Pattullo Bridge Rehabilitation Project

[Large Cat]

If tolling wasn't on the table, I would be totally against adding extra motor vehicle capacity on the new bridge, given the travel habits such capacity tends to encourage in commuters and the demand for more road width after and before the bridge that these habits appear to induce. But I think the move toward tolling and especially the condition of future road pricing will offset most of the serious environmental, economic, health, and aesthetic problems of the extra lanes, because it counterbalances the possibility of this demand leading to increased road width, or even the maintenance of the current road width, on either side of the bridge (Whalley Blvd, McBride, etc). Both New West and Surrey need some serious road diets, and the toll should actually enable that to happen. And there is not as much problem with added capacity on a bridge, as the space it takes up in itself literally can't be used for anything else, at least where it is over water (although we know e.g. on the new Massey Bridge the ramps over land will eat up a huge chunk of the ALR). It's the effect on surrounding communities in terms of the space-consuming logic a larger bridge enforces that's the biggest problem. And a regional turn toward tolling should, I hope, make that logic unintelligible.

[SOSS]

This is great news but I still don't understand where the 1/3rd Translink portion of funding will come from. The plebiscite failed so is it a long-term loan to be paid back in tolls?

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by SOSS

This is great news but I still don't understand where the 1/3rd Translink portion of funding will come from. The plebiscite failed so is it a long-term loan to be paid back in tolls?

no matter what happened with the vote translink has always had funding for this bridge replacement in mind and have had a planned budget for it.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

no matter what happened with the vote translink has always had funding for this bridge replacement in mind and have had a planned budget for it.

Sure, they've got a budget. That means they know how much it will cost. It doesn't mean they have the money for it.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by bardak

Isn't Fassbender in charge of Translink? shouldn't he be the one to comment on the bridge instead of Todd Stone. I don't think it is clear whether I will be 6 lanes from the get go or if it can be expanded to 6 lanes (With New West's permission I would assume).

It's clear those two can't do anything without Christy's express approval. Both have said a few things only to retract them later after being corrected internally.

[WarrenC12]

The only thing I could see happening is Translink borrowing their portion ($500M?) and recovering via tolls.

If Translink is funding 1/3 of the project, do they still have the authority to collect 100% of the tolls? I'm also guessing they would be on the hook for 100% of the maintenance.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

If tolling wasn't on the table, I would be totally against adding extra motor vehicle capacity on the new bridge, given the travel habits such capacity tends to encourage in commuters and the demand for more road width after and before the bridge that these habits appear to induce. But I think the move toward tolling and especially the condition of future road pricing will offset most of the serious environmental, economic, health, and aesthetic problems of the extra lanes, because it counterbalances the possibility of this demand leading to increased road width, or even the maintenance of the current road width, on either side of the bridge (Whalley Blvd, McBride, etc). Both New West and Surrey need some serious road diets, and the toll should actually enable that to happen. And there is not as much problem with added capacity on a bridge, as the space it takes up in itself literally can't be used for anything else, at least where it is over water (although we know e.g. on the new Massey Bridge the ramps over land will eat up a huge chunk of the ALR). It's the effect on surrounding communities in terms of the space-consuming logic a larger bridge enforces that's the biggest problem. And a regional turn toward tolling should, I hope, make that logic unintelligible.

really! i hope you work from home and grow all your own food. No matter what we do for transit we will still need to expand road ways to service our growing population. And since buses are transit they run on roads. Land is taken out of the ALR all the time. Look at Burnaby in marine drive, the powers to be decide warehouse is better for growth and jobs than blue berries. At one time Delta council wanted to ban greenhouse development on the ALR. There is a fair share of land in the ALR that is not used for anything left fallow because its not economical to grow crops on it.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Just on Global BC: New Westminster and Surrey agree that the new 6-lane bridge will be tolled!

A number of news stations early yesterday were mentioning four lanes. Were they wrong? I'm seeing conflicting reports.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

really! i hope you work from home and grow all your own food. No matter what we do for transit we will still need to expand road ways to service our growing population. And since buses are transit they run on roads. Land is taken out of the ALR all the time. Look at Burnaby in marine drive, the powers to be decide warehouse is better for growth and jobs than blue berries. At one time Delta council wanted to ban greenhouse development on the ALR. There is a fair share of land in the ALR that is not used for anything left fallow because its not economical to grow crops on it.

