Pattullo Bridge Review Discussion Guide June 2013

7/28/2019 Pattullo Bridge Review Discussion Guide June 2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pattullo-bridge-review-discussion-guide-june-2013 1/32

PatReview C

Discu

Jun

FEEDBA

pattullobridgereview.ca | placespeak.com/PattulloBridgeReview | cityspeaks.ca/Pattullo



PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIEW CONSULTATION JUNE 2013 | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM

We Want To Hear From You

Pattullo Bridge R eview Consultation takes place

rom June 3 through June 28, 2013. Materials,

including this Discussion Guide and Feedback

Form, are available at:

www.pattullobridgereview.ca

You can learn more and provide eedback by:

• Attending an Open House or

a Small Group Meeting (see schedules)

• Providing eedback online by:

• Visiting the Pattullo Bridge

Review website:


• Visiting PlaceSpeak:

www.placespeak.com/

PattulloBridgeReview

• Visiting City o Surrey’s City Speaks:

www.cityspeaks.ca/Pattullo

• Sending written submissions to

[email protected]

or

PO Box 2225 Vancouver Main

Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3W2

HOW INPUT WILL BE USED

The Pattullo Bridge Review builds on previous consultations and outreach eorts, and responds to previous eedback requesting a

inormation and evaluation o all practical alternatives.

Input received during this consultation will be considered, along with nancial and technical inormation, in rening the long list o a

or rehabilitating or replacing the bridge and in identiying ewer alternatives or additional evaluation and consultation. This re

alternatives, along with inormation on road connections and trac, will be presented or public and stakeholder eedback in a

A Consultation Summary Report summarizing eedback received during this consultation will be posted on the Pattullo Bridge

Review website.

COMMUNITY DATE TIME LOCATION

New Westminster Tuesday, June 4 6:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Sapper ton

Surrey Wednesday, June 5 1:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. City Centre

New Westminster Thursday, June 6 1:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. Sapperton

Surrey Wednesday, June 12 1:0 0 p.m. 3:0 0 p.m. Cit y Centre

* Please check www.pattullobridgereview.ca or any potential revisions to this schedule.

SMALL GROUP MEETING SCHEDULE*Small group meetings are scheduled or two hours. Please register to attend a small group meeting by going to www.pattullobridgereview.ca or calling 604-684-Location details will be provided upon registration

COMMUNITY DATE TIME LOCATION

New Westminster Thursday, June 6 5:00 p.m . 8: 00 p. m. Sapperton Pensioners Hall, 318 Keary Street

Surrey Saturday, June 8 10 :0 0 a .m . 1: 00 p. m. S FU Su rre y, 13450 102 Avenue

New Westminster Tuesday, June 11 5:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay, 900 Quayside Drive

Surrey Wednesday, June 12 5:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. SFU Surrey, 13450 102 Avenue

Surrey Thursday, June 13 5: 00 p. m. 8 :0 0 p .m. Ci ty Ce nt re Li brar y, 10350 University Drive

New Westminster Saturday, June 15 10 :0 0 a .m . 1: 00 p. m. I nn at th e Qu ay, 900 Quayside Drive

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SCHEDULE*

The rst hal o the open house w ill be in a drop-in ormat. The second hal will consist o a 30-minute presentation ollowed by a 60-minute question and answer session.



PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIEW CONSULTATION JUNE 2013 | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM 3

The City of New Westminster, the City of Surrey and TransLink are working together to review and evaluate

alternatives to rehabilitate or replace the Pattullo Bridge and to determine a preferred alternative that meetsthe needs of communities connected by the bridge, as well as the broader region served by the bridge.

PURPOSE

New Westminster, Surrey and TransLink are consulting with local

residents and businesses, local and regional stakeholders, and bridge

users about the:

• Problem Statement or the Pattullo Bridge Review (page 5)

• Objectives or rehabilitating or replacing the bridge (page 11)

• Initial screening o the long list o alternatives or rehabilitating

or replacing the bridge (screening against the objectives)(pages 13–23)

THIS DISCUSSION GUIDE INCLUDES:

• Background on the condition and use o the Pattullo Bridge

• Roles and responsibilities o provincial, regional and municipal

governments in planning, operating and maintaining the

Pattullo Bridge and its approaches

• Problem Statement and Other Issues

• Overview o local, regional and provincial plans and past studies

that inorm the Pattullo Bridge Review

• Current long list o alternatives or rehabilitating or replacing the

bridge and the objectives that are guiding the evaluation o the

Pattullo crossing

• Findings o an initial screening o the alternatives against

the objectives

• Feedback orm

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation

June 2013



4 PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIEW CONSULTATION JUNE 2013 | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM

Opened in 1937, the Pattullo Bridge is one o the oldest bridges in the Lower Mainland. It se

as a connection between Surrey, New Westminster and Burnaby and is a critical transportatmovement o people, goods and services. On average, about 73,000 vehicles per weekday bridge, and the bridge sidewalk serves a small volume o pedestrians and cyclists.

The bridge aces a number o challenges, including seismic and

structural concerns. The Pattullo Bridge Review team is working

together to address key challenges, including:

• The bridge structure and oundation are 76 years old and many

components have surpassed their useul lives

• The bridge is vulnerable to damage rom a moderate earthquake

or ship collision and does not meet current seismic standards

• The bridge does not meet current roadway guidelines,including lane widths and curvature, which creates saety and

reliability issues

• Bridge acilities, such as sidewalks and barriers, and connections

or pedestrians and cyclists, are inadequate and do not provide

separation rom trac

• Trac (including truck) volumes aect the liveability o adjacent

communities due to air quality, noise and resulting health impacts,

as well as due to neighbourhood trac inltration

The Pattullo Bridge is sae to remain open; howe

advise that it may not withstand a moderate seis

continues to actively inspect, monitor and maint

Background: Pattullo BridgeCurrent Pattullo Bridge Seismic

Upgrade Planned by TransLink

TransLink has set aside unds to design and

complete a seismic upgrade or the Pattullo

Bridge. Design work will take about a year

and a hal, and then construction will take

approximately two years. This work will

occur regardless o the outcome o the

Pattullo Bridge Review to ensure the bridge

remains open and sae or all users.

I the Pattullo Bridge Review determines that

a new bridge is the best option, the design,

unding and construction o a new bridge

would take approximately 10 years. This seismic

upgrade will ensure that the existing bridge is

available continuously as a new bridge is built.

I the Pattullo Bridge Review determines that

ull rehabilitation o the existing bridge is

the best option, the scope o this immediateseismic upgrade may be expanded.

Pattullo Bridge Has Significant Challenges


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pattullo-bridge-review-discussion-guide-june-2013 5/32PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIEW CONSULTATION JUNE 2013 | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM

CONSULTATION TOPICProblem Statement and Other Issues

PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIE W TEAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

TransLink owns the Pattullo Bridge and is responsible or the sae and ecient movement o people, goods

and services on the bridge.

The Pattullo Bridge Review partners – The City o New Westminster, The City o Surrey and TransLink – are

working together, along with the Ministry o Transportation and Inrastructure, Metro Vancouver and other

associated agencies, to identiy long-term alternatives or the bridge that will meet the needs o local

communities and the region.

The Pattullo Bridge is also part o an integrated regional transportation network. Potential uture alternatives

could aect the transportation patterns in neighbouring municipalities and or other agencies, such as

Port Metro Vancouver. As such, the Major Roads Transportation Advisory Committee (MRTAC) has

nominated members to act as an External Advisory Committee or the Pattullo Bridge Review to advise on

regional interests.

The agencies directly aected by changes to the roadway connections or the bridge area would have

to be in agreement with any proposed alternative. Most o the crossing alternatives would only aect

New Westminster and Surrey. However, some alternatives could aect others such as the Ministry o

Transportation and Inrastructure and the City o Coquitlam, the City o Burnaby or the City o Richmond.

