HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 2:35 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 10,943
Considering that it is 6 lanes wide, currently the longest bridge in Metro Van (roughly 3km) and includes quite an extensive expressway with some impressive elevated structures itself the GEB project has always seemed amazingly relatively cheap to me. Quite a deal actually.

With that said, a small part of my brain hopes that one of the reasons why this bridge is 1.5 billion is because instead of a another suspension / cable stayed bridge (don't get me wrong, I do love them!) they will replace it with a new arch bridge? Would be nice for historical sakes to have one major arch bridge structure crossing the Fraser.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 2:59 AM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Shoebox Dweller
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,727
Perhaps a new rail bridge comes with it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 3:17 AM
madog222 madog222 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New West
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Thanks for this number and this is the ballpark this project should be in. It's likely going to be a very similar bridge and not even seven lanes like Pitt Bridge is.

Of course dismantling the old bridge increases the costs (why not just detonate it), but all-in-all we should still be talking about under $500M. $1.2B dollars sounds just ludicrous and someone is overpricing a lot!
The crossing is twice as wide and will have almost three times the clearance as the Pitt River Bridge, not even comparable.

As for even considering dumping tonnes of steel into a commercially used and salmon producing river
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 3:23 AM
madog222 madog222 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New West
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spork View Post
Perhaps a new rail bridge comes with it?
It is owned by BNSF, if there were any plans we would definitely hear about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 3:43 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
Yeah, and the ground is relatively flat on either side of the Pitt River. The New Westminster side has a big hill that the Pattullo needs to scale, so the Pattullo needs to be naturally higher on that side.
The hill makes it cheaper. The reason a high bridge is more expensive is mostly due to the longer elevated approaches that are required. But the bluff on the New Westminster side eliminates the need for the long approach.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 4:02 AM
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 madog222 View Post
It is owned by BNSF, if there were any plans we would definitely hear about it.
Actually that's incorrect. The NWRB is owned by the Government of Canada, operated and maintained by CN, and utilized by all railways in the area inclusive of BNSF.

BTW... be careful of Wikipedia... as this is the second instance in just 2 days that a similar error has occurred on here by someone obviously referencing Wikipedia - the other being someone posting that the GMT counter-flow lanes were inaugurated back in 1989 - when the actual year was 1981!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 4:16 AM
madog222 madog222 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New West
Posts: 164
^thanks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 4:42 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 10,943
It would be amazing to have both bridges replaced at the same time within one mega structure... but we all know that would require way too much synergy within various parties that we will never see in BC.

Heck, we can't even get a new south exit / entrance added to VCC station when the entire building above it is being completely re-built (did anyone even bother inquiring about that???)
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 4:42 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: PH level above Vancouver clouds
Posts: 6,291
Does the new bridge have to be so tall and have a long approach like Pattullo has? Why does the bridge have to have such a huge clearance? Port of Surrey is downstream from Pattullo. What kind of river traffic there is beyond it?

Also, I don't understand why detonating the bridge and then scooping the pieces from the river is such a no-no? It's is a method used to demolish bridges all over the world. I know that they didn'tdo it with the old Port Mann Bridge due to environmental values, but is it worth it? You only have to stop the river traffic for few days really...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 5:30 AM
cairnstone cairnstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Thanks for this number and this is the ballpark this project should be in. It's likely going to be a very similar bridge and not even seven lanes like Pitt Bridge is.

Of course dismantling the old bridge increases the costs (why not just detonate it), but all-in-all we should still be talking about under $500M. $1.2B dollars sounds just ludicrous and someone is overpricing a lot!
Mainroad has a 100 M contract to do structural repairs starting this summer to just keep the bridge up to ministry safety standards. THis is critical repairs mainly deck repairs and paving etc. We spent 500 million on the Port mann in around 2002 to add 1 lane and seismic the bridge.

To build a 6 lane bridge with route reconfiguration will be a big number. If stormont was added to the project we would be hearing Corrigan ranting and raving by now. Building on the Fraser river is a challenge throughout the lower mainland river. If I recall they never found solid bearing on the Pitt River, The Port Mann brought in a special Pile Driver for the piles as there was a small window available to drive piles. There are similar hurdles that will come into play with the George Massey and new Petallo. Rough estimate you will be spending 200 M on Road interchanges on both sides of the river. New West will be a bear to work in as you have Skytrain Tunnel rail right aways COlumbia ST and remainder in residential towers. Look at the way columbia, royal and mcbride all work or not work most days.

Would not surprise me if this has a 3P part to it compared to the old ways of bidding a re designed engineered project.

