HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 3:57 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,300
Is there any official information available on the internet regarding any of these plans? Patullo replacement options? Location of the new rail crossing? New bridge from the Braid area???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 4:47 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 5:00 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,542
On this same topic though, the best idea I think would be to replace the rail crossing then remove the old rail crossing bridge. That would open up a lot of land actually right where the Pattullo is to create a second bridge.

I don't like teh idea of twinning nor keeping the Pattullo for historical reasons. The bridge isn't even the original anyway. There is such a thing with hanging on too much to the past. Here is an illustration of what I'm talking about:

Red and Blue are optional routes. Blue would more than likely be 100% possible since there is already a bridge there aka the rail bridge. Red I put because it has a moer logical design and would deal with the 1 lane from New West -> Surrey which will be difficult to fix without completely taking down the overpass and redoing the roads there.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 5:24 PM
Kwik-E-Mart Kwik-E-Mart is offline
A.H.-Ha!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambie Village, Van City
Posts: 346
This shows that we are humans after all... as we do not fix anything until something catastrophic happens in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 6:06 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,993
The problem with a rail tunnel is that the grades and the distances required to go under the Fraser require looping tunnels several kilometres long. I think combining the rail and road instrastructure together onto a new bridge is a better long term solution as has been mentioned in the press some time ago. This is just a short term solution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 6:12 PM
crazyjoeda's Avatar
crazyjoeda crazyjoeda is offline
Mac User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 861
They need a new bridge, 6 lanes with a wide cycling path. It should be like the Burrard Bridge. No need for rail because Skybridge runs right next to it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 6:18 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,542
The only problem is that the rail infrastructure on both sides of the river where the Pattullo is located, are at river level. The bridge has to be quite high to allow ships under so you'd have a quite insane amount of added infrastructure to accomodate bring the train up to the bridge level from river level on both sides then crossing.

Could be done, but I don't really think it would be less complicated than building a rail tunnel. I'd agree though that a tunnel isn't super easy either but depending on the design (dropping elevation parallel to the river then curving underground across, curving back to river parallel, then rising elevation on the other side) could be done.

I don't think the elevation drop from river level down for a train tunnel is > the elevation rise from river level to bridge level over the river. Who knows though, I'm not an engineer. :-)

I do see the added benefits though of allowing rail across such as the WCE for expansion towards the valley. That would be an ideal situation regardless of how they did it. And also improved walking and biking travel across the span. As they build up the flats Surrey side, it will become more and more ideal to be able to walk or bike the bridge across to New West and vice versa.

I'd hate to see this project pushed off to 2020 or 2030 though. The area could really use it now, especially once the SFPR is constructed and with the increased density both in New West and especially in Surrey downtown right there. Though it is valid to argue the Port Mann expansion will relieve some pressures. A lot of people take the Pattullo because of the horrible rush-hour traffic over the Port Mann.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 6:44 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyjoeda View Post
No need for rail because Skybridge runs right next to it.
Heavy rail for freight and Amtrak Cascades....

Quote:
Translink board discussing fate of the Patullo Bridge
Surrey/CKNW(AM980)

5/29/2008

The Translink board has gone behind closed doors to discuss the fate of the Patullo Bridge, but it didn't even come up for discussion once as a dozen speakers addressed the board in its one-hour open session in advance of the meeting.

The board is considering a median for the 70-year-old structure or a widened 3-lane counter-flow option similar to the Lions Gate Bridge.

Board chair Dale Parker.

"The fact that it is a very narrow bridge and quite old, whether it has the capacity to deliver what's needed in the way of efficient road system here in metro Vancouver."

The bridge could also be replaced or twinned by building another bridge over Sapperton bar.

28 people have died on the Patullo Bridge since 1986.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 30, 2008, 12:45 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,993
Future of Pattullo Bridge to be determined in July

Thursday, May 29 - 05:26:00 PM

Andrea Macpherson/Mike Hanafin

NEW WESTMINSTER (NEWS1130) - A TransLink decision on safety improvements for the Pattullo Bridge has been delayed until July, but twinning the bridge or replacing the structure altogether are apparently being considered more seriously.

Peter Lowe with TransLink says holding off will allow the board to weight their options.

"The reason for that decision is in July, the board is going to look at the range of options for the whole future of the Pattullo and it's going to really focus on whether we twin it or replace it.”

TransLink now says the options of installing a centre line barrier, or going to a three lane counter flow system is not desirable. Their conclusion is based on findings that an effective barrier would make the current traffic lanes too narrow, and that the counter flow lane system would just lead to even more traffic snarls on each side of the bridge.

TransLink's Pattullo Corridor Study will be completed in July, and the Board will then be able to provide options for the future of the crossing.

The Pattullo Bridge was built in 1937 and transferred to TransLink in 1999. Since then, TransLink has spent about $20 million to combat corrosion and implement a series of safety measures recommended in a review in 2002.

