Also, a new Pattullo bridge is the best option for the SFPR. If New West was smart they would be encouraging this project, because then the NFPR project could be shortened from the #1 to the Queensburough to only involving the distance between the #1 and the new Pattullo.

To me that makes the most sense, having the NFPR connect between the #1 and the Pattullo, and then connecting to the SFPR. That way downtown New West will no longer have to deal with the majority of industrial traffic that crosses it trying to reach the Queensburough. But of course they vetoed the final extension of United Boulevard and now are trying to veto this project because they love their downtown being inundated with cross regional industrial traffic that has never gone away, despite traffic calming efforts.

[splashflash]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also, a new Pattullo bridge is the best option for the SFPR. If New West was smart they would be encouraging this project, because then the NFPR project could be shortened from the #1 to the Queensburough to only involving the distance between the #1 and the new Pattullo.

To me that makes the most sense, having the NFPR connect between the #1 and the Pattullo, and then connecting to the SFPR. That way downtown New West will no longer have to deal with the majority of industrial traffic that crosses it trying to reach the Queensburough. But of course they vetoed the final extension of United Boulevard and now are trying to veto this project because they love their downtown being inundated with cross regional industrial traffic that has never gone away, despite traffic calming efforts.

They certainly have legitimate concerns. And the councillor from NW is correct, a 15 km out-of-the-way road between SFPR and the Port Mann is not efficient, and has every right to question why a ramp along the dump is not feasible. After all, the road ramps down Johnston Hill to the bridge. Perhaps the old Port Mann bridge could be used instead with ramps angling up to the portion that is required to be removed to make way for the ramp to the new bridge.

Also, Nordel Way access to Alex Fraser from SFPR is terrible. Access to Burnaby from SFPR would be improved with a direcr north-east south-west bridge between SRPR and Queensborough. Access to #1 HWY could be made via Boundary Rd or 10th Ave, better options than Canada Way. The Surrey to south Burnaby/Vancouver and Richmond is probably more useful than the Surrey - central NW route.

[go_leafs_go02]

The Pattullo Bridge is closing.

Not for good, just for one weekend.

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/164656826.html

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also, a new Pattullo bridge is the best option for the SFPR. If New West was smart they would be encouraging this project, because then the NFPR project could be shortened from the #1 to the Queensburough to only involving the distance between the #1 and the new Pattullo.

To me that makes the most sense, having the NFPR connect between the #1 and the Pattullo, and then connecting to the SFPR. That way downtown New West will no longer have to deal with the majority of industrial traffic that crosses it trying to reach the Queensburough. But of course they vetoed the final extension of United Boulevard and now are trying to veto this project because they love their downtown being inundated with cross regional industrial traffic that has never gone away, despite traffic calming efforts.

I agree with you COMPLETELY here. Very good points! It seems no one can let go of this seemingly "necessary" connection through NW to get trucks from Highway 1 to the Queenborough. If the route to go INSTEAD was a nice freeway ride across a new 6-lane bridge to a FREEWAY SFPR, which connects to FREEWAY 91/91A, why not? It may be a longer distance, but if you're moving at 80-90 the whole time... besides what is the destination of truck traffic that passes through NW? If much of it is destined for Richmond / South Vancouver, then whats the problem with shifting it south of the river?

Besides, even the new interchange configuration at the QB Bridge can only handle so much traffic volume. It is better that what existed, but honestly, the goal here should be to shift truck traffic away from the area to the new facilities south of the River.

Perhaps we'll see a drop in truck traffic through NW when the full SFPR opens up... it could be that's what everyone is hoping for. Of course, if the SFPR was a full freeway, then it would probably ATTRACT more truck traffic AWAY from the NW - QB Route.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Mininari

I agree with you COMPLETELY here. Very good points! It seems no one can let go of this seemingly "necessary" connection through NW to get trucks from Highway 1 to the Queenborough. If the route to go INSTEAD was a nice freeway ride across a new 6-lane bridge to a FREEWAY SFPR, which connects to FREEWAY 91/91A, why not? It may be a longer distance, but if you're moving at 80-90 the whole time... besides what is the destination of truck traffic that passes through NW? If much of it is destined for Richmond / South Vancouver, then whats the problem with shifting it south of the river?