Their agreement would be required to proceed with any alternative that directly aects them. Any project

to replace the bridge that would also require additional unding would require the approval o the Mayors’

Council or Regional Transportation.

CONTEXT

The Pattullo Bridge opened in 1937 and is an important element o the regio

Network. Connecting the City o Surrey and the City o New Westminster, th

average, about 73,000 vehicles per weekday, a signicant portion, 10%, o w

PROBLEM S TATEMENT

The Pattullo Bridge may not survive a moderate earthquake or ship collision, t

risk o being undermined by river scour** and many bridge components hav

useul lives.

OTHER ISSUES

When considering the best solutions or the problem, it is an opportune tim

the optimal roles or the crossing, and also to address other issues with th

crossing, including:

1. The Pattullo Bridge does not meet current roadway design guidelines, inc

widths and curvature, potentially contributing to collisions.

2. Pattullo Bridge acilities, such as sidewalks and barriers, and connections

and cyclists, are inadequate and do not provide sucient protection rom

3. During rush hours, travel demand on the roads leading to the Pattullo Bri

queuing and unreliable travel times or the movement o people, goods

4. Current trac (including truck) volumes aect the liveability o adjacent c

due to air quality, noise and resulting health impacts, as well as due to ne

trac inltration.

* Trac data or 2013 (Janua ry to April).

** River scour occurs as water ow changes the riverbed and removes sediment a nd rocks rothe bridge piers.

BACKGROUND: PATTULLO BRIDGE




BRIDGE STRUCTURAL ISSUES

The Pattullo Bridge was designed or a 50-year lie, which has now been exceeded by 26 years. Maintenance,

such as cleaning and painting the steel to prevent corrosion, has stabilized and extended the lie o some o

the bridge components, but other major elements should be replaced to keep the bridge in good condition.

The deck, joints, railings and bearings are all in need o replacement. Targeted repairs o the reinorced concrete

deck and crossheads (horizontal concrete elements that join the columns and support the trusses) have not

been entirely successul and bridge corrosion continues. The piers and ootings also need reinorcement to be

able to withstand earthquakes, potential ship impacts and the aging o the timber piles that support them.

The piers o the bridge are subject to river scour as water fow changes the riverbed and removes sediment

and rocks rom around the bridge piers. This can undermine the piers supporting the bridge i not countered

by protective measures, such as placing rip-rap (large rocks) around the piers. Pier 5 (between the main span

and the south bank) is particularly subject to scour and measures have been taken to protect it.

DOES NOT MEET CURRENT ROADWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES The Pattullo Bridge has our trac lanes, but the lane widths are below current guidelines. The width between

the bridge arches o the main span is 12.1 metres, which limits the outside trac lanes to 3 metres and the

inside trac lanes to 2.9 metres, leaving only 0.3 metres or the centreline indicators. These trac lane widths

are well below the 3.5- to 3.7-metre lane widths that are the guidelines or new construction. The limited width

also means that a median barrier to separate two-way trac cannot be installed.

As the lane widths on the approach spans are consistent with those on the bridge, large trucks oten must

straddle the lanes, especially on the curved sections, to avoid hitting the curbs.

PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING ISSUES

The pedestrian and cycling acilities on the bridge are also below current design guide

only on the west side and it is 1.8 metres wide, too narrow or pedestrians and cyclists

In most areas, the only separation between the sidewalk and roadway is a standard cu

structure and ences provide some additional separation in the area o the main span.

RECENT TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

Trac saety issues on the Pattullo Bridge have been raised due to narrow lanes, tight

collisions.

The ollowing changes were made to improve saety, including:

• 2002:Signageandmarkingimprovements

• 2009:Nighttimeclosuresofcentrelanesandspeedlimitreducedto50kilometre

The maintenance costs associated with nighttime closures are approximately $264,00

These measures have reduced collisions. Additional trac saety improvements will b

o the Pattullo Bridge Review.






The inormation below shows weekday and weekend trac volumes or November 2012, prior to the opening o the new

Port Mann Bridge, and rom January to April 2013, ollowing the opening. This data is not adjusted or seasonal variations in

trac fows. In addition, trac fows on the Port Mann Bridge are continuing to change as trac patterns normalize overtime. New Westminster, Surrey, TransLink and the Ministry o Transportation and Inrastructure are working together to

continue to monitor and study trac patterns and volumes.*

NOVEMBER 2012**VEHICLE AND TRUCK TRAFFIC VOLUMES

WEEKDAYS:

• Weekday vehicle trac volumes on the Pattullo

Bridge ranged rom 68,000 to 73,000 vehicles

per weekday or an average o 70,000 vehicles

per weekday

• Weekday truck volumes ranged rom 6,500 to

7,100 trucks per weekday or an average o 6,700

trucks per weekday

WEEKEND:

• Weekend vehicle trac volumes ranged rom 49,000

to 64,000 vehicles per weekend day or an average o

56,000 vehicles per weekend day

• Weekend truck volumes ranged rom 1,800 to 2,900

trucks per weekend day or an average o 2,400 trucks

per weekend day

JANUARY–APRIL 2013VEHICLE AND TRUCK TRAFFIC VOLUMES

WEEKDAYS:

• Weekday vehicle trac volumes on the Pattullo

Bridge ranged rom 61,000 to 81,000 vehicles

per weekday or an average o 73,000 vehicles

per weekday

• Weekday truck volumes ranged rom 5,200 to

8,300 trucks per weekday or an average o 6,900

trucks per weekday

WEEKEND:

• Weekend vehicle trac volumes ranged rom

47,000 to 66,000 vehicles per weekend day or an

average o 58,000 vehicles per weekend day

• Weekend truck volumes ranged rom 1,500 to 3,500

trucks per weekend day or an average o 2,400 trucks

per weekend day

Current Traffic on the Pattullo Bridge

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1954

27,000

66,400

27,000

39,100

60,500

66,40069,000

72,00

1964 1974 1984 1994 2004

Weekday Weekend Weekday W

NOVEMBER 2012

JANUARY–APRIL 2013

NOVEM

JANUAR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

VEHICLE TRAFFIC TRUCK TRAFFIC

70,00073,00073,000

56,000 58,00056,000 58,000

6,700 6,9006,700 6,9002,4

Pattullo Bridge Trafc Volumes (1954–2013)

(AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS IN 1,000s)

Please note that the Average Daily Trips shown or years 1954 to 2004 are based on

volumes recorded during the e ntire year (12 months), while the 2013 Average Daily

69,000 is only based on January to April 2013 trafc volumes.

Pattullo Bridge Trafc Volumes (November 2012 and Janu

(AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE AND TRUCK TRAFFIC IN 1,000s)

* Trac Study: The review partners are compiling trac data and inormation to better analyze and understand recent and ongoing changes to

the Pattullo Bridge and connecting roads resulting rom ongoing network changes, including the opening o the Port Mann Bridge and gradual improvements to Highway 1 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road. This inormation will b e reported later in 2013.

** TransLink began trac monitoring in November 2012 .




The ollowing inormation regarding population growth orecasts, land use designation, transportation

network, and current policies and plans orm the basis or the objectives used to screen the crossing

alternatives, as described on page 11 o this Discussion Guide.

POPULATION, LAND USE DESIG NATION AND TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

Growing Population and Employment

In the next 30 years, the region is projected to grow by 1.1 million people and add 600,000 jobs. Population

and employment levels in both New Westminster and Surrey, the areas connected by the Pattullo Bridge,

are projected to increase.

Population Projections

Between 2012 and 2041, New Westminster’s population is projected to grow by 49% and Surrey’s by 53%.

