HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 12:00 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Wouldn't it be interesting if regional decisions were made at the regional level without the votes of municipalities held "in conflict"?
That's essentially what happened in Toronto. With the amalgamation of the surrounding cities, the suburbanites overwhelmed the urban voters and Rob Ford swept into victory railing against the "war on the car".

Sure glad it can't happen here...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 1:38 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
Here are the issues I have with a cut-and-cover tunnel for the Stormont Connector:

- most of the New Westminster section wouldn't require bulldozing any buildings, but a lot of the route through Burnaby would
- it would be expensive as hell, $4-5 billion just for the tunnel
- placarded trucks carrying dangerous goods wouldn't be allowed to use it (just as they're not allowed to use the Massey Tunnel
- it solves a problem that doesn't exist


The idea of the Stormont Connector is just that: an idea. It'll never come to fruition.
It wouldn't be that much, especially if it was cut and cover. It would basically just be a few overpasses built together as a lid. Super easy for the Burnaby side, since it wouldn't even be in live traffic. Mostly just geogrid walls, tickbacks and a roof of precast beams.

I think having a real north-south route in the region we be hugely advantageous. As is all the connections from Hwy 1 to the 91/99 are garbage unless you go to the SFPR in Surrey and Langley. This could be a freeway to freeway connection very easily. The cut and cover section would only need to be about 800m long.

This would connect Hastings, Lougheed, Hwy 1, Como Lake Rd, and Cariboo Rd with the new bridge with zero diversion through the rest of New West.

If they toll the Patullo, they could just as soon toll Stormont with the same system. I'd bet it would be well under $1B.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 9:01 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
What's the price of this connector? Who's paying?
Burnaby would for the most part in conjunction with Translink.

They have been planning on it for such a long time they own all the properties necessary to widen the Newcomb street ROW (for either a wider major road or to do cut and cover).

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
I assume you mean that it would improve bicycle and pedestrian traffic across McBride, because a tunnel in and of itself does nothing for those modes of transportation.

Here are the issues I have with a cut-and-cover tunnel for the Stormont Connector:

- it would have to be about three times wider than the cut-and-cover tunnel for the Canada Line
- most of the New Westminster section wouldn't require bulldozing any buildings, but a lot of the route through Burnaby would
- it would be expensive as hell, $4-5 billion just for the tunnel
- placarded trucks carrying dangerous goods wouldn't be allowed to use it (just as they're not allowed to use the Massey Tunnel
- it solves a problem that doesn't exist

There's no traffic demand for getting from Surrey to north Burnaby via the Pattullo Bridge. That's what the Port Mann and Highway 1 is for.

And the Stormont Connector would require bulldozing and appropriating a lot of land in Burnaby. Don't forget that Corrigan was massively against the expansion of Highway 1 -- what would he think about this project?

The idea of the Stormont Connector is just that: an idea. It'll never come to fruition.
It's not just an idea, it is pretty much the only part of Burnaby's transportation plan from the late 70's early 80's that hasn't come to fruition. Willingdon, Kensington, Royal Oak, Southridge, Griffiths, Lougheed Highway, Barnette Highway, Gaglardi Way, are all relatively new roads in their current incarnation.

When the TCH was built, what is today the Gaglardi exit was for a long time the Caribou exit. Gaglardi Way wasn't built until 1979 (15 years after the 401 opened). Could you imagine what the landscape would be like if we said, "oh no, that's too expensive, building those overpasses, lets just let every one keep driving on local residential streets."

I don't know if you need to cut and cover the McBride section. It passes along a park for a long section and it's existence has been planned around for decades. There are only 2 real intersections at 6th and 8th (and 8th is only bad because New West has timed the lights to favor local traffic on 8th).

In the PM peak, McBride is only congested because of the bridge configuration. Everyone moves over to the left lane starting before 8th. If McBride didn't split lanes at the Bridge (1 lane onto the bride, 1 lane onto Royal), traffic would flow much easier.

Basically half the capacity of the road space is wasted because everyone has to get into the 1 lane pretty early. If both lanes went onto the bridge, then the congestion would be located much closer to the bridge and not interfere with local traffic at 8th and 6th at all.

But cut and cover of the Stormont connector has been the official plan since 1980. The main reason being to keep the traffic segregated from neighborhood traffic, which is already established. But if you look at the development at the end of Cumberland Street (the old George Derby hospital plans) the edge is curved to allow the Stormont connector to be built.

https://www.burnaby.ca/Assets/Land+U...ital+Lands.pdf

They have been buying up the properties along Newcombe and own the ones they need to sufficiently widen the Newcombe ROW for either a surface street or to perform cut and cover construction.

The main thing holding them back is getting an agreement in place with New Westminster on re-configuring the 10th Ave intersection.

