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

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm surprised so many posters are in favour of a bigger repalcement, or replacement at all. We know the Port Mann and Golden Ears are being underutilized. The Deas Tunnel replacment is more important for trade. Why not just do the Deas Bridge and put the Patullo money into better transit south of the Fraser? If you're serious about wanting to reduce car traffic, you have to make transit an appealing, practical option. Right now it's not for most.

Sigh

1. Trucks
2. Trucks
3. Narrow/dangerous
4. Will collapse in a 7 earthquake
5. Trucks

[splashflash]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Sigh

1. Trucks
2. Trucks
3. Narrow/dangerous
4. Will collapse in a 7 earthquake
5. Trucks

Well, the recent increase in truck traffic, a good part of which has been diverted from Port Mann, should make one question why tolls aren't also being pushed (and on the old bridge too) by Surrey for the Pattullo. And a $1 toll on all the bridges won't generate anything near what is required to replace the Pattullo and Deas Island, and pay off the remaining debt for the Port Mann and Golden Ears. Toll the Pattullo Bridge now and monitor the demand, especially trucks, and see if a 6 lane bridge is needed. My guess is that a four lane bridge will be more than adequate, just as the New West report outlines.

And Surrey wants to road price on all roads, but I guess that's because such a tolling system wouldn't be implemented until well after the next municipal election.

Isn't it interesting the all the Gateway folks and the Trucking Association are so quiet now after the Port Mann, overbuilt, despite a lower toll than the Golden Ears Bridge, has a short-fall of predicted traffic and especially revenue (truck traffic with higher tolls to pay not materializing?). So, like the Golden Ears Translink taxpayers, provincial taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for the short-fall in toll revenue. As always, the so-called road freight business groups pipe up when they want something built, and to whom does the offloading of the costs and risk get shifted to, the general taxpayers.

[cairnstone]

Before the tolls went in truck traffic had allready started increase rapidly since the late 90s or early 2000 as that was when the scales were removed from the bridge. This caused more trucks to use this crossing. And many used it as they were overloaded and that was the easy way to get around the scales at Port Mann and Alex fraser. Now the bridge is a major commercial route. And until New West get there act together with funding for a north fraser perimeter road there will be issues. Building a bridge is easy getting a proper highway route through new west will be a problem.

[CoryHolmes]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

And until New West get there act together with funding for a north fraser perimeter road there will be issues. Building a bridge is easy getting a proper highway route through new west will be a problem.

And that's why avoiding New West entirely is the best solution. Go up through Coquitlam, hook into the Lougheed and Mary Hill Bypass and get away from New West all together.

[MIPS]

The idea is that if you get the full-blown deal with tolls, yeah, you have another underutilized toll bridge but you finally push the truck traffic onto the SFPR and the Alex Fraser Bridge whose connecting road infrastructure is far better suited for heavy truck traffic.

[makr3trkr]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1229132/netting-installed-underneath-aging-pattullo-bridge/

Crews are busy installing netting underneath the aging Pattullo bridge and drivers are being warned of potential delays.

Workers are hanging the netting in six different places under the span.

The netting is supposed to catch falling debris, even through Translink says the 76-year-old bridge is structurally safe.

“This happens with old structures exposed to weather and wind, it’s normal. Other bridges have had to go through the same thing,” says Sany Zein with Translink.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Slightly? How about double the distance, and double the carbon emissions with it. Plus, 95000ish cars are buckling down and paying the tolls every day.

Why does only the 9 to 5 crowd deserve good transit? If you start early or end late you'd get doubly screwed. Poor roads, inaccessible transit.

Why isn't 24 hour service a must is a better question? Cities run all night believe it or not. Even LA has this. Volumes drop off, but people have to work shutting down or starting up shop every day.

If big chunks of the road network can be removed, public transit is elevated to an essential service. 24/7/365. Just look at NYC.

Thus variable tolling across all bridges makes the most sense without the 24 hours transit service. Its more fair for those overnight drivers.

[Smooth]

Looks like New Westminster's misinformation tour continues...

New West peddling four-lane Pattullo to other Metro Vancouver cities

New Westminster city councillors are lobbying their position for a tolled four-lane bridge to replace the aging Pattullo Bridge.

Couns. Chuck Puchmayr appeared at Port Coquitlam city council on Monday night standing firm on the city’s position.

