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

[tybuilding]

Pattullo Bridge Review
Public Consultation
February 24 – March 14, 2014

The City of Coquitlam, the City of New Westminster, the City of Surrey and TransLink are working together to review and evaluate alternatives to rehabilitate or replace the Pattullo Bridge and to determine a preferred alternative that meets the needs of communities connected by the bridge, as well as those of the broader region.

From February 24 to March 14, 2014, the Pattullo Bridge Review Team will be consulting with local residents and businesses, local and regional stakeholders, and bridge users about the further evaluation of six alternatives to rehabilitate or replace the Pattullo Bridge.

As part of this consultation a series of meetings will take place in Coquitlam, New Westminster, and Surrey. You are invited to attend a small group meeting or public open house (schedules below) to provide your input and speak with members of the Pattullo Bridge Review Team from the City of Coquitlam, the City of New Westminster, the City of Surrey and TransLink.

SMALL GROUP MEETING SCHEDULE *

Small group meetings are scheduled for two hours and are a sit-down meeting format. Please register to attend a small group meeting by signing up at www.pattullobridgereview.ca or calling 604-684-6840.

COMMUNITY DATE TIME LOCATION
New Westminster Monday, February 24 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Inn At The Quay
900 Quayside Drive.
New Westminster Monday, February 24 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Inn At The Quay
900 Quayside Drive.
New Westminster Monday, February 24 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn At The Quay
900 Quayside Drive.
Surrey Wednesday, February 26 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Bridgeview Community Centre
11475 – 126A Street
Surrey Wednesday, February 26 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Bridgeview Community Centre
11475 – 126A Street
Surrey Wednesday, February 26 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m. Bridgeview Community Centre
11475 – 126A Street

Sign-up to attend a meeting or call 604-684-6840 with the following information:
• First and last name
• Meeting date and time (as noted above)
• Contact information (phone and/or email)

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SCHEDULE *

In addition to a small group meeting, we encourage you to attend one of the public open houses that will run for three hours. The first half of the open house will be a drop-in format. The second half will consist of a short presentation followed by a question and answer session.

COMMUNITY DATE TIME LOCATION
Surrey Thursday, February 27 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Bridgeview Elementary School
12834 115A Avenue
New Westminster Saturday, March 1 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Inn At The Quay
900 Quayside Drive
Coquitlam Saturday, March 1 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Place Maillardville
1200 Cartier Avenue
Surrey Monday, March 3 5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library
10350 University Drive
Coquitlam Tuesday, March 4 5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Poirier Sport and Leisure Complex
633 Poirier Street
New Westminster Wednesday, March 5 5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners' Hall
318 Keary St.
Surrey Saturday, March 8 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Bridgeview Elementary School
12834 115A Avenue
New Westminster Monday, March 10 5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn At The Quay
900 Quayside Drive
* Please check www.pattullobridgereview.ca for any potential revisions to this schedule.

Consultation materials, including the Discussion Guide and Feedback Form, will be available at www.pattullobridgereview.ca.

As of February 24, 2014, you can learn more and provide feedback by:
Reading the Discussion Guide and Feedback Form and completing an Online Feedback Form at www.pattullobridgereview.ca

Attending a small group meeting or public open house

Visiting our website, or PlaceSpeak at www.placespeak.com, or CitySpeaks at www.cityspeaks.ca/Pattullo.

Sending written submissions by email: [email protected] or by mail: PO Box 2225 Vancouver Main Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3W2

We look forward to your input.

Sincerely,

Eugene Wat, Manager, Infrastructure Planning, City of New Westminster

Paul Lee, Rapid Transit & Strategic Projects Manager, City of Surrey

Catherine Mohoruk, Manager, Transportation Planning, City of Coquitlam

Laurel Johnston, Senior Stakeholder Relations Advisor, TransLink

[officedweller]

New West Council wants a 4 lane tolled crossing (nothing new, really):

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/new-westm...llo-surrey-pushes-for-six-lanes-1.877171

[WarrenC12]

Lets go ahead and build it. 4 Lanes in the same way that the AFB opened with 4 lanes..

