Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C - Page 51

Mininari · #**1001** Posted **Sep 8, 2014, 4:02 AM**

This bridge is going to die of natural causes (collapse, footings scouring, earthquake, etc) before anything is done.

Prove me wrong oh elected officials....

WarrenC12 · #**1002** Posted **Sep 8, 2014, 2:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mininari

This bridge is going to die of natural causes (collapse, footings scouring, earthquake, etc) before anything is done.

Prove me wrong oh elected officials....

Sorry too focused on the sudden replacement of a tunnel that hasn't been studied or complained about nearly as much.

Sudden as in starting in 2017.

Metro-One · #**1003** Posted **Sep 8, 2014, 2:26 PM**

Two different authorities have control over those projects, so essentially they are not related.

That being said the province should take charge of all bridge / highway projects (with some federal funding would be nice).

I personally thing the GEB and GEW is a fantastic piece of infrastructure, but even so it should have been a provincial government project, not Translink.

And for that matter, Translink should not be responsible for the capital cost of projects period (highway or rapid transit).

WarrenC12 · #**1004** Posted **Sep 8, 2014, 8:39 PM**

Well, true. But Translink can't really afford anything like a Patullo replacement without provincial government dollars anyway.

Translink should handle public transit only, or one agency should handle roads and transit. Having a mix like today is a circus...

DKaz · #**1005** Posted **Sep 8, 2014, 8:46 PM**

Maybe everyone who crosses the Patullo Bridge regularly should carry life jackets in their vehicles. Assuming they survive the plunge into the water.

Metro-One · #**1006** Posted **Sep 9, 2014, 5:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well, true. But Translink can't really afford anything like a Patullo replacement without provincial government dollars anyway.

Translink should handle public transit only, or one agency should handle roads and transit. Having a mix like today is a circus...

New West has been the biggest problem regarding this bridge.

Sometime I don't understand Translink, they seem to have no balls at all and they put way too much weight into the community consultations.

I went to them years back now, where they had several finalized alignments proposed.

The Surrey side chose a winner (which fit what Translink was hoping for), the people who went to the New West consultations voted and chose a winner (I was at those meetings) which I believe was the same choice (or one very similar to what Surrey had chosen) everything looked as if it were good to go but......then New West City government said no to all of them without proposing any realistic alternative.

If Translink just had some fucking balls and said, "Sorry, a winner has been chosen" then the bridge would be u/c right now!

So annoying, Translink also put its tail between its legs and sat in the corner after its very realistic and decent completion to United Boulevard proposal.

Again, they are great at pissing money away at doing studies and coming up with decent proposals, just to immediately cower to New West.

I....don't...get...it.

It almost comes off as if what ever Surrey and Coquiltam think is worth nothing, and whatever New West thinks is the be all and end all.

WarrenC12 · #**1007** Posted **Sep 9, 2014, 5:20 AM**

Translink doesn't have any money anyway, so I doubt they really care too much.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**1008** Posted **Sep 9, 2014, 5:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Translink doesn't have any money anyway, so I doubt they really care too much.

why does translink have any authority over road infrastructure? i always thought they should only be in charge of transit like skytrains/buses/etc. BCMOT and municipalities should be in charge of roads.

TransitJack · #**1009** Posted **Sep 9, 2014, 5:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Two different authorities have control over those projects, so essentially they are not related.

That being said the province should take charge of all bridge / highway projects (with some federal funding would be nice).

I personally thing the GEB and GEW is a fantastic piece of infrastructure, but even so it should have been a provincial government project, not Translink.

And for that matter, Translink should not be responsible for the capital cost of projects period (highway or rapid transit).

I agree, and said that before also, that TL shouldn't be bearing the cost of massive infrastructure projects while the Province and Feds collect the majority of taxes on gasoline.

TL should be involved in planning and operating only. Especially considering the Pattullo bridge was once under the Province's control.

officedweller · #**1010** Posted **Sep 9, 2014, 6:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

why does translink have any authority over road infrastructure? i always thought they should only be in charge of transit like skytrains/buses/etc. BCMOT and municipalities should be in charge of roads.

