HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 30, 2015, 10:46 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheba View Post
...
I wouldn't mind a bridge in Burnaby (and I live there) but where would it go and what would it connect to? ...
Even to the south, the connecting area in Richmond is all open fields. Even Boundary would be smack in the middle of fields in Richmond.
One of the rejected options for the Massey Tunnel Replacement Project proposed a new alignment to the east that would, if extended north,
align with Boundary Road. That could still be considered far in the future as the Fraser Port develops.


http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel...sion-Guide.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 30, 2015, 9:56 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,684
Removing New West from the equation seems to be the best idea.

Thinking more broadly:

1. Tear down the Patullo (or convert to pedestrian/bike only if it can be easily and cheaply maintained).

2. New GMT Bridge will get built.

3. Twin the AFB, or create AFB2, which connects directly with the SFPR on the Delta side instead of 91 South, think expanding the East-West connector straight east.

4. Beef up the SFPR at Tannery/104th, or create a new interchange at 96th if that works, giving decent access to Surrey.

Let's face it, New West won't expand road capacity, and even on the Surrey side of the bridge there's no real destinations until you get up to City Centre area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 31, 2015, 12:55 AM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Removing New West from the equation seems to be the best idea.

Thinking more broadly:

1. Tear down the Patullo (or convert to pedestrian/bike only if it can be easily and cheaply maintained).

2. New GMT Bridge will get built.

3. Twin the AFB, or create AFB2, which connects directly with the SFPR on the Delta side instead of 91 South, think expanding the East-West connector straight east.

4. Beef up the SFPR at Tannery/104th, or create a new interchange at 96th if that works, giving decent access to Surrey.

Let's face it, New West won't expand road capacity, and even on the Surrey side of the bridge there's no real destinations until you get up to City Centre area.

1. They can't leave the Pattullo alone - it's not up to seismic code. It has to come down, preferably by a trained crew and not a natural disaster.

2. Yes

3. The idea is to have the crossings evenly spaced (aka the opposite of twinning).

4. 'Beef up the SFPR' - they need to do that anyway.

New West has a new younger mayor. I just found this from his Dec 2014 Inaugural Address:
Quote:
Time and again, transportation was raised as front and centre on the minds of residents. It’s no secret that New Westminster’s geographic good fortune of being located at the very centre of the bustling Metro Vancouver region can also work against us as we move about our community. As your Mayor, I pledge to work with council and staff to explore strategies to build a transportation system that works. First and foremost we need to begin by implementing the City of New Westminster Master Transportation Plan. There is no magic or easy solution to the challenges we face, but I believe the implementation of our Master Transportation Plan is essential to address our community’s biggest issue. We also need to be prepared to look outside of our borders. New Westminster is part of a larger transportation system and many of the issues we face are regional in nature. Next year Metro Vancouver residents will be asked to participate in a transportation referendum. The success of this referendum will be critical if our region is going to create an efficient and sustainable transportation system for the future.
http://www.newwestcity.ca/city_hall/...ugural-address
That sounds like someone who is open to moving past the horse and buggy as the ideal form of transportation (either that or he's a really good liar).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 31, 2015, 5:27 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheba View Post
1. They can't leave the Pattullo alone - it's not up to seismic code. It has to come down, preferably by a trained crew and not a natural disaster.
While that may be true for a bridge loaded to design capacity with vehicular traffic, I'm not so sure that it would be if used only for pedestrians and cyclists. At least I wouldn't assume that unless I saw a credible report saying so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 31, 2015, 7:12 AM
TourOdeon's Avatar
TourOdeon TourOdeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 225
How likely will both bridges get tolled? How will it impact the real estate prices in Surrey?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 31, 2015, 2:43 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by TourOdeon View Post
How likely will both bridges get tolled? How will it impact the real estate prices in Surrey?
All new bridges will be tolled, barring some ridiculous campaign promise by one of the parties in 2017.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 3:57 AM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,222
Gonna suck for 49cc scooter riders who's only legal route to South of Fraser in Metro Vancouver will be the Golden Ears Bridge when the Pattullo Bridge is closed for the night and weekends. Even when the bridge is open, they're going to face lengthy delays.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 3:19 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
While that may be true for a bridge loaded to design capacity with vehicular traffic, I'm not so sure that it would be if used only for pedestrians and cyclists. At least I wouldn't assume that unless I saw a credible report saying so.
What's going over the Pattullo isn't the entire problem. The bridge is built on fairly unstable land in the Fraser. The foundation is experiencing riverbed scour, where there's uneven wear of the riverbed around the foundation. It's vulnerable to ship impact (this happened to one of the train bridges a couple of years ago). The structure is corroding and deteriorating. None of those reasons for replacing the bridge have anything to do with the traffic going over the bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 3:54 PM
paulsparrow paulsparrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOSS View Post
This IMOH is completely the fault of the Provincial and New Westminster governments. This bridge should have been made a priority for replacement prior to needing a band-aid repair of $100 Million. What is that... about 10% of the cost of a new bridge. A new bridge we will likely see within the decade (fingers crossed).
Why the New West City??? So okay go build a 6 or even 8 lane Puttello and what is that going to do when you can't expand the main arteries that attach?