“There needs to be information that’s not getting out there,” he told Metro. “Our presentation can put out complexities of what’s being proposed.”

While New Westminster is asking TransLink to consider building a four-lane bridge, Surrey would like to see a non-tolled six-lane bridge built instead.

Port Coquitlam did not take a position on the issue.

“I can’t recall a city to lobby on regional decisions before,” said Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore, who stressed the importance of looking at the bridge as part of a regional network.

Moore told Puchmayr that being part of a regional system is “knowing people have to travel around the region.”

He added that no reports were received from Puchmayr on the issue and that council only heard from one side of it.

Puchmayr has already approached Burnaby about the bridge and plans to make the same presentation to Vancouver, Richmond and other neighbouring municipalities.

Surrey Couns. Barbara Steele said Surrey has no plans to speak at other city council meetings on their position.

Pattullo Bridge replacement costs:

- New four-lane bridge: $850 million
- New six-lane bridge: $1.5 billion plus
- New four-lane Surrey-Coquitlam bridge with rehabilitated three-lane Pattullo: $1.75 billion
Source: City of New Westminster

http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/98407...art-of-regional-network-says-poco-mayor/

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Smooth

Looks like New Westminster's misinformation tour continues...

Pattullo Bridge replacement costs:



- New four-lane bridge: $850 million

- New six-lane bridge: $1.5 billion plus

- New four-lane Surrey-Coquitlam bridge with rehabilitated three-lane Pattullo: $1.75 billion



Source: City of New Westminster

The 1.5 billion (plus) on the six-lane bridge is flat out deception. The cost estimate is $985M–$1.1B.

Six lane bridge ≠ six through lanes. Four lane bridge has same number of exits / ramps (e.g. Alex Fraser which used to be four lanes).

It's telling they didn't put *plus* beside the $850 million.

Also funny that New West has no problem supporting a vastly more expensive 1.75 billion bridge to Coquitlam + rehabilitated Pattullo option.

[tybuilding]

from the City Speaks newsletter:

Pattullo Bridge Survey Summary


Pattullo Bridge

Obviously, the Pattullo Bridge is an important transportation link and a hot-button issue, so it came as no surprise that this survey was our most responded to, with 61% of our panel members providing input.

Conducted in June 2013 in conjunction with Translink and the City of New Westminster, CitySpeaks actually ran two surveys: one specifically to panel members and one to the general population of Surrey.

Highlights:

54% of panel members and 87% of polled residents travel across the Pattullo Bridge at least monthly.

57% of panel members and 62% of residents favour or strongly favour a new 6-lane bridge in the existing location.

This option was also echoed by frequent users, with 61% of panel members and 64% of other respondents favouring a 6-lane bridge in the existing location.

Support for a new 4-lane bridge in a new location was evenly divided as 55% of panel members opted for this vs. 56% of Surrey residents.

Comments:

"A new bridge would help ease traffic congestion and make companies that are losing time transporting goods into the city more productive."

"Another toll bridge would be a bad idea as it will be perceived as access to Surrey costs money."

"For every new bridge that is built, they should all have tolls to cover the cost and then remove them once the project is paid for."

The next phase of public consultation for the Pattullo Bridge Review is anticipated to begin this summer.

Email: [email protected]
www.surrey.ca/cityspeaks

[GMasterAres]

From CKNW.com:

Vancouver, BC, Canada / (CKNW AM) AM980
Jordan Armstrong
March 28, 2014 11:34 am

The City of New Westminster is urging Translink to ‘green light’ several changes to truck routes in the Royal City.

The city’s been gathering feedback on truck traffic for several months.

The changes include the removal of Royal Avenue, Ewen Avenue east of Derwent Way, East Eighth Avenue and East Columbia Street north of Brunette Avenue as designated truck routes.

Trucks would still be allowed on Stewardson Way, Brunette Avenue, Front Street and McBride Boulevard 24 hours a day…While Tenth Avenue west of McBride would remain as a daytime truck route.

New West has seen a spike in truck traffic since tolls were introduced on the Port Mann Bridge.

Interesting ideas. Most make sense to me. I'm not sure about Ewen Avenue east of Derwent Way though. It is the most direct route to get onto the highway heading east. Instead trucks would need to head north and around via Boyd Street then cycle through 3 traffic lights instead of 1 when going east. Not to mention competing with traffic going to the mall.