Besides, even the new interchange configuration at the QB Bridge can only handle so much traffic volume. It is better that what existed, but honestly, the goal here should be to shift truck traffic away from the area to the new facilities south of the River.

Perhaps we'll see a drop in truck traffic through NW when the full SFPR opens up... it could be that's what everyone is hoping for. Of course, if the SFPR was a full freeway, then it would probably ATTRACT more truck traffic AWAY from the NW - QB Route.

Most of that truck traffic that goes along the NW route is probably originating from the port in Vancouver, Delta Port, Annacis Island and a few other random locations in South Vancouver and Richmond in the Nelson rd area. And they are probably heading towards Port Kells, Maple Ridge and east of those areas into the interior and beyond.

So there is a very good chance the SFPR will help alleviate truck traffic through New West. Also it is probably far more important that the SFPR connects with the Alex Fraser bridge than if it were to connect to the Patullo Bridge. The Alex Fraser connection will have a bigger impact for truck traffic coming from Vancouver and Annacis Island and from the area around nelson road.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/164656826.html

Will the sidewalk be closed as well?

[SpongeG]

^^^ according to all the twitter tweets from translink the bridge will be closed from friday august 17th to monday aug 20 to all vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists

[cairnstone]

So when the patello caught on fire four years ago and was closed for a week didn`t the bridge and approaches get repaved then. I think putting asphalt on bridges is a bad choice as it does not handle the traffic as good as concrete. I believe the Port Mann is still on the orginal deck or one resurfacing.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

^^^ according to all the twitter tweets from translink the bridge will be closed from friday august 17th to monday aug 20 to all vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists

Yup the signs are up directing cyclists and pedestrians to use skytrain. Free travel between stations?

[SpongeG]

speaking of the bridges - they should redo the train bridge as a double decker - it used to be a double decker before the patullo was built, it had cars on top and train on bottom - they dismanted the car bridge when it was no longer needed - but it would make a great cyclist/pedestrian bridge

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

speaking of the bridges - they should redo the train bridge as a double decker - it used to be a double decker before the patullo was built, it had cars on top and train on bottom - they dismanted the car bridge when it was no longer needed - but it would make a great cyclist/pedestrian bridge

That's a good idea, although I'm wondering if we will see a new rail overpass over the Fraser in a different location down the road. I could see the potential for one towards Maple Ridge/Langley to provide a good HSR connection south to Bellingham.

And then, perhaps a new rail crossing/tunnel near the Alex Fraser Bridge.

There are only 2 railway crossings between The Georgia Straight and Hope on the Fraser River. One next to Pattullo, and one by Mission. Better yet, neither are double tracked.

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

speaking of the bridges - they should redo the train bridge as a double decker - it used to be a double decker before the patullo was built, it had cars on top and train on bottom - they dismanted the car bridge when it was no longer needed - but it would make a great cyclist/pedestrian bridge

They are going to replace that bridge sometime soon-ish, it's a big priority for freight rail. They want a connection where trains can go faster than 5-8 mph, don't conflict with marine traffic and have two tracks crossing the river. TransLink says they looked at a combined road/rail bridge and thought it would be too bureaucratic to be feasible. I read a document somewhere that stated that the preferred alternative from CN's point of view was actually a two-track tunnel...

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

That's a good idea, although I'm wondering if we will see a new rail overpass over the Fraser in a different location down the road. I could see the potential for one towards Maple Ridge/Langley to provide a good HSR connection south to Bellingham.

And then, perhaps a new rail crossing/tunnel near the Alex Fraser Bridge.

There are only 2 railway crossings between The Georgia Straight and Hope on the Fraser River. One next to Pattullo, and one by Mission. Better yet, neither are double tracked.

When the new Port Mann bridge is opened, the old Port Mann steel structure can be dismantled and removed from the piers. Then a new steel structure can be built on the piers to create a new "Port Mann Railway Bridge" for trains to use.

The north end of the new bridge lines up with a spur line (west of the Colony Farm Hospital) that connects to the CPR Line that runs beside Lougheed Highway, which ends up at the CPR yard in Coquitlam.

