Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by Distill3d

EXACTLY...when they plan these things out, and call for tolls on the bridges, do they think about how horrible traffic will become if you toll a bridge? drivers will still have to STOP to pay for a toll at both ends of the bridge.

You're obviously still living in the dark ages of the 1950s. In the modern era, there's something called electronic tolling, which is what will be used on the Golden Ears Bridge. Nobody will be stopping to pay. If you have a transponder, you'll pay as you go at a discount. If you don't - a picture will be taken and you'll get a bill in the mail.

This system is used extensively all over the world - it works.

[cornholio]

option 4 makes the most sense as it connects the rest of the region to Surrey center efficiently and by hooking up to the number 1. the problem with the current Patulo alignment is that it is not well connected to the the rest of the Burrard peninsula. but like i said a while ago, and translik seems to confirm it, is that option 4 would have the greatest impact on the Fraser river especially if they are still considering filling in the islands and developing them.

the best case scenario would be to build option 4(without the connection to Cumberland st in New West) and keep the Patulo bridge and turn it in to a 3 lane no truck traffic bridge like the Lions gate bridge. what option 4 does is remove a good chuck of the through traffic out of New West and even South Burnaby, by keeping the old Patulo you also maintain the local conection of NW and Surrey.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by cornholio

the problem with the current Patulo alignment is that it is not well connected to the the rest of the Burrard peninsula.

True. But the Stormont/McBride Connector has been on the books for years and with a new crossing I would think that it would be about time to dust off those plans as well.

The Stormont Connector would connect the Pattullo Bridge with Hwy 1 and would involve either a trench or, more preferably, a cut and cover tunnel that would place the entire route (current McBride Blvd and the Stormont Connector extension), from the Pattullo bridgehead to Hwy 1 at the Gaglardi interchange.

That would allow for the restoration of McBride Blvd as a New Westminster local surface road removing through traffic from the area. And at the south end of the Pattullo Bridge an interchange with the SFPR expressway. A systems-wide win-win proposition for everyone.

[ravman]

option 2?

[Metro-One]

is that option 4 would have the greatest impact on the Fraser river especially if they are still considering filling in the islands and developing them.

There is no need to fill in the river, simply keep the entire structure elevated, just because it has a loop does not mean it has to be on the ground. This is the problem with Vancouver engineers, they are so afraid of elevated structures, a really good example of that is the knight St. bridge (bridges) that has that unnecessary dip between the two structures just to be at grade on that small island for what feels like less than 100m. Why did they not make that one continuous bridge with on/off ramps to that island?

[metroXpress]

Can't see your picture tintinium ??

[red-paladin]

It's interesting that you guys mentioned the Stormont-Macbride connector.
I sent Minister Falcon a question about that a while ago, and I just got a reply:


169036 - Transportation Projects

Dear Rob:

Thank you for your e-mail of July 13, 2008, regarding three
transportation projects across the province. Please accept my apologies
for the lateness of my reply.

In 2005, our government committed to starting work on $200 million worth
of transportation projects along the Cariboo Connector. So far we've
broken ground on several projects, throughout the corridor, and we're
well underway with extensive project development and engineering for
many more. If you would like to learn more about the Cariboo Connector
you can visit my ministry's website at
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/cariboo_connector/index.htm.

In response to your first question, the Trans Canada Highway from Cache
Creek to Kamloops and Vancouver runs adjacent to the Coquihalla Highway.
Since that highway is already four lanes, expanding the Trans Canada
Highway would not provide enough benefit to travellers to justify the
significant cost.

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.

Lastly, I appreciate your support for projects under my ministry's
Gateway Program, namely the North and South Fraser Perimeter Road
projects. As you may know, work is well advanced on the Pitt River
Bridge/Mary Hill Interchange, a key component of the North Fraser
Perimeter Road plan (NFPR). I am also happy to inform you that the
South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR) will be a four-lane, 80 km/h route
that will connect with Highway 99, Highway 91, and Highway 1 at 176th
Street and construction will commence in the very near future. If you
have any further questions about the SFPR or any other Gateway projects
you can access information on the program's website at
http://www.gatewayprogram.bc.ca/.

