My Business in Vancouver column – Part 2:
The question, to clarify, is not the safety issues on the Pattullo Bridge; it’s the size. As TransLink continues its consultations on the future of the Pattullo, its board should revisit the option of a six-lane, billion-dollar expansion and answer these questions:
• what will be the impact of the new Port Mann Bridge, a widened Highway 1, the South Fraser Perimeter Road, the new interchanges and widened arterials?
• do we really need – or want – all that capacity for more traffic, and
• do we have the billions needed to pay for it if it means transit won’t be funded, at least not on the scale needed to make a difference in the way south of the Fraser develops?
Second, where is the traffic, especially the trucks that can’t access the Port Mann, going to go once it gets delivered to New Westminster? Does the reality of car-dependence in the growing parts of the region mean we have to, regrettably but inevitably, erode the health and quality of life for those who aren’t car dependent?
Thirdly, why does Surrey insist on a six-lane bridge? If it were a choice – a wider Pattullo or light rail – what would their leaders say? At the moment, they want both. But why build a transportation system that works really well for the car and then expect transit to compete?
By continuing to expand road space, citizens come to expect it as an entitlement and developers never take seriously more urban forms that assume less reliance on the car.
More critically, why should other parts of the region help fund expensive transit in places where it will be under-patronized, especially if it means no expansion in places where transit is already overloaded?
Or how about this scenario: if the Pattullo were closed and not replaced, would the savings allow rail in both Surrey and Vancouver to proceed simultaneously, avoiding a conflict that could split the region?
Pattullo is a turning point for south of the Fraser. Will they or won’t they choose transit over more road capacity?
Will they build a future that is essentially car-dependent or one modelled after the success of the Livable Region Plan and Vancouverism?
The lesson of the new Port Mann Bridge should by now be clear: transit may be promised, but if it’s not in the budget as part of the plan, with assured means of funding, it won’t be delivered.
Surely at this point, given the experience of the last round, it’s time to say: if no transit, then no bridge. •
.
Yahooooo! That’s the way!
I grew up around Toronto and they keep expanding the freeway/highway system – ever more, ever more – “because then we’ll be able to handle all the traffic.”
Wrong! It just means you’ll get more traffic.
As far as I can tell, Translink isn’t “continuing its consultations” on the Pattullo. Unless you call asking New West residents which spaghetti onramps to a six-laner they prefer, “consultation”.
The message so far is pretty consistently: it’s 6 lanes, folks. And there’s no money for express busses across a new bridge, either.
There is not even any benefit to Surrey commuters in a 6-lane bridge. There is no plan or possibility to widen New West’s roads to accomodate the extra traffic, and these roads are already plugged. I do not understand how Surrey can support such a waste of $1B…and that’s on top of them having to pay tolls to cross this thing.
I wish they would just save the money from the Pattullo, and rebuild the rail bridge instead. Then the Surrey port would still be able to move cargo across the Fraser and residents would be able to commute across by rail instead of rubber.
Any money saved would be able to go into transit in the region (hopefully into SoF cities mainly) and reduce the dependency on the car, making the 6-lane, 4-lane, or even 3-lane refurbished Pattullo bridge an unnecessary dream.
(I just wish the BC government and Translink would have learned from the mistakes made on the Golden Ears bridge because we wouldn’t have to go through all this nonsense again)
Good to see this discussion in a regional blog.
While this $billion dollar proposal barely serves 30,000 commuters/day (2way trips), the liability for this project will be carried by everyone in the region. Everyone’s transit will be impacted if the bridge traffic projections are not met (like the Golden Ears) and if the projections are met, no one will be moving anywhere in New West due to gridlock on roads which are already at capacity.
Building transit and creating mode shift in Surrey is far more important to the region than a billion dollar bottleneck shift for a relatively small number of commuters.
“Or how about this scenario: if the Pattullo were closed and not replaced, would the savings allow rail in both Surrey and Vancouver to proceed simultaneously, avoiding a conflict that could split the region?”
While I don’t doubt the “tear it down” option would be LOVED by New West (and I don’t blame them) it wouldn’t save any money. In fact it would cost the money it costs to take it down.
The billion dollar price tag isn’t going to be funded from resources that could go to transit, it’s funded from the proposed toll on the new bridge. They probably need three lanes of traffic to collect enough tolls to support the project.
In the scenario where there is no bridge there’s also no tolls and thus no revenue for alternate project.
Of course, you could toll the existing bridge and put that towards transit (as politically suicidal as that would be) except for the fact that it’s falling down.
You would think a blog called “price tags” would understand these things instead of spreading misinformation.