Pattullo Bridge Rehabilitation Project

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Klazu

There has been so much back and forth on this that I am confused. Is this current closure now that 100+ million dollar rehabilitation project that this thread was originally created for? Are they really wasting all that money on the old bridge eventhough recently both Surrey and New Westminster NIMBYs have been more positive towards the idea of a new bridge? I thought it was a bluff to encourage the new bridge, but did that plan fail?

They're not building a new bridge, they're just patching up the old one so it (probably) won't fall down right away.

We won't get a new bridge until Translink gets some sort of funding or until the Provincial Government decides that they're willing to finance it themselves. And these repairs may reduce the urgency to replace the bridge, so even if Translink does get funding it may see fit to direct it to transit instead.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Klazu

There has been so much back and forth on this that I am confused. Is this current closure now that 100+ million dollar rehabilitation project that this thread was originally created for? Are they really wasting all that money on the old bridge eventhough recently both Surrey and New Westminster NIMBYs have been more positive towards the idea of a new bridge? I thought it was a bluff to encourage the new bridge, but did that plan fail?

The entire funding, design and building of a new bridge time line is so long. The existing bridge won't last that long without dropping concrete down onto marine, road and pedestrian traffic below. Sadly this was completely avoidable but it's too late to wait any longer. I would classify these repairs as emergency.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Klazu

There has been so much back and forth on this that I am confused. Is this current closure now that 100+ million dollar rehabilitation project that this thread was originally created for? Are they really wasting all that money on the old bridge eventhough recently both Surrey and New Westminster NIMBYs have been more positive towards the idea of a new bridge? I thought it was a bluff to encourage the new bridge, but did that plan fail?

No, it is just the $25 million resurfacing and stabilization they are doing now. They scrapped the $75 million seismic upgrade as I think not only did they realize it was going to be a waste of money because they are fast tracking a new bridge (what's the point of spending $100 million on a bridge that will be around for less than 10 years) but I hear they actually figured out that the upgrades wouldn't make it all that much safer in an earthquake.

The upgrades should keep it from falling apart from just general wear and tear for at most the next 10 years.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/09/t...smic-upgrades/

http://www.theprovince.com/news/loca...940/story.html

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

No, it is just the $25 million resurfacing and stabilization they are doing now. They scrapped the $75 million seismic upgrade as I think not only did they realize it was going to be a waste of money because they are fast tracking a new bridge (what's the point of spending $100 million on a bridge that will be around for less than 10 years) but I hear they actually figured out that the upgrades wouldn't make it all that much safer in an earthquake.

The upgrades should keep it from falling apart from just general wear and tear for at most the next 10 years.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/09/t...smic-upgrades/

http://www.theprovince.com/news/loca...940/story.html

It will be many years before we see a replacement bridge. They haven't figured out how to finance it or where it will go. No one is going to agree to pay more taxes in a referendum so the province is going to have to take charge on this one like the PM. Until then, same old same old but with only 2 lanes.

[ClaytonA]

Direct from the second article;

...But a replacement bridge has been delayed following the ‘No’ result in the recent Metro Vancouver Transit Plebiscite.

A 0.5 per cent sales tax to help fund the region’s major transportation infrastructure projects would have partially gone towards building a new Pattullo Bridge crossing before the end of the decade. Tolls on the bridge would cover the remainder of the construction and operational costs.

There is no new timeline for the construction of a new replacement crossing. ....

People should thank the guys/gals in your office admonishing you for voting yes last spring and that CTF misanthrope. Meanwhile in Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, and Calgary they or their provincial gov'ts are willing to actually pay for things they need. Remeber how it took 26 years+ for the RAV line, Hwy 1 upgrades, and Millenium line minus Evergreen to get built? That kind of timeline would put a new Patullo ~2033 to 2038. Smile while you're in traffic, what was it - 35 cents per day?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

It will be many years before we see a replacement bridge. They haven't figured out how to finance it or where it will go. No one is going to agree to pay more taxes in a referendum so the province is going to have to take charge on this one like the PM. Until then, same old same old but with only 2 lanes.

It's going back to 4 lanes when the work is done in October.

And they have figured out where it will go. All the alternatives have been thoroughly bashed by Translink. Be it just east or just west of the current bridge is pretty much a coin toss between which position allows for a better interchange on the North end (it will probably be up to the bidders to submit designs).