The bridge proposal should have gone further east to where it is a quick hook up with the #1 and the main arteries could have been expanded to handle a higher volume of traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 3:57 PM
paulsparrow paulsparrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIPS View Post
I'll just bypass to the Alex Fraser, personally and the SFPR makes that way easier than it used to be. As an out-of-region driver I'm not paying to cross some cruddy bridge that is a major link in the Trans Canada of all highways.
You do realize that those that are already doing that are faced with long lineups trying to get onto the Nordel connector to enter the Alex Fraser. Most are now going south onto 91 and doing illegal u-turns at 72nd or turning onto 72nd and doing illegal u-turns there.

Of course Delta police are not capitalizing on the revenue stream they could be enjoying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 4:01 PM
paulsparrow paulsparrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by TourOdeon View Post
How likely will both bridges get tolled? How will it impact the real estate prices in Surrey?
There will be no impact to Surrey real estate other than it slowing down. We have been trying to sell our house in Newton for a year now and in the mean time real estate in New West is skyrocketing up by 10% plus in the last year due to tolling and bridge issues.

If you want a sound investment buy property in New West, Poco and lower Coquitlam because it's going through the roof.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 4:25 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsparrow View Post
If you want a sound investment buy property in New West, Poco and lower Coquitlam because it's going through the roof.
Follow the toll-free routes!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2015, 12:37 AM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsparrow View Post
Why the New West City??? So okay go build a 6 or even 8 lane Puttello and what is that going to do when you can't expand the main arteries that attach?

The bridge proposal should have gone further east to where it is a quick hook up with the #1 and the main arteries could have been expanded to handle a higher volume of traffic.
Why do you have to expand the main arteries? This argument is common yet lacking in any kind of logic.

In New Westminster, there are 6 lanes of traffic that directly flow to, and 6 lanes that flow away from the Pattullo.

Going to the bridge you have:
  • McBride with 2 lanes that merge down to 1 lane.
  • Royal with 2 lanes (3 in some spots) that merge down to 1 lane
  • Columbia/Front with 2 lanes that merge down to one, then needs to yield for the lane coming off Royal. Except during rush hour when that ramp is closed so the traffic is added to Royal at 6th via Columbia, making traffic in downtown New West a nightmare until 6pm (trucks actually line up and wait at the ramp gate well before 6pm).

If you take out all the merging, and made a bridge that would freeflow lanes onto the bridge, you would need 6 lanes southbound. This would suck all the traffic out of New Westminster and make the roads there less congested with people waiting to get on the bridge. On the other side, in Surrey, you have already have 6 lanes Southbound (3 on Scott and 3 on King George (counting the merge from Scott that noone ever uses)). As it is, at the height of rush hour, once you are on the Surrey side of the bridge, traffic vanishes.

Because that is what the traffic in New Westminster is, people waiting for their turn to get on the bridge. It is not there isn't enough lanes in New Westminster. It is there are not enough lanes on the bridge.

For Northbound, as it is, there are 3 lanes down part of King George and 3 lanes on Scott. So you are again, merging 6 lanes down to 2. But in New Westminster, you also have 6 lanes heading away from the bridge.

All you really need to upgrade is Columbia near Sapperton Station. If both lanes on Columbia turned onto Brunette (and made it 2 lanes there instead of 1), most traffic problems would be solved. A lot of traffic on McBride is taking the long way through New West because it is just as fast to deal with 10th and Canada Way as it is to deal with the Columbia/Brunette turn. And I've never really had much trouble with traffic on Royal after coming off the bridge (it flows decent for a street through a city).

Which just goes to show how insane it is going to be during the repairs. It is going to be 12 lanes of traffic forced down to 2.

I'm not looking forward to it because I ride the 319 bus. It already gets stuck in heavy traffic around Scott Road Station, adding 10 minutes onto the trip. I can't imagine what it will be like next summer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2015, 7:55 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
All new bridges will be tolled, barring some ridiculous campaign promise by one of the parties in 2017.
It would not surprise me one bit to see the NDP campaign on that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2015, 3:35 PM
paulsparrow paulsparrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
Why do you have to expand the main arteries? This argument is common yet lacking in any kind of logic.

