HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2008, 1:32 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,672
I think the 99 really needs work. And yes they need to eventually replace Oak Street bridge as well.

99 is really a mess actually. The HOV lanes are weaving around here and there, then pop out out of no where for like only 300 m...

I too want to see studies for this Sapperton Bridge option first.

I don't think the SFPR will become dirty and dangerous. I think it will become more like the Barnet Highway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2008, 3:33 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 28,702
everything here needs an upgrade - lol

driving is a pain at best
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2008, 1:49 AM
urbanizer405 urbanizer405 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YVR-SEA-PDX
Posts: 47
I don't know; as far as i've seen, I think the Patullo needs to be replaced first, then Highway 99. As least 99 has a median barrier protecting both directions; the Patullo is completely unsafe.

Speaking of 99, will it be more cost-effective to build a new bridge or new tunnels?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2008, 3:08 AM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanizer405 View Post
I don't know; as far as i've seen, I think the Patullo needs to be replaced first, then Highway 99. As least 99 has a median barrier protecting both directions; the Patullo is completely unsafe.

Speaking of 99, will it be more cost-effective to build a new bridge or new tunnels?
Nobody said otherwise.

I said that Hwy 99 should be a priority over a Sapperton Bar Bridge, but that the Patullo replacement should and will be done before either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2008, 3:46 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,833
Well for what it's worth a request for service was issued today by Translink, it calls for the repaving of the Pattullo bridge. The document (it's only 198pages ) sounds like they will be keeping the existing 4 lanes. They will be replacing the existing asbestos pavement with newer (non-hazardous) pavement and replacing the center barriers for new ones.


http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/pro...068_Tender.pdf

Have a feeling that file might be pulled shortly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2008, 6:56 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,063
Quote:
They will be replacing the existing asbestos pavement with newer (non-hazardous) pavement and replacing the center barriers for new ones.
That's good news. Thanks for condensing 198 pages of Translink jargon into one sentence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 9:09 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Don't fix bridge: Report

Building new crossing would be less costly

Frank Luba, The Province

Published: Wednesday, July 30, 2008

A consultant's report to go to TransLink's board meeting tomorrow advises against fixing the 70-year-old Pattullo Bridge, where 21 people have died in traffic accidents since 1990.

The meeting is closed to the public.

"The current condition of the bridge requires a significant capital-cost investment to rehabilitate the bridge to obtain three standard-travel lanes. These rehabilitation costs would be similar to the incremental cost of providing three additional lanes on the new bridge structure," says an executive summary of the Delcan report, made available yesterday.

The four-lane Pattullo across the Fraser River connects New Westminster to Surrey. Both municipalities have called for the bridge to be updated or replaced, particularly because it will be the free option to the future tolled Port Mann Bridge that is part of the province's Gateway Program.

Delcan said other downsides to fixing the four-lane Pattullo are that it would only last another 50 years and it would be more expensive to maintain than a new bridge.

There would also be complications with the approaches and it could take longer to fix than building a new and wider bridge.

Delcan recommends a new bridge 50 metres downstream from the existing bridge.

Although it would be more expensive than an option 50 metres upstream of the existing bridge, it would have limited impact on residential and industrial properties and moderate impact on parks.

There's no plan to replace the bridge in TransLink's 2009 10-year transportation and financial Plan to be discussed at the in-camera meeting tomorrow.

© The Vancouver Province 2008
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/ne...b-f63915aab11b
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 3:31 PM
amor de cosmos amor de cosmos is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: lodged against an abutment
Posts: 7,556
Does this mean the Patullo Bridge isn't going to be twinned like the Port Mann? There will just be a new one & the old one will be scrapped?

Last edited by amor de cosmos; Jul 30, 2008 at 7:40 PM. Reason: added "old"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 4:21 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,618
That makes more sense given the road infrastructure of the area. No point twinning the bridge if the roads on either side can't handle the additional traffic.

If they build a new bridge, it would be REALLY nice if they added a provision for a double track rail bridge underneath.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 5:11 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,558
50 metres downstream - check out this Global Air Photo:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 5:32 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,469
50 meters downstream would put it between the Skytrain Bridge and existing bridge? I wonder if it was a typo mistake and they meant upstream. Looking at the maps, upstream would make much more sense for me alignment wise but I'm not a planner so I could be wrong.

I hope we don't have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 5:56 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,618
Downstream is left in that image (West). Upstream is on top of the Rail Bridge.

Upstream would link directly with McBride, but have to go over some industrial and need some expropriation of residential land in Bridgeview for the approach on the Surrey Side.

50m upstream would not align too well with McBride, but it would go over parks and empty land so would be less expropriation. The upgrades to approaches on either side, however, make this option more expensive.

All that being said, Bridgeview needs revitalizing anyhow, and given the chance to unify Rail and Road in a new Bridge, I think it's the logical choice. However, I'd imagine there would need to be an interruption in rail service if they built a new rail bridge exactly where the old one was.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 6:54 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,558
The downstream location still requires a curve in the approach on the New West side of the bridge - but they would be engineered to modern standards.
Upstream, chances are there isn't enough space on the north river bank to allow for the railways, road and Skytrain tunnel for bridge abuttments and supports. ... then again... guess it's the south side that's the issue.