The Pattullo Bridge currently handles 67,000 car and 3,400 truck trips per day and is a key link in Metro Vancouver's major arterial road network.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 30, 2008, 1:09 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,689
Good news I would say: I rather they make a decision on a Long Term Improvement rather than a short one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 30, 2008, 2:27 PM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastVanMark View Post
If you're referring to that one lane 1800's style wooden bridge that is not suitable for a farming community, I hear ya.
Yeah that's exactly what I'm talking about. Have you seen it lately? It now has lights alternating the flow of one way traffic! Absolutely ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 2:47 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,689
From TransLink:
Quote:
May 30, 2008
Future of Pattullo Bridge to be determined in July

The completion of TransLink’s Pattullo Corridor Study in July will provide options for the future of the Pattullo Bridge crossing, which will include twinning or replacing the current structure as a permanent solution to the problems currently faced by motorists and truckers on the bridge.The analysis of traffic along the McBride/Pattullo/King George Highway corridor will help the TransLink Board decide whether the current structure should be kept in service for the long run or whether it is more feasible to construct a whole new bridge. This decision will determine the amount of rehabilitation work that will be done on the current structure.
The Pattullo Bridge was built in 1937 and transferred to TransLink in 1999. Since then, TransLink has spent about $20 million to combat corrosion and implement a series of safety measures recommended in a review in 2002. Further rehabilitation work could extend the life of the Pattullo by at least 50 years at a cost of up to $200 million, but that alone will not solve the fact that the traffic lanes that are significantly narrower than on modern bridges.


The Pattullo Bridge currently handles 67,000 car and 3,400 truck trips per day and is a key link in Metro Vancouver’s major arterial road network. The installation of a centre line barrier on the bridge would require steps that would reduce the volume or type of traffic the bridge could handle.
Based on a technical review of the bridge and its approaches, the option of installing a centreline barrier is not desirable unless it is reconfigured to operate on a three-lane counter-flow system or unless large vehicles including transport trucks are banned from the bridge. This conclusion is based on the findings that an effective barrier would make the current traffic lanes too narrow.


A study of the three-lane counter-flow option concluded that it would result in significant traffic congestion in New Westminster and Surrey. An analysis of truck traffic on the Pattullo indicates that banning heavy vehicles would result in a significant barrier to goods movement because of the number of ‘short-haul’ transport trucks currently using the crossing.
Any decision to install a barrier would have to include a major rehabilitation of the bridge deck in order to maintain four lanes of traffic.
Because of the impact of reducing the volume of traffic on the bridge and the cost of strengthening the structure, both prerequisites to installing a barrier, TransLink has decided to continue to operate the Pattullo Bridge as a four-lane bridge for passenger and commercial vehicles with night time centre lane closures.

To reduce the risk of crashes TransLink has reduced the speed limit from 60 kph to 50 kph, improved signage and installed reflective pickets on the centre line. TransLink also instituted nighttime closures of the two centre lanes in the summer of 2005, and since then there have been no fatal collisions on the bridge at night.



While TransLink has taken steps to improve traffic safety, the most important safety measure is in the hands of motorists, who are reminded to use caution and obey posted speed limits when using the Pattullo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 3:01 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,807
A new bridge is bound to cost at least a billion, and I highly doubt Translink has the finances to support it with all of its transit projects going on. I'd say spend $60-100 million on improvements to the existing bridge and to make it a three-lane bridge by 2011, and then start construction on a twinned three-lane bridge in 2020 for a 2023 opening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 3:02 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,689
If they do a new bridge in the sapperton area, I don't see a point in twinning Port Mann.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 3:06 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,807
I forgot to mention that any bridge improvement project or twinning should be followed by tolls. That's right, toll the frickin Patullo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 5:16 AM
Nutterbug Nutterbug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,135
Why would they do it at Sapperton?

The bridge span would have to be longer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 5:27 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutterbug View Post
Why would they do it at Sapperton?

The bridge span would have to be longer.
That's one of the considerations... It could be better as it can be linked to Hwy 1. If we get rid of the twinning of the Port Mann and instead invest in a new bridge over the Sapperton bar, then do updates on the Port Mann, it wouldn't be a bad thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 7:29 AM
Punkster Punkster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 27
where is all the traffic heading on the new west/bby side though once it gets off the patullo?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 7:59 AM
urbanizer405 urbanizer405 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YVR-SEA-PDX
Posts: 47
I'd say the best option is a new cable-stayed bridge (seems to be the standard for all new Vancouver bridges) with six lanes, most likely north (or next to) the current bridge. I never get why they built the bridge with such a sharp curve, right as you climb to the midspan from Surrey; i'm always afraid someone is going to crash into me.

Could someone tell me more about the proposal for a new crossing in the Braid area? I've never heard of that one before...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 4:24 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
When and where has there ever been mention of an additional Fraser River crossing between the Patullo and the Port Mann? Once the Port Mann is replaced, there will not be enough demand to support a third crossing in the area.

Whether the Patullo is replaced or upgraded, the existing route still makes the most sense considering the other transportation plans. The SFPR will connect at the eastern section of the bridge. Not to mention the planned Stormont Connector in Burnaby connecting McBride to Cariboo/Gaglardi.

Moving the bridge to any other location (especially Sapperton) without direct access to McBride would make it nearly impossible to provide a direct link to Hwy 1 in Burnaby.

Likewise, connecting it back to the main roads on the Surrey side would be just as challenging.

If the region is looking to add more bridges, I'd like to see Boundary Road crossing the Fraser River and connecting with Highway 91 in Richmond. (My idea, it's never been a proposal as far as I know...)
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 1:55 PM.

     

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