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by officedweller

New West Council wants a 4 lane tolled crossing (nothing new, really):

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/new-westm...llo-surrey-pushes-for-six-lanes-1.877171

four lane bridge basically guarantees no functional connectivity from the SFPR

the constant flow of trucks climbing from the Surrey side and merging onto the bridge would continuously disrupt traffic

having 1 or 2 add/drop (auxiliary) lanes (retaining four through lanes) is prudent for a new structure with 75+ years of service (not to mention a lot safer)

tolling the bridge will prevent traffic from expanding and induced demand

[GMasterAres]

I say it again. It will be a 6 lane bridge and it will connect to where the Patullo now connects and New West will end up being completely ignored because they put themselves in exactly this position on their own by saying no to the NFPR.

Putting up a 4 lane bridge as replacement or putting up a new bridge connecting to Coquitlam is stupid. They could put a 6 lane bridge and build the entire NFPR for the cost of a bridge to Coquitlam and you'd still have the issue of needing to get from Burnaby <> Coquitlam through New West.

New West is just flapping their gums.

[WarrenC12]

If New West doesn't at least play ball the whole thing will be a waste as a 6 lane replacement.

[WarrenC12]

Here is the report from New West on the Patullo bridge (Stephen Rees posted):

http://www.newwestcity.ca/database/files/library/Pattullo_Bridge_Perspective_Paper.pdf

Interesting to see traffic stats back to 1983, pre-AFB. About the same as today, and traffic was declining until the PMB tolls came in. Even the 2008-2012 hassle of PMB/#1 construction didn't see a huge increase in traffic.

Another interesting tidbit on page 20. A new 4 lane bridge is priced at $850M, while a new 6 lane bridge is $1.5B+. That's closing in on 2x the price. I assume that includes all of the necessary improvements on either side.

That extra ~$700M would go a long way for transit in Surrey.

[MIPS]

The perfect political solution is a six lane bridge and in beaurocratic fashion the ramp on the New West side narrows to or only supports four lanes for maximum confusion on the bridge deck as the outermost lanes merge or simply terminate.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Another interesting tidbit on page 20. A new 4 lane bridge is priced at $850M, while a new 6 lane bridge is $1.5B+. That's closing in on 2x the price. I assume that includes all of the necessary improvements on either side.

That sounds like a fat load of BS to me.

Other documents show a 5 Lane Bridge at $1.45B, while a 6 Lane Bridge at $1.50B. To me, a $50M incremental cost doesn't sound surprising for an extra lane.

There must either be a lot of pork in the 6 Lane option, or absolutely no other improvements included in the 4 Lane option. Don't get your hopes up about an $850M bridge.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Here is the report from New West on the Patullo bridge (Stephen Rees posted):

http://www.newwestcity.ca/database/files/library/Pattullo_Bridge_Perspective_Paper.pdf

Interesting to see traffic stats back to 1983, pre-AFB. About the same as today, and traffic was declining until the PMB tolls came in. Even the 2008-2012 hassle of PMB/#1 construction didn't see a huge increase in traffic.

Key point missed, Metro-Vancouver has grown by 1 million people since 1983. Numbers have stayed the same but it is largely because of the addition of new corridors. Had they not constructed the AFB, or the East-West connector, or improved Queensborough, or the GEB, or now Gateway, I'm sure the Pattullo either would have continued to rise or would have plateaued which I think it actually has forcing industry to move.

There is such a thing in regional design as critical mass. Bridges for example don't grow in traffic until 24/7 they are bumper to bumper with people parked. Also remember that the slower traffic runs over a bridge, the lower technically their numbers per hour become. Quick example:

100 cars moving through 2 lanes on a bridge crossing in 3 minutes = 2000 cars per hour, or 48000 per day.

100 cars moving through 2 lanes of a bridge crossing in 15 minutes = 400 cars per hour, or 9600 per day

So as you can see, the same amount of cars crossing a fixed span but taking longer due to congestion means the statistics will come out showing less cars per hour which can be read 2 ways:

1. First way is that the amount of cars per day crossing the bridge is decreasing so things are good.
2. Second way is that the same amount of cars are taking 12 minutes longer to cross the same span as before, so things are bad.

