Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[Stingray2004]

Hardie said the preferred option is about 100 metres upstream from the current bridge.

That's good to hear. That means that it will align almost exactly with McBride Blvd.

The original preferred alignment was 50 m downstream in the Delcan study, which would have meant a longer curve on the northern end and higher costs were associated with that alignment.

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-080731-...idor-study.pdf

[Metro-One]

If Translink is smart they will develop the south side approach similar to how they built the GEB, with extensive use of viaducts. It could free up some land for industrial / park and ride use.

Essentially, there is no need for the roadway to land on the river flats, it should be elevated straight to the escarpment.

With a price tag of 800 million to 1 billion, one would think something along these lines may be in the plans? (I believe the entire Golden Ears project, including all of the roadways built / modified (over 15km worth) cost less than 900 million)

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If Translink is smart they will develop the south side approach similar to how they built the GEB, with extensive use of viaducts. It could free up some land for industrial / park and ride use.

Essentially, there is no need for the roadway to land on the river flats, it should be elevated straight to the escarpment.

With a price tag of 800 million to 1 billion, one would think something along these lines may be in the plans? (I believe the entire Golden Ears project, including all of the roadways built / modified (over 15km worth) cost less than 900 million)

I think Surrey would only like it if the industrial stays, so i would guess that they are thinking what you have just posted.

Maybe a nice clean river park?

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If Translink is smart they will develop the south side approach similar to how they built the GEB, with extensive use of viaducts. It could free up some land for industrial / park and ride use.

Essentially, there is no need for the roadway to land on the river flats, it should be elevated straight to the escarpment.

With a price tag of 800 million to 1 billion, one would think something along these lines may be in the plans? (I believe the entire Golden Ears project, including all of the roadways built / modified (over 15km worth) cost less than 900 million)

First of all, Scott Road is big enough, I don't know if there is demand to expand that park and ride lot, especially with the 202 Street being built in the next several years.

I like the viaduct idea definitely. I just want a full interchange with the SFPR, with no left turns anywhere.

In relation to the Golden Ears Bridge, the only problem I have with the Pitt Meadows side is the fact you have to turn left at a signalized intersection when coming off the bridge and you want to head west on Lougheed Highway. Don't know why they couldn't have put a loop ramp instead (it looks like it's just greenspace)

Not a big deal, definitely have more problems with it on the Langley side anyways.

I like the idea of a viaduct to be honest. to meet somewhere on King George Blvd just east of 128 Street. I think aligning it on 112A Avenue would be the best, with preservation of the existing King George Blvd to access Scott Road up to the merge point.

[Whalleyboy]

surrey demanded that if its tolled it has a full connects to the SFPR.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

surrey demanded that if its tolled it has a full connects to the SFPR.

What Surrey demands and what Translink/MoT do are completely different things.

[Stingray2004]

I have no doubt that there will be an interchange with the SFPR and that the new crossing willl be tolled.

What still puzzles me is that Translink has an ambitious 2015 time frame for completion, yet they can't even cough up their portion of the funds for the Evergreen Line and other Skytrain Lines.

As with the Evergreen Line, I also hope that MoT takes the lead role in this crossing.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

I have no doubt that there will be an interchange with the SFPR and that the new crossing willl be tolled.

What still puzzles me is that Translink has an ambitious 2015 time frame for completion, yet they can't even cough up their portion of the funds for the Evergreen Line and other Skytrain Lines.

As with the Evergreen Line, I also hope that MoT takes the lead role in this crossing.

Unless the Province decides to pay for a portion of the bridge, which presumably would be part of a deal to keep it toll-free, I can't see the MoT having the lead.

2015 actually isn't that ambitious, it's just about right. Apparently the Golden Ears got environmental certification in 2004 and detailed design along with municipal agreements in 2005, with construction in 2006 to 2009. Assuming a municipal agreement could be solidified by the end of this year, which is the vibe I got from The Province article, 2011 could be the RFP for design and construction could begin in 2012. Financing wouldn't be a problem if the bridge is tolled, seeing as there's an instant revenue stream to pay for its construction.

The only hang up I can see is if people are so angry about the toll that never ending negotiations between TL, the cities, and the Province begin on some financing scheme. Then we're back to the 2020 deadline.

Regardless it's nice to see TransLink begin proactive and ambitious on a project for once, especially one as important as the Pattullo.

[red-paladin]

I don't understand how the bridge will connect to front street. Will it be a ramp from the bridge all the way down?

I would hope that they combine it with a raid bridge replacement too.
The most pathetic part about the Patullo bridge is that the bridge was designed for large ships to go underneath, but they never have been able to, as the old swing train bridge is right there. Even when it opens, the max width of a ship is only 50% of what the Patullo could let through. That means that if we knew that stupid train bridge was going to be there until 2020, we could have built smaller Patullo and Port Mann bridges, as no large ships were ever under them during their lifetimes. That's nuts.

[Millennium2002]

Replacing the train bridge that exists there right now with something with a similar layout is a bad idea. There's already so little space below the bridge on the New West side... in fact the whole layout of the combined road rail infrastructure in the area causes lengthy delays and bottlenecks.

Maybe a new rail bridge or tunnel is more suited to the long route through the islands just upstream of the Pattullo.

[BCPhil]

The story mentions some rework would be done to 128 St. The only reason it would need to be changed is if you were going to use 128 and Bridgeview to link Scott Road, King George, and the SFPR together. It would be great to see an interchange at 128 that links up to the SFPR using Bridgeview.