They days of detonating bridges is long gone. All the steel will need to have the lead removed etc and I believe you have to do chain of custody and prove it is recycle in a safe way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 5:33 AM
cairnstone cairnstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222 View Post
It is owned by BNSF, if there were any plans we would definitely hear about it.
All the Surrey side structure rail and piers were upgraded about 2 years ago not sure if the marine portion was improved
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 5:33 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Does the new bridge have to be so tall and have a long approach like Pattullo has? Why does the bridge have to have such a huge clearance? Port of Surrey is downstream from Pattullo. What kind of river traffic there is beyond it?

Also, I don't understand why detonating the bridge and then scooping the pieces from the river is such a no-no? It's is a method used to demolish bridges all over the world. I know that they didn'tdo it with the old Port Mann Bridge due to environmental values, but is it worth it? You only have to stop the river traffic for few days really...
There is relatively heavy industrial river traffic as far up stream as Mission. That is why bridges are built with high clearances as far east as the Mission Bridge.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 5:35 AM
cairnstone cairnstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
It would be amazing to have both bridges replaced at the same time within one mega structure... but we all know that would require way too much synergy within various parties that we will never see in BC.

Heck, we can't even get a new south exit / entrance added to VCC station when the entire building above it is being completely re-built (did anyone even bother inquiring about that???)
Wow never go that far whos paying to redo a 7 year old station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 5:39 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 10,943
It would not be redoing the entire station, just adding a second exit to the south.

Off topic, but VCC in particular has become far more busy than predicted, and seeing how Waterfront has 2 entry points, so should that station.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 5:45 AM
cairnstone cairnstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Does the new bridge have to be so tall and have a long approach like Pattullo has? Why does the bridge have to have such a huge clearance? Port of Surrey is downstream from Pattullo. What kind of river traffic there is beyond it?

Also, I don't understand why detonating the bridge and then scooping the pieces from the river is such a no-no? It's is a method used to demolish bridges all over the world. I know that they didn'tdo it with the old Port Mann Bridge due to environmental values, but is it worth it? You only have to stop the river traffic for few days really...


It would not make sense to have this bridge have a lower clearance than the port Mann. Also arches are needed to create the span. Either cable stay, Arched, Spandrel braced etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 9:33 AM
sweetnhappy sweetnhappy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Upper Fraser Valley, BC
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Actually that's incorrect. The NWRB is owned by the Government of Canada, operated and maintained by CN, and utilized by all railways in the area inclusive of BNSF.

BTW... be careful of Wikipedia... as this is the second instance in just 2 days that a similar error has occurred on here by someone obviously referencing Wikipedia - the other being someone posting that the GMT counter-flow lanes were inaugurated back in 1989 - when the actual year was 1981!
I've gone ahead and fixed the GMT counterflow lanes implementation year on Wikipedia with reference to the BC Government web site source. I would like to correct the New Westminster Bridge article as well but I'll need a source (could not find one after a quick round of searching online). Or someone else can fix it if they find a source.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 10:19 AM
urbancanadian urbancanadian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 573
Here are a couple images to illustrate the difference in scale between the Patullo and Pitt River bridges. Also note the Fraser is much deeper than the Pitt and there are several more piers to construct. And then don't forget the plan for an improved connection with the SFPR.


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j...57603117362484


Google


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j...57603117362484
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 10:41 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 10,943
Hence the GEB is a better comparison. With its expressway system (also involving many ramps and a 700 meter long viaduct in Maple Ridge / Pitt meadows)
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 5:12 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetnhappy View Post
I've gone ahead and fixed the GMT counterflow lanes implementation year on Wikipedia with reference to the BC Government web site source. I would like to correct the New Westminster Bridge article as well but I'll need a source (could not find one after a quick round of searching online). Or someone else can fix it if they find a source.
This document says that the NWRB is owned by the Government of Canada and operated by CN. You can have the Wikipedia edit glory.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2016, 6:33 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Where is the money coming from? Wasn't the PST increase required to fund construction, among other things?
The money is coming from the tolling. The PST increase had to do with public transit mainly and regarding this bridge it would have meant likely not needing to add a toll. No PST means they will toll it to fund it.

PST increase = no toll on Patullo
No PST increase = toll

Either way it is getting built.

Truth of the batter is this is just another step forward toward segregating the region into two metro areas, NoF and SoF. You have a lot of people moving SoF and as a result of traffic, tolls, etc. and a non-regional pricing strategy, you have jobs also moving SoF for the workers here.

Regionally it isn't a terrible thing having people SoF work SoF and NoF working NoF. It really just penalizes those straddling the tolled connections so people living in New West working in Surrey for example or Coquitlam <> Surrey, Maple Ridge <> Langley and soon Richmond <> Delta. But people in Vancouver and Burnaby don't care I'm sure.
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 3:54 PM.

     

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