It is all in how you read it and how you look at the other circumstances. Simple car counts don't tell the whole story. When you read Translink's reports, they take that into account and they don't just blindly read statistics. New Westminster's reports all (contrary to every other city, consultant firm, or agency) just take raw car count numbers. SO they believe #1 is true when everyone else says #2 is true.

So read everything especially a report written by staff for council that is entrenched in an opinion, with a grain of salt. A city staffer especially a high end planner or roads engineer working for New West is going to publish a report that re-affirms council's opinion. If it doesn't, that roads engineer's manager will be fired. Just the simple truth of the matter.

If New Westminster Mayror and Council were completely neutral to the debate and asked their staff to present a report, I would believe the numbers far more than how they have pretty much said what the report confirms for years meaning they skewed the writing.

Truth is, Pattullo according to Translink is at capacity meaning it can't increase traffic anymore so the numbers are going to be static forever. No more cars can get over so they are dispersing or they are simply taking far longer to get over the bridge. The fact they are taking far longer is why this is in the news with streets in New Westminster full and delayed. You can visibly see the traffic is far greater and cars/trucks are taking WAY longer but because they are moving slower and going through a fixed span (bridge isn't wider, more cars = slower transit) the stats balance each other out.

As time increases, car count decreases = overall numbers remain the same.

We rely way too much on statistics and graphs in society these days and have to learn to just trust our eyes and ears a bit more. Needs a new bridge, and it needs to be 6 lanes.

Another interesting tidbit on page 20. A new 4 lane bridge is priced at $850M, while a new 6 lane bridge is $1.5B+. That's closing in on 2x the price. I assume that includes all of the necessary improvements on either side.

Here's an interesting thought and a different way of looking at things you may not have thought about. We have to build a new bridge, even New Westminster agrees with that.

So should we spend $850million for a new bridge that gets us no further as a region? AKA we have to spend $850million anyway, but at the end we get absolutely nothing other than a new bridge. The traffic bottleneck is the same, the delays are the same, the frustration is the same, the back ups are the same.

Or do we spend $1.5billion on a new bridge with extra lanes that directly connect to the SFPR and a redesign of the New West and Surrey sides to have more efficient travel and movement?

So really it isn't $700M extra, but rather it is simply $700M to build a new bridge period.

I would rather they either spend the $1.5billion to improve the bridge, or they spend $0 on a bridge going to New West that is exactly the same, and spend $1.5 billion on a better bridge somewhere else that avoid New Westminster.

Any way you slice it, spending $850 million on a 4 lane bridge that changes absolutely NOTHING is a far greater waste then spending "an extra $700M" on a good bridge that increases capacity.

That extra ~$700M would go a long way for transit in Surrey.

Different things. ~$700M would go a long way for:

1. More healthcare
2. More homeless shelters
3. A lot of food for the homeless
4. New transit
5. A new bridge somewhere else
6. Some new hospitals
7. Schools
8....

It's a circular statement because you can always find "something else" to spend the money on. We need to replace the bridge, the money needs to be spent on roads. That money won't go anywhere else. I just get so tired of people constantly posting "That would be a lot of money for better transit" or "that would be a lot of money for a new hospital."

Eventually you have to build new bridges. When they built the expanded Surrey Memorial ER tower @ $500 million which was needed, somehow nobody was saying "Wow that money could buy a lot of new busses" or "Hey that $500 million should be spent easing school districts' deficits." Why does transportation infrastructure always get the "bah better stuff to spend on" treatment while many of those same people constantly complain about how Vancouver is so bad (#1 in North America isn't it) in traffic and congestion which is horrible for the environment and reduces our quality of life?

When someone can figure out how to get a giant container onto a SkyTrain, I'll give up pushing for new roads and bridge along with new transit alternatives aka both.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That sounds like a fat load of BS to me.

Other documents show a 5 Lane Bridge at $1.45B, while a 6 Lane Bridge at $1.50B. To me, a $50M incremental cost doesn't sound surprising for an extra lane.

There must either be a lot of pork in the 6 Lane option, or absolutely no other improvements included in the 4 Lane option. Don't get your hopes up about an $850M bridge.

When you look at the engineering and consultant reports published by Translink over the past 3 years, the cost difference between a 4 Lane bridge and 6 Lane bridge is roughly $150 million.

