Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The tolled Patullo would still have a free alternative to the west (and much less distance away than your example). And thanks to the SFPR, the two bridges will be about 5 minutes' drive from each other. In fact, the SFPR very much negates any arguments against tolling, since it connects all of the bridges under discussion except the Mission Bridge.

Wasn't talking about the Pattullo Bridge. I talked about the Port Mann having the two alternatives in both directions for crossing the river be tolled. That for me would break the law saying tolls are permitted, provided there is a free alternative. That's why you don't see the Sea-To-Sky tolled, because there is not alternative (well, Hope to Lilloeet could count, but yeah) Coquihala wouldn't have had a toll if Highway 1 and 3 weren't free heading towards Kamloops or Kelowna.

[SpongeG]

they have the alex fraser - all the news i have read have said this bridge will be tolled and there has been some outcry from surrey and i haven't heard anyone say otherwise that the bridge won't be tolled

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Wasn't talking about the Pattullo Bridge. I talked about the Port Mann having the two alternatives in both directions for crossing the river be tolled. That for me would break the law saying tolls are permitted, provided there is a free alternative.

The point is this: if the Abbotsford/Mission bridge is considered to be close enough to the Golden Ears Bridge to be a toll-free alternative, then the Queensborough / Alex Fraser can be the toll-free alternative to the Patullo and Port Mann bridges.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The tolled Patullo would still have a free alternative to the west (and much less distance away than your example). And thanks to the SFPR, the two bridges will be about 5 minutes' drive from each other. In fact, the SFPR very much negates any arguments against tolling, since it connects all of the bridges under discussion except the Mission Bridge.

While the SFPR will exist as a continuous connecting route between all of the crossings from the GEB to the Massey Tunnel, it remains to be seen just how much (slow) trucking traffic will be on there, along with commuters avoiding the tolls, as well as cross-regional commuters.

Its gonna be a busy route, so the perceived benefit of avoiding the toll may be wiped out by delays in traffic. One might just be better off eating the toll, and saving 20 minutes of their life in each direction.

Funny thing is *not* building interchanges along the SFPR (as stupid as it is) is probably going to lead to more people paying the tolls on the bridges -- no interchanges means getting stuck behind fully-loaded trucks struggling to get moving again after each and every red light along the SFPR. If traffic does end up being heavy along the SFPR to start, then the queues for through-traffic at the intersections could get lengthy. Think Mary Hill Bypass... The "free untolled" alternative could take a while to get to.

[Metro-One]

Well I just got back from the first open house in New Westminster.

It was a very interesting presentation and workshop. A wide variety of people there with a wide variety of interests / concerns.

Some of the concerns will laughable (especially the questions about the Port Mann Bridge which Translink has nothing to do with!), but others were very thoughtful and / or interesting.

So the base line is that Translink is proceeding with a 6 lane bridge. 4 lanes will be multi-purpose while the other 2 will be trucks only.

So here is the good news, the new Bridge & road will be free flow from 128th street in Surrey to 6th Ave in New West (same as today), and there will be an interchange with the SFPR.

They are proposing for the bridge to be placed upstream or downstream of the existing bridge. I feel upstream (east) is the superior choice.

Here are the Surrey side options, I heavily favor Upstream Option A

Option A


Option B



The New West side has more options available. Here I heavily prefer option D

Option A


Option B


Option C


Option D


A quick note on option D, here McBride would be trenched up to 6th Ave. I think this is great for it would reduce noise and pathways and even park space could be built above the trench.

There is no word on the design of the super structure yet (cable, arch, etc...).

Here is the website for more information and the source of the images above:

http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-o...e-Project.aspx

If you support this project, please go to one of the remaining three open houses for this stage of public consultations.

Cheers!

[jlousa]

Option D looks pretty good at a quick glance, any reason why it's not the fore runner?

[adrianroam95]

While not directly related to the bridge, I think that the rerouting of Columbia onto Royal Ave. is a great idea. No longer will we have to suffer through the numerous stoplights on Columbia through the 'old town' district. I'm sure that this will save Tri-Cities>Richmond drivers a lot of time.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Option D looks pretty good at a quick glance, any reason why it's not the fore runner?

Because it involves a short stretch of elevated ramps (really just a continuation of the bridge structure) connecting to Royal Ave. I did a hug push for it though during the presentation and explained how proper noise barriers can be built (using the japan and Europe examples) and how vegetation and / or art can be installed on the outer edge of the structure to help beautify it.

