HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 6:22 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
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.
According to CKNW, they are considering to build a bridge over the Sapperton bar, which could possible replace the Pautello Bridge.

We could possibly be seeing something like this (orange is freeway type road, blue is upgraded existing roads [and most of these are planned already])



Quote:
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...)
I always visioned a bridge from Main Street to Shell Road. =P
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 9:55 PM
Nutterbug Nutterbug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,135
^ That would make it redundantly closer to the Port Mann, wouldn't it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 31, 2008, 10:16 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,646
^^Yeah that is what should happen, also the sand bar that it goes over they want to reclaim for development which would mean two bridges and a exit. The United Boulevard street also will have a slightly different route as it will follow Brunet river for a overpass over the skytrain Guideway. Also the GVRD already owns the land where the bridge would start(the old Canfor site) and Translink also owns allot of land in the area so a right of way is already mostly ready. The bridge connects the #1 to the Patullo side of Surrey making a controversial Stormont connector not really necessary for the foreseeable future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 3:09 AM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
I don't see it being cost effective to build an entirely new bridge at the widest point of the river, with a massive traffic pattern shift, that would require the modification and expansion of other roads and infrastructure to support it.

The existing route of the Patullo makes sense, considering most users are taking Scott Road / King George Hwy directly into New West. This new route you are proposing makes New West less accessible.

Replacing the Patullo with a brand new higher capacity bridge, directly parallel to the existing bridge makes the most sense, from a financial and a transportation planning standpoint.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 3:18 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutterbug View Post
^ That would make it redundantly closer to the Port Mann, wouldn't it?
It will. That's why we wouldn't need a Port Mann Twin. It could basically act as a "patullo replacement" and an alternative to the Port Mann. [Continue Reading Post Below]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
^^Yeah that is what should happen, also the sand bar that it goes over they want to reclaim for development which would mean two bridges and a exit. The United Boulevard street also will have a slightly different route as it will follow Brunet river for a overpass over the skytrain Guideway. Also the GVRD already owns the land where the bridge would start(the old Canfor site) and Translink also owns allot of land in the area so a right of way is already mostly ready. The bridge connects the #1 to the Patullo side of Surrey making a controversial Stormont connector not really necessary for the foreseeable future.
Didn't know that. Cool! That was the only thing I could think of when they said "bridge over the sapperton bar."


Source: Government of British Columbia: Gateway Program

Anyway, as I said earlier, this can basically act as an alternative to the Port Mann. The SFPR between Old Yale Overpass and Fraser Heights bridge should basically be a freeway with no traffic lights whatsoever. There will be a need for a new connection at Port Mann:



Then they could also install those "Your Choice:" signs and present them with: Port Mann Bridge and Sapperton Bridge. Then I would also upgrade the Port Mann and change the HOV lane into a counterflow HOV lane. I think that would be better. Since there isn't any HUGE improvement to the Port Mann, what they could do is add the HOV lane to both sides south of the Port Mann Bridge and lengthen the merge lanes to move traffic faster. If you ever watch traffic in the morning, traffic on the Port Mann itself isn't that bad, it's exists on Highway 1 leading up to the Port Mann Bridge that slows down traffic.

Last edited by deasine; Jun 1, 2008 at 6:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 5:41 AM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
It will. That's why we wouldn't need a Port Mann Twin. It could basically act as a "pautello replacement" and an alternative to the Port Mann.
We still need a Port Mann Twin. 170,000 vehicles per day can't be pushed off the freeway onto side streets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 6:43 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
We still need a Port Mann Twin. 170,000 vehicles per day can't be pushed off the freeway onto side streets.
I understand there's huge use of the Port Mann right now. But then in 2009: you have the Golden Ears Bridge. Trust me a lot of the traffic will be going to that. There are a lot of South of Fraser to Tri-Cities commuters, and many of which use the Port Mann.

If you have the Sapperton Bar, again, there's the alternative. It wouldn't be a "sidestreet" as long as you make sure it's 100% freeway from the Hwy1 to SFPR, and SFPR to Bridge, Bridge to Hwy 1, many of which would take that route. Vancouver and Burnaby commuters can take either route as you'll end up in merging with the Hwy 1 anyways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 7:06 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,121
IMHO, the existing Pattullo Bridge cross-section is tooooo narrow notwithstanding the sharp curve at its south end. Frankly, a median barrier is just not feasible (narrower lanes).

The AADT for the Pattullo is similar to the Lions Gate and I would concur that a similar 3-lane reversible set-up would be preferable for the short term... wider lanes and two lanes in peak period direction.