Out of all the changes I have a feeling that one may result in worse traffic for the area. The others though kind of make sense though loading all the truck traffic onto Front Street may cause some craziness or at the very least, a lot of backups on Stewardson.

By closing off E 8th and E Columbia they are in essence freeing up Braid Street which would make general car traffic move quicker as you could stay off Brunette entirely.

Shrug we shall see. I can't see Translink saying no to the changes.

Again as I've harped on for a few years now though, New West is basically underlining their stupidity in killing the NFPR. They are in essence wanting to restrict all truck traffic to along the Stewardson -> Front Street -> Brunette Avenue stretch. Amazingly that is the route the NFPR would have taken.

Wouldn't it have been nice to have a nice 2 lane highway along that stretch rather than the 1 lane choke points and traffic lights every 5 feet that ultimately New Westminster is wanting trucks to be restricted to anyway?

*sigh* clearly New West when they decided to fight the NFPR just wanted more trucks to sit idling every day on their streets. I wonder if the region can start a "revive the NFPR" campaign.

[makr3trkr]

"A Reasonable Approach: A Perspective on the Pattullo Bridge (March 5, 2014)"
http://www.newwestcity.ca/council_minute...ttullo%20Bridge%20-%20CNW%20Position.pdf



http://www.pattullobridgereview.ca/wp-co...ge-Review-Discussion-Guide-June-2013.pdf
Pattullo Bridge Review, June 2013:



The Tranlink source New West is referencing does not contain or support the numbers they are using. It appears to be fashioned from whole cloth.

[WarrenC12]

It appears New West has overblown the budgetary numbers for these options, however I also see the Translink study says nothing about expected volumes, toll pricing, etc.

I really don't like the situation where toll alternatives are not operated by the same entity (Translink vs. MOT/Treo).

To expand on my point, we should be careful about what gets built to replace the existing crossing. A $2-$3 toll could reduce volume dramatically. At the same price, the PMB/Hwy #1 is a far better mechanism to get around the region.

[makr3trkr]

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/dialogue-...-stalemate-over-pattullo-bridge-1.949079

New Westminster and Surrey spar over replacement span’s number of lanes – and whether or not it should be tolled

Strong words were exchanged during a sit down between councillors from New Westminster and Surrey regarding the future of the Pattullo Bridge.

New Westminster Coun. Jonathan Cote made the trip across the river to attend Surrey’s transportation and infrastructure committee meeting Monday.

Cote presented his city’s position in support of a new, tolled four-lane structure, while Surrey is still adamantly pushing for six, which are expected to cost roughly $800 million and more than $1 billion, respectively.

Cote emphasized the city wouldn’t close the door on designing a structure with the flexibility to be upgraded in the future, but added, “There would be a lot of skepticism from the New Westminster side if you had a bridge where all it would take is a removal of a barrier, and two weeks after opening could be easily switched to a six-lane bridge,” Cote said.

Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele took issue with New Westminster’s idea to toll a new Pattullo.

Steele said bridges are meant to last more than 35 or 40 years.

“So to neglect putting the capability for six lanes to deal with the growth that’s going to be going on south of the Fraser would be nothing less than negligent. I think we have to recognize that the growth is here,” she said.

Cote said New Westminster is open to dialogue, but “the devil will be in the details.”

After New Westminster’s presentation, Surrey’s transportation manager Jaime Boan said costs of a new, six-lane structure were overstated in New Westminster’s position paper.

Boan said in the paper, the key negative aspect of the six-lane option was the lack of cost effectiveness, but said that was because of New Westminster’s request for a tunnelled new road underneath Royal Avenue across the entire city.

A 2013 report from Metro Vancouver found that the Pattullo Bridge does not have adequate sidewalks or barriers for pedestrians and cyclists, and that the 76-year-old bridge may not survive a moderate earthquake or ship collision.

[WarrenC12]

I have a feeling that if a 6 lane bridge was built, for some number over $1B, and tolled, we'd immediately see a drop in crossings, and just like the GEB and PMB, it would be below its revenue expectations from the start, and digging out of a big hole.

I'm not saying I agree with New West, just making a prediction.