Employment Projections

Between 2006 and 2041, New Westminster’s employment is projected to grow by 41% and Surrey’s

by 103%.

LAND USE DESIG NATION AND TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

Rapid Transit and Road Network

Regional, Local And Policy Context

ITI H L I

HI T

Regional Growth Strategy

City/Metro Centres

Land Use Description

General Urban

Industrial

Mixed Employment

Rural

Community Recreation

Rapid Transit Lines

Millennium Line

Expo Line

Canada Line

Evergreen Line(estimated completion 2016)

Road Networks

Provincial Highways

Major Road Networks

Other Roads

SURREYMETROCENTRE

COQUITLACENTRE

DELTA

METROTOWN

BURNABY SFU

NEWWESTMINSTER

RICHMONDCENTRE

VANCOUVER

METROPOLITANCORE

COQUITLAM

PORTMOODY

PORTCOQUITLA






LOCAL, REGIONAL AND PROVINCIAL POLICIES AND PLANS

The ollowing local, regional and provincial policies and plans were reviewed to lay a oundation and

provide guidance or the Pattullo Bridge Review team. It is important to consider plans at all levels o

government to inorm the Pattullo Bridge Review planning process and to help reach a consensus on a

plan or rehabilitating or replacing the Pattullo Bridge.

The ollowing plans were reviewed:

COMMON POLICIES FROM REGIONAL, MUNICIPAL AND PROVINCIAL PLAN

TO HELP ESTABLISH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIEW:

• Give priority to walking, cycling and transit

• Foster ecient goods movement and economic growth

• Reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) and air pollution

• Integrate land use and transportation

• Ensure transportation investments enhance liveability and address community

• Maintain inrastructure in a state o good repair

• Think in terms o moving people and goods, rather than vehicles alone

• Cost-eciency

• Manage transportation demand beore increasing capacity (add capacity as a la

• Develop a replacement o the bridge on the basis o the ability to collect tolls(TransLink Board, 2008)

Changes in capacity on the Pattullo Bridge, or changes to its existing role, have not been i

regional or provincial plans.

Local (Municipal)Plans

• DowntownCommunityPlan(CityofNewWestminster,2011)

• NewWestminsterOcialCommunityPlan(CityofNewWestminster,2011)

• Long-RangeTransportationStudy(CityofNewWestminster,1998)

• NewWestminsterCommunityEnergyandEmissionsPlan(CityofNewWestminster,2011)

• CityofSurreyOcialCommunityPlan(2002)

• ANeighbourhoodConceptPlanforSouthWestminster(2003)

• CityofSurreyTransportationStrategicPlan(2008)• ASustainabilityCharterfortheCityofSurrey(2008)

• CityofSurreyWalkingPlan(2011)

• CityofSurreyCyclingPlan(2012)

RegionalPlans

• Transport2040(TransLink,2010)

• 2013BasePlan(TransLink,2012)

• RegionalGrowthStrategy(MetroVancouver,2011)

• IntegratedAirQualityandGreenhouseGasManagementPlan(MetroVancouver,2011)

ProvincialPlans

• 2010/11–2012/13ServicePlan(MinistryofTransportationandInfrastru cture,2010)

• ProvincialTransitPlan(MinistryofTransportationandInfrast ructure,2008)

• ProvincialCyclingPolicy(MinistryofTransportationandInfrastructure,2000)

• ProvincialClimateActionPlan(2008)




There will be various opportunities or public input during the Pattullo Bridge Review

process. As noted by the yellow stars in the graphic below, public consultation is planned

at several key milestones during the review process.

• Public Input: Spring 2013

(current consultation)

During this consultation, eedback is

being sought regarding:

•FrameworkofthePattulloBridgeReview

as dened by the Problem Statement

•Objectivesusedtoscreenthelonglistof

alternatives or rehabilitating or replacing

the bridge

•Initialscreeningofthelonglistof

alternatives (based on the Objectives)

• Public Input: Fall 2013

(anticipated October)

Following urther evaluation o viable

alternatives, a rened list o crossing

alternatives, along with inormation on

road connections and trac estimates,

will be presented or public and

stakeholder eedback along with the

evaluation criteria and ndings.

• Public Input: Winter 2014

(anticipated January)

Following urther detailed evaluation

and technical work, the preerred

alternative(s) will be presented or

public and stakeholder eedback.

Spring 2014

Policy Review andAdditional Analysis

(complete)

Review in Context of Other TransportationPriorities for Investment & Funding

TransLink’s Regional Transportation Strategy

Implementation Plan

Previous Planning and Consultations

CONSULTATION OPPORTUNITIES

Initial Screening ofLong List of Alternatives

(screening against Objectives)

Refined Listof Alternatives

PreferredAlterna-tive(s)

Fall–Winter2012

We Are Here

Spring 2013(June)

Public Input: Fall 2013(anticipated October)

Public Input: Winter 2014(anticipated January)

PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIEW

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT

Pattullo Bridge Review-Why Are We Here?

Previous planning initiatives and public and stakeholder consultations conducted by the

Westminster, the City o Surrey and TransLink about proposed alternatives or replacing th

raised concerns that need to be resolved to reach a mutually supportable alternative. The current collaborative joint review was initiated in late 2012 by New Westminster, Surre

participation rom the Ministry o Transportation and Inrastructure, and Metro Vancouver.

lack o a consensus in consultations held in 2012 and to requests or additional inormation

The Pattullo Bridge Review is a comprehensive process evaluating alternatives through th

ollowing steps:

• Assess all previous work as inputs to the Review

• Undertake additional analysis o past work and context

• Establish the unctional role o the crossing

• Develop an evaluation ramework that captures local and regional goals

• Identiy, screen and evaluate practical and viable alternatives

• Seek input rom the public and stakeholders to inorm the evaluation

The Pattullo Bridge Review aims to identiy a suitable alternative that meets reg

objectives that can be included in a unded TransLink plan no later than all 201

PREVIOUS CONSULTATIONS- 2012

Both TransLink and the City o New Westminster have hosted previous consultations on P

replacement options. The joint Pattullo Bridge Review team has reviewed and is conside

rom both consultations in the current strategic review.

• For more inormation on TransLink’s March 2012 and June 2012 consultations, please v

www.translink.ca

• For more inormation on New Westminster’s May 2012 consultation, please visitwww.newwestcity.ca/residents/residents_services/transportation/master_transportatio

Pattullo Bridge Review -

City of New Westminster, City of Surrey and TransLink




Based on examination o the local, regional and provincial policies and plans (page 9), the Pattullo Bridge

Review team established the ollowing objectives to evaluate alternatives, including connections, based

on their abilities to address the identied problems and deliver a supportable alternative.

The preerred alternative will meet transportation, environmental

and health objectives including:

1. Moves towards the regional goal that most trips will be by walking, cycling

and transit.

2. Minimizes single occupant vehicle use and vehicle kilometres travelled.

3. Minimizes emissions o greenhouse gases (GHGs) and pollutants.

4. Is capable o supporting neighbourhood liveability by minimizing andmitigating impacts, including during construction, and provides an

aesthetically pleasing structure.

5. Supports local and regional land use plans and economic development.

6. Provides reliable access and predictable travel times or all modes, users, and

or an appropriate level o goods movement.

7. Provides a sae crossing or all modes, is structurally sound and meets current

standards or seismic and ship impacts.

8. Is cost-eective.

Objectives are not listed in priority order.

Twenty-ve alternatives or the Pattullo crossing were developed base

technical work and on suggestions rom the public and stakeholders d

previous consultations. The alternatives are grouped in three corridors, as shown on the map

ollowing page:

• Crossing at Existing Corridor

• Crossing at Sapperton Bar Corridor

• Crossing at Tree Island Corridor

One o the rst steps o the Pattullo Bridge Review process was to com

screening o each o the crossing alternatives against the objectives. T

o this initial screening is shown on pages 15 through 23.