I just can't see the "Sapperton" proposal, with a landing near the Royal Columbian Hospital, as either logical or feasible for any new crossing. Forget about the Surrey side!

The main traffic corridors feeding the Pattullo on the Surrey side are Scott Road/King George and McBride on the New West side. That ain't gonna change. If any new crossing is built it should be in that locale and should be an entirely new 6-lane crossing. The "sharp" curve and age of the existing structure doesn't seem to make it logical for a twin.

The Greater Vancouver Gateway Council also prepared a report a few years back concerning the existing New West rail bridge and a possible combined road/rail replacement:

Quote:
Project: NEW WESTMINSTER RAIL BRIDGE / TUNNEL

Basic Project Description:

Replacement of existing structure with a tunnel crossing of the Fraser River. The existing bridge currently handles 46 trains per day with an estimated capacity of 59 trains per day.

The new tunnel will accommodate two tracks. Grade of tunnel
approaches has been assumed to be only one percent (1%). However,
1.5% could be considered to reduce tunnel length. Depth of tunnel
under the Fraser River has been assumed to be 25 metres (top of rail to
water surface).

Tunnel is assumed to be located in a similar location to the existing
bridge. A spiral bored tunnel is assumed to be located on the New
Westminster side.

Immersed tube technology has been assumed for the tunnel in the river
section. Cut and cover tunnel technology has been assumed in the soft
soils on the Surrey side. Significant retaining walls and cut cover
tunnelling expected on Surrey side of river.

There is a possibility that the new tunnel will be combined with road
traffic as a replacement of the Pattullo Bridge.

Length: > 5.5 kilometres (under development)

Capacity: > 100 trains per day

Design Speed: 30 to 50 km/h (500 metre radius curve - 3.5 degree of curvature)

Other Unique Features: Relocation of significant portions of existing track network on Surrey side. Possibility of Wye sections in tunnel on either side of river to connect to existing rail network.

Immersed tube technology in river section.

Bored spiral tunnel section in New Westminster. Surplus material to be
used as fill (into the Fraser River) on the New Westminster side to
create an opportunity to reduce the tunnel length by providing some of
the track curves beyond the hillside in order to connect to the existing
rail network. Potential to reduce costs.

Implementation Costs: Included as part of the railway investments

Information Derived From: Developed by Delcan Corporation
http://www.gvgc.org/pdf/MCTS_EconImpAnalys_appendR.pdf

BTW, in the following photo, one can see a small section of the sand "pre-load" for the SFPR just east of the Port Mann Bridge. It was prepared a few years back by the City of Surrey. Why? I do not know!


Quote:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 7:15 AM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
I understand there's huge use of the Port Mann right now. But then in 2009: you have the Golden Ears Bridge. Trust me a lot of the traffic will be going to that. There are a lot of South of Fraser to Tri-Cities commuters, and many of which use the Port Mann.

If you have the Sapperton Bar, again, there's the alternative. It wouldn't be a "sidestreet" as long as you make sure it's 100% freeway from the Hwy1 to SFPR, and SFPR to Bridge, Bridge to Hwy 1, many of which would take that route. Vancouver and Burnaby commuters can take either route as you'll end up in merging with the Hwy 1 anyways.

It's that thinking that got this region into trouble in the first place. Twinning the Pattullo, adding the Sapperton Bar bridge, adding the Golden Ears, and Twinning the Port Mann are ALL required for long term projected regional growth over the next 20 years. Not to mention the Port Mann isn't _just_ about roads which is what a lot of people fail to acknowledge. It is including a massive expansion of bus service along Highway 1, improved interchanges along the entire highway including some major work to be done around Cape Horn and around that area, and also the ability to expand A/LRT over the bridge in the future.

In 20 years the population south of the fraser will be considerably higher than north of the fraser, yet a lot of infrastructure and jobs will still be in Burnaby and Vancouver so we can't ever fully get away from having to cross that bridge. With the expansion of Coquitlam and a lot of dev around United and the flats there of Coquitlam, a large bulk of traffic heads specifically to Coquitlam and Highway 1 / Sapperton Bar would service completely different areas.

Also people should note the SFRP will NOT have a connection at the Port Mann. Once you come through the Pattullo flats, your next connection off the SFPR will be at Golden Ears so the new SFRP will not logically link to the Port Mann. I don't see how they can hook them given the elevation difference anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 7:50 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,686
I know the SFPR will not have a connection, but if they were to choose the Sapperton Bar bridge, might as well make one there. SFPR is all the in preliminary design stages.