By fasttracked I mean this will happen as soon as there is a bit of money. All the consultations has pretty much been done. It could go to RFP at any time. The Golden Ears went from a twinkle in Translink's eyes in 2004 to opening in 2009. And the Golden Ears included 14 km of new roads (including significant changes to the TCH), so this won't take any longer to build.

The fully expect a new bridge in something like 7 years. The full upgrade would have made it a $10 million/year waste of money.



Just saw on the news that traffic last week was up 15% on the Port Mann, but only up 3% on the AFB.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

By fasttracked I mean this will happen as soon as there is a bit of money. All the consultations has pretty much been done. It could go to RFP at any time. The Golden Ears went from a twinkle in Translink's eyes in 2004 to opening in 2009. And the Golden Ears included 14 km of new roads (including significant changes to the TCH), so this won't take any longer to build.

Existing roadway would have to be significantly upgraded to deal with the increase in traffic.That can be easily done in Surrey without hesitation, but would New Westminster fancy the addition of new off-on ramps and a widened McBride corridor to 10th?

I think the plan is there, but financial constraints and the lack of political willpower from New West is going to continue stalling plans.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Existing roadway would have to be significantly upgraded to deal with the increase in traffic.That can be easily done in Surrey without hesitation, but would New Westminster fancy the addition of new off-on ramps and a widened McBride corridor to 10th?

I think the plan is there, but financial constraints and the lack of political willpower from New West is going to continue stalling plans.

Why would McBride be widened? It's already four lanes, and the Pattullo's going to be four lanes, and there'll probably be better connections to Brunette/Columbia. Traffic northbound on McBride is rarely a problem, it's southbound onto the bridge that's always congested.

A lot of the problem with the traffic in New West, at least southbound onto the Pattullo, is the three traffic merges: McBride from two lanes down to one to get onto the bridge, Royal from two lanes down to one off-ramp, and the merge from the lower Columbia loop onto the bridge. With better on-ramps they can hopefully improve traffic flow onto the bridge, and with wider lanes there won't be any slowdowns caused by trucks straddling two lanes.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Existing roadway would have to be significantly upgraded to deal with the increase in traffic.That can be easily done in Surrey without hesitation, but would New Westminster fancy the addition of new off-on ramps and a widened McBride corridor to 10th?

I think the plan is there, but financial constraints and the lack of political willpower from New West is going to continue stalling plans.

Yeah, like CanSpice said, you don't need more lanes. All the problems today are caused by the bridge itself. Even northbound, the traffic really opens up once past that sharp corner right before the exit to Columbia/Royal.

The only road improvement that is required is improving the Columbia -> Brunette right turn. And that is outside the scope of any project proposal, and one that I think New West is pursuing independently within the next couple of years.

Even with much improved interchanges and approaches, it's nothing like building 14 km of roads in somewhat boggy land and almost a dozen structures that compose the Golden Ears. The Golden Ears went to RFP in Jan 2005, construction began in June 2006 and opened in June 2009. So it took 3 years to build all that?

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Yeah, like CanSpice said, you don't need more lanes. All the problems today are caused by the bridge itself. Even northbound, the traffic really opens up once past that sharp corner right before the exit to Columbia/Royal.

The only road improvement that is required is improving the Columbia -> Brunette right turn. And that is outside the scope of any project proposal, and one that I think New West is pursuing independently within the next couple of years.

Even with much improved interchanges and approaches, it's nothing like building 14 km of roads in somewhat boggy land and almost a dozen structures that compose the Golden Ears. The Golden Ears went to RFP in Jan 2005, construction began in June 2006 and opened in June 2009. So it took 3 years to build all that?

I don't understand all the foot dragging by all sides involved in this project. From the prov. govt. to translink to new westminster and surrey and whoever else is involved, it's got a bad image for all of them and rightfully so. It's one of the worst pieces of infrastructure in the lower mainland, if not the province and it should be a major corridor, not something to avoid. It's a crumbling and unsafe outdated bridge that fails in many aspects. It could be a major image boost if they made a cohesive effort and set up a corp. that would design a new structure to best fulfill the needs of all parties at play. Something that incorporates a new 4 or 6 wide lane bridge and railroad bridge.