The road connections on either end and reconfiguration of traffic flows add an additional $200 million roughly regardless of what option is chosen. So you're spot on that the numbers in the New Westminster report is way off everything that has been published to date by multiple firms, reports, and agencies.

The New West numbers quack like a duck and walk like a duck yet they're trying to tell us they're a Moose.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Another interesting tidbit on page 20. A new 4 lane bridge is priced at $850M, while a new 6 lane bridge is $1.5B+. That's closing in on 2x the price. I assume that includes all of the necessary improvements on either side.

Wasn't the price tag for the new Port Mann Bridge less than $1.5B? I find that number hard to believe for the Pattullo replacement without lots of other road work being included in the number.

[Cypherus]

Just upgrade the bridge and toll it, or replace it with a new 4 lane crossing. Let's face it, a 6 lane bridge is not going to happen. The PMB already has sufficient capacity to take on Patullo traffic if the bridge was closed - we saw this on the weekends when the Patullo underwent surfacing, and extra capacity during weekdays can easily be accommodated on the PMB. Considering the 10 lane PMB, 6 lane AFB, and eventual 8-10 lane Massey Bridge, the Patullo bridge is perhaps redundant and now only serves as a way for truckers and Burnaby, Richmond, or Vancouver bound traffic to skip on the tolls by wasting more gas money instead.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Wasn't the price tag for the new Port Mann Bridge less than $1.5B? I find that number hard to believe for the Pattullo replacement without lots of other road work being included in the number.

I think the assumption is that the Sapperton Bar crossing would have a mid-bridge off ramp to a container terminal on the sandbar/new island, plus it would have new roads and ramps on the north end and to SFPR.
The existing Patullo site also has the advantage of virtually no northern approach due to the escarpment.
... but $1.5 B sounds rich.

[twoNeurons]

4-lane bridge with wider lanes is all that is required.

There are better places for a free-flow bridge west of that area. For example a bridge that connects Boundary to Richmond.
The crossing needs a 6-lane about as much as Vancouver needs to tear down the Lion's Gate and build a 6-lane crossing there.

Actually, that idea has more merit.

The ONLY way a 6-lane crossing is required is if you build it right into McBride and connect McBride to Hwy #1 via a limited access tunnel.

[finalcoolman]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

4-lane bridge with wider lanes is all that is required.

There are better places for a free-flow bridge west of that area. For example a bridge that connects Boundary to Richmond.
The crossing needs a 6-lane about as much as Vancouver needs to tear down the Lion's Gate and build a 6-lane crossing there.

Actually, that idea has more merit.

The ONLY way a 6-lane crossing is required is if you build it right into McBride and connect McBride to Hwy #1 via a limited access tunnel.

Lol, the Lions Gate Bridge will NEVER be torn down due to it's historical value. Expect that bridge to be renovated over and over again every 30-40 years or so like how it was redone in the late 1990s to keep it up forever. The Lions Gate Bridge will outlive all of us...guaranteed.

How about this idea for the Patullo bridge replacement. Build a 6 lane bridge to future proof it, but only use four lanes. The two extra lanes shall remain closed until the Stormont connector tunnel to Hwy 1 is built. This should appease New Westminster and make every one happy.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

A new 4 lane bridge is priced at $850M, while a new 6 lane bridge is $1.5B+.

What a bunch of absolute sheer BS!!! All of the previous engineering studies have confirmed that going from 4 to 6 lanes only has a relative incremental capex. Not virtually double!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously. What engineering firm gave this analysis to NW? They will be bankrupt and toast right off the bat!!!! What a complete capex joke!

And politically, New West is hard-core NDP. And so is north Surrey both provincially and federally. Not a peep from these politicos. And they have a political habit of publicly opposing everything. I wonder why?

Perhaps they might actually offend someone... instead of looking after the regional "public interest"?!

Methinks that the BC gov't should just "re-upload" the PB and carry on with it as a regional connector - with the McBride Connector to Hwy 1 added in. Sorry, but frick local politics when it comes to regional Metro Van connectors. "Not in the public interest"!