See the reason the South of Fraser is needing so many new road connections is the lack on public transit in the area. I'm sure you agree with this one. Even TransLink's plans to 2031 with the so called "frequent bus network" and the SkyTrain expansion isn't enough. The network for the South of Fraser hasn't been reaching to the residents very well. I really want to see the introduction to LRT in the South of Fraser: cheap [well one of the cheaper forms of rapid transit] and effective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 3:33 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
I know the SFPR will not have a connection, but if they were to choose the Sapperton Bar bridge, might as well make one there. SFPR is all the in preliminary design stages.

See the reason the South of Fraser is needing so many new road connections is the lack on public transit in the area. I'm sure you agree with this one. Even TransLink's plans to 2031 with the so called "frequent bus network" and the SkyTrain expansion isn't enough. The network for the South of Fraser hasn't been reaching to the residents very well. I really want to see the introduction to LRT in the South of Fraser: cheap [well one of the cheaper forms of rapid transit] and effective.
Since the gov't intends on the tolling the Port Mann - I can't see them building a freeway type bypass that is ridiculously close to the Port Mann. That aside, a Sapperton Bar bridge would likely be a high traffic industrial route considering the location, and again tolling would increase the cost of moving goods.

Yes, we can all agree that the South Fraser region needs better transit service. With that said, the attitude that it must be roads instead of transit, or the opposite is frustrating. Efficient transportation systems operate with both.

Even so, people need to realize that transit is still only practical for a minority of the population. Factors like off hours shiftworkers, mobile salespeople/representatives, and warehouse based industrial business located far from public transit will still lead to high automobile usage.

The urban planner's dream of everyone living in 1 bedroom condo in a highrise, riding their bicycle 2 blocks to work at their 9-5 government job and shopping at the organic food market on the weekend simply is not practical.

We need to make a transporation system that gives people choices, not one that punishes users of a certain group.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2008, 6:49 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,646
^well said...for me public transit is not practical but ill gladly pay a toll if it means getting some of those fat arssed office workers of the roads and speeding up my trip. In the end that toll I pay will just work its way down to everyone else anyways via higher wages and higher costs to the consumers...that is though only if there really is no alternative for me....and there isnt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2008, 8:21 AM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
It's that thinking that got this region into trouble in the first place. Twinning the Pattullo, adding the Sapperton Bar bridge, adding the Golden Ears, and Twinning the Port Mann are ALL required for long term projected regional growth over the next 20 years. Not to mention the Port Mann isn't _just_ about roads which is what a lot of people fail to acknowledge. It is including a massive expansion of bus service along Highway 1, improved interchanges along the entire highway including some major work to be done around Cape Horn and around that area, and also the ability to expand A/LRT over the bridge in the future.

In 20 years the population south of the fraser will be considerably higher than north of the fraser, yet a lot of infrastructure and jobs will still be in Burnaby and Vancouver so we can't ever fully get away from having to cross that bridge. With the expansion of Coquitlam and a lot of dev around United and the flats there of Coquitlam, a large bulk of traffic heads specifically to Coquitlam and Highway 1 / Sapperton Bar would service completely different areas.

Also people should note the SFRP will NOT have a connection at the Port Mann. Once you come through the Pattullo flats, your next connection off the SFPR will be at Golden Ears so the new SFRP will not logically link to the Port Mann. I don't see how they can hook them given the elevation difference anyway.
Excellent points. Band-aid solutions solve absolutely nothing (in fact to the contrary, make the problems even worse), and in the end leave us with an even higher bill in the long run. We need REAL solutions NOW.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2008, 8:30 AM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
Since the gov't intends on the tolling the Port Mann - I can't see them building a freeway type bypass that is ridiculously close to the Port Mann. That aside, a Sapperton Bar bridge would likely be a high traffic industrial route considering the location, and again tolling would increase the cost of moving goods.

Yes, we can all agree that the South Fraser region needs better transit service. With that said, the attitude that it must be roads instead of transit, or the opposite is frustrating. Efficient transportation systems operate with both.

Even so, people need to realize that transit is still only practical for a minority of the population. Factors like off hours shiftworkers, mobile salespeople/representatives, and warehouse based industrial business located far from public transit will still lead to high automobile usage.

The urban planner's dream of everyone living in 1 bedroom condo in a highrise, riding their bicycle 2 blocks to work at their 9-5 government job and shopping at the organic food market on the weekend simply is not practical.