It would be great if New Westminster got together with the province, railroad companies and a major developer like concord to cover most if not all the train tracks along the river with a simple concrete podium and built just enough market residential and commercial on top to pay to cover the tracks. They take up an incredible amount of land in New Westminster in comparison to the size of the city and i'm sure a 20 foot podium could be easily integrated with the majority of the existing structures around and track placement. It would solve most if not all noise complaints and the rail companies can shunt and blow their horns under the concrete structure all they want, though i would imagine any buildings above would need a sound and vibration buffer. The 80's and 90's towers in the Quay seem almost designed to integrate into a structure to cover the tracks. As for downtown Front street you could have all new retail opportunities along the face of the new rail podium on the south side of Front, the track may need to be moved but some narrow storefronts could work 'as is' if they had a thick cement wall separating from the tracks. It would also be a great opportunity to expand the park space to connect to Sapperton and remove the rest of the Front street parkade for one integrated and hidden in the concrete rail podium. This would also serve to isolate the tracks from any residential in the event of another Lac Megantic or similar train accident and fire, which New Westminster seems almost primed for.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

I don't understand all the foot dragging by all sides involved in this project. From the prov. govt. to translink to new westminster and surrey and whoever else is involved, it's got a bad image for all of them and rightfully so. It's one of the worst pieces of infrastructure in the lower mainland, if not the province and it should be a major corridor, not something to avoid. It's a crumbling and unsafe outdated bridge that fails in many aspects. It could be a major image boost if they made a cohesive effort and set up a corp. that would design a new structure to best fulfill the needs of all parties at play. Something that incorporates a new 4 or 6 wide lane bridge and railroad bridge.

Everybody except for the province is on board with replacing the Pattullo. TransLink has been planning its replacement for years. New Westminster is on board with a four-lane replacement (expandable to six if necessary). Surrey is on board with a four-lane replacement (expandable to six if necessary). The only thing holding it up is the lack of a funding source, which was supposed to have come from the 0.5% PST increase in Metro Vancouver, but that got voted down.

Coupling it with a rail bridge would slow the process down considerably, as you then have to appease more stakeholders (railway companies in Canada hold a lot of power) and would increase the cost considerably. I don't understand why people keep thinking this is a good option when the rail bridge isn't in as dire need of replacement as the vehicle bridge.

[moosejaw]

Understand the province is not even close to looking at this but just build it already.....Leave it at four lanes and be done with it. Its better than having a major catastrophe down the road.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Understand the province is not even close to looking at this but just build it already.....

That cannot happen unless somebody comes up with some money, and that can't happen unless the Provincial Government gets on board. Welcome to the world that transit users have to live in.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Why would McBride be widened? It's already four lanes, and the Pattullo's going to be four lanes, and there'll probably be better connections to Brunette/Columbia. Traffic northbound on McBride is rarely a problem, it's southbound onto the bridge that's always congested.

A lot of the problem with the traffic in New West, at least southbound onto the Pattullo, is the three traffic merges: McBride from two lanes down to one to get onto the bridge, Royal from two lanes down to one off-ramp, and the merge from the lower Columbia loop onto the bridge. With better on-ramps they can hopefully improve traffic flow onto the bridge, and with wider lanes there won't be any slowdowns caused by trucks straddling two lanes.

Part of the project would also involve upgrading the Royale Ave overpass that runs over McBride and eliminating the sharp curve at the end of the bridge.I guess any talk of medians being installed along McBride would be put on hold.

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Understand the province is not even close to looking at this but just build it already.....Leave it at four lanes and be done with it. Its better than having a major catastrophe down the road.

Translink doesn't even have enough funds to maintain essential service along some routes. Where would they magically get a billion dollars from?
It's not about the number of lanes but the commitment from all levels of government. Though it seems like the provincial governments agenda entails generating mass hatred towards Translink for some stupid reason.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That cannot happen unless somebody comes up with some money, and that can't happen unless the Provincial Government gets on board. Welcome to the world that transit users have to live in.

It's not up to the province. Right now the bridge is a regional concern. If Translink had their portion, there is no way it would be blocked or slowed down in any way by the province (in fact they would probably love it seeing as the tolls would get more drivers back to the Port Mann and future MGT-bridge)

And it's not even a lot of money Translink needs to come up with. They just need enough to finance the debt until the tolls start to make enough money to pay it off. It's not like they need to collect an extra billion dollars over the course of construction. They just need a little bit.