Objectives of the Pattullo Bridge Review

Pattullo Bridge Review- Initial Screening of Crossing Alternatives

CONSULTATION TOPICAlternatives for the Pattullo Crossing




Q U E E N

S B O R O

U G H

B R I D G E

R O Y A L A

V E N U

E

M AR I N E W AY

N O R T H F

R A S E R W

A Y

C O N N

E C T O

R

EAST WEST

S C O T T R O A D

C U M B E R L A N

D S T R

E E T

L O U G H E E D H I G H W AY

U

H I G H W AY 1

B R U N E T T E

A V E N U E

S I X T H

A V E

N U E

OLD YALE ROAD

104 AVENUE

96 AV ENUE

E I G H T

H A V E N

U E 1 0 T H

A V E N

U E

E D M O

N D S S T R

E E T

I M P E

R I A L S T R

E E T

S O U T H

F R A S E R P E R I M E T E R

R O A D

K ING GEORGE BOULE VARD

Q U E E N S

A V E N U

E

C O L U M B I A S T R E E T

F R O N

T S T R E E T

EAST-WEST

S I X T H S T R E E T

M C B R I D

E B L V D

S T E W AR D S O N W A Y

B R A I D

K I N

C A N A D A W A Y

K I N G S W A Y

E .

C O

L U M

B I A

S T

R E E T

SappCrossin

Existing Crossing Alternative

Tree Island Crossing Alternative

Richmond City Council has advised TransLink

that it is opposed to the consideration o anew Fraser River crossing in the vicinity o Tree

Island as part o any alternative to replace or

upgrade the Pattullo Bridge, as this alternativeis not in the City’s Ocial Community Plan and

it could have a signifcant impact on the landuse in the area.

Overview of Alternatives

CROSSING AT EXISTING CORRIDOR

No Bridge/Pedestrian- and Bike-Only Bridge

• NoBridge

• RehabilitatedPattulloBridgeforpedestrians

and cyclists only

• Rehabilitated2-,3-or4-lanePattulloBridge

New Bridge • New4-,5-,6-or8-lanebridge

New Tunnel

• New4-lanetunnelwithorwithoutbranchto

Stewardson Way

• New4-lanetunnelwithorwithoutbranchto

Stewardson Way, with rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge

or pedestrians and cyclists only

CROSSING AT SAPPERTON BAR CORRIDOR

Sapperton Bar Crossing

• New4-laneSappertonBarCrossing

• New4-laneSappertonBarCrossing,withrehabilitated

Pattullo Bridge or pedestrians and cyclists only

• New4-laneSappertonBarCrossing,with2-or3-lane rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge

New Surrey-Coquitlam Crossing

• New4-or6-laneSurrey-CoquitlamCrossing

• New4-or6-laneSurrey-CoquitlamCrossing,with

rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or pedestrians and

cyclists only

• New4-or6-laneSurrey-CoquitlamCrossing,with

2- or 3-lane rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge

CROSSING AT TREE ISLAND CORRIDOR

New Richmond-Burnaby Tree Island Crossing

• New4-laneRichmond-BurnabyTreeIslandCrossing

• New4-laneRichmond-BurnabyTreeIslandCrossing,

with rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or pedestrians

and cyclists only • New4-laneRichmond-BurnabyTreeIslandCrossing,

with 2- or 3-lane rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge




INITIAL SCREENING OF CROSSING ALTERNATIVES

The joint Pattullo Bridge Review team reviewed each o the alternatives against each o the

agreed objectives. The screening resulted in six alternatives that require urther consideration and

19 alternatives that are not recommended or urther evaluation. The screening outcome is shownon pages 15 through 23.

This screening process was completed by the Pattullo Bridge Review team, including

representatives o the City o New Westminster, the City o Surrey, TransLink, the Ministry o

Transportation and Inrastructure, and Metro Vancouver.

The screening was based on proessional judgment and the inormation available rom:

• Previous technical work

• Review o the policy context as prepared or the Pattullo Bridge Review

• Updated cost estimates o the alternatives (subject to urther study and renement)

The ndings are preliminary or consultation and do not refect the ocial positions o the

agencies involved.

COST ESTIMATES

A preliminary cost estimate range has been included or each alternative. These are initial estimates

only and do not include additional costs that could be included in the project, such as connector

roads, environmental studies or mitigation measures. The cost estimates will be updated as more

detailed technical work is completed in the coming months.

Initial aordability modelling has been done or the 13 alternatives located at the current

crossing location. Based on the current volumes at the current location, costs o $1 billion would

be recoverable through user ees. Costs over $1 billion would likely require additional unding

through senior levels o government. The aordability modelling will be updated as more detailed

technical work is completed in the coming months.

PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIEW – INITIAL SCREENING O F CROSSING ALTERNATIVES




Legend:

Municipal Bounda

SkyTrain

Bridge or Pedestr

Rehabilitated Patt

New Bridge

Proposed Tunnel A


No Bridge

New 4-Lane Tunnel• With or without branch to• Withorwithoutarehabil

pedestrians and cyclists o

Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge

• Forpedestriansandcyclistsonly

Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge• 2,3or4lanes New Bridge• 4,5,6or8lanes

CROSSING ATEXISTING CORRIDOR

Possible Connections

To be determined during uture phases:

• McBride Boulevard

• Royal Avenue• East Columbia Street

• South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR)

• Highway 1

• King George Boulevard and Scott Road

• Other network connections

Notes

1) Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge

All alternatives that involve rehabilitation o the

existing bridge include the construction o a new

bridge deck. The lie expectancy o the current

bridge deck is about eight to 10 years with regular

maintenance to repair potholes and surace damage.

2) Combined Road-Rail

Given the proximity o the New Westminster Rail

Bridge to the Pattullo Bridge, there have b een

suggestions that a new combined bridge would be

appropriate, as the rail bridge, having been built in

1904, is even older than the Pattullo Bridge and is a

major bottleneck in the region’s rail network. Recent

analysis suggests, however, that the cost savings o

doing so would not be signicant, as there would be

a minimal ability to share bridge structures. Further,

the rail companies have not exp ressed an interest in

participating in the timelines required.

Note: The Ministry o Transportation and Inrastructure

has no plans to provide a connection between SFPR and

the Port Mann Bridge. However, at the request o the

City o New Westminster, The Ministry o Transportation

and Inrastructure is undertaking additional analysis

o the practical easibility o a potential connection

between the SFPR and the Port Mann Bridge.




PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIEW – INITIAL SCREENING OF CROSSING ALTERNATIVES

EXISTING CORRIDOR

OBJECTIVES 1) NO BRIDGE 2) REHABILITATED PATTULLO BRIDGEPEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS ONLY

3) REHABILITATED PATTULLO BRIDGE2 LANES

4) REHABILITATED PATTULLO BRIDGE3 LANES

5) REHABILITA

1. Moves towards the regionalgoal that most trips will be bywalking, cycling and transit.

Removing a key vehicle connection while retaining theparallel transit route (SkyBridge) would increase theshare o trips by transit. Cycling and walking acilitieswould not be provided.

Removing a key vehicle connection but providingor walking, cycling and transit (SkyBridge) wouldincrease the share o trips by walking, cycling andtransit. Cycling and walking on the bridge would bemore comortable than today but the shit to walkingand cycling would likely be small, due to the length othe crossing.

Reducing capacity on a key vehicle connection whileproviding or walking, cycling and transit (SkyBridge)would increase the share o trips by walking, cyclingand transit. Rehabilitation would improve walking andcycling by incorporating acilities with modern standardsand dimensions but the mode shit to walking andcycling would likely be small, due to the length o thecrossing.

