HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 10:04 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,096
They own the ROW, but it doesn't mean that they'd love to have to make a cut through a neighbourhood
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words

Last edited by Alex Mackinnon; Jun 4, 2010 at 10:11 PM. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 12:01 AM
Lover Fighter's Avatar
Lover Fighter Lover Fighter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Van
Posts: 599
I know it's way over capacity, but am I the only one upset to see the majestic Patullo go?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 12:16 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
It will be the end of an era, that is for sure, and one can bet their bottom dollar that it wll be replaced with a cable structure.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 12:19 AM
Lover Fighter's Avatar
Lover Fighter Lover Fighter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Van
Posts: 599
When the first cable-stayed bridge was built in Vancouver, I was as excited as the next bridge enthusiast, but I'm not looking forward to when we look down the Fraser Bridge and can't tell one bridge from the next.

Hmm, I just realized the first cable-stayed bridge would be the Alex Fraser, which was before my time, so disregard that comment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 12:22 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
Actually, looking down the river and seeing many cable bridges will actually give the Fraser River an Asian feel to me, because in Japan all you see are cable bridges (if they are not simple viaducts).

I am actually excited to see so many cable bridges in one stretch.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 1:32 AM
Lover Fighter's Avatar
Lover Fighter Lover Fighter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Van
Posts: 599
Hmm, not to derail this thread completely, but I found an interesting page discussing the heritage aspects of the Patullo Bridge, although it seems to written from the point of view of someone who has never visited the area:

http://www.historicbridges.org/briti...ullo/index.php
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 2:12 AM
SpikePhanta SpikePhanta is offline
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
Just an idea for the new Pattullo bridge alignment ...





the RED line is the new tunnel from Gaglardi @ Trans Canada highway to McBride @ 8th Ave

the YELLOW line is the improved McBride Blvd.

the GREEN line is the new Pattullo bridge.
Theres a problem with your red route, it passes right through a school and a very residential neighborhood
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 2:29 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,105
the red part is in a tunnel underground...

the green part would mean that the highrise tower there would need to be knocked down
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 6:26 AM
SpikePhanta SpikePhanta is offline
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
the red part is in a tunnel underground...

the green part would mean that the highrise tower there would need to be knocked down
but surely building a highway tunnel would mean cut and cover?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 7:36 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,105
I don't think they would do cut and cover its pretty deep in parts
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 8:46 AM
SpikePhanta SpikePhanta is offline
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
I don't think they would do cut and cover its pretty deep in parts
So what would they do?
I mean a tunnel wouldnt disrupt the area that much, but it could depending on the way they build it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 8:50 AM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
You can do it with TBM and have the construction pit at the SouthEast corner of Highway One @ Gaglardi Way. You can see the ghosts of the old on-ramps and off-ramps that make it convenient for construction traffic to access Highway One or Gaglardi Way. Its already chewed-up land that isn't park space.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...10986&t=h&z=17

The condo tower is west of the McBride / Columbia intersection, so the bridge approach using the McBride alignment shouldn't be a problem.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...05493&t=h&z=18

Now that I look at it again, why not TBM from the Highway One @ Gaglardi Way interchange, to MacBride @ 8th, under McBride to Royal, & then connect right to the new Pattullo Bridge flying over Columbia? as part of the demo of the old bridge, the existing Royal / Columbia / Pattullo roadways can be reconstructed to provide better access to the surface streets, and also provide the connection from Royal, McBride and Columbia to the new tunnel under McBride and the new Pattullo bridge.

McBride on the surface can then become a 'local' street for New West / Burnaby area traffic between Columbia and 10th, and the new tunnel from Highway One @ Gaglardi Way to the new Pattullo bridge can handle the by-pass traffic that just wants to get from someplace in Surrey to somewhere near SFU. There would be access portals to the tunnel at Columbia, Royal, 6 Ave, 10 Ave so the local New West / Burnaby traffic can bypass the surface traffic when getting to/from Surrey (Scott Road, S. Fraser Perimeter Road, King George) North Burnaby (SFU, Lougheed Highway), Trans Canada Hwy.

Last edited by jsbertram; Jun 6, 2010 at 9:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 9:18 AM
SpikePhanta SpikePhanta is offline
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
You can do it with TBM and have the construction pit at the SouthEast corner of Highway One @ Gaglardi Way. You can see the ghosts of the old on-ramps and off-ramps that make it convenient for construction traffic to access Highway One or Gaglardi Way. Its already chewed-up land that isn't park space.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...10986&t=h&z=17

The condo tower is west of the McBride / Columbia intersection, so the bridge approach using the McBride alignment shouldn't be a problem.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...05493&t=h&z=18

Now that I look at it again, why not TBM from the Highway One @ Gaglardi Way interchange, to MacBride @ 8th, under McBride to Royal, & then connect right to the new Pattullo Bridge flying over Columbia? as part of the demo of the old bridge, the existing Royal / Columbia / Pattullo roadways can be reconstructed to provide better access to the surface streets, and also provide the connection from Royal, McBride and Columbia to the new tunnel under McBride and the new Pattullo bridge.