We need to make a transporation system that gives people choices, not one that punishes users of a certain group.
Amazing... Please forward this to Vancouver City Hall. They are in DESPERATE need of a good dose of the outstanding logic you just brought up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2008, 9:52 AM
Punkster Punkster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 27
Hasn't the SFPR got to the Environmental Assessment phase? I believe if they make any changes to the plan now ie. adding a Port Mann connection, they'd have to resubmit the plan, substantially slowing down the project. That's why they weren't able to make any changes to the Abernethy Connector in Maple Ridge when there was all that uproar about cutting that blueberry farm in half.

I think we need a better understanding of where on the north of fraser side of the river all the Patullo traffic is going. If a lot is going to Coquitlam or Highway 1 (I know something like 40% of Port Mann traffic heads to coq), maybe Sapperton is a good option. But then again, maybe a good chunk of them are staying in bby/new west and the bridge is best left where it is. I dunno the answer, I haven't seen any traffic studies for this bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2008, 8:15 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
^^Yeah that is what should happen, also the sand bar that it goes over they want to reclaim for development which would mean two bridges and a exit. .
That's what I've read too. The Vancouver- Fraser Port was talking about shoring up the edges of Sapperton Bar to use for container storage - basically like what you see on Mitchell Island crossing the Knight Street Bridge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Punkster View Post
Hasn't the SFPR got to the Environmental Assessment phase? I believe if they make any changes to the plan now ie. adding a Port Mann connection, they'd have to resubmit the plan, substantially slowing down the project. .
The SFPR connection to Hwy 1 is further east @ the Golden Ears Bridge. It's intended for long haul truck traffic accessing from Hwy 1, not local traffic originating from Surrey (though there may be access points from Surrey, can't recall).

BTW - I could see a new Patullo @ Sapperton Bar NOT linking up with the SFPR - just to separate long haul and "local" traffic. Patullo is a "local" arterial bridge. That would prevent significant use as an alternative to the tolled Port Mann.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2008, 11:32 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,412
the sapperton bridge would be awesome and badly needed

to say that it is too close to the port mann - i don't get that
port man serves fleetwood and guildford and fraser heights

a sapperton bridge would link scott road/north delta and hwy #1 nicely

a bus route linking scott road and lougheed mall/braid station/IKEA would be great as it takes way too long to even fathom doing it on transit right now

maybe Vancouver will finally get some infastucture that matches its population and lay out
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2008, 1:06 AM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
I'm extremely critical and skeptical of a Sapperton bridge being built until I at least see some studies supporting the need for it.

If the Patullo is replaced at it's current location, and the Stormont Connector connecting McBridge to Gaglardi is eventually built, this in conjuction with Gateway should be sufficient - at least for the time being - for transportation upgrades in the area.

Hwy 1 serves as a connection to the entire Fraser Valley, and is not an arterial route serving Fleetwood, Fraser Heights and Guildford - although it does serve these areas as well, they are an afterthought when you consider the big picture.

Secondly, the Patullo tends to serve more local traffic heading from Surrey and Delta to New West and parts of Burnaby.

If you look at the entrances of each side of this "proposed" Sapperton bridge, it shouldn't take more than 15 minutes in good traffic (which Gateway should address) to get to those locations taking either the Patullo or the Port Mann, so a new bridge would save what, 10 minutes?

I'm as a big of a proponent for transportation upgrades that you'll ever meet, but I can think of dozens of other capital projects that I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on than a redundant bridge. Such as:

- Upgrading Hwy 99 - Oak Street Bridge, Massey Tunnel
- Connecting Boundary Road to Hwy 91 in Richmond
- Proposed Serpentine Freeway connecting Hwy 99 to Hwy 1 through Surrey
- Commuter rail and/or Skytrain further extended into the Fraser Valley

Sure it's sexy to have new roads being built on a daily basis, but I think we need to accept the fact that once the current string of projects that have been committed to are complete, it will probably be another 20 - 30 years until you see another major project back on the drawing board.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2008, 1:10 AM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
Is anyone else concerned that the SFPR is going to become a dirty and dangerous route?

I think of the freeway connecting Los Angeles and Long Beach, which is predominantly truck traffic heading between the city and the Port of LA. The freeway is dirty, in terrible condition and is slow as hell.

I would hope that this route would be just as beneficial to vehicle traffic wanting to bypass Surrey as it would for truckers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2008, 1:27 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,412
either way the region needs more bridges and infastructure

wherever and in whatever order
__________________
belowitall
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 5:32 PM.

     

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