The Livable Blog

Oh I SO wanted to comment on this article yesterday - the Pattullo needs replacing? Really? WOW :p haha

According to Mayor Derek Corrigan of Burnaby, who as everyone here must surely know is one of the most vehement and aggressive critics of the Port Mann - Hwy 1 project, a new Pattulo Bridge must be built to protect the safety of the motoring public.

So far I don't think he's been specific about how many lanes or what kind of interchanges it might have with the proposed South Fraser Perimeter Road or what kind of connection it would have to Hwy 1 at the Cariboo - Stormont interchange, nor has he said whether or not it should be a tolled P3 like the Golden Ears Bridge, but he has said that an entirely new Pattulo Bridge is absolutely essential.

The Pattullo Bridge is an interesting dilema. It has clearly had a bad safety record, but this is largely attributed to individual drivers driving too fast.

So many people are say that it needs to be replaced (again completely glossing over the fact that it will cost another $billion to replace, not to mention all the construction hassels).

But if its just a safety concern, then I believe there are many things that could be done right now to render the bridge much safer. Speed cameras being the obvious example. Unfortunately our ideology driven government has dismissed this out of hand. Certainly the closure of the two lanes late at night has already improved the safety of the bridge.

So if we can improve the safety now, why are we continually talking about replacing the bridge when there's so many other transportation projects which need to get done... (if you think the Pattulo bridge is out of date, look at the railway bridge below it). Why are we talking about replacing a bridge when there's a brand new SkyBridge right next to the Pattullo which is operating at 1/3 capacity?

I think people really want to see the Pattullo bridge capacity increased to 6 or 8 lanes and given all the other realities, safety is only *rational* reason people can come up with to replace it. Of course the - more lanes is progress- crowd would see nothing wrong with dumping 50% more traffic into densely populated New Westminster nor would they have any problems with bulldozing a neighborhood to create the connection to Caribou... that's progress after all.

As with Highway 1 expansion, the Pattullo Bridge replacement (read expansion) has to placed in the queue with all the other priorities challenging our region. I would say compared with the desparate need for decent public transportation these are all very low on the list (not to mention that the need for these projects would diminish if we had a decent transit system in place). And until we have the transit which we need, yet have under-invested in for decades, and we go back to building communities which support (and are supported by) transit, I think it is quite reasonable to expect people to make better use of the bridge and road infrastructure they already have. (but do not interpret this as a "do nothing" suggestion)

agf - "largely attributed to individual drivers driving too fast." Yes, they drive too fast along a hair pin curve that is too sharp and too narrow for the amount of traffic the bridge carries. The speed limit is 50km/h yet almost EVERY car goes 100-120km/h through that stretch.


"I think people really want to see the Pattullo bridge capacity increased to 6 or 8 lanes"

SO far from the truth, I'd rather see it torn down entirely or with ONE lane in each direction, there's no room for 4 as it is - either on that rickety old bridge deck or in that area on the Surrey or New West side.

For more info on the Pattullo, read any one of my multiple blog posts about how unsafe it is.

Or do more people need to die before we move the Pattullo issue up to the top of the pile?

I don't disagree with your analysis, but two points.
- putting fixed position photo radar on the bridge now would slow the traffic *now* (for cheap) and hence deal with most of the problem which causes all the accidents.
- another way to reduce accidents is to get people off of the bridge and give them decent transit alternatives (connections to SkyTrain, esp. in Surrey), and it would be easy to make the bridge sidewalk safer to cycle on without tearing it down the bridge (look at what they did to the Queensborough Bridge)

The problem I have with replacing the bridge is that the current mindset of people making the decisions is that we have to increase road space. There is no way they'd replace it with just 4 lanes... In the current political climate a new bridge is an expanded bridge.

Once they start planning the new bridge, any rational arguments you give them about unused capacity on the SkyBridge, need to reduce dependance on cars, developing complete communities, that more cars in densely populated communities is not a good thing, etc, gets lost in the irrational exuberance over the new expanded structure.

I don't think there's anything wrong with driving 30km/hr over the Pattullo bridge (or riding one's bike for that matter). Why cater to the 110km/hr crowd?

And I repeat, there are soooo many other things we could spend a $billion on.

It looks like Mayor Corrigan has some work cut out for him. Thanks agf for an amusing rendition of the anti-highways thesis.

"For more info on the Pattullo, read any one of my multiple blog posts about how unsafe it is.

Or do more people need to die before we move the Pattullo issue up to the top of the pile?"

So Rebecca, having read some of your blog I really don't know where you stand. Do you want the Patullo bridge torn down and replaced with a new bridge? If so, what particulars do you have in mind in terms of number of lanes and connections with other roads?

Decreasing the speed limit from 60 to 50 has actually made the bridge less pleasent to drive (legally) on.... you're tailgated mercilessly if you dare to drive at the legal limit.