In New Westminster, there are 6 lanes of traffic that directly flow to, and 6 lanes that flow away from the Pattullo.

Going to the bridge you have:
  • McBride with 2 lanes that merge down to 1 lane.
  • Royal with 2 lanes (3 in some spots) that merge down to 1 lane
  • Columbia/Front with 2 lanes that merge down to one, then needs to yield for the lane coming off Royal. Except during rush hour when that ramp is closed so the traffic is added to Royal at 6th via Columbia, making traffic in downtown New West a nightmare until 6pm (trucks actually line up and wait at the ramp gate well before 6pm).

If you take out all the merging, and made a bridge that would freeflow lanes onto the bridge, you would need 6 lanes southbound. This would suck all the traffic out of New Westminster and make the roads there less congested with people waiting to get on the bridge. On the other side, in Surrey, you have already have 6 lanes Southbound (3 on Scott and 3 on King George (counting the merge from Scott that noone ever uses)). As it is, at the height of rush hour, once you are on the Surrey side of the bridge, traffic vanishes.

Because that is what the traffic in New Westminster is, people waiting for their turn to get on the bridge. It is not there isn't enough lanes in New Westminster. It is there are not enough lanes on the bridge.
.
Based on your argument you will now have the opposite. Congestion on the bridge. How is it going to look when you have three lanes going northbound down to 2 lanes on McBride? This is the point I'm trying to make.

Even if you reconfigured the overpass on the north side to allow three lanes each way under it you will still have too much traffic trying to go down McBride (like now) so just like the Alex Fraser north bound the traffic will back up two lanes up the new Pattullo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2015, 3:59 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsparrow View Post
Based on your argument you will now have the opposite. Congestion on the bridge. How is it going to look when you have three lanes going northbound down to 2 lanes on McBride? This is the point I'm trying to make.

Even if you reconfigured the overpass on the north side to allow three lanes each way under it you will still have too much traffic trying to go down McBride (like now) so just like the Alex Fraser north bound the traffic will back up two lanes up the new Pattullo.
At least a third of the traffic exits onto Royal/E Columbia. The right lane continuing on McBride is virtually empty after that exit.

The Port Mann Bridge is hardly ever congested anymore. Bridges are the choke points in the region.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2015, 7:40 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsparrow View Post
Based on your argument you will now have the opposite. Congestion on the bridge. How is it going to look when you have three lanes going northbound down to 2 lanes on McBride? This is the point I'm trying to make.

Even if you reconfigured the overpass on the north side to allow three lanes each way under it you will still have too much traffic trying to go down McBride (like now) so just like the Alex Fraser north bound the traffic will back up two lanes up the new Pattullo.
You wouldn't have every lane on the bridge exit onto McBride. Almost half the traffic exits at the Royal/Columbia exit. And more would exit there if it were more convenient/direct or if Brunette were widened to make it a faster alternative than McBride.

If you had 4 lanes northbound on the Pattullo, 2 lanes would exit onto the 2 lanes of Mcbride, and 2 lanes would be exit only onto Royal/Columbia. Or there are different configuration options where the primary lanes might continue onto Columbia/Front/NFPR and the must exit lanes would take you to McBride and Royal (depending on where you want to send the majority of traffic to flow). On the South side, the lanes could have dedicated exits onto the SFPR, Scott, and King George.

Think about how the Granville street bridge is. It has 4 lanes in the middle, and they split at each end: it works pretty well. Or on the AFB, it is 3 lanes, and at each end, one lane exits. The PMB is also more lanes that the freeway.

And so what if the congestion actually moves to on the bridge. If there is going to be congestion, it would be better if it were on the bridge. Then instead of everyone being stuck in traffic, only those using the bridge would be slow moving while people driving locally around the city would face much less congestion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2015, 10:59 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,183
For example this was from the March 2011 Delcan Patullo Bridge Option Report:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2015, 1:32 AM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,421
would there be any point in including space for rrt on a (presumably new) Patullo Bridge?
It might be a useful link-up to future skytrain expansion S of F. even if it is not used right away. / or am I wrong?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2015, 1:47 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
would there be any point in including space for rrt on a (presumably new) Patullo Bridge?
It might be a useful link-up to future skytrain expansion S of F. even if it is not used right away. / or am I wrong?
but there is a Skybridge right next to it. it is fully double tracked. it would be pointless i think.
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 7:27 AM.

     

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