We have agreement! Everyone agrees that the Pattullo Bridge, first opened in 1937, needs a very serious upgrade or needs to be replaced. Everyone agrees that it is going to be expensive. Everyone agrees it is needed now, not in 10 or 15 years. But this is about where the agreement ends.
TransLink’s Board of Directors has given staff the go-ahead to begin preliminary work toward building a new Pattullo Bridge that will be financed by tolls. The Board’s decision follows receipt of a consultant’s report (The Delcan Report) that concluded it was preferable to build an entirely new bridge rather than invest more money in the existing structure as one half of a twinned span.
The decision to finance the bridge through tolls raises questions about the province's tolling policy. Victoria had designated the Pattullo as the untolled alternative to the tolled and twinned Port Mann Bridge that is to be built by 2013. If the Pattullo, Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges all end up tolled as is now planned, motorists seeking a free crossing might be forced as far south as the Alex Fraser Bridge. (But is this a legitimate concern?)
Enter the politicians.
From the NDP we have Delta North MLA, Guy Gentner, Surrey-Newton MLA, Harry Bains, NDP MLA and transportation opposition critic, Maurine Karagianis all lined up against the introduction of tolls to finance this project. Among a variety of concerns they believe that the introduction of tolls will force many drivers to the Alex Fraser causing even greater congestion.
Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon, always sensitive to his critics, pointed out that the $1-billion South Fraser perimeter road that recently received environmental approval will allow drivers to get from the Pattullo to the Alex Fraser in five minutes, drastically cutting down on congestion. He also said not all drivers will be flocking to the Alex Fraser because it is a free alternative. "A modest toll does not act as a big dissuasion for people to make a travel decision. At least that's what all the traffic studies tell us.”
"When you do the traffic modelling, what you find - and the Port Mann is the best example - is that today when people are spending 4½ hours sitting on a bridge, wasting time, if they have the option of paying a few dollars to get across it a lot faster, people will do that."
New Westminster City Councillor, Bill Harper is also against the toll. "They are tolling the new Golden Ears Bridge, they're going to toll the (new) Port Mann and now the new Pattullo," Harper said. "Most of the bridges going across the Fraser are going to be tolled."
Harper said high gas prices are already negatively affecting drivers, and he wondered how fair it is to charge tolls for people who have to drive across the bridge when they have no choice.
"Health-care services have been regionalized, so you have people from Surrey coming to Royal Columbian Hospital and people from New Westminster and Burnaby going to Surrey," Harper explained. "What choice do these people have but to go back and forth on a toll bridge?"
TransLink's spokesperson, Ken Hardie said that on the subject of tolls TransLink has no other option. "It's the only way we can pay for it," Hardie said. "TransLink basically doesn't have $800 million to build it in our budget. In fact, we are short lots of money." Therefore the decision has been made and it is that the new Pattullo Bridge will have tolls!
Voice New Westminster Director, Neil Powell, captures the sentiments of a number of New Westminster residents. “All bridges in the lower mainland should be tolled. Look at the original tenets of the Livable Region Strategic Plan.”
1) Protect the green zone
2) Build complete communities
3) Achieve a compact metropolitan region; and
4) Increase transportation choices.
Powell suggests that a greater Vancouver region-wide toll system should be considered. The technology exists to have variable rate tolls at different times of the day across an entire system. Congestion pricing such as this could be an effective tool in getting the most out of the Lower Mainland’s bridge and highway system and it would generate funding for capital expenditures. For example, transit options that are realistic alternatives to driving a car.
So where do you put the new bridge?
The Delcan report suggests TransLink could build the new bridge 50 metres upstream or 50 metres downstream. Making that decision will involve looking at the costs and impacts of each option on the areas on both sides of the river.
Another school of thought advanced by Voice New Westminster Director Patrick O’Connor, would be to include the bridge with the construction of the “Stormont Connector”. The Stormont connector project would join the Pattullo Bridge to Highway 1. The project could be done as a massive cut and cover operation that would put the entire route, from the bridgehead to Highway 1 underground and then restore McBride Blvd to a local surface road with enhanced pedestrian connections between the two sides of McBride. This project has been in discussion for years.