Thank you for your kind words of support.

Best regards,


Kevin Falcon
Minister

________________________________

From:
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 10:05 PM
To: Transportation, Minister TRAN:EX
Subject: Transportation Projects


Dear Minister Falcon,

I am a supporter of all the road and transit projects you have planned.
Keep up the good work, a lot of these have been needed for some time
now.

I just have a few questions:

1. Why is the Cariboo Connector planned to be 4 lanes from Cache Creek
to Prince George,
but the (Trans-Canada) Highway from Cache Creek to Vancouver and to
Kamloops will remain 2 lanes?
It would make sense that at least the route to Kamloops would be four
lanes the entire way.

2. Will the Stormont-Macbride connector in New Westminster ever be
built?
Has the city of New Westminster forced it's removal from plans?

3.I really think that the North and South perimeter roads are great
plans,
but will there ever be a real freeway connection from the Trans-Canada
to Highway 99/91?

I am asking these two questions, because it has always seemed ridiculous
to me that we can drive
from Kamloops to Burnaby on a freeway, and from Mexico to New
Westminster on a freeway,
but we have to use Front St. or Columbia to get from Highway 91a to
Highway 1.

Thanks for your attention, and lets hope your party is re-elected for a
very long time!

[DKaz]

The Stormont-McBride connector would require massive amounts of land acquisition. With real estate prices being as high as they are, I'm not surprised that the project has fallen off their radar.

[Stingray2004]

I guess the Stormont Connector was first proposed in the '60's/'70's?

Politics got in the way but the pieces now seem to be falling into place... the SFPR on the south side of the Fraser River, a new 6-lane Pattullo Bridge, and the last piece of the puzzle... the Stormont Connector.

From the north Pattullo bridgehead, I could see a cut and cover tunnel along McBride to its terminus at 10th Ave. Heading northward from there along Newcombe Street involves around 5 blocks of old sfd housing, where the SC could be put into a trench. And from there it could be at surface through barren terrain to meet up with Hwy 1 at the Gaglardi interchange.

I have an inkling that the Stormont Connector might be revisited over the next ten years with the announcement of a new Pattullo Bridge. And yes, it will cost a few bucks. Just my two cents.

[officedweller]

From the Province:

So, in essence, a bridge that to Vancouverites created a "bottleneck" over the Canada Line trench is the same width as one of the Lower Mainland's major [suburban] traffic arteries.

Firm's ingenuity moves commuters

Commute from hell ends after eight days, thanks to North Van know-how

By Ethan Baron, The Province
January 27, 2009


Surespan's hard-working crew includes, clockwise from top left, Kurt Shewchuk, Randy Orcutt, Ryan Beers, Shawn Kelly, Richard Schut, Donovan Ducharme and Kyle Proznick.
Photograph by: Jason Payne, The Province

Hundreds of thousands of Lower Mainland commuters have just received the most precious gift of all: time.

The closure of the Pattullo Bridge stole many, many hours from the lives of commuters stuck in traffic jams.

It was expected the bridge would be shut six weeks -- for each commuter, the hours of stolen time would have added up to days.

Now, thanks to a North Vancouver-based construction company, traffic started flowing over the Pattullo at 6 a.m. yesterday, after a closure of just eight days.

Those hours and days that would have been lost to hundreds of thousands of us? Sure-span Construction has given them back.

About 30 men and women from Surespan toiled 18 to 20 hours a day to get the span reopened, after the company informed TransLink it had a ready-made bridge section sitting on a lot, and had the skilled workers to insert it into the Pattullo's gap.

The bridge caught fire Jan. 18, cutting off a route used by 80,000 vehicles a day to cross the Fraser River. Surespan president Nigel Bester -- who founded the company three decades ago making logging bridges with a borrowed chainsaw -- saw a TV news report about the closure. He called company vice-president Mark Smith, who hustled his family into his truck and took off for the Pattullo, calling project manager Brad Gunnlaugson to check what bridge-building supplies Surespan had available.

