stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge (Pattullo Bridge Replacement) | U/C

[Mininari]

Rehabilitate is a 4-letter word.
I'd prefer to skip the euphanism and go straight to the truth:

"fix up the existing inadequate, unsafe, seismic deathtrap we call the Patullo."

However, I could see them trying to find ways to put off the replacement project another 10-15 years. If Translink is about to start a civil war amongst the GVRD over funding their share of the evergreen line, how the heck are they ever going to be able to finance a $1B loan (and counting) for a new Patullo?
Will toll revenue from the new structure pay 100% of the debt servicing costs?

[golog]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Rehabilitate it? Are you serious? Why, because it would be cheaper, but oh wait, you'll have to rehabilitate it all over again in 10 years.

A lot of bridges were built in the 60s and then all construction stopped in the mid 70s. That's one way to solve a provincial budget problem. Other than the Surrey Skytrain and Alex Fraser bridges, nothing was built until Golden Ears last year. (well, the Lions Gate had a big rehab around 2000)

Instead of saving money during the years when no bridges were built, it was spent. Now there is no cash reserve, and we've borrowed a heck of a lot of money through P3s without even replacing half of the bridges from the last big round of building. It's unsustainable, the bridges even cost too much without adding financing costs.

It's not entirely the provincial government's fault, corporations went multinational and with acquiescence in Ottawa have been able to take their profits tax-free via tax dodging through transfer pricing and shelter structures. Little guy has less money to tax, and what the little guy does have is being directed to record mortgage payments.

Don't forget the downloading of costs to the province in the 90s. Costs from schools to healthcare have been escalating without relent. The logging industry. It's time we all sat down and had some big adult conversations.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

...And we all know that rehabiliation will likely be a cheap half job that will simply require changes within 5-10 years. Just like those new EB Port Mann HOV lanes.

That wasn't cheap either; $65M in 2000 dollars?

In anycase, the above points about boom-bust bridge construction are very correct, and worrisome. How many aging major bridges do we have to replace in the next 20 years? At this rate, we're going to be looking at a billion-per-bridge, MINIMUM, given the amount of appeasements, property expropriation values, and minimum standards that will be demanded of these new structures.

Is it unfair to make people pay to cross a bridge, or should it be expected when you live in a city that requires high-level, expensive crossings of multiple waterways?

[go_leafs_go02]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can think of, when the old Port Mann goes down in 2013. That will be the first Fraser River crossing removal between the Staight of Georgia and Hope.

[Zassk]

There were many old low-level wooden bridges across the Fraser removed before your (our) time...

-Fraser St. to Mitchell Island to Richmond; I believe that was the 2nd bridge in that location
-Marpole to Airport
-Old bridge near Oak St. (I think... or was it the existing railway bridge shared with cars?)
-Old bridge to Queensborough (I think?)
-And there was an old bridge at Mission before the current one

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Zassk

There were many old low-level wooden bridges across the Fraser removed before your (our) time...

-Fraser St. to Mitchell Island to Richmond; I believe that was the 2nd bridge in that location
-Marpole to Airport
-Old bridge near Oak St. (I think... or was it the existing railway bridge shared with cars?)
-Old bridge to Queensborough (I think?)
-And there was an old bridge at Mission before the current one

Mission bridge simply is the existing train bridge now. Cars were on top of the trestle

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Fraser St. to Mitchell Island to Richmond; I believe that was the 2nd bridge in that location

I used to bike over that bridge long, long ago when I was young. Back then you could cross the Fraser without having to climb up such a long hill (as long as the swing span wasn't open!).

[Stingray2004]

Something never made sense with the sudden abeyance of the public meetings last fall for the new Pattullo. Now it seems that the picture is becoming clearer. It appears that politics has reared its ugly head in terms of a toll on the new crossing and the opposition to same.

Apparently MoT has moved into the picture to ascertain whether the existing structure can be refurbished at a much cheaper cost without a toll scheme. Still, at the end of the day, I suspect that the decision will be in favour of a new 6-lane tolled crossing.

Spectre of Tolls May Quash New Pattullo

By Jeff Nagel - BC Local News
Published: February 08, 2011 10:00 AM

The aging Pattullo Bridge might be refurbished rather than rebuilt in order to save money and avoid a controversial decision to charge tolls on it.

Despite TransLink's 2008 decision to build a new six-lane bridge, the provincial government has ordered a pause in design work while its own engineers consider whether a fix-up might suffice instead.

"The province wanted to come in and look at other options potentially for rehabilitating and expanding the existing structure, as opposed to building a new one," said TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie, adding Victoria's aim is to avoid tolls. "Obviously if you can get a facility you don't have to toll, that's a good thing."