[nname]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Option D looks pretty good at a quick glance, any reason why it's not the fore runner?

Most likely the cost... Seems like it would be by far the most expensive option out of those four due to the trench and the 3 off-ramps beyond that cliff and on the water..

[squeezied]

How will this bridge be funded? How much would TransLink paying? I hope tolls would be implemented.

[DKaz]

I prefer Upstream Option A for New West. Traffic needs to be routed onto Royal Ave. as the main arterial.

[The_Henry_Man]

Any talks on whether the Stormont Connector would be built as part of this upcoming project? Or least elements of it (ex- tunnelling or trenching McBride Blvd so that it can be an expressway).

[Mininari]

Let me guess.
In about 10 months, New Westminster is going to come out and say that every one of these options is "grossly unacceptable" (a la the United Connector debacle), and that they cannot permit any of them to proceed.
Perhaps the city of NW could raise property taxes by 10,000% and use the extra revenues to build the multi-billion dollar tunnel network they expect.

[Whalleyboy]

Personally I Like the look of D for new west and upstream B for surrey since it would clear up more land around scott road.

[huenthar]

From the FAQ:

Q: Is the Stormont – McBride Connector part of the New Pattullo Bridge Project?

A: No. The Stormont – McBride Connector project is not within TransLink's road jurisdiction, nor is it part of TransLink's funded Base Plan. The new Pattullo Bridge Project will not preclude a future Stormont – McBride Connector.


So they won't make it impossible in the future, but that's it.

[huenthar]

They have details of several rejected road alignment options on the Translink website, too.

I prefer option J: demolish Leopold Place so inconveniently located...

[DKaz]

This is my four year old preliminary concept.

[go_leafs_go02]

By far Surrey Upstream Option A is my favourite. You give bridge to SFPR direct connections without any left turns (Option B requires a left turn from Pattullo to get on SFPR heading Eastbound, while provides a loop ramp in Option A)

I've always wanted McBride to directly connect to a new bridge, without a tight jog. Option D covers that.

One thing that does bug me, is that the MOT or Translink always tries to build around existing buildings. To build things right, with a proper design criteria, to support trucks NOT dropping their speeds to 20 km/h around a ramp, and blocking dozens of vehicles, in some spots, it may be wiser to purchase some private property to construct roads in a better way.

I actually like Option B for the upstream design as well. Loop ramps are excellent, and are far better than providing left turns in any location.

Glad to hear that a 4 lane bridge appears to be done, and I like the 2 truck-only lanes in the plan.

[officedweller]

On the Surrey side - either works for me.
It's a trade-off between a loop for access to SFPR and preserving development sace around Scott Road Station. The loop doesn't allow for much space.

On the New West side, Options A & B retain a separation between local and arterial (MRN) roads (they don't interweave much and there isn't much orphaned land (just in the loops)).
It makes sense to keep traffic off of Columbia, so Option A looks good for that - it is also quite logical in providing bridge access to/from the Columbia-Royal route.
Option B also seems very "logical" - but without the Columbia - Royal connection.

Options C & D look too convoluted for me and strike me as creating more "orphaned" land.
For Option C, you may as well have a giant traffic circle-style interchange centred on the red-roofed condo tower.
For Option D, it'll create a big Arthur Laing Bridge type flyover - and New West won't agree to that (and for an arterial road bridge, may be overkill).

[Metro-One]

How would such a flyover be overkill? The Golden Ears is an arterial bridge and it arguably has the largest amount of elevated structures in Metro Vancouver.

Hence beautification would be an avenue to look at. Would be great if we could have such an interchange also landscaped like they do elsewherein the world with shrub gardens (that are actually manicured as well).

I agree with option C being a poor choice.

After option D I support A upstream.

For Surrey option A is the way to go, allowing the best free flow for truck traffic. Again, the area in the loop could be landscaped.

The funny thing is at the meeting there was a reverse NIMBY who lives in the strange block of buildings the New West roads will be wrapping around. She wants her property to be bought out and demolished! She wants translink to remove that block!

Also, here is the bad news, Translink plans to make the bridge a 50km speed zone. I did complain about this and suggested that given its free flow status the route between 6th ave and the first set of lights in Surrey should be at least 60kmh, or 70kmh, similar to the speeds found on urnab arterial roads in Japan and Europe with similar free flow designs with tight interchanges.