[DKaz]

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...attullo-bridge

Translink to give preview of new Pattullo Bridge
Six-lane bridge could be open as soon as 2015

Be the first to Comment 0 Recommendation(s)
NEW WESTMINISTER (NEWS1130) - Translink is giving us a peek at what the new six-lane Pattullo Bridge will look like and there may be some big changes to access from the New Westminster side.

People in Surrey and New Westminster will get a look at plans for the revamped crossing over the Fraser River and Translink's preferred option for how it will be accessed. The real changes would be on the New Westminster side with Translink eyeing access from Front Street instead of Royal Avenue.

Translink's Ken Hardie tells The Province newspaper that the preferred option is about 100 metres upstream from the current bridge and there will be open houses to let the public give some input on September 14th and 21st.

Hardie says the new Patullo Bridge could be open as early as 2015 and there has been no decision on whether it will be tolled.

The open houses will be September 14th from 5:30pm to 8:30pm at Chuck Baillie Community Centre at 13458-107A Avenue, Surrey, and September 21st from 5:30pm to 8:30pm at the Justice Institute at 715 McBride Boulevard, New Westminster.

I did create a 50m downstream concept a few years ago, but I agree that upstream aligned with McBride makes a lot more sense.



Might I add, I really think the bridge should be 4 lanes eastbound and 3 lanes westbound.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by DKaz

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...attullo-bridge



I did create a 50m downstream concept a few years ago, but I agree that upstream aligned with McBride makes a lot more sense.



Might I add, I really think the bridge should be 4 lanes eastbound and 3 lanes westbound.

I created a concept too once, some time ago, that involved separate ramps going into Royal Avenue as well as going straight & exiting for columbia. The bridge woulda been 4 lanes westbound & eastbound in my imagination.

[Mininari]

2015 for a new Patullo?
Don't get too optimistic about that; its a Translink Project!

Still, will be nice to see what they're touting.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Might I add, I really think the bridge should be 4 lanes eastbound and 3 lanes westbound.

I'm curious, why would you advocate more lanes in one direction than another? Isn't that really bad long-term planning? Any car that travels one way, has to travel back at some point. Unless we are witnessing a permanent migration pattern to Surrey or something. :-)

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Might I add, I really think the bridge should be 4 lanes eastbound and 3 lanes westbound.

Maybe they should do what lions gate does if they try that, 3 lanes both ways and one in the middle that will switch depending on the time.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I'm curious, why would you advocate more lanes in one direction than another? Isn't that really bad long-term planning? Any car that travels one way, has to travel back at some point. Unless we are witnessing a permanent migration pattern to Surrey or something. :-)

I'm noticing that in the AM, there definitely is a peak direction flow, while in the PM there isn't really a peak direction anymore.

It's like Person A goes from Surrey to New West to work from 8:00 - 5:00 PM

Person A crosses around 7:30 AM, and returns around 5:30 PM

Person B goes from Surrey to New West for recreation/errands from 4:30 - 6:00 PM.


There's never really any backup eastbound on the Port Mann in the AM, while westbound is backed up AM and PM to about 176 Street each day. You can argue that eastbound serves commuter traffic and recreational traffic more than westbound does.

I hope that makes sense. There's arguably a stronger demand to travel towards vancouver of the course of the day, while return focuses more in the PM and in the evening off-peak after that.

[Stingray2004]

Several news reports today now place the cost of the Pattullo replacement at $1.2 billion, which is around 50% higher than the $800 million+ pricetag of the Golden Ears Bridge - approximately same length, same 6-lane width...

What I'm not too happy about is this tidbit:

"One of the reasons for the proposed switch in connection point is the plans for Front Street to connect to Highway 1," said Hardie, adding that this was only TranLink's preferred option and not necessarily the final option.

"Front Street already handles a lot of goods and a lot of goods will be shipped over the new Patullo so it just makes sense to connect there."

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/102078103.html

I sure wish that Translink/MoT would take a "longer term vision" for downtown New Westminster - that is, looking at removing the heavy commercial traffic along Front Street and turn same into a future pedestrian-oriented urban attraction.

In that vein, if $1.2 billion is going to be spent - go further and connect the Pattullo's north-end directly to Hwy 1 with a cut/cover McBride/Stormont Connector. I personally would like to avoid driving through New West when heading to the Tri-Cities. It's a real pain.

A free-flow Hwy 91/SFPR/Pattullo/Stormont Connector to Hwy 1 would be a much, much more attractive option for most and I'm sure that would be the same for commercial traffic. Take the commercial traffic off Stewardson Way/Front Street/Columbia. A win-win for both drivers and New West residents.

[go_leafs_go02]

Here's what I'm guessing the project will be.

A bridge extending right from McBride across.

Access only to/from the western SFPR.

Scott Road/King George turned into a diamond interchange (King George Through traffic) with Scott Road extending north to meet the SFPR and provide access to/from the east.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Here's what I'm guessing the project will be.

A bridge extending right from McBride across.

Access only to/from the western SFPR.

Scott Road/King George turned into a diamond interchange (King George Through traffic) with Scott Road extending north to meet the SFPR and provide access to/from the east.

i read some where thats the plan with SFPR. which is dumb if its going to be tolled it should connect fully. Along with that i know surrey's council is saying they also want scott road and king geogre connections cleaned up so that they can have more room to develop around scott road and actually make a small transit village area there.
I hope transit will actually be smart about this..but not getting my hopes up