The case for building a replacement four-lane Pattullo Bridge
Something needs to be done about the Pattullo Bridge. Constructed in the 1930′s, it was the first “modern” road bridge to cross the Fraser River (the first being the New Westminster Bridge which had a lower rail deck and upper vehicle deck). The Pattullo Bridge which, according to the Province at the time had “ample accommodation for four lanes of motor traffic” and was built to handle “all future requirements of traffic loading” has outlived is usefulness due to traffic safety and structural issues. There have been many ideas for dealing with the Pattullo ranging from tearing it down with no replacement, to rehabilitating the bridge with three-lanes, to constructing a 4-6 lane replacement nearby, and even to building completely different crossings further away. To me there are only two options: building a new 4-lane bridge nearby for an estimated cost of $538m to $552m, or building a new 6-lane bridge nearby for an estimated cost of $727m – $778m. To TransLink there appears to be only one option, build a new 6-lane bridge.
Adding an additional 2-lanes to the bridge is meant to handle traffic from the South Fraser Perimeter Road Freeway (SFPR) heading towards Columbia Street as part of the proposed North Fraser Perimeter Road (NFPR) and Stormont McBride Connector which has been on the books for decades.
Proposed North Fraser Perimeter Road in Blue, Stormont McBride Connector in Red
The major issue is that citizens of New Westminster, rightfully so, do not want more regional traffic choking their community and basically killed both road projects. While technically the NFPR and Connector are “on-hold,” the projects are not funded and are likely to be removed from New Westminster’s new Master Transportation Plan.
There is strong agreement with the City’s policy of working toward no new added capacity for through vehicle traffic in New Westminster
With no NFPR and no Stormont McBride Connector, the additional 2-lanes would only serve as holding lanes for the congestion that already exists on the New Westminster side of the bridge today. I don’t know about you, but spending up to an additional $240m to move the congestion from Surrey to the bridge deck seems like a big waste of money. (I should point out that TransLink’s cost-benefit analysis which supports the 6-lane option is based on the completion of the NFPR.) And while tolls will be the only way this bridge will get built, it will likely be subsidized just like the Golden Ears Bridge is today at the cost of improving transit.
In Surrey, Scott Road, King George Boulevard, and the SFPR will converge at the Pattullo Bridge. Adding two additional lanes would make sense only if there was added capacity on the New Westminster side of the bridge. As this is not likely to happen, the two-additional lanes would do nothing to benefit citizens of Surrey. In fact even if New Westminster decided to allow more vehicle traffic through their community, it would mainly benefit regional truck traffic which is expected to grow by 114% by 2040. Also with King George Boulevard slated to get some form of rapid-transit, I have to question why TransLink is promoting single-occupancy vehicle usage anyway.
Proposed 6-lane alignment for Pattullo Bridge
A 6-lane Pattullo Bridge only makes sense with a NFPR and Stormont McBride Connector. Citizens of New Westminster are trying to build a sustainable community with walking, cycling, and transit as a priority and no longer support adding more vehicle capacity through their community. With this in mind, the 4-lane replacement bridge is the only option that makes sense to me. The Lions Gate Bridge is the perfect example of a bridge that was essentially replaced, but with the same capacity as before. While some claimed the world would come to an end without an expanded bridge, everything worked out just fine.
-
I think that you forgot that even without the (upgraded) NFPR in place, there is still an opportunity to use the expanded Pattullo with the improved/direct ramp connections to redirect a huge amount of southwest-northeast truck traffic on local New Westminster Streets – particularly: Stewardson, Front St and the Queensborough Bridge.
Having a 6-lane Pattullo Bridge with those connections will dramatically improve the congestion situation throughout New Westminster, especially at the Queensborough Bridge. I believe there is a strong business case for this.
-
The Pattullo bridge was not constructed in 1930. It was constructed in 1936-1937 as indicated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattullo_Bridge and opened to traffic on November 15th, 1937 and remained a toll bridge at two bits (25 cents) until February 1952 when tolls were removed. Of note is that the annual average house hold income in BC in 1937 was $617 a year. If you go to BCIT and check the archive film footage for the opening of the bridge you will find that it stated that the bridge was 3 lanes and that there would never be enough volume crossing the bridge to ever warrant a 4th lane.
-
Roads, highways and bridges have a negative rate of return on the investment due to the external costs of the use of the automobile (air, water, soil and noise pollution, sedentary lifestyle, collisions, congestion, stress, opportunity cost of doing something more productive than driving). Widening or lengthening these structures do not reduce congestion as induced demand causes more motorists and/or lengthier average journey distance. The money would be better invested in public transit, rail and active transportation, which are more fiscally conservative in terms of cost per traveller (both incurred by consumer and government).
-
It’s a different pile of money. Money spent on the new bridge wouldn’t go magically into transit. It would go into other roads infrastructure. As for widening infrastructure increasing traffic, that’s a giant myth unfortunately most people accept as fact. Traffic is increased not by widening roads but by increasing populations.