Nobody is advocating getting rid of roads. All we need to do is work on reducing SOVs on the road (single occupancy vehicles). There's plenty of room for all commercial and industrial traffic if even a small dent in SOV was attainable via better encouragement through transit services.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The only thing I could see happening is Translink borrowing their portion ($500M?) and recovering via tolls.

This is a $1.5B project? I find that very hard to believe... Even $500M for a generic bridge that ain't even that long sounds excessive to me...

[WarrenC12]

This link:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-2015-1.936008

It has a $1.2B cost in 2010 dollars. "Slated for 2015". I think it's safe to say if the Liberals had not required a plebiscite for new transit funding, the replacement would be underway now, instead of this godawful maintenance.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This link:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-2015-1.936008

It has a $1.2B cost in 2010 dollars. "Slated for 2015". I think it's safe to say if the Liberals had not required a plebiscite for new transit funding, the replacement would be underway now, instead of this godawful maintenance.

The Portmann bridge cost like 800 million (the rest were highway improvements). At this price I expect a Stormont connector.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The Portmann bridge cost like 800 million (the rest were highway improvements). At this price I expect a Stormont connector.

How do you think it will happen? They build a new bridge at a bridge factory and plunk it into place using a helicopter?

The GMT replacement bridge is $3.5B. Of course these things include the necessary upgrades to surround roads, onramps, and so on.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The only thing I could see happening is Translink borrowing their portion ($500M?) and recovering via tolls.

If Translink is funding 1/3 of the project, do they still have the authority to collect 100% of the tolls? I'm also guessing they would be on the hook for 100% of the maintenance.

That assumes TransLink is funding 1/3 of the project. Remember, Justin Trudeau just met with Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner, and I'd be shocked if increasing the federal portion of the Pattullo Bridge wasn't on the agenda. Could TransLink afford 20%? 15%?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How do you think it will happen? They build a new bridge at a bridge factory and plunk it into place using a helicopter?

The GMT replacement bridge is $3.5B. Of course these things include the necessary upgrades to surround roads, onramps, and so on.

It includes highway widening from 91 to Oak Street Bridge. Also the bridge is 10 lanes and considerably larger/longer and has difficult soil conditions to deal with. The Pitt river bridge cost $200 mill. The Portmann cost $820 mill. The Golden Ears bridge cost $808 mill including all the new approaches. I assume construction costs have stagnated lately. At $1.5 billion I expect a 6 lane Pattulo and a 4 lane Stormont connecter (maybe at grade with a couple intersections instead of trenched to 10th). Most of the land is already assembled.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

It includes highway widening from 91 to Oak Street Bridge. Also the bridge is 10 lanes and considerably larger/longer and has difficult soil conditions to deal with. The Pitt river bridge cost $200 mill. The Portmann cost $820 mill. The Golden Ears bridge cost $808 mill including all the new approaches. I assume construction costs have stagnated lately. At $1.5 billion I expect a 6 lane Pattulo and a 4 lane Stormont connecter (maybe at grade with a couple intersections instead of trenched to 10th). Most of the land is already assembled.

Well you can expect whatever you like, but the estimates are already out there, no doubt completed by professionals.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The Pitt river bridge cost $200 mill.

Thanks for this number and this is the ballpark this project should be in. It's likely going to be a very similar bridge and not even seven lanes like Pitt Bridge is.

Of course dismantling the old bridge increases the costs (why not just detonate it), but all-in-all we should still be talking about under $500M. $1.2B dollars sounds just ludicrous and someone is overpricing a lot!

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Thanks for this number and this is the ballpark this project should be in. It's likely going to be a very similar bridge and not even seven lanes like Pitt Bridge is.

Of course dismantling the old bridge increases the costs (why not just detonate it), but all-in-all we should still be talking about under $500M. $1.2B dollars sounds just ludicrous and someone is overpricing a lot!

The Pitt River Bridge is 380 meters long. The Pattullo Bridge is 1227 meters long. I believe that there are also height constraints that the Pattullo has that the Pitt River Bridge doesn't (a lot more marine traffic on the Fraser than the Pitt).

There is absolutely no way the Pattullo will be built for $500m.

[officedweller]

I think the Pitt River Bridge was height limited by the nearby Pitt Meadows Airport.
But agreed its a much smaller bridge than the Patullo.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think the Pitt River Bridge was height limited by the nearby Pitt Meadows Airport.
But agreed its a much smaller bridge than the Patullo.

Yeah, and the ground is relatively flat on either side of the Pitt River. The New Westminster side has a big hill that the Pattullo needs to scale, so the Pattullo needs to be naturally higher on that side.