Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[officedweller]

Important decisions on the Patullo Bridge expected tomorrow
Surrey/CKNW(AM980)

5/28/2008

Tomorrow the Translink board meets and it's reported they will approve either a median for the Patullo Bridge, or 3 wider lanes using a counter flow system similar to the Lions Gate Bridge.


Four years ago John Heida died in a head-on crash on the Patullo Bridge and friend Bob Behnke has since lobbied for better safety on the bridge.

He's very happy something is being done.

"If it happens, I’ll believe it when I see. I'm sorry to be so negative but I’ve heard so much talk for so many years now, this is four years, been to many meetings myself, gone in front of Translink, of course you can't very well do that even any more. You can only rehash the same point over and over. I'm ecstatic if they're going to do something."

Behnke says he favors a median on the Patullo Bridge, but he understands the engineering for that could be very difficult.

[deasine]

TransLink is not even considering tearing down the bridge? -_-"

Short term solution, yes the counterflow system might work. Long term? I don't think so. Wouldn't mind a 5 lane bridge, ample room for cyclists and pedestrians, and a second deck for rail.

[Mininari]

Uh oh.
I wonder how all those people who are angry about the Patullo being touted as the "untolled" alternative will feel about having a lane removed.

Me thinks the end with the one lane is going to get gridlocked pretty quick.

Hopefully they can find a billion dollars for another bridge... but given the 14B transit plan, me thinks the Patullo won't be replaced anytime soon.

I'm sure glad I don't commute to surrey from Coquitlam for work (although one of my friends does).

[vanman]

Me thinks the end with the one lane is going to get gridlocked pretty quick.

Yeah the Patullo has a steady flow of traffic going both ways at peak periods. If 3 lanes and a counterflow system are introduced it's going to be hell either way. I've always thought the complete replacement of this bridge should be a Translink priority.

[EastVanMark]

These are all band-aid solutions. That bridge needs to be replaced,badly

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by tintinium

And as was suggested, make it a part of a new Rail Bridge as well.

They should do that. Twin it with a new rail deck.

They'd then have an excuse to charge a toll on it.

[The_Henry_Man]

^The 3-lane counterflow lane idea on Patullo is the most retarded idea I've ever heard in my life. Lions Gate Bridge as is (with counterflow) is bad enough already. With Surrey's almost 400,000 ppl compared to barely 100,000 ppl living in the North Shore.

I see two solutions:
1) As others have said, build a brand new bridge, with 3 lanes each way, with a design that can expanded to 4 lanes each way in the future, with a railway deck underneath (Should be 4 parallel tracks: 1 each way for freight and 1 each way for future WCE expansion from Waterfront to Abbotsford). Translink should take a look at HK's Tsing Ma Bridge as an inspiration. When that new bridge is completed, immediately tear down the existing Patullo. I really can't image why would anyone want to keep such a torn-down and unsafe bridge just for the sake of a "valuable historic monument".

2) A 6-8 lane tunnel (I prefer this one).

[vanman]

I don't think anyone cares for the historical value of the Patullo anymore. After the tenth motorist death I'm sure any nostalgia for the bridge had been smashed into oblivion. If and when a new bridge or crossing is proposed I'm wondering if New West will pull the "we don't want anymore lanes of traffic coming in its not fair meh meh meh" card. Just look at United Boulevard.

[twoNeurons]

And as was suggested, make it a part of a new Rail Bridge as well.

[SpongeG]

if they got rid of the pedestrian lane they could probably get enough width anyone think/know?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

if they got rid of the pedestrian lane they could probably get enough width anyone think/know?

There is only a tiny pedestrian sidewalk on the outside of the span on the west side of the bridge, its impossible to widen the lanes. Infact between the spans there is only maybe 2-3 inches of curb separating the roadway from the steel spans.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

if they got rid of the pedestrian lane they could probably get enough width anyone think/know?

Can't be done. The midspan of the bridge (main structure) is right against the road. The sidewalk actually bends out to the outside of the b ridge around the main structure. You can't expand the road any more like they did on the Port Mann bridge. It needs to be rebuilt to be wider.

The bridge itself isn't that bad, it's the curve that really is the main issue. Without that curve it wouldn't be as dangerous as it is. You'd still have a high risk of head-on crashes but no more than you have on Canada Way for example or many other streets in Vancouver. The curve is the issue.

And this is all interim fixes that's already been stated by Translink. Their overall plan was to construct a new bridge further up the river though I doubt the feasibility of that given the road infrastructure and how much construction is being done on the New West side. They're running out of space where a 4 to 6 lane main road system could be made through New West.

The longer they wait though, the more expensive it becomes.

[deasine]

I don't think they could do that. One: it's an unsafe bridge already - and even though adding a concrete median would be nice, you still have to deal with small lanes and now, you forced one lane closer to the edge of the bridge. Two: the pedestrian deck (I think) is extended outwards, so you would have structural problems with that. Not enough to support the weight of trucks running over it, that's for sure.