TransLink has listed tolls as the only apparent way to pay for what it expected to be a $1-billion-plus project. But potential tolls on the Pattullo have been a lightning rod for criticism from motorists and politicians, many of whom say it's unfair to toll every bridge into Surrey.

Tolls on the Golden Ears, Port Mann and the Pattullo bridges would force drivers who want a free crossing of the Fraser River to detour south to the Alex Fraser Bridge. Successive transportation ministers have pledged to explore non-tolled options.

Public meetings had been slated in New Westminster and Surrey last fall on how the new Pattullo would connect to area roads. They were abruptly cancelled with little explanation, although Hardie said at the time there was "no question" a new bridge is needed.

He now says officials at the transportation ministry simply want to see if there's any alternative that has been overlooked. "They've got some pretty bright people at the Ministry of Transportation in the engineering side," he said. Hardie said the province also wants TransLink's justification of the need for six lanes, which he said is in part to ensure efficient connections to the North and South Fraser Perimeter Roads.

Hardie said the public meetings will likely be rescheduled for June. It's not clear how many lanes a refurbished Pattullo might end up with. The 73-year-old bridge is 12 metres wide, far tighter than the minimum 19-metre width for a four-lane bridge built to modern standards today.

Consultants Delcan advised the TransLink board three years ago against using the old bridge in any new configuration. They considered turning it into a three-lane one-way bridge that would pair up with a new twin three-lane bridge going the other way.

But Delcan found that would cost more than simply building an all-new six-lane bridge, which would also have lower maintenance costs. The existing Pattullo's usable life could be extended at most 50 years, they added. TransLink has performed seismic upgrading on the existing bridge. Previous studies looked at but panned various short-term fixes to make the bridge safer.

<snip>

TransLink had talked of fast-tracking construction so the new bridge could open in 2015 or 2016. It was assumed a private partner would borrow the money, build the bridge and then be paid through tolls. The new bridge is supposed to be built just upstream of the existing one.

A transportation ministry spokesman reached Monday was unable to answer questions on the government's vision for the Pattullo except to say that any decisions related to the bridge would be made by TransLink.

Source: http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/missioncityrecord/news/115577059.html

[Metro-One]

Honestly? This bridge needs to go more than any other structure in Metro Vancouver!

I have said it once and i will say it again, put reduced tolls on all of our water crossings and possibly have a tax return system where low income people are refunded a portion (or all) of their tolls at years end.

I was so excited to see their bridge alignment as well At 1.4 billion dollars I was dreaming what fancy, possibly elevated, viaducts and interchanges they would be building to connect with the SFPR and the Surrey escarpment, etc...

[trofirhen]

Being creative-minded, I could imagine the Patullo in an action movie about a narrow, rickety, maligned traffic crossing that suddenly, one day, gives way due to metal fatigue ... screeching steel girders ripping, the bridge deck swaying, support beams crashing, children screaming in panic, a few cars tragically lost to the brown waters of the Fraser, cries of "oh my baby, oh my baby! ....", a matter of hours before the entire deck collapses taking trapped motorists with it ....

Hey, it's happened in real life (not long ago in Minneapolis) ... why not here?

Please excuse excuse the cavalier tone of this tongue-in-cheek polemic, but as Metro said, this bridge has got to go!

[jlousa]

While it's extremely old, we do not need to worry about the Patullo bridge falling anytime soon. The bridge is actually maintained unlike bridges in some jurisdictions. Personally I have no issue with them tolling the bridge if it's done to pay for it and then removed a couple of decades later. Increase the gas tax even more to influence behaviour once the tolls are removed.
Have Canada Border services charge a re-admittance fee too for all Canadians re entrying of $10 to avoid people driving across to fill their tanks, we'll call it a cost recovery user fee . Let Americans enter for free so we don't scare them from coming.

[Metro-One]

Of course on News 1130 they are broadcasting the extreme environmentalists' reaction to the news, citing it as a victory.

They openly state they are against all road expansion projects in Metro Vancouver.

For me, when someone is that one sided on a topic as this, their viewpoint is useless. It is the exact same as those who appose all transit expansions or all cycling initiatives. All completely useless extreme viewpoints.

I really hope things get back on track for this project, along with that first segment of the NFPR Translink proposed last month (which New West shot down). It makes so much sense to properly end United Blvd. with the interchange they proposed with Brunette.

[go_leafs_go02]

Sigh..here I thought the MOT was finally getting with it with the Gateway program, now they want to refurbish an 80 year old bridge? C'mon.

Get it done properly.

[crazyjoeda]

the bridge needs to be replaced and someone has to pay for it. It does seem unfair to only toll Surrey bridges, the new Pitt River bridge is not tolled.