More Global Air Photos:




Last edited by officedweller; Jul 30, 2008 at 7:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 7:05 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,618
The thing I'm wondering is if they took the downstream path with the curve... then would they be able to more easily integrate rail into the new structure with minimal disruption to the existing rail bridge?

two birds. one stone.

It seems that if they built 50m north (on top of the rail bridge) that there would be disruptions to rail traffic if they didn't replace the rail bridge, and disruptions even if they DID... this is even if there WAS room for the supports and abuttments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 10:25 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,558
The main problem with replacing the rail span is that it's a swing span - and a replacement would likely be either tall enough for ships to pass or a tunnel - both of which require long aproaches to ease the grades. ... unless they simply add tracks by building a parallel swing span under the new Patullo?

Last edited by officedweller; Jul 30, 2008 at 11:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 10:29 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 28,702
i wonder if they will leave the old bridge

they should make it for bicycles and pedestrians only as well as it could serve for emergencies - if the new one had to be shut down for an accident or whatever at least they could allow one lane of traffic in each way across the old...

thats a big problem when a bridge as a stall or an accident that takes a while to clean up
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2008, 11:28 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
50 meters downstream would put it between the Skytrain Bridge and existing bridge?

Looking at the maps, upstream would make much more sense for me alignment wise
Yeah, toward the Skytrain bridge but 50 m (164 feet) is a very minimal distance from the Patullo in the scheme of things.

In regards to an alignment 50 m upstream, the article stated:

Quote:
Although it would be more expensive than an option 50 metres upstream of the existing bridge, it would have limited impact on residential and industrial properties and moderate impact on parks.
As for the existing antiquated rail bridge, due to the existing gradient of the land line, I think that, in all likelihood, a twin-track lift bridge similar to CN's 2nd Narrows structure (built in 1969) would be the best choice.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2008, 1:10 AM
yesheh yesheh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 45
Solution: build something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_Bridge


Maybe not with the double-lift bridges (because that's unnecessarily complicated) but perhaps something similar could be built with a high upper deck and a vertical lift lower deck. Expensive, but I'm fairly confident the federal government would chip in for the rail portion if asked nicely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2008, 9:46 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,527
A new rail link across the river will be built in all probability in Coquitlam in the United Boulevard area. Its also unlikely that it wont be a tunnel. A swing span bridge for the amount of train traffic (and increasing) doesnt make any sense in that part of the Fraser and a rail bridge in the New Westminster area makes even less sense. In Coquitlam and across the river in Surrey CP/CN both have the property and right of way available to make this work.
Ultimately if the new Fraser River port in Richmond gets the go ahead (and the region is smart) then a new rail link via a tunnel could be built from Delta to Richmond/Anacis island and a new, larger and consolidated rail yard can be built in Delta or even possibly Richmond. This would allow once and for all for the rail line and all the yards in New Westminster Burnaby and Vancouver to be decommissioned. It would allow New Westminster to be linked to the waterfront, remove all the train noise and problematic at grade rail crossings, remove the unprofitable spur line through the Fraser lands development and south Vancouver, and alloy for the rail yards in New Westminster to be redeveloped and the highrise community joined up with the rest of the city. If the region was a bit proactive then this could all be done for not much money , and on top of that the redevelopment of the rail yards/rights of way could bring in alot of money to CP to through back at the project. As a result the livability of the entire area stretching from Braid st to south vancouver would jump by leaps and bounds and the efficiency of the movement of goods both by rail and water would also jump.

Anyways I got a bit carried away but my main point was that a new rail crossing will almost certainly be in Coquitlam and as a tunnel. Everything else I said was just speculation/wild dream, though very realistic.

Couldent fall asleep so here are some quick pictures of what i mean.
red is the tunnel and runups to it.(remeber that a majority of the traffic comes from Coquitlam)


And for good messures here is all the other stuff I rambled on about. Red are tunnels and runups(except a new bridge to Anacis island), red square is new rail yard and blue square is the proposed port expansion). This would shave off 10's of km's of rail from the network, allow redevelopment of the rail yards and significantly improve efficiency. When(if) the port gets built then the existing residential communities and infrastructure would not be able to handle the increase in traffic anyways and expansion would be almost impossible so a new link from the south would be a must. A tunnel with the port would again be the best solution for that part of the river.

The new crossings would probably not cost much over a billion dollars, take away the proceeds from the land sales of the decommissioned rail/yards wich could be nearing half a billion in value, and then take in to account that both these links are/will be needed, and then the region/province could even fork out some money(probably not much if any at all) to make it happen since its in their best interest.

sorry if I went a bit off topic.

Last edited by cornholio; Jul 31, 2008 at 10:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2008, 4:14 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,618
great job illustrating those ideas!
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 10:18 AM.

     

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