Reducing capacity on a key vehicle connection whileproviding or walking, cycling and transit (SkyBridge)would increase the share o trips by walking, cyclingand transit. Rehabilitation would improve walking andcycling by incorporating acilities with modern standardsand dimensions but the mode shit to walking andcycling would likely be small, due to the length o thecrossing.

Rehabilitation wouldand cycling by incorstandards and dimewalking and cycling length o the crossinlikely since the capathe same.

2. Minimizes single occupantvehicle (SOV) use and vehiclekilometres (VKT) travelled.

There may be a shit rom SOV to transit, which couldreduce overall VKT, GHGs and pollutants. However,longer driving trips or those who drive could alsocause a net increase in VKT, GHGs and pollutants.

There may be a shit rom SOV to transit, walking andcycling, which could reduce overall VKT, GHGs andpollutants. However, longer driving trips or those whodrive could also cause a net increase in VKT, GHGsand pollutants.

There may be a shit rom SOV to transit, walking andcycling due to reduced capacity, which could reduceoverall VKT, GHGs and pollutants. However, diversion odriving trips to other crossings could also cause a netincrease in VKT, GHGs and pollutants.

There may be a shit rom SOV to transit, walking andcycling due to reduced vehicle capacity, which couldreduce overall VKT, GHGs and pollutants. However,this could be partially oset by having two lanes in thepeak direction. Overall, diversion o vehicles to othercrossings could also cause a net increase in VKT, GHGsand pollutants, particularly since ows on the bridge arealmost balanced.

Vehicle capacity wowalking and cycling but are unlikely to lechanges to signifcaGHG emissions.

3. Minimizes emissions of GHGsand pollutants.

4. Is capable of supportingneighbourhood liveability byminimizing and mitigatingimpacts, including duringconstruction, and provides anaesthetically pleasing structure.

Neighbourhood liveability adjacent to the currentcrossing location would improve, as there wouldno longer be trafc queuing or the Pattullo Bridge.However, trafc would move to other crossings andqueuing or these crossings could spill into residentialareas.

Neighbourhood liveability adjacent to the currentcrossing location would improve, as there wouldno longer be trafc queuing or the Pattullo Bridge.However, trafc would move to other crossings andqueuing or these crossings could spill into residentialareas.

Trafc impacts during rehabilitation work would besignifcant and could encourage motorists to usealternate routes. The long-term diversion would resultin lower volumes using the crossing. There could bean impact on queuing in neighbourhoods but urtheranalysis is required.

Trafc impacts during rehabilitation work would besignifcant and could encourage motorists to usealternate routes. Counter-ow operation is liable toincrease queuing since peak trafc volumes in eachdirection are quite balanced, causing more queuing andreducing liveability.

Trafc impacts durinsignifcant but the e

5. Supports local and regionalland use plans and economicdevelopment.

Conicts with plans that assume a multi-modalconnection between Surrey and New Westminstertown centres. This alternative would not support theaccessibility and economic attractiveness o eithermunicipality.

Conicts with plans that assume a multi-modalconnection between Surrey and New Westminstertown centres. This alternative would not support theaccessibility and economic attractiveness o eithermunicipality.

Reducing the road capacity between the Surrey andNew Westminster town centres is not in any landuse plans and would reduce the accessibility o bothmunicipalities. Further analysis is required to assess theimpact on economic development.

Reducing the road capacity between the Surrey andNew Westminster town centres is not in any landuse plans and would reduce the accessibility o bothmunicipalities. Further analysis is required to assess theimpact on economic development.

The current bridge cplans. This capacity idevelopment seen t

6. Provides reliable access andpredictable travel times forall modes, users, and for anappropriate level of goodsmovement.

Trafc would move to other already congestedcrossings, leading to unpredictable travel times.Goods and services movement could be compromised bythe lack o a crossing in a long-standing location betweenSurrey and New Westminster town centres, and adjacentto an industrial area in Surrey.

Trafc would move to other already congestedcrossings, leading to unpredictable travel times.Goods and services movement could be compromised bythe lack o a crossing in a long-standing location betweenSurrey and New Westminster town centres, and adjacentto an industrial area in Surrey.

Capacity reduction would lead to less reliable traveltimes. The capacity and reliability o goods and servicesmovement would also be compromised.

Capacity reduction could lead to less reliable traveltimes. The capacity and reliability o goods and servicesmovement would also be compromised.

Access and travel timthe number o lanes

7. Provides a safe crossing forall modes, is structurally soundand meets current standards forseismic and ship impacts.

Not applicable. Not applicable or motor vehicles.

Pedestrians and cyclists would have a dedicatedbridge, with no potential interaction with cars ortrucks, and better seismic perormance.

A rehabilitated crossing would provide better seismicand structural perormance as well as wider lanes.There would be potential to include a painted median.Pedestrian and cycling acilities would be improved.

A rehabilitated crossing would provide better seismic andstructural perormance as well as wider lanes. Counter-ow operation would preclude a median barrier,continuing the risk o head-on collisions. Pedestrian andcycling acilities would be improved.

A rehabilitated crossstructural perormancould not meet modecontinued risk o colsaety assessment. Pbe better than existin

8. Is cost-effective. Costs includecrossing and connections andremoval of existing bridge whererequired. Costs of changes toconnecting street networks, if

needed, are not included.

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ($M): $60–$70

Cost o decommissioning would not producetransportation benefts or a revenue stream.


Not cost-eective, as it is assumed that there wouldnot be an ability to recover costs rom pedestrians andcyclists through user-related ees.


Fewer lanes would attract ewer users and less revenue.However, the low capital cost could be covered by thesmaller user base, subject to additional analysis.


Fewer lanes would attract ewer users and less revenue.However, the low capital cost could be covered by thesmaller user base, subject to additional analysis.

PRELIMINARY CO

With the existing nucosts could be coveradditional analysis.

RECOMMENDED OUTCOMEOF THIS SCREENING

NOT RECOMMENDEDFOR FURTHER EVALUATION DUE

PRIMARILY TO OBJECTIVES 5, 6 AND 8

NOT RECOMMENDEDFOR FURTHER EVALUATION DUE

PRIMARILY TO OBJECTIVES 5, 6 AND 8

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHEREVALUATION DUE PRIMARILY TO

OBJECTIVE 6REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATION REQUIRES FU




OBJECTIVES 6) NEW 4-LANE BRIDGE 7) NEW 5-LANE BRIDGE 8) NEW 6-LANE BRIDGE 9) NEW 8-LA


A new bridge would improve the comort o walking and cycling byincorporating acilities o a modern standard and dimension. Modeshit is likely small, in part due to the length o the crossing. Noincrease in transit use, as attractiveness to drivers remains the same.

A new bridge would improve the comort o walking and cyclingby incorporating acilities with modern standards and dimensions.The shit to walking and cycling is likely small, due to the length othe crossing. Mode shit rom transit may or may not occur, due toincreased bridge capacity. This would require urther analysis.

A new bridge would improve the comort o walking and cycling byincorporating acilities with modern standards and dimensions. Modeshit to walking and cycling would likely be small, due to the lengtho the crossing. Mode shit rom transit may or may not occur, due toincreased bridge capacity and requires urther analysis.

Although pedestrian and cycling incorporating acilities with modethe doubling o vehicle capacity oattractiveness o walking, cyclingand cycling would likely be small,


A new 4-lane bridge would have slightly increased capacity.Improved walking and cycling conditions are unlikely to lead to largeenough behavioural changes to signifcantly change mode share, VKTand GHG emissions. More analysis to consider bridge connections,tolls and resulting trafc demand would be required to determine

likely outcomes.