So that regional transit and regional roads can grow in lockstep and be planned together - unless cities like New Westminster decide to stonewall the process (i.e. Braid and NFPR).

makr3trkr · #**1011** Posted **Sep 25, 2014, 5:30 PM**

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2014/09/21...-save-pattullo
By Michael Mui, 24 Hours Vancouver
Sunday, September 21, 2014 4:38:32 PDT PM

"The 77-year-old bridge, according to a seismic vulnerability assessment by Delcan Corporation, doesn’t meet current seismic standards.

Potholes are being caused by “delamination” — literally the deck splitting by layer into pieces, and have no direct relation to the weight of traffic above the deck.

Delaminations below the deck and on piers can cause concrete to break off — safety nets have now been installed below the bridge.

“It was also noted that the steel railngs and the down pipes used for drainage are heavily corroded and are in need of repair,” the report said.

“At this time, the possibility of a localized full thickness deck failure (a small or large but deep pothole that could cause damage to vehicles) cannot be ruled out.”"

GeeCee · #**1012** Posted **Oct 3, 2014, 10:59 AM**

Replacement is not contingent on the successful outcome of the referendum

http://www.tricitynews.com/news/277967871.html

Metro-One · #**1013** Posted **Oct 3, 2014, 11:15 AM**

Wow, ready to open in 2023?

I remember people on this exact thread way back in 2009 gasping at it opening in 2017.

Boy, would be nice to have that old schedule back.

They ruled out the 300 million dollar retrofit to add 20 to 30 years of life, thats good, but they are still blowing 100 million on a deck rehabilitation just to keep it operating for another 9 years....

Start building the Patullo next year and save the 100 million, it has been studied to death! We know what to do.

trofirhen · #**1014** Posted **Oct 3, 2014, 12:56 PM**

Only 4 lanes, though? That's a bit short-sighted, IMO.

Metro-One · #**1015** Posted **Oct 3, 2014, 1:46 PM**

Yes, almost everyone agrees with that (6 lanes is ideal with the two outer lanes being add / drop lanes at the approaches). but for some reason New West always seems to have the loudest voice in the room.

If you read closely though is will open with 4 lanes but built so that it can be expanded to 6 lanes.

Chadillaccc · #**1016** Posted **Oct 3, 2014, 1:53 PM**

Still no rendering on the new one eh? Damn.

Whalleyboy · #**1017** Posted **Oct 3, 2014, 2:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yes, almost everyone agrees with that (6 lanes is ideal with the two outer lanes being add / drop lanes at the approaches). but for some reason New West always seems to have the loudest voice in the room.

If you read closely though is will open with 4 lanes but built so that it can be expanded to 6 lanes.

Reading that made me happy. But kinda pissed that it took them this long to figure out to do this.

Just goes to show you new west didn't care one bit about the price. They just cared how many lanes were coming into their city.

GeeCee · #**1018** Posted **Dec 17, 2014, 5:00 AM**

http://www.tricitynews.com/news/286008121.html

Does it really make sense to be spending $100m on remediation work that could last for "up to three years" and then build a replacement 7-10 years from now? IMO they should close it now and start replacing it ASAP - save the 10%.

s211 · #**1019** Posted **Dec 17, 2014, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeeCee

http://www.tricitynews.com/news/286008121.html

Does it really make sense to be spending $100m on remediation work that could last for "up to three years" and then build a replacement 7-10 years from now? IMO they should close it now and start replacing it ASAP - save the 10%.

The bridge might just possibly be in that bad a shape that a very expensive band-aid is needed.

aberdeen5698 · #**1020** Posted **Dec 17, 2014, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Does it really make sense to be spending $100m on remediation work that could last for "up to three years" and then build a replacement 7-10 years from now? IMO they should close it now and start replacing it ASAP - save the 10%.

Good heavens, no! It's blasphemy to incite the closure of traffic lanes and the hampering of automobile movement!