They quickly concluded that a bridge section used for the Canada Line construction was the proper width, and only about three metres too long.

At the company's Langley equipment yard, the section sat, girders ready to be bolted back together, reinforced-concrete deck sections ready to be placed on top.

As Surespan executives discussed with TransLink what the company might provide, equipment manager Donovan Ducharme was making arrangements to bring two massive cranes down from a bridge project in Prince George.

Last Tuesday, TransLink and Surespan inked a deal, and the race to end commuter chaos began.

"From the most senior people to the most junior labourer, we've had everybody mobilized," Smith says.

The company flew a dozen of its best workers in from Prince George, the Yukon and Saskatchewan.

Superintendent Shawn Kelly drove all night to bring the cranes down on trucks from Prince George, and Wednesday morning workers started rigging up the cranes. By Thursday morning, workers were driving 12 steel pipes 40 metres deep into the ground below the bridge, to be filled with concrete for pilings to support the new section of bridge.

Meanwhile, Magnum Fabricators of Surrey was running 24 hours a day modifying Surespan's steel girders, assembling them into a permanent structure, and cutting them to fit the space in the Pattullo.

Caps and bearings were placed on top of the pilings, and the deck sections were put on top, then paved. The bridge opened in time for yesterday's rush.

Drivers affected by the closure may want to forget about the hours of precious time they wasted in traffic -- water under the bridge, so to speak. But let's not forget the men and women who saved far more time from being lost.

ebaron@theprovince.com

© Copyright (c) The Province

[DKaz]

Yea kudos to Surespan for their efforts. =)

[hollywoodnorth]

wow great work all around

[cornholio]

Using option 4 shortens the trip from Gaglardi to Whalley by 0.5 km, and this takes in to account the Stormont connector being in place. Not to mention that option 4 better connects the NE sector to Whalley. Having said that if option 4 is used then the Patullo should be refurbished and remain as a 3 lane bridge for local non truck traffic.

So here is what I think would be the best thing to do, and the best use of money.

1)Build option 4 with out the interchange, it will only be a bridge connecting the trans Canada and Luogheed highway to King George and the SFPR.
2)Fix up Patulo and turn it in to a 3 lane bridge like the Lions Gate bridge, the costs should justify the benefits.

edit: Now that I think about it I do think some type of Stormont connector will be needed eventual anyways to connect NW with north Burnaby but this will atleast give the region more time before it needs to be built. Plus with option 4 it probably would only need to be a simple arterial road.

[officedweller]

Yeah, there were some comments I read that Option 4 is too close to Port Mann (duplicative of that crossing), so you'd still need a bridge closer to downtown New Westminster.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, there were some comments I read that Option 4 is too close to Port Mann (duplicative of that crossing), so you'd still need a bridge closer to downtown New Westminster.

Thats why I think the Patulo should remain in place, I mean once another bridge is built you can shut it down completely and just fix it up, reduce its capacity and make it safer. This cant possibly cost that much, 50mill. Maybe a 100mill to guarantee it stands for another 50-75 years. Sounds worth it to me. Though thats me assuming that the costs would be reasonable.
I also dont think option 4 duplicates the PortMan, they connect completely different areas, plus like I said the trip is shorter for most people heading from the west if they go the highway route with a 90kmph speed limit instead of say Kingsway or Canada Way route with a 50kmph speed limit with lights and going straight through the city.
Having said that I could see option 4 requiring even another extra lane through the Burnaby lakes area to handle the extra traffic that would be diverted away from the city.

[jlousa]

Seems like this will be fast tracked. They are now sourcing a project manager for stage 1, they would like to keep the same Manager for all 3 stages if possible, that leads to beleive they don't plan on taking much time between the stages.



1.0 SCOPE OF PROGRAM MANAGER SERVICES

1.1 TransLink is seeking statements of qualifications from individuals and consulting firms to assume the role of Program Manager to plan, coordinate, manage and direct the technical work program for the proposed replacement of the Pattullo Bridge.