Additional capacity may increase vehicle travel and emissions in thelong term. More analysis to consider bridge connections, capacity othe road network, tolls and resulting trafc demand is required todetermine likely outcomes.

Additional capacity may increase vehicle travel and emissions in thelong term. More analysis to consider bridge connections, capacity othe road network, tolls and resulting trafc demand is required todetermine likely outcomes.

The doubling o lanes and vehicleadditional SOV travel rom transitauto-dependency. This is expectedmanagement eects o tolls, whicand GHG emissions.

3. Mini mizes emissions ofGHGs and pollutants.

4. Is capable of supportingneighbourhood liveability byminimizing and mitigatingimpacts, including duringconstruction, and providesan aesthetically pleasingstructure.

Trafc impacts during construction would be mitigated by the currentbridge remaining open. Long-term trafc impacts on liveability wouldlargely be the same as today, but there may be some local changesdue to approach design and potential mitigation measures.

More analysis o specifc bridge connections is required to evaluatethe resulting potential to aect liveability.

More analysis o specifc bridge connections is required to evaluatethe resulting potential to aect liveability.

The extra lanes would likely attrawould exceed the carrying capacleading to increased volumes andaecting liveability.


The current bridge capacity is assumed in all land use plans. Thecapacity o a new 4-lane bridge should be sufcient to support theeconomic development seen to date and planned.

The additional lanes may encourage auto-oriented development.Economic benefts or goods movement are possible. Both issuesrequire urther analysis.

The additional lanes may encourage auto-oriented development.Economic benefts or goods movement are possible. Both issuesrequire urther analysis.

The additional lanes could encouoriented development. The land ueconomic benefts or goods mov

6. Provides reliable access and

predictable travel times forall modes, users, and for anappropriate level of goodsmovement.

Access and travel times would remain unchanged, as the number o

lanes would be the same as today. Some improvements could resultrom trucks no longer needing to occupy two lanes on the curvedsections o the bridge, due to wider lanes.

The fth lane may provide more reliable travel times in the direction

it would serve and could be confgured to beneft goods movement,subject to the capacity o the connecting street network.

The additional lanes may improve travel time reliability i they

could be connected so they would not overload connecting streets,causing additional congestion and delay. Additional analysis wouldbe required.

The capacity o the bridge would

street network, leading to increas

7. Provides a safe crossing forall modes, is structurallysound and meets currentstandards for seismic andship impacts.

A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-impactstandards than a rehabilitated bridge and would be more resistant toriver scour. Lane widths would meet modern guidelines. Walking andcycling acilities would be much better than existing.



A new bridge would be built to hstandards than a rehabilitated brto river scour. Lane widths and alguidelines. Walking and cycling athan existing.

8. Is cost-effective. Costs includecrossing and connections andremoval of existing bridge whererequired. Costs of changes toconnecting street networks, if

needed, are not included.


Costs could be covered by user-based revenues, subject toadditional analysis.



PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE: $985M–$1.1B


PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMA

Costs could be covered by user-baadditional analysis.


REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATION REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATION REQUIRES FURTHER CONSIDERATIONNOT RECO

FOR FURTHER EVALUATO OBJECTIVES

PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIEW – INITIAL SCR EENING OF CROSSING ALTERNATIVES

EXISTING CORRIDOR continued




OBJE CTIVE S 10) NE W 4-L ANE TUNNEL WI THOUT BRANC H 11) NE W 4-L ANE TUNNEL WI TH BR ANC H 12 ) NE W 4-L ANE TUNNEL WI THOUT BRANC HWITH A REHABILITATED PATTULLO BRIDGE FOR

PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS ONLY

13) NEW 4-LANE TUWITH A REHABILITATED

PEDESTRIANS AN


Pedestrian and cycling acilities would not be included in a tunnel.The remote locations o the tunnel portal(s) in New Westminstercould encourage more use o SkyTrain between Surrey anddowntown New Westminster.

Pedestrian and cycling acilities would not be included in a tunnel.The remote locations o the tunnel portal(s) in New Westminstercould encourage more use o SkyTrain between Surrey anddowntown New Westminster.

Mode split may be similar to today since a pedestrian and cyclingcrossing would be available and the remote locations o the tunnelportal(s) in New Westminster could encourage more use o SkyTrainbetween Surrey and downtown New Westminster. However, bybypassing parts o New Westminster where congestion now occurs,a tunnel could reduce travel times and make driving more attractive.Mode shit to walking and cycling would likely be small, due to thelength o the bridge.

Mode split may be similar to todacrossing would be available and tportal(s) in New Westminster coulbetween Surrey and downtown Nbypassing parts o New Westmina tunnel could reduce travel timesMode shit to walking and cyclinglength o the bridge.


Tunnel portal locations in New Westminster would increase drivingdistances or downtown New Westminster and Coquitlam trips.The tunnel would bypass congested areas, making driving moreattractive, and potentially increasing VKT and GHG emissions.There could be some emission reductions rom reduced congestion.

Tunnel portal locations in New Westminster would increase drivingdistances or downtown New Westminster and Coquitlam trips.The tunnel would bypass congested areas, making driving moreattractive, and potentially increasing VKT and GHG emissions. Therecould be some emission reductions rom reduced congestion.

Tunnel portal locations in New Westminster would increase drivingdistances or downtown New Westminster and Coquitlam trips.The tunnel would bypass congested areas, making driving moreattractive, and potentially increasing VKT and GHG emissions. Therecould be some emission reductions rom reduced congestion.

Tunnel portal locations in New Wedistances or downtown New WeThe tunnel would bypass congestattractive, and potentially increasicould be some emission reduction3. Mi nimizes emissions of

GHGs and pollutants.


A single New Westminster portal would concentrate trafc impactin a largely residential area, thereby aecting liveability. Truck trafctravelling to and rom Highway 1 and Coquitlam would need to useEighth Avenue.

Two New Westminster portals, including one on the southwest edgeo downtown, could reduce the overall impacts on liveability byreducing trafc ows in largely residential areas.

A single New Westminster portal would concentrate trafc impactsin a largely residential area, thereby aecting liveability. Truck trafctravelling to and rom Highway 1 and Coquitlam would need to useEighth Avenue.

Two New Westminster portals, inco downtown, could reduce the oreducing trafc ows in largely re


The tunnel would bypass downtown New Westminster and wouldbe less eective at connecting town centres. Connectivity to parts oCoquitlam would also be lacking.

The branch would provide a connection to New Westminster but isurther rom downtown. Connectivity to parts o Coquitlam wouldalso be lacking.

The tunnel would bypass downtown New Westminster and wouldbe less eective at connecting town centres. Connectivity to parts oCoquitlam would also be lacking.

The branch would provide a connurther rom downtown. Connectalso be lacking.


Reliability would generally improve or drivers, though not orpedestrians and cyclists. Incident management could be morecomplex in a tunnel and potentially more disruptive. Goodsmovement to downtown New Westminster and Coquitlam wouldbe compromised, given portal locations.

Reliability would generally improve or drivers, though not orpedestrians and cyclists. Incident management could be morecomplex in a tunnel and potentially more disruptive. Goodsmovement to Coquitlam would be compromised, given portallocations.

Reliability would generally improve or drivers. Incident managementcould be more complex in a tunnel and potentially more disruptive.Goods movement to downtown New Westminster and Coquitlamwould be compromised, given portal locations.

Reliability would generally improvcould be more complex in a tunnGoods movement to Coquitlam wlocations.

7. Pr ovides a safe crossing forall modes, is structurallysound and meets currentstandards for seismic andship impacts.

Tunnels typically perorm well in seismic events and are not subjectto ship impacts. Some tunnel-specifc saety issues would exist, givenenclosed spaces.