The reason it is not built is entirely the public's fault. We decided, as a democratic electorate, that this and other much needed things aren't as much needed as we thought because they aren't worth a simple 0.5% tax. I disagree, but the masses spoke. Even residents in Surrey, who would have basically gotten a profit off the tax in the form of Surrey rapid transit, more buses, and the Pattullo, destroyed the plebiscite. We are pretty much too weak willed to do what is necessary.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

It's not up to the province. Right now the bridge is a regional concern. If Translink had their portion, there is no way it would be blocked or slowed down in any way by the province...

And yet the Province keeps blocking Translink's attempts to secure funding. It was the Provincial Government's decision to subject the tax proposal to a referendum, for some strange reason they've suddenly "seen the light" and won't raise taxes without one. Odd how referenda aren't needed to impose tolls which have similar or worse impacts on certain segments on the population.

And it's not even a lot of money Translink needs to come up with. They just need enough to finance the debt until the tolls start to make enough money to pay it off. It's not like they need to collect an extra billion dollars over the course of construction. They just need a little bit.

That's exactly how we got into the mess we're in with the Golden Ears bridge. And the Port Mann is in a similar mess, although the Province has deeper pockets than Translink does to ride it out.

Given the straitjacket that the Province has bound Translink up in, it's probably to Translink's best interests to avoid spending any more on the Patullo than is absolutely necessary to keep it safe and invest the rest in transit. The Province has shown that it will parachute money in for bridge construction when it feels the need, whereas transit seems to be the runt of the litter.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That cannot happen unless somebody comes up with some money, and that can't happen unless the Provincial Government gets on board. Welcome to the world that transit users have to live in.

I voted yes and i have never had a license but i still think this bridge should be replaced a.s.a.p. My mom used to drive across daily and had several close calls with big trucks in the narrow lanes. About 10 years ago i was in the car with her when we drove past a bloody car accident that happened in the traffic coming in the other direction. I also tried walking across the bridge when i lived in New West. and it was downright scary, holes and huge cracks in the sidewalk that you can see the river in, big rust holes in the railings and the bridge deck noticeably flexed as large vehicles crossed. It wouldn't surprise me if the steel structure was pitted beyond repair from the lack of regular painting.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

I voted yes and i have never had a license but i still think this bridge should be replaced a.s.a.p.

Oh, I agree that it needs to be replaced. But as long as it's under Translink jurisdiction I'm having a hard time seeing what chain of events will lead to it actually happening. That isn't a criticism of Translink, it's a criticism of the way the Provincial government treats it.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

I voted yes and i have never had a license but i still think this bridge should be replaced a.s.a.p. My mom used to drive across daily and had several close calls with big trucks in the narrow lanes. About 10 years ago i was in the car with her when we drove past a bloody car accident that happened in the traffic coming in the other direction. I also tried walking across the bridge when i lived in New West. and it was downright scary, holes and huge cracks in the sidewalk that you can see the river in, big rust holes in the railings and the bridge deck noticeably flexed as large vehicles crossed. It wouldn't surprise me if the steel structure was pitted beyond repair from the lack of regular painting.

I voted yes for that very reason. I don't care how much of my money goes to replace that bridge! It was 11 years ago that Translink reduced speeds on that bridge and begun the nightly lane closures. It took countless accidents and deaths for them to realize that lane closures were needed at night. It stung because I knew a friend who had lost someone on that bridge and they were assured that a new bridge would come in the coming years. That was 9 years ago...

The blame entirely lies on the province and their lack of leadership or regard for human lives.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Oh, I agree that it needs to be replaced. But as long as it's under Translink jurisdiction I'm having a hard time seeing what chain of events will lead to it actually happening. That isn't a criticism of Translink, it's a criticism of the way the Provincial government treats it.

Exactly. I don't understand why the province doesn't see this as a major boost to local goods and people movement, if anything it would have a knock on effect to local industry. Since LNG is stalling they should focus on what industries are being successful in the province and in this case it's efficiency in goods movement to the rest of the country and efficiency in getting people to their jobs that have to cross this bridge. I think a rail aspect would also be worth the investment to enable higher volumes of goods to be moved, even if it were to be phased. Less trucks on the road and dedicated corridor for goods movement by a single engine train.