1.2 TransLink is proposing that the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge be advanced in the following three phases:
(a) Functional Design Phase;
(b) Procurement Phase; and
(c) Implementation Phase.

It is TransLink’s intention to engage the same Program Manager for all three phases of work, although only the Functional Design Phase will be contracted at this time.

1.3 The Functional Design Phase will commence in April 2009 and run through to December 2009. The purpose of the Functional Design Phase is to confirm a project alignment, define the project scope, including the connections to the existing and future road network on both sides of the river, and develop the design of the project to a functional design level.

1.4 Following the Functional Design Phase, the Program Manager will assist, lead or participate in many aspects of the Procurement Phase including the direction of the technical consultants. The Procurement Phase will commence following the completion and final approval of the Functional Design Phase. The work program will include the environmental assessment process, refining the traffic and revenue model developed in the Functional Design Phase, determining the most appropriate delivery model, finalizing third party agreements, developing specifications and standards, preparing commercial documents and concluding the Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposal process.

1.5 The project will be constructed during the Implementation Phase, however, the details of the Program Manager’s role will not be known until the optimal delivery model is identified in phase two.

1.6 In support of each of these phases, TransLink intends to assemble a team of qualified technical experts, including both TransLink staff and consultants, to undertake the technical work required within each phase of the overall program. It is anticipated that the technical work program will involve consultants to provide engineering, design and traffic modeling, as well as an environmental consultant and a property advisor. Reporting to the Vice President, Major Construction Projects, the Program Manager is responsible for coordinating and managing the activities of the technical team.

1.7 The Program Manager will coordinate and chair regular Technical Advisory Committee meetings including representatives from TransLink, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the City of New Westminster, the City of Surrey and other stakeholders.

1.8 Following the completion of the Functional Design Phase and the selection of the preferred location for the replacement bridge the Program Manager will be responsible for directing technical consultants in the preparation of technical and performance specifications for the RFP document and assisting with the development of evaluation criteria. In this capacity, the Program Manager will also work with the Business Advisor to develop an appropriate procurement process for the new bridge and provide a lead role in managing the procurement process with the VP Major Construction Projects.

1.9 Throughout the work program the Program Manager will define and maintain the scope of the technical program as well as the project budget and schedule.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by jlousa

1.3 The purpose of the Functional Design Phase is to confirm a project alignment, define the project scope, including the connections to the existing and future road network on both sides of the river, and develop the design of the project to a functional design level.

I trust that will include looking toward the future in terms of the Stormont/McBride connector to the Pattullo Bridge on the New Westminster side, albeit that would be under BC MoT jurisdiction.

The Stormont/McBride connector was mentioned as a BC MoT future project as recently as ~1999 in BC MoT documents.

[Canadian Mind]

hmm, to preserve the quite and peaceful nature of New West, I don't suppose a portion of the lanes on the new bridge (say, 4 of 6/8) could lead to an underground bypass that splits to eventually have two arteries head east/west along the NFPR respectively, and one that leads into burnaby eh?

Give New West allt he quiet city streets they want with underground commercial and highway traffic.

[NetMapel]

Speaking of Patullo Bridge, I had the toughest time trying to get on that bridge the other day from New Wesminster ! There was barely any signs pointing to the bridge's direction until you're really close to it or something like that. I was cruising eastbound from Marine Drive/Stewardson Way/Columbia St and have no clue which street would lead to the bridge. Map indicates it's McBride Blvd but you can not make a left turn in that intersection ! WTF... afterward, there is absolutely no way to make return back to southbound McBride Blvd because Royal Ave is ON TOP of McBride Blvd... It was a mess but I finally made it across the bridge... I guess if I am ever travel from New Westminster to Surrey in the future, I'll left turn at Fourth St or something to take Royal Ave to McBride Blvd. They need better signage

[go_leafs_go02]

Yeah, it's a nightmare if you're on Columbia or Front street even to connect to it. Thankfully I know where to go now, but still, that bridge scares the crap out of me. I feel safe after 10 PM when the left lane is closed, but still, I can't wait for it to be replaced. The sooner the better.