The south end of the new bridge lines up with the CN yard at Port Mann.


The re-alignment of the north and south ends to connect to the railway tracks and yards would mean some new piers would need to be built, but the piers already in place shouldn't need much renovation to be re-used.


**
An alternative to the north alignment would be to re-use as much of the old piers as possible & weave the bridge rail line under the new Port Mann roadway so it connects with the CPR tracks at the Lougheed Highway / United Blvd / Highway 1 'pinch' at Taft Ave by the Boulevard Casino.

[cairnstone]

The Surrey side of that bridge was upgraded in the last 3 years. They installed new piles and built new bents along with ther sysmic upgrades

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

When the new Port Mann bridge is opened, the old Port Mann steel structure can be dismantled and removed from the piers. Then a new steel structure can be built on the piers to create a new "Port Mann Railway Bridge" for trains to use.

I thought that one of the issues with the current bridge was scouring of the pier foundations...

[splashflash]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I thought that one of the issues with the current bridge was scouring of the pier foundations...

The Pattullo road bridge has scoured piers, not the Port Mann. Here is a good article from Barrie Sandford about using the Port Mann as a rebuilt rail bridge:

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/...5-577a2cbf4759

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by splashflash

The Pattullo road bridge has scoured piers, not the Port Mann.

OK, my bad!

[jlenko]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

speaking of the bridges - they should redo the train bridge as a double decker - it used to be a double decker before the patullo was built, it had cars on top and train on bottom - they dismanted the car bridge when it was no longer needed - but it would make a great cyclist/pedestrian bridge

Only problem is, that it's open 50% of the time due to marine traffic. And I bet you those cyclists and pedestrians won't want to wait for the thing to close, they'll just find a different way.

Waste of time.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by jlenko

Only problem is, that it's open 50% of the time due to marine traffic. And I bet you those cyclists and pedestrians won't want to wait for the thing to close, they'll just find a different way.

Waste of time.

There is also the detour required to get up the hill for cyclist going away from the river

[huenthar]

from the SFPR thread:

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Also New West looks like they are getting more serious about not supporting a new Pattullo if there's a connection to the South Fraser Perimeter Road (unless a direct ramp to the Port Mann at 152 is built).

http://www.newwestnewsleader.com/news/172563621.html

I have to say that TransLink went about the UB extension, Patullo etc. totally the wrong way. I mean, they have to know the opposition they'll be facing in the city and that they'll have to do a good job selling the whole concept. Yet they never listened to the #1 complaint against those projects, which was that it was piecemeal; New West wanted to see the context of the complete NFPR project as a whole, rather than on one facet or another with a big question mark surrounding the question of what happens downstream. With the United Blvd extension they wanted to know what happens to all the traffic after it gets onto Brunette headed for downtown. With the Patullo, again it's what happens to all the traffic after it gets off the bridge downtown. They don't see the big picture, or they think TransLink doesn't have a big picture.

What TransLink should do:

1) put a hold on Patullo plans for five years (keep the current work on ramps, connections etc.) until Gateway/SFPR are done, new traffic patterns are established and they'll be able to produce more credible traffic growth models (or at least more sellable)

2) In five years, come back with revised projections of traffic growth patterns and present a complete NFPR concept. Front Street has essentially been scrapped as a no-go, so this means either a Patullo replacement/Columbia-Brunette upgrades & redesign/United Blvd extension/Brunette or Blue Mountain interchange reconfiguraton; or (more $$, and inferior anyways IMO) a Patullo/McBride/Stormont corridor. Present the whole concept as meeting the need to move trucks from Delta to the Tricities and be upfront about the fact that you want more traffic on the Patullo.

They should not present these projects piecemeal (even if they end up phased anyways) because they will never get the support to move forward. People need to be shown the big picture. Imagine if Gateway was building the new Port Mann as a standalone project with no mention of replacing the Cape Horn interchange or doing anything to widen the highway itself. It would be ridiculous because it's only half a project. Ditto with the Patullo. They need to bundle the project with redesigning the roads necessary to move between Hwy 1/United and the new bridge; otherwise it will seem like half a plan and New West will never get on board.