-
You seem to forget that if you make driving easier, people drive more. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Induced demand is a well documented phenomenon, as is the fact that when you reduce road capacity and make it more difficult to drive, people drive less than before, and road demand is reduced. Traffic simply disappears.
This is no myth. It’s been documented worldwide. I suggest you take a second look at your sources.
-
I also forgot to mention, it’s not a different pile of money. Translink pays for the replacement bridge and for transit. The Golden Ears Bridge is also a Translink project, which is why when Translink subsidizes the bridge costs due to lower than anticipated tolls, it takes money away from transit.
-
-
-
Just refurbish the Pattullo. Take it from 4 lanes down to two, one each way, plus nice wide pedestrian/cycle paths on either side. Then toll the hell out of it for cars and trucks wanting to go over. If you want the quick access over the river, pay the toll. If not, you have to go around to Queensborough or Port Mann (this would also require removing the toll from Highway 1). Then, any money saved can be poured into transit/walking/cycling infrastructure, the only way to truly reduce congestion.
The fact is by tolling bridges over the Fraser without providing an adequate transit alternative, we are punishing those who live South of the Fraser into paying a toll every time they want to cross a bridge. Either toll all the bridges and provide high quality transit as an alternative, or remove the toll from most of the bridges (except bridges of convenience like Pattullo), and stop punishing those who work on the other side of the river, but can’t afford to live there.
-
One of the issues I think we have as a region is the fact Translink handles both transit and road infrastructure in many areas. I really think for the region to move forward with eyes open and brains turned on, the authority should be split or changed such that transit and road infrastructure are completely different. Different budgets, different plans, different oversight. That will remove this 1 or the other debate I read in some of these comments here and comments I see elsewhere around the “LESS ROADS MORE TRANSIT.”
I did some number crunching a few years ago comparing lanes of road bridges over rivers in metro areas that are similar (difficult to find any exactly the same) in design to Vancouver. For example placed like Montreal, New York, Pittsburg, etc. are cities that have large populations commuting and industry traveling over water ways on a regular daily basis. At the end my numbers had Vancouver unfortunately last compared to every single city with regards to how many road lanes cross the water per population.
Just as an example, at the time Montreal had 1 bridge lane for every 53,900 people. Vancouver in contrast had (and I included the PMB expansion as 10 lanes which isn’t even open yet and wasn’t even under construction at the time) 1 bridge lane per 68,300.
At the end just to reach Montreal’s level we would need to construct an additional 10 major bridge lanes across the region. For New York per population it is closer to 20 additional bridge lanes.
Now obviously, the metro Vancouver area can’t be directly compared to the major cities so my numbers can’t be taken entirely at face value, but it did illustrate the fact that we are, as a region cut into effectively 3 parts (North Shore, NoF, and SoF) grossly underserved by bridges.
Does that mean we need to construct more bridges? Not necessarily. What it does mean is that if we keep the status quo over the near 10-20 years, some areas of the region which have enjoyed business tax revenue will start losing out majorly affecting them in ways the population doesn’t quite understand at this stage. I mean that’s perfectly acceptable if people are willing to endure the consequences.
Big example, industry is vacating at a massive rate out of the city of Vancouver and relocating to the likes of Delta, Surrey, and Langley. That’s jobs and tax dollars leaving. You also have residential populations increasing faster away from the major historical population centers again for similar reasons. Cheaper land does help and play a part for sure, but if you make it very difficult to get goods from key locations like ports and borders, the only choice industry has is to move. They get a double bonus in the likes of Delta, Surrey, and Langley where they are A) closer to most of the ports and B) land price is cheaper so it’s a double whammy.
I do think something can be said for not hugely increasing our bridge infrastructure because it will continue the trend of people moving out to Surrey and South of Fraser which is in my best interest as an investor and citizen and at current rates I do see a day in the future where as many people will be commuting to Surrey in the morning as there are those commuting to Vancouver with Burnaby and New West becoming a middle population suburb for the 2. You already see business vacating Metrotown (Telus as the latest major player) so the trend is continuing on task.
So specific to this topic, should we consider simply replacing the Patullo with another 4 lane bridge? I think it is certainly feasible. People just need to be prepared for the consequences. New Westminster has made it clear it wants to simply be a residential center for the region. If that’s what they want, certainly they should be allowed to do that. They just need to realize Residential taxes are far less than commercial/industrial taxes so citizens will need to buck up a bit more in the future out of their pockets to maintain current services.
That’s just the reality.
-
Jesse,
You claim that the region is “grossly under-served by bridges” yet I don’t see any acknowledgement that by not tolling those bridges, trucks get stuck behind single-occupancy vehicles. Don’t listen to the lies that the provincial government’s engineers tell you: more lanes is about more single-occupancy cars. It isn’t about trucks or buses. Even if you just tolled SOVs, you would free up enough road space to make clear space for trucks to travel freely.
-
Comments