Have Canada Border services charge a re-admittance fee too for all Canadians re entrying of $10 to avoid people driving across to fill their tanks, we'll call it a cost recovery user fee . Let Americans enter for free so we don't scare them from coming.

I'm pretty sure that would be unconstitutional, so thankfully it will never happen. And those useless fruit inspectors at CBSA would have to levy that fee against all Canadians at every boarder be it land, air or sea.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Of course on News 1130 they are broadcasting the extreme environmentalists' reaction to the news, citing it as a victory.

They openly state they are against all road expansion projects in Metro Vancouver.

For me, when someone is that one sided on a topic as this, their viewpoint is useless. It is the exact same as those who appose all transit expansions or all cycling initiatives. All completely useless extreme viewpoints.

I really hope things get back on track for this project, along with that first segment of the NFPR Translink proposed last month (which New West shot down). It makes so much sense to properly end United Blvd. with the interchange they proposed with Brunette.

much better to have the cars sitting idling in traffic i guess eh oh gotta love those entitled vancouver people who refuse to go east of boundary

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jlousa

While it's extremely old, we do not need to worry about the Patullo bridge falling anytime soon. The bridge is actually maintained unlike bridges in some jurisdictions. Personally I have no issue with them tolling the bridge if it's done to pay for it and then removed a couple of decades later. Increase the gas tax even more to influence behaviour once the tolls are removed.
Have Canada Border services charge a re-admittance fee too for all Canadians re entrying of $10 to avoid people driving across to fill their tanks, we'll call it a cost recovery user fee . Let Americans enter for free so we don't scare them from coming.

When you say you have no issue with them tolling (neither do I) I hope you're talking about a NEW bridge --- not a re-jigged existing Patullo .....

[Mininari]

So, if we distributed tolls across the region to fund a new Patullo, AND continue funding the GEB & new PMB... what would the toll-per-crossing be?

Bits:
-There would be no toll on out-of-province license plates...
-A vehicle levy would balance the playing field against those who have to cross two or three bridges a day... versus those who don't at all (Port Moody resident who works in Vancouver).
-In-province plates from out of town would be exempt if we used a vehicle levy instead.

Come on BC Government / Broken Translink / Mayors; You guys have got to solve this general funding impasse. Patullo is a deathtrap -- its been stated over and over and it has to be *REPLACED*. The existing structure cannot support 4 lanes safely, and its going to be bonkers when the PMB tolls go in. My only hope is that the "scoff-tolls" will get frustrated with their long detour and gingerly go back to using the PMB -- thus not oveloading the Patullo any further. Just wait until New West is B*!#@ing about the scoff-tolls rat-running in their streets. THEN try to convince them a 6-lane structure and the NFPR are beneficial projects to their community.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I really hope things get back on track for this project, along with that first segment of the NFPR Translink proposed last month (which New West shot down). It makes so much sense to properly end United Blvd. with the interchange they proposed with Brunette.

My personal hope is that all interested parties will be looking very closely at how the SFPR impacts regional traffic flows once it's up and running so that we can make an informed decision as a region and province as to what exactly will be needed for a Patullo replacement.

I also believe that any sustainable future for the NFPR will entail some form of enclosure, at least through the downtown area, and perhaps in the form of a greenway or transit ROW overtop. My hunch is that New West would be a more willing partner in any NFPR negotiations that take these long-term issues seriously, instead of the recent, piece-meal proposal that both failed to articulate a vision for the route as a whole, and threatened the integrity of an existing neighborhood at the same time. These long-term issues, in turn, will be known with much greater certainty once the SFPR is finished.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Sigh..here I thought the MOT was finally getting with it with the Gateway program, now they want to refurbish an 80 year old bridge? C'mon.

Get it done properly.

Patullo Bridge is owned by cash strapped Translink, not MOT.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

My personal hope is that all interested parties will be looking very closely at how the SFPR impacts regional traffic flows once it's up and running so that we can make an informed decision as a region and province as to what exactly will be needed for a Patullo replacement.

That's a good point. I currently utilize Hwy 91/Hwy 91A/Queensborough Bridge/Stewardson Way/Columbia Street to head to either the Tri-Cities or Hwy 1 WB.

Once the SFPR is completed, I will definitely be utilizing Hwy 91/SFPR/Pattullo Bridge/Columbia/Brunette to head to either the Tri-Cities or Hwy 1 WB.

I'm sure that traffic modelling will further confirm large traffic shifts in that regard. Currently, the Pattullo Bridge carries ~80,000 vehicles/day and that will increase with existing traffic growth, SFPR traffic, as well as a tolled PMB.

What does "refurbishing" the Pattullo Bridge mean anyway? You can't expand the width of the bridge, you can't shoe-horn another lane onto the deck, and the current cross-section is narrow and sub-standard. Sounds like an exercise in futility with that 73-old facility.