[alta-bc]

I just drove over this bridge an hour ago. What a piece of s**t!!!
The narrow lanes, the potholes and uneven pavement and the sharp curve at the north end, how about that short wooden connector at the approach at the south end?
Unbelievable, it's like stepping back in time and into a third world country while crossing this bridge... I'm just glad I don't have to use it every day.

[cc85]

there are some big plans being looked at to solve the problem, could include connecting to some islands..

[EastVanMark]

Still for the life of me can't figure out why, when they built the skytrain bridge, they couldn't have thrown some extra money into the project and built an Alex Fraser replica that could have serviced BOTH automobiles AND skytrain. Instead, we now have a bridge that is falling apart and has taken many lives because it was never designed to accommodate more than 2 lanes of traffic, and a nice but underused (other than a handful of skytrain cars every 5 minutes) newer bridge right next to that old piece of dung. STUPID!

[mr.x]

With the twinned Port Mann opening in 4 years, it should help relieve some congestion off the Patullo.

I'd say spend the $60-million today for interim safety improvements on the bridge. Turn it into a three-lane counterflow bridge by late-2009, and then start building a 6-lane bridge in 2020.

[cornholio]

The new rail crossing wont be built in that area and it wont be a bridge. It will probably be a tunnel in the Coquitlam area closer to the Port man bridge. As for a new road bridge the plan has been for a long time to build a bridge from the Braid area to Surrey over the islands in the river, there are some that also want to expand and conect the islands to allow some sort of development. The problem with that is that i cant tell you that will never happen because of the importance of those islands to fish and birds, as far as fish go the area has a crap load of sturgeon and im sure they will be the species that will be used to stop any reclamation of the islands...i should know i often fish for them there.

Really the best thing to do is build a rail tunnel just west of the Portman bridge, build a new 6 lane vehicle bridge in the Braid area to Surrey and make the Patullo bridge 3 lanes(although like some have mentioned there is pretty steady traffic flow in both directions, but with a new bridge east of there it should be fine for a long time).

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The new rail crossing wont be built in that area and it wont be a bridge. It will probably be a tunnel in the Coquitlam area closer to the Port man bridge. As for a new road bridge the plan has been for a long time to build a bridge from the Braid area to Surrey over the islands in the river, there are some that also want to expand and conect the islands to allow some sort of development. The problem with that is that i cant tell you that will never happen because of the importance of those islands to fish and birds, as far as fish go the area has a crap load of sturgeon and im sure they will be the species that will be used to stop any reclamation of the islands...i should know i often fish for them there.

Really the best thing to do is build a rail tunnel just west of the Portman bridge, build a new 6 lane vehicle bridge in the Braid area to Surrey and make the Patullo bridge 3 lanes(although like some have mentioned there is pretty steady traffic flow in both directions, but with a new bridge east of there it should be fine for a long time).

What new rail crossing?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

The biggest problem still remains: The choke point associated with the merging of 2 lanes into 1 on McBride southbound close to the entrance of the new Pattulo will still be there. To be honest, the new Pattulo bridge should've been 6 lanes at opening and expandable to 8 lanes in the future. Translink and the City of New West have been utterly incompetent from Day 1. Translink should have never been given responsibility in designing and managing road networks. We know that they are extremely biased in only promoting transit options without investing in roads and they will do anything to force cars off the road including artificially force traffic congestion.

Well, I'm pretty sure there isn't room in New West for an 8-lane, especially since we can't fill the bridge right next to it.

And I think even 6-lanes is something that's going to wait deep into the future, considering the current level of traffic is sustained by no tolling.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This has been mentioned / discussed countless times.

The cost to bring the bridge back up to code is far to high to make retaining the existing bridge an option, even for just a park.

They stated that with a new bridge or not in place come the early 2020's the bridge will have to be shut down. Not only earthquakes, but even high wind now presents a very real structural failure danger.

How did the Westminister Bridge (that ancient rail bridge) or Lions Gate Bridge survive without being shut down then? Wondering.

Originally Posted by Sheba

Most of it would be a tunnel - but where would it start after the bridge? Part of New West would still have to deal with that dreaded traffic.

Maybe their newer younger mayor will be open to it?

I guess they'll cut up New West into elevated highway or tunnel it. Both would be highly costly in terms of the neighbourhood and in cost.

It's about as unlikely as the NFPR, which in comparison was cheap and affected only the fringe of New West.

Maybe if we have a "3rd Crossing" across the Burrard as well at Ioco, it would be more viable?

Originally Posted by retro_orange

It would be great if Surrey did their own River district at the new south end of the new Pattullo bridge. Whats this planned sports complex?

*Also Pattullo is misspelled in the thread title...

It's industrial land now- something Metro Van isn't very willing to give up at the moment.

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Actually... colored cables can't be that much more expensive... and they would brighten up a dreary day. We could use more color in the winter in Vancouver. Everything is either dull green, gray, or white in this town.

Orange cables...



lit up blue at night!

We need a +1 or like feature in this forum...