HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 28, 2008, 10:59 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 17,295
Patullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | Proposed

Important decisions on the Patullo Bridge expected tomorrow
Surrey/CKNW(AM980)

5/28/2008

Tomorrow the Translink board meets and it's reported they will approve either a median for the Patullo Bridge, or 3 wider lanes using a counter flow system similar to the Lions Gate Bridge.


Four years ago John Heida died in a head-on crash on the Patullo Bridge and friend Bob Behnke has since lobbied for better safety on the bridge.

He's very happy something is being done.

"If it happens, I’ll believe it when I see. I'm sorry to be so negative but I’ve heard so much talk for so many years now, this is four years, been to many meetings myself, gone in front of Translink, of course you can't very well do that even any more. You can only rehash the same point over and over. I'm ecstatic if they're going to do something."

Behnke says he favors a median on the Patullo Bridge, but he understands the engineering for that could be very difficult.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 28, 2008, 11:22 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,523
TransLink is not even considering tearing down the bridge? -_-"

Short term solution, yes the counterflow system might work. Long term? I don't think so. Wouldn't mind a 5 lane bridge, ample room for cyclists and pedestrians, and a second deck for rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 28, 2008, 11:27 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,240
Uh oh.
I wonder how all those people who are angry about the Patullo being touted as the "untolled" alternative will feel about having a lane removed.

Me thinks the end with the one lane is going to get gridlocked pretty quick.

Hopefully they can find a billion dollars for another bridge... but given the 14B transit plan, me thinks the Patullo won't be replaced anytime soon.

I'm sure glad I don't commute to surrey from Coquitlam for work (although one of my friends does).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 12:26 AM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,033
These are all band-aid solutions. That bridge needs to be replaced,badly
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 12:34 AM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
formerly tin²ium
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,209
And as was suggested, make it a part of a new Rail Bridge as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 12:58 AM
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 4,173
Quote:
Me thinks the end with the one lane is going to get gridlocked pretty quick.
Yeah the Patullo has a steady flow of traffic going both ways at peak periods. If 3 lanes and a counterflow system are introduced it's going to be hell either way. I've always thought the complete replacement of this bridge should be a Translink priority.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 2:58 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 26,066
if they got rid of the pedestrian lane they could probably get enough width anyone think/know?
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 3:20 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,523
I don't think they could do that. One: it's an unsafe bridge already - and even though adding a concrete median would be nice, you still have to deal with small lanes and now, you forced one lane closer to the edge of the bridge. Two: the pedestrian deck (I think) is extended outwards, so you would have structural problems with that. Not enough to support the weight of trucks running over it, that's for sure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 4:17 AM
alta-bc alta-bc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 31
I just drove over this bridge an hour ago. What a piece of s**t!!!
The narrow lanes, the potholes and uneven pavement and the sharp curve at the north end, how about that short wooden connector at the approach at the south end?
Unbelievable, it's like stepping back in time and into a third world country while crossing this bridge... I'm just glad I don't have to use it every day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 5:49 AM
cc85 cc85 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Island City
Posts: 451
there are some big plans being looked at to solve the problem, could include connecting to some islands..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 5:52 AM
Nutterbug Nutterbug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by tintinium View Post
And as was suggested, make it a part of a new Rail Bridge as well.
They should do that. Twin it with a new rail deck.

They'd then have an excuse to charge a toll on it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 7:14 AM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,033
Still for the life of me can't figure out why, when they built the skytrain bridge, they couldn't have thrown some extra money into the project and built an Alex Fraser replica that could have serviced BOTH automobiles AND skytrain. Instead, we now have a bridge that is falling apart and has taken many lives because it was never designed to accommodate more than 2 lanes of traffic, and a nice but underused (other than a handful of skytrain cars every 5 minutes) newer bridge right next to that old piece of dung. STUPID!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 7:23 AM
The_Henry_Man The_Henry_Man is offline
HA
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Cloud, MN/Richmond, BC
Posts: 835
^The 3-lane counterflow lane idea on Patullo is the most retarded idea I've ever heard in my life. Lions Gate Bridge as is (with counterflow) is bad enough already. With Surrey's almost 400,000 ppl compared to barely 100,000 ppl living in the North Shore.

I see two solutions:
1) As others have said, build a brand new bridge, with 3 lanes each way, with a design that can expanded to 4 lanes each way in the future, with a railway deck underneath (Should be 4 parallel tracks: 1 each way for freight and 1 each way for future WCE expansion from Waterfront to Abbotsford). Translink should take a look at HK's Tsing Ma Bridge as an inspiration. When that new bridge is completed, immediately tear down the existing Patullo. I really can't image why would anyone want to keep such a torn-down and unsafe bridge just for the sake of a "valuable historic monument".

2) A 6-8 lane tunnel (I prefer this one).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 7:42 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,806
With the twinned Port Mann opening in 4 years, it should help relieve some congestion off the Patullo.

I'd say spend the $60-million today for interim safety improvements on the bridge. Turn it into a three-lane counterflow bridge by late-2009, and then start building a 6-lane bridge in 2020.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 7:52 AM
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 4,173
I don't think anyone cares for the historical value of the Patullo anymore. After the tenth motorist death I'm sure any nostalgia for the bridge had been smashed into oblivion. If and when a new bridge or crossing is proposed I'm wondering if New West will pull the "we don't want anymore lanes of traffic coming in its not fair meh meh meh" card. Just look at United Boulevard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 8:07 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,997
The new rail crossing wont be built in that area and it wont be a bridge. It will probably be a tunnel in the Coquitlam area closer to the Port man bridge. As for a new road bridge the plan has been for a long time to build a bridge from the Braid area to Surrey over the islands in the river, there are some that also want to expand and conect the islands to allow some sort of development. The problem with that is that i cant tell you that will never happen because of the importance of those islands to fish and birds, as far as fish go the area has a crap load of sturgeon and im sure they will be the species that will be used to stop any reclamation of the islands...i should know i often fish for them there.

Really the best thing to do is build a rail tunnel just west of the Portman bridge, build a new 6 lane vehicle bridge in the Braid area to Surrey and make the Patullo bridge 3 lanes(although like some have mentioned there is pretty steady traffic flow in both directions, but with a new bridge east of there it should be fine for a long time).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 8:09 AM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,033
If you're referring to that one lane 1800's style wooden bridge that is not suitable for a farming community, I hear ya.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 8:13 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
if they got rid of the pedestrian lane they could probably get enough width anyone think/know?
There is only a tiny pedestrian sidewalk on the outside of the span on the west side of the bridge, its impossible to widen the lanes. Infact between the spans there is only maybe 2-3 inches of curb separating the roadway from the steel spans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 8:16 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastVanMark View Post
If you're referring to that one lane 1800's style wooden bridge that is not suitable for a farming community, I hear ya.
No im not talking about the United Boulevard bridge im talking about plans that have been around for a long time to connect Bluemountain road to the other side of the highway and crteate another interchange and build a new bridge from around the Frasermills site to Surrey. Also that wooden bridge is not going to be part of United Boulevard as the plan is and land is in place to run United Boulevard south west around the northern edge of Brunet creek and build it as a overpass over the rail tracks and skytrain guideway to connect up with Brunet street. Thats why there is a dip in the skytrain tracks in that area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 8:20 AM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
No im not talking about the United Boulevard bridge im talking about plans that have been around for a long time to connect Bluemountain road to the other side of the highway and crteate another interchange and build a new bridge from around the Frasermills site to Surrey.
Sorry, I meant that for the post directly above yours (VanMan)
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 > SSP: Local Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:01 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.