What happened to all of the previous plans for Marine Way in Burnaby? According to the plans that have been on the books for many years, Marine Way traffic was supposed to be served by a Tree Island Bridge which has never been built. The Tree Island Bridge was supposed to route Alex Fraser Bridge traffic away from the Queensborough Bridge and directly onto Marine Way.
The Tree Island Bridge route would also have lined truck traffic up with the Byrne Road connector which would then direct the truck traffic along New Westminster’s northern boundary. This is where the Stormont connector project would have come in. The Tree Island Bridge route was supposed to connect with the Stormont Connector and then directly onto Highway 1.
A truck route like that might even have eliminated the need for a North Fraser Perimeter Road as a way to get from various points west along the Fraser to Highway 1. New West planners have even talked about a tunnel for trucks and rail that would start near New Westminster’s western border and then pop out at our Eastern border near Highway 1. Something like that would cost billions but would eliminate a lot of truck traffic in New Westminster, and lead to a lot less rail infrastructure along our waterfront.
TransLink CEO, Tom Prendergast said the next stages for replacing the Pattullo Bridge will involve making some fundamental decisions, including where the new bridge will go, which road network improvements will be needed and whether a new rail crossing will be integrated into the new structure. As well, he said TransLink will want to ensure that the new bridge will integrate effectively with the road network, so we will want to consider how the North and South Fraser Perimeter Roads will be developed.
TransLink's spokesperson, Ken Hardie said the transportation authority is aware of the current bottlenecks in New Westminster and how a new and wider bridge will impact the city. He said TransLink would look at how to mitigate the situation once a final decision is made on where to locate the bridge.
Next steps
It is imperative that everyone who has an interest in the future of New Westminster review a detailed copy of the Delcan Report. An executive summary is available on line. Follow the links below.
The traffic modeling studies need to be reviewed. The impact studies (economic, social and environmental) need to be reviewed. A solid position on the future of this City must be articulated. Once this is done we must get out in front of getting this project moving. 10 years is not a long time but it is an eternity when you consider what we are experiencing today with the traffic.
Delcan Report
Blair Armitage
Posts
8 comments:
Excellent synopsis!!
What a contrast to the two buffoons on the front page of the District Labor Council Reco......,
I mean the Royal City Record.
The orange haired Karaoke Kal with his usual movable position - I'm opposed to tolls, but only in principle.
Then there is the Mayor with his ambiguous bafflegab. We should, however, take comfort in that he is opposed to selling the name of the bridge to corporate interests.
Odd that he took the example of the "Kool Aid bridge". If he was a more intelligent man, we might for a second think that he was making a reference to Jonestown.
Now THAT would be a solution.
Those who oppose a toll on a new Patullo bridge need to come up with an alternate solution to fund the new bridge construction, either that, or they should say nothing. Realistically, the most viable alternative to implementing a toll for bridge users would be to increase taxes and I don't think anyone has appetite for doing that. Perhaps a P-3 option would be preferable to those who say "no" to the toll, but likely not. It might be that implementing a nominal toll on all the major bridges is an option; that would certainly satisfy the alarmists who cry "toll-evasion" as a reason to oppose tolls on a new Patullo bridge, but really,"toll evasion" is a specious argument at best. With the price of gas and the extra traveling-time, detouring to a further bridge (the Alex Fraser) to avoid a nominal toll charge, is not going to happen in any significant way, if at all. Ideally, a nominal toll will fund the construction of the bridge and further, will encourage commuters to make the "trips" that they do take more productive; instead of a trip across the bridge to pick up a quick item from Home Depot, they might also include a second or third-purpose errand when they venture out. Let's face it, the options for funding the bridge are not many.
The question of how increased traffic volumes will be managed is really the issue at hand. No community was designed to handle the kinds of traffic volumes we see today in New Westminster, let alone the increased traffic volumes that will result from a new six-lane Patullo bridge. For years, New Westminster has endured traffic volumes that are unparalleled in other communities, and without a serious commitment to address increased traffic, the situation will not change because the new Patullo bridge will be constructed adjacent to the existing span. Of particular importance to New Westminster will be how the North and South Fraser perimeter roads projects, and a reconfigured McBride Boulevard, are integrated with the new bridge. The final configuration of these corridors, and the new bridge, will serve to either aggravate or mitigate the increased volumes travelling in and out of New Westminster via the new Patullo bridge.