McBride on the surface can then become a 'local' street for New West / Burnaby area traffic between Columbia and 10th, and the new tunnel from Highway One @ Gaglardi Way to the new Pattullo bridge can handle the by-pass traffic that just wants to get from someplace in Surrey to somewhere near SFU. There would be access portals to the tunnel at Columbia, Royal, 6 Ave, 10 Ave so the local New West / Burnaby traffic can bypass the surface traffic when getting to/from Surrey (Scott Road, S. Fraser Perimeter Road, King George) North Burnaby (SFU, Lougheed Highway), Trans Canada Hwy.


Thanks for clearing up some stuff up and I like your idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 5:25 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
I was thinking some more. If you're using TBM tunnel construction, why bother having the tunnels line up with the streets over head?
Once you're underground you can take the shortest distance between the tunnel portals.



The TBM tunnel from Gaglardi @ Trans Canada Highway goes directly to a point just south of today's Royal @ McBride where the tunnel ends and connects to the north side of the new bridge deck that flies over Columbia & the Fraser River to Surrey.

Two of the local connections to the tunnel (6 Ave, 10 Ave) would have their portals shifted eastwards, but the old Pattullo Bridge northern causeway can be rebuilt to connect McBride, Columbia & Royal to the new tunnel and bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 5:42 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,105
what if they made the bridge two levels and the bottom level went directly to the tunnel and the top level serviced new west
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 6:33 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
I thought the primary purpose of the new bridge is to ease traffic between North Surrey and Burnaby.

S.Burnaby and New West would likely be happy with the by-pass traffic 'out of sight and out of mind' between Columbia and Highway One.

perhaps McBride can be connected to the north deck of the bridge in such a way that the bulk of the bridge traffic is still using the new tunnel to by-pass New West, but the McBride @ Royal area is an 'off ramp/ on ramp' for locals to get between New West and Surrey using the new bridge.

Looking at the wide park space west of McBride between Royal and Columbia, it makes me wonder if someone in the 50s or 60s was expecting a to build 6- or 8-lane freeway to blast though New West and Burnaby along McBride between Columbia and Highway one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 6:37 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
what if they made the bridge two levels and the bottom level went directly to the tunnel and the top level serviced new west
The potential issue with that is that it partitions the carrying capacity of the bridge. It could lead to situations where one bridge deck is at capacity while the other one is still well below capacity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 6:39 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Well that was exactly what they were planning to do. Obviously that didn't end up happening, for good or for bad. Just to remind you, while TBMs have the ability to not affect the buildings above, they must be constructed pretty deep first, so you would still have issues with that apartment unless you build the bridge low in order to have the tunnel portal at a lower elevation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 7:00 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
I noticed that most of the reports about the current Pattullo Bridge talk about this bridge needs replacing, since it's cheaper to build new instead of patching up a 70+ year old bridge. Several of the reports also mention the railway bridge east of Pattullo with suggestions to incorporate railway tracks into the new bridge.

I had another idea I had last night. Why not remove the steel portion of the old Pattullo bridge after the new Pattullo bridge is opened, but leave the old Pattullo bridge concrete piers in place so a new railway box truss can be built on them.


(original photo from Flikr)

The thickness of the line over the river is an approximation of the height that the railway box truss would need to be.
(the new Pattullo bridge isn't in the photo, since I can't find any decent drawings of any of the proposed replacement bridges)

The new Pattullo railway bridge doesn't need to be as high as the old Pattullo roadway bridge, but being built 'flat' over the old Pattullo concrete piers it should still have enough clearance for Fraser River traffic so that it doesn't need to be built as a swing-bridge, a lift-bridge or a draw-bridge. There is probably enough width on the piers to have two tracks built within the railway box truss structure, so there is a greater volume of railway traffic over the Fraser.

Building the new railway tracks right at the tops of the concrete piers will still make them substantially higher than the current railway bridge, so new viaducts on the New West and Surrey sides will need to be built to access the new Pattullo railway bridge, and they will need to be longer to reach the higher elevation, but with the higher power capacity of the railway engines today, the viaducts may be built with a higher grade than was possible last century when the current railway bridge & viaducts were built.

Last edited by jsbertram; Jun 6, 2010 at 7:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2010, 7:26 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
Well that was exactly what they were planning to do. Obviously that didn't end up happening, for good or for bad. Just to remind you, while TBMs have the ability to not affect the buildings above, they must be constructed pretty deep first, so you would still have issues with that apartment unless you build the bridge low in order to have the tunnel portal at a lower elevation.
I was thinking about that, but remembered that there was quite a change in elevation from Columbia @ McBride to Royal @ McBride:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...329.44,,0,0.96
(Columbia @ McBride looking north)

This elevation change can be used to let the new Pattullo Bridge fly over Columbia and enter a tunnel portal half-way between Columbia and Royal, and still have the tunnel deep enough to be under the Royal /McBride interchange. The park space west of this section of road can be borrowed to let McBride / Columbia / Royal traffic continue to flow during construction (and be re-landscaped after construction is finished). Perhaps for landscaping and sound-mitigation purposes, a small slice of this park between Royal and Columbia can be used to move the bridge/tunnel portal further away from the residential buildings.

The existing Pattullo causeway that flies over Columbia and under Royal before connecting to McBride could be rebuilt as a connector that joins Columbia, Royal and McBride for local traffic, and also allows those streets to connect to the new tunnel and bridge.
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 12:56 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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