New Westminster took the Stormont connector out of their official community plan. An act Burnaby was very much against and there are official letters to New West stating as much.

https://burnaby.civicweb.net/document/6040
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 9:15 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,444
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 9:49 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
When the TCH was built, what is today the Gaglardi exit was for a long time the Caribou exit.
Not only that, but the original Caribou Road interchange dead-ended on the south side into what was obviously planned continue on as the new arterial.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 10:49 PM
retro_orange retro_orange is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 1,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Not only that, but the original Caribou Road interchange dead-ended on the south side into what was obviously planned continue on as the new arterial.
Why hasn't this been built yet? is there a solid plan to actually build it in the near future?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 11:01 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
Why hasn't this been built yet? is there a solid plan to actually build it in the near future?
I think the answer would be "because of New Westminster".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 11:12 PM
retro_orange retro_orange is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 1,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I think the answer would be "because of New Westminster".
Ah touche. I love the city but this is one of the projects that would only positively affect them in the end. Maybe Cote will review it however it may not be necessary in the end if they change where the Pattullo will be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 11:46 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,556
I think it makes sense but seems expensive, mostly in terms of land acquisition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2016, 12:47 AM
gkz gkz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 68
WarrenC12 - BCPhil said they already own the needed right of way a couple of posts ago

The boundary between New West and Burnaby is 10th ave - why does New West need to be on board in order to build the Stormont Connector if Burnaby wants to build it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2016, 4:54 AM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I think the answer would be "because of New Westminster".
This is the problem with transportation issues in Metro Vancouver. Individual cities act as roadblocks to progress and fluid movement of people and goods. The region should be looked at as a whole and not as smaller groups with their own agenda.

New Westminister was poorly designed back in the day and is now paying the price of being a run through city for commuters. Most traffic does not stop in NW as a destination. This is very unlikely to change as commuting patterns NS and EW naturally go through NW.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2016, 7:14 AM
urbancanadian urbancanadian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
I think it makes sense but seems expensive, mostly in terms of land acquisition.
The required land aquisition is actually fairly minimal. Here are a few images to demonstrate:

From the Pattullo to Tenth Avenue (Burnaby/New West border) it would run under McBride Boulevard. Then it runs under Newcombe Street in Burnaby:


Google Maps


Google Maps

Only a handful of properties would need to be purchased before the road turns east toward the Gaglardi interchange.

-------------------------------

The George Derby and Newcombe land use plans also show the Stormont Connector.

George Derby Plan - https://www.burnaby.ca/Assets/city+s...orge+Derby.pdf
Newcombe Plan - https://www.burnaby.ca/Assets/city+s...-+Newcombe.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2016, 5:09 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by gkz View Post
WarrenC12 - BCPhil said they already own the needed right of way a couple of posts ago

The boundary between New West and Burnaby is 10th ave - why does New West need to be on board in order to build the Stormont Connector if Burnaby wants to build it?
Because New Westminster needs to alter their side of the intersection at 10th. They need to make it so there are the appropriate number of lanes through the intersection and change the timing of lights.

Also, if the Stormont connector isn't part of the New Westminster community plan, then they won't plan around it. They could make it so traffic doesn't flow as well as it could to/from the connector. I also think because it has been part of the OCP New West has reserved space around Mcbride near 10th to widen the ROW for more through/turning lanes. If it's out of the plan, they could let new constrcution encroach on the ROW making it impossible to widen in the future.

Because what they really should do is cut and cover the connector under 10th to avoid that intersection to improve connectivity from east to west New West.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2016, 2:10 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: 85 floors above Metro Vancouver
Posts: 6,582
Pattullo Bridge under construction back in 1937. People of today don't know that also Pattullo used to be tolled, just like all crossings back in the day.

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2016, 9:09 AM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,308
Kind of pathetic when you think about it, that the Patullo (and the old Port Mann) were built as high-level large span crossings and existed for decades, but will have been replaced before ever having a large ship pass under them, because that stupid old train bridge only allows tiny ships to pass it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2016, 3:52 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is online now
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 841
Pattullo Bridge Strong Winds

Quote:
September 28, 2016
Jon Azpiri
Online News Producer

A study presented to TransLink’s board of directors this month suggests the bridge may not be able to withstand high winds or an earthquake.

A closer look into the structural integrity of the bridge, which underwent major repairs over the summer, found that it may be necessary to close the bridge in high winds.

It has also been learned that the bridge needs to be closed permanently by 2022 or 2023.

In a statement, TransLink said public consultations on the new bridge’s design will start in the coming weeks. It did not address the possibility that New Westminster and Surrey could be without a bridge, possibly for months, if there are any delays in building the new span.
open the link for the entire article

also, i thought they already did public consultations, a lot, over the past decade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2016, 8:49 AM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,308
I just realized that we have two Pattullo threads.
As the Rehab project is over, let's archive this one and only add new posts to http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...wpost&t=151877
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 5:17 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.