Reference the skytrain section of this blog: the falling chunks of concrete from the skybridge not only merits concern, it points to the necessity of public vigilance with regard to the replacement of the Patullo bridge. Safety (including post-construction maintenance) and funding are the key issues for every infrastructure project be it a bridge or a tunnel, and if the Patullo configuration is planned the way it should be, it will involve both. Of particular concern is the construction of a "cut and cover" Stormont project to connect with Highway 1. The consequent benefit of "localizing" McBride Boulevard traffic and reclaiming New Westminster roadways and waterfront would go a long way to resolving existing problem traffic issues. To do otherwise will incite tremendous public outcry -- at stake is the declining livability of this city. Such an ambitious project would require both provincial and federal monies because the rail-bridge issue should also be addressed simultaneously. That said, what is most needed is, plain and simple, ... political will. With that in mind, it is encouraging that a 14-kilometre section of the Kicking Horse Canyon roadway was just approved by the Prime Minister to undergo improvement and widening to the tune of a $100 million dollars. Given the population base here, and the volumes of traffic and commodities associated with the North and South Fraser perimeter roads, the Patullo bridge and McBride Blvd. (which are exponentially greater than those of the Kicking Horse Canyon region/route), besides being the right thing to do, it would be politically prudent to revisit the Stormont connector project.
Even though the ten-year timeline may seem like a long time away, now is the time to think and comment on the plans before "unpopular" decisions are announced and it is too late in the process to revisit concerns. Safety should be the number one concern of all: the new bridge should include separate, designated bus/trucking lanes, and should also accommodate protected pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Remember the Queensborough bridge pedestrian way controversy? It is important to be proactive now.
Anonymous: Of equal importance to the planning of this project is to protect single family neighbourhoods. Already, we are dealing with the erosion of the livability of our city. Infrastructure and amenity issues have "developed" as a result of too many high density projects, we have enough problems that have been created "in-house" and these problems will be made worse with increased commuter traffic. Rat-runners cutting through residential streets to avoid the volumes on our major streets and corridors has only yielded extensive traffic calming measures, and unfortunately, area residents have complained that many of those traffic-calming solutions have proven to be as problematic as the non-residential traffic. Cut-and-cover to connect to Highway 1 would be the perfect solution.
That is an excellent synopsis! Thank you to Mr. Armitage for spelling it out so clearly! I say just toll the damn bridge; it is obviously the most common sense thing to do. Keep in mind, like the Coquihala which has already paid for itself and yet continues to require a toll, the same will happen with the bridges (Golden Ears, Port Mann, Patullo); they will also continue to toll long after they have been paid for. This being the case, that kind of open-ended revenue source means that the government has no reason not to fund and construct a cut-and-cover Stormont project to connect to Highway 1. A completed Stormont project would be good for the economy and business for the transport of commodities, good for neighbourhoods and for the city, and probably good for the environment too. Unless I am missing something, it doesn't make sense not to do it so why would anyone, especially politicians, be reluctant to promote that project? They should want to play the hero for now and for future generations. Is there a reason for not doing it? Is there a better option or solution for dealing with the increased traffic volumes?
I'm pleased with the decision to replace the Patullo Bridge - I hope that the new bridge will be as picturesque as the current "arch".
It is known that politics (and issues) make strange bedfellows. Burnaby's resistence to the completion of the Stormont Connector was they wanted a tunnel so as to avoid errosion of their neighbourhoods. So do we. New West and Burnaby should work together to insist on the cut and cover. They got one at Hastings. Let's not miss out.
Just as New West has no new land for developing:everything is being redeveloped. It seems that all our major infrastructures are wearing out or are totally inadequate for the current uses and must be replaced. It is an opportunity to plan for the future and correct past mistakes. All roads lead to (through) New West but the commuter traffic does not need to cut through neighbourhoods. Lets keep the commuter traffic contained.
The projection for completion of the new bridge is at least 10 years. The Massey Victory Heights and Sapperton Residents Associations have been working to have truck traffic taken off of East 8th Avenue. We were told that once the ramp metering is in place at the Patullo Bridge that this would be a reality. This replacement plan does not change anything. The City needs to keep its promise.
Post a Comment