PS. 4 lanes are for thru-traffic. The other lane, in each direction, is for auxiliary "add-on" and "drop" off traffic from the SFPR/Scott Road in the south to McBride, etc. in the north permitting smooth traffic flow. Ever wonder why our Metro Vancouver bridges are at over-capacity during rush hour traffic?! And does nobody here even think about "50 years down the road"?! And the impact of a projected Metro Van population increase by another 1 million in just another 30 years?! Sigh!

[makr3trkr]

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/248650391.html

Stone cautious on tolling new Pattullo Bridge

Transportation Minister Todd Stone says the City of New Westminster's call for tolls on a rebuilt Pattullo Bridge may be problematic.

New Westminster council came out Wednesday morning in in favour of replacing the aging bridge with a new four-lane replacement – but only if it's tolled to help control traffic volumes.

The minister was asked if that would violate the province's promise when it built the new tolled Port Mann Bridge that the Pattullo would act as the free alternative.

"If it was to be tolled, that would seem to be contradictory to the provincial tolling policy, which does provide for a free alternative to new tolled structures," Stone told reporters in Victoria.

Stone has committed to review the government's tolling policy and it's not yet clear if that might open up options for universal bridge tolling advanced by some Metro mayors.

He said the province is urging the federal government to contribute to the Pattullo replacement – arguing it's of national significance due to its role in goods movement – but added tolls could be a roadblock.

"The feds have not tended to invest in projects that end up having tolls on them."

Stone was non-committal on whether he backs New Westminster's preference for a $850-million four-lane Pattullo, Surrey's call for a $1.2-billion six-lane replacement or a refurbished existing Pattullo.

He said he expects Metro Vancouver mayors to make a Pattullo replacement recommendation to him as part of the regional transportation plan they are working on to underpin a referendum on new TransLink taxes.

"The City of New Westminster really has to come to the table with a clear plan on what they intend to do to decongest their own road network," Stone added.

"There's no point in building a new structure that would then just take motorists into a wall on the New Westminster side."

The province has offered one third of the cost of a new bridge, although New West Mayor Wayne Wright said the provincial grant should instead go for rapid transit in Surrey.

Wright said a larger untolled bridge would only increase New West traffic congestion, which he said is already up due to motorists avoiding the tolls at the Port Mann.

"There is a need to respect New Westminster's established urban and historic context in the design of any new facilities," Wright said.

"Freeway-style on- and off-ramps are not an option in New Westminster's highly urbanized context. It would be impossible. We have no room without restructuring neighbourhoods and streets."

New West is also asking the province to connect the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR) with the Port Mann Bridge. Currently, traffic destined for Burnaby, Vancouver or Coquitlam must go 21 kilometres out its way to the 176 Street interchange to connect to Highway 1 and the Port Mann.

Having a South Fraser Perimeter Road direct link to the Port Mann would "promote regional truck traffic traveling where investments have already been made," said Wright.

New West Coun. Jonathan Coté said paying an extra $350 million to build a six-lane bridge makes no sense, especially if it were tolled, as studies indicate a toll would cut daily traffic from 75,000 to 50,000 crossings.

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts reiterated her city's support for a six-lane bridge and said tolls on the Pattullo can only come as part of a regional tolling scheme.

"I do not support tolling individual pieces of infrastructure," Watts said. "There needs to be a fair and equitable system put in place at a low rate."

New Westminster council still likes the idea of a new bridge on a different alignment between North Surrey and Coquitlam's United Boulevard industrial area, which would see much traffic bypass New West, along with retaining a refurbished two- or three-lane Pattullo.

[cornholio]

I would also assume that if a bridge is at capacity, and truck traffic as a percentage of total traffic increases, total through traffic during peak periods will decrease. I would also like to know how New Westminster get's its traffic counts. It makes sense that non peak period traffic counts have gone up since the Port Mann has been tolled, but the numbers they are reporting seem fishy if they are really comparing 24/7/365 average traffic counts from before to now.

Zero chance the replacement bridge will be 4 lanes, the worst case scenario is that New Westminster delays the project and costs the region time and money.

[WarrenC12]

Just start the tolling now if they are concerned about demand. The province's promise of a free alternative is a silly distraction. Nothing is free.

$1 on all bridges, reduce the PMB to $2. (And $2 on any new construction for x # of years)

Done and done!