[GMasterAres]

There would only really be 1 crossing left (provided they move forward with the Massey Tunnel replacement) with no toll, the Alex Fraser. It would be a parking lot.

I think once there are tolls on pretty much everything, the traffic will start to ease. They should also cut the tolls for trucks. It is ridiculously high right now for any truck even just an F350 with a ladder on the roof or a van pulling a UHaul trailer going over the PMB (yes those get counted as "big rigs" and get charged the commercial truck rate).

We also have our answer as to why the New West study was ridiculously high like I said and a bunch of others:

Boan said in the paper, the key negative aspect of the six-lane option was the lack of cost effectiveness, but said that was because of New Westminster’s request for a tunnelled new road underneath Royal Avenue across the entire city.

It will be built and it will be a 6 lane bridge. As was posted in the news a few days ago, there have now been 26, yes... 26 studies done on the Patullo bridge at millions of $$$ out of the tax payer's pocket. We've studied all the options, 6 lanes is the way to go and now.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by jhausner

It will be built and it will be a 6 lane bridge. As was posted in the news a few days ago, there have now been 26, yes... 26 studies done on the Patullo bridge at millions of $$$ out of the tax payer's pocket. We've studied all the options, 6 lanes is the way to go and now.

Wholly S$%@. 26? Really?

This is beyond insane. Just wait, I'm sure the calls for "we need more studies and more public consultation" will follow any "decision" made.

Six lanes.
4 through, and two add-drop auxillary-style lanes. Done.
If we're going to tunnel, then go for cut and cover for the vapour-route known as the Stormont-McBridge connector.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Wholly S$%@. 26? Really?

This is beyond insane. Just wait, I'm sure the calls for "we need more studies and more public consultation" will follow any "decision" made.

Six lanes.
4 through, and two add-drop auxillary-style lanes. Done.
If we're going to tunnel, then go for cut and cover for the vapour-route known as the Stormont-McBridge connector.

Bingo!

And this was the chosen design a coupe years in the past, but now we keep on going in circles because of New West...

Also, to those who say that the tolls will drop the traffic flow, that is good! Why does every road structure we build have to be bumper to bumper after it opens to justify its construction?

Having bridges flow openly and freely is one of the best economic stimulaters you can have in a city!

And this is the entire joke of those who are against roads, they will use either outcome to justify their position. If a new road / bridge opens and traffic increases / becomes jammed they will say "See, if you build new bridges you only encourage people to drive more yadda yadda yadda..." If traffic levels stay the same / decrease a little / fall short of projections / is not always jammed "See, we didn't need a new bridge / more lanes yadda yadda yadda"

I always laugh when people try to say that the GEB was not needed just because it has fallen short of projections. Sorry, but the GEB has shown that it is future proof (finally something built for more than just today!) and is providing a vital link between the north east sector and south of the Fraser.

We are a city crisscrossed by rivers and inlets, why are we so against bridges?? Honestly, if our region were in east Asia or Europe people would not be so against new / improved river water crossings.

The only lesson learned is do not rely on toll revenue to cover the capital cost of building infrastructure. That is akin to relying on transit fares to pay the capital cost of building new train lines. It is a poor decision that relies on too much 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. Tolls / transit fares should really only be used for operating expenses.

[WarrenC12]

^^^^ Bottom line is the "revenue projections" for both the GEB and PMB, which were used to justify their construction, have been proven to be gross underestimates.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I always laugh when people try to say that the GEB was not needed just because it has fallen short of projections. Sorry, but the GEB has shown that it is future proof (finally something built for more than just today!) and is providing a vital link between the north east sector and south of the Fraser.

The issue with the Golden Ears Bridge is that it's costing Translink a lot of money that could otherwise be spent to at least maintain current levels of transit (as opposed to the cuts that they've been forced to make).

You seem to be floating the idea here that an underutilized GEB is a good thing because it's "future proof". IMHO that kind of thinking is ludicrous - the sign of someone who will grasp at anything as justification for more bridges.

Traffic forecasts are getting a reputation for being overly optimistic these last few years. A tolled 6-lane Patullo replacement will not get support if people don't believe those 6 lanes will actually be needed in the foreseeable future. So if you really want a 6 lane replacement I think you'd be wise to avoid mentioning the Golden Ears bridge.