Pattullo Bridge Rehabilitation Project - Page 5

Metro-One · #81 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 2:35 AM**

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.

Spork · #82 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 2:59 AM**

Perhaps a new rail bridge comes with it?

madog222 · #83 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 3:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

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

madog222 · #84 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 3:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spork

Perhaps a new rail bridge comes with it?

It is owned by BNSF, if there were any plans we would definitely hear about it.

aberdeen5698 · #85 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 3:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

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.

Stingray2004 · #86 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

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!

madog222 · #87 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 4:16 AM**

^thanks

Metro-One · #88 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 4:42 AM**

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???)

Klazu · #89 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 4:42 AM**

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...

cairnstone · #90 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 5:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

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.

cairnstone · #91 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 5:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

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

Metro-One · #92 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 5:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

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.

cairnstone · #93 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 5:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

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.

Metro-One · #94 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 5:39 AM**

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.

cairnstone · #95 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 5:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

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.

sweetnhappy · #96 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 9:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

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.

urbancanadian · #97 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 10:19 AM**

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

Metro-One · #98 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 10:41 AM**

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)

CanSpice · #99 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 5:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetnhappy

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.

GMasterAres · #**100** Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

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.