Tunnels typically perorm well in seismic events and are not subjectto ship impacts. Some tunnel-specifc saety issues would exist, givenenclosed spaces.

Tunnels typically perorm well in seismic events and are not subjectto ship impacts. Some tunnel-specifc saety issues would exist, givenenclosed spaces. Pedestrian and cyclist saety would be improved,given access to the rehabilitated bridge.

Tunnels typically perorm well in sto ship impacts. Some tunnel-speenclosed spaces. Pedestrian and cgiven access to the rehabilitated b

8. Is cost-effective. Costs includecrossing and connections andremoval of existing bridge whererequired. Costs of changes toconnecting street networks, ifneeded, are not included.

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ($B): $2.9–$3.0

High cost would not be recoverable rom user-based charges.



PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ($B): $3.1B–$3.2


PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMA

High cost would not be recoverab


NOT RECOMMENDEDFOR FURTHER EVALUATION

DUE PRIMARILY TO OBJECTIVE 8





NOT RECOFOR FURTHER

DUE PRIMARILY


EXISTING CORRIDOR continued




CROSSING ATSAPPERTON BAR CORRIDOR



• United Boulevard

• Lougheed Highway

• Highway 1

• Royal Avenue

• South Fraser Perimeter Road

• King George Boulevard and Scott Road

• McBride Boulevard

• Columbia Street

Legend:

Municipal Boundary

SkyTrain

New Crossing

Tunnel

Optional Rehabilitated Bridge orPedestrians and Cyclists Only

or Optional 2- or 3-Lane RehabilitatedPattullo Bridge

New 4- or 6-Lane Surrey-Coquitlam Bridge

• With or without a rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or pedcyclists only

• Withorwithouta2-or3-lanerehabilitatedPattulloBr

New 4-Lane Sapperton Bar Crossing

• With or without a rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or pedestrians andcyclists only

• Withorwithouta2-or3-lanerehabilitatedPattulloBridge





OBJECTIVES 14) NEW 4-LANE SAPPERTON BAR CROSSING 15) NEW 4-LANE SAPPERTON BAR CROSSINGWITH A REHABILITATED PATTULLO BRIDGE FOR


16) NEW 4-LANE SAPPERTON BWITH A 2- OR 3-LANE REHABI

PATTULLO BRIDGE

1. Moves towards the regionalgoal that most trips will be bywalking, cycling and transit

Mode shit may be insignifcant, based on the level o vehicle capacity across the river. Thelocation o the bridge access in New Westminster could encourage more use o SkyTrainbetween Surrey and downtown New Westminster. A new bridge would improve the comorto walking and cycling by incorporating acilities with modern standards and dimensions;however, the location would not be very useul or pedestrians and cyclists, given its lengthand distance rom destinations on the north side.

Mode shit may be insignifcant, based on the level o vehicle capacity across the river. Thelocation o the access in New Westminster could encourage more use o SkyTrain betweenSurrey and downtown New Westminster. A new bridge would improve the comort o walkingand cycling by incorporating acilities with modern standards and dimensions. In addition,the pedestrian and cyclist crossing in the existing corridor would beneft these modes, thoughmode shit to walking and cycling would likely be small, due to the lengths o the crossings.

Although the pedestrian and cycling acilities would be imshit to walking and cycling is likely small, due to the lengtcrossing location and capacity may make driving more attr


This crossing location would likely shorten trips between Surrey and Coquitlam/Highway 1 butextend those to New Westminster. The positive eects o shortened trips to one location maybe oset by the longer trips to the other. Vehicle trips may increase in number, but on average,they would be marginally shorter, so the total change in VKT and GHG emissionsmay be minor.

This crossing location would likely shorten trips between Surrey and Coquitlam/Highway 1 butextend those to New Westminster. The positive eects o shortened trips to one location maybe oset by the longer trips to the other. Vehicle trips may increase in number but on averagethey would be marginally shorter, so the total change in VKT and GHG emissionsmay be minor.

The increase in overall automobile accessibility and use withe VKT and GHG benefts rom more direct automobile tr



Liveability gains rom relocating the north end o the bridge rom a residential area to anindustrial area could be oset by the increased need or New Westminster-related trafc totravel through more o the community when going to/rom the bridge.

Liveability gains rom relocating the north end o the bridge rom a residential area to anindustrial area could be oset by the increased need or New Westminster-related trafc totravel through more o the community when going to/rom the bridge.

Shorter trips to/rom bridges in New Westminster resulting improved liveability. However, queuing or the rehabilitateimpacts, especially in a 3-lane counter-ow scenario.

5. Suppor ts local and regionalland use plans and economicdevelopment.

The loss o a direct multi-modal connection between adjacent town centres is not consistentwith local and regional plans. Bridge approaches would impinge on industrial lands. Thecrossing would also aect a less disturbed portion o the river and would require considerationrelative to environmental protection policies.

The loss o a direct multi-modal connection between adjacent town centres is not consistentwith local and regional plans. Bridge approaches would impinge on industrial lands. Thecrossing would also aect a less disturbed portion o the river and would require considerationrelative to environmental protection policies.

A direct connection between adjacent town centres wouldwould impinge on industrial lands. The Sapperton Bar crosdisturbed portion o the river and would require consideraprotection policies.

6. Provides reliable access and

predictable travel times forall modes, users, and for anappropriate level of goodsmovement.

Travel times and reliability would improve or some users but there would be ewer benefts

or trips to/rom New Westminster. Pedestrians and cyclists would likely fnd the crossinglocation inconvenient. Goods movement might beneft overall, given more direct connectionsto Highway 1, United Boulevard and the northeast sector.

Travel times and reliability would improve or some users but there would be ewer benefts

or trips to/rom New Westminster. Goods movement might beneft overall, given more directconnections to Highway 1, United Boulevard and the northeast sector.

Travel times and reliability would improve or most users (

Goods movement would be likely to beneft overall, given Highway 1, United Boulevard and the northeast sector.


A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-impact standards than a rehabilitatedbridge and would be more resistant to river scour. Lane widths would meet modern guidelinesand walking and cycling acilities would be much better than existing.

A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-impact standards than a rehabilitatedbridge and would be more resistant to river scour. Lane widths would meet modern guidelinesand walking and cycling acilities would be much better than existing on both crossings. Therehabilitated bridge would be more resistant to seismic events than today but not to the samestandard as a new bridge.

A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-imbridge and would be more resistant to river scour. Lane wiand walking and cycling acilities would be much better threhabilitated bridge would be more resistant to seismic evstandard as a new bridge.





High cost would not be recoverable rom user-based charges. User-based charges would notbe able to recover costs associated with the rehabilitation o the bike and pedestrian bridge.


High cost would not be recoverable rom user-based chargrehabilitated bridge would urther reduce the ability to rec



DUE PRIMARILY TO OBJECTIVES 5 AND 8



NOT RECOMMENDEFOR FURTHER EVALUA

DUE PRIMARILY TO OBJE


SAPPERTON BAR CORRIDOR

PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIEW INITIAL SCREENING OF CROSSING ALTERNATIVES





SAPPERTON BAR CORRIDOR continued

OBJECTIVES 17) NEW 4-LANE SURREY-COQUITLAM BRIDGE 18) NEW 4-LANE SURREY-COQUITLAM BRIDGEWITH A REHABILITATED PATTULLO BRIDGE FOR


19) NEW 4-LANE SURREY-COQWITH A 2- OR 3-LANE REHAB

PATTULLO BRIDGE


Mode shit and eects on travel patterns are likely to be highly dependent on connections atthe Coquitlam end. The remote location o the bridge could encourage more use o SkyTrainbetween Surrey and downtown New Westminster. Although a new bridge would improvethe comort o walking and cycling by incorporating acilities with modern standards anddimensions, the location would not be very useul or these modes, given its length anddistance rom destinations on the north side.

Mode shit and eects on travel patterns are likely to be highly dependent on connections atthe Coquitlam end. The remote location o the bridge could encourage more use o SkyTrainbetween Surrey and downtown New Westminster. Although a new bridge would improvethe comort o walking and cycling by incorporating acilities with modern standards anddimensions, the location would not be very useul or these modes, given its length anddistance rom destinations on the north side. However, the pedestrian and cyclist crossing inthe existing corridor would beneft these modes, though mode shit to walking and cyclingwould likely be small, due to the lengths o the crossings.

Mode shit and eects on travel patterns are likely to beat the Coquitlam end and would require urther analyscapacity across the river with two vehicle bridges. Cycliaccess to good acilities on both bridges, though modelikely small, due to the lengths o the crossings. The addcapacity may make driving more attractive overall.


This crossing location would likely shorten trips between Surrey and Coquitlam/Highway 1but extend those to New Westminster. Thereore, the positive eects o shortened trips toone location may be oset by the longer trips to the other. Vehicle trips may increase innumber but on average they would be marginally shorter, so the total change in VKT andGHG emissions may be minor.

This crossing location would likely shorten trips between Surrey and Coquitlam/Highway 1but extend those to New Westminster. Thereore, the positive eects o shortened trips toone location may be oset by the longer trips to the other. Vehicle trips may increase innumber but on average they would be marginally shorter, so the total change in VKT andGHG emissions may be minor.

The increase in overall vehicle accessibility and use withthe VKT and GHG benefts rom more direct vehicle tripconsiders bridge connections, tolls and resulting trafc likely outcomes.



Liveability gains rom relocating the north end o the bridge rom a residential area to anindustrial area may be oset by the increased need or New Westminster-related trafc totravel through more o the community when travelling to/rom the bridge.

Liveability gains rom relocating the north end o the bridge rom a residential area to anindustrial one may be oset by the increased need or New Westminster-related trafc totravel through more o the community when travelling to/rom the bridge.

Shorter trips to and rom the bridges in New Westminstmay lead to improved liv eability. However, queuing or tbridge could have liveability impacts.


A much less direct connection between adjacent town centres would not be consistent withlocal and regional plans. Bridge approaches would impinge on industrial lands. The crossingwould also aect a less disturbed portion o the river and would require considerationrelative to environmental protection policies.

A much less direct connection between adjacent town centres would not be consistent withlocal and regional plans. Bridge approaches would impinge on industrial lands. The crossingwould also aect a less disturbed portion o the river and w ould require considerationrelative to environmental protection policies.

A direct connection between adjacent town centres is mapproaches would impinge on industrial lands. The newdisturbed portion o the river and would require considprotection policies.


Travel times and reliability would improve or some vehicle users but there would be nobenefts or trips to/rom New Westminster. Pedestrians and cyclists w ould likely fnd thecrossing location inconvenient. Goods movement might beneft overall, given more directconnections to Highway 1, United Boulevard and the northeast sector.

Travel times and reliability would improve or some users (pedestrians and cyclistsunaected) but there would be no benefts or trips to/rom New Westminster. Goodsmovement might beneft overall, given more direct connections to Highway 1,United Boulevard and the northeast sector.

Travel times and reliability would improve or most useunaected). Goods movement would be likely to benefconnections to Highway 1, United Boulevard and the nneeded to confrm overall impacts.


A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-impact standards than arehabilitated bridge and would be more resistant to river scour. Lane widths would meetmodern guidelines and walking and cycling acilities would be much better than existing.

A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-impact standards than arehabilitated bridge and would be more resistant to river scour. Lane widths would meetmodern guidelines and walking and cycling acilities would be much better than existingon both crossings. The rehabilitated bridge would be more resistant to seismic events thantoday, but not to same standard as a new bridge.

A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and shiprehabilitated bridge and would be more resistant to rivemodern guidelines and walking and cycling acilities woon both crossings. The rehabilitated bridge would be mtoday, but not to same standard as a new bridge.



Cost may be recoverable rom user-based charges, subject to urther analysis.


Cost may be recoverable rom user-based charges, subject to urther analysis. User-basedcharges would not be able to recover cost o the bike and pedestrian bridge.


Cost may be recoverable rom user-based charges, subjlikely be a cross-subsidy between the new and rehabilitneeded to develop frm conclusions.





DUE PRIMARILY TO OBJECTIVE 5REQUIRES FURTHER CONSI

PATTULLO BRIDGE REVIEW INITIAL SCREENING O F CROSSING ALTERNATIVES




OBJECTIVES 20) NEW 6-LANE SAPPERTON BAR BRIDGE 21) NEW 6-LANE SAPPERTON BAR BRIDGEWITH A REHABILITATED PATTULLO BRIDGE FOR


22) NEW 6-LANE SAPPERTONWITH A 2- OR 3-LANE REHABI

PATTULLO BRIDGE


Mode shit and eects on travel patterns would likely be highly dependent on connections atthe Coquitlam end o the bridge and would require urther analysis to consider the increase inlanes crossing the river. The remote location o the bridge could encourage more use o SkyTrainbetween Surrey and downtown New Westminster. A new bridge would improve the comort owalking and cycling by incorporating acilities with modern standards and dimensions; however,the location o the new bridge would not be very useul or those modes, given its length anddistance rom destinations on the north side.

Mode shit and eects on travel patterns would likely be highly dependent on connections atthe Coquitlam end o the bridge and would require urther analysis to consider the increasein the number o lanes crossing the river. The remote location o the bridge could encouragemore use o SkyTrain between Surrey and downtown New Westminster. A new bridge wouldimprove the comort o walking and cycling by incorporating acilities with modern standardsand dimensions; however, the location would not be very useul or those modes, given itslength and distance rom destinations on the north side. The pedestrian and cyclist crossing inthe existing corridor would beneft those modes o travel, though mode shit to walking andcycling would likely be small, due to the lengths o the crossings.

Mode shit and eects on travel patterns would likely be hithe Coquitlam end o the bridge and would require urthercapacity across the river with two vehicle bridges (4 or 5 ahave a negative eect. Cyclists and pedestrians would havebridges, though mode shit to walking and cycling is likely the crossings.


This crossing location would likely shorten trips between Surrey and Coquitlam/Highway 1but would extend trips to New Westminster. Thereore, the positive eects o shortened tripsto one location may be oset by the longer trips to the other. Vehicle trips may increase innumber but on average they would be marginally shorter, so the total change in VKT and GHGemissions may be minor, although the increase in the number o lanes crossing the river wouldalso likely have an eect.

This crossing location would likely shorten trips between Surrey and Coquitlam/Highway 1but would extend trips to New Westminster. Thereore, the positive eects o shortened tripsto one location may be oset by the longer trips to the other. Vehicle trips may increase innumber but on average they would be marginally shorter, so the total change in VKT and GHGemissions may be minor, although the increase in the number o lanes across the river wouldlikely have an eect.

The increase in overall automobile accessibility and use witcapacity on the Surrey-Coquitlam bridge, may outweigh VKdirect automobile trips.

3. Minimizes emissions of GHGsand pollutants


Liveability gains rom relocating the north end o the bridge rom a residential area to anindustrial area could be oset by the increased need or New Westminster-related trafc totravel through more o the community when going to and rom the bridges.

Liveability gains rom relocating the north end o the bridge rom a residential area to anindustrial area could be oset by the increased need or New Westminster-related trafc totravel through more o the community when going to and rom the bridges.

Shorter trips to and rom bridgeheads in New Westminster lead to improved liveability. However, queuing or the reducould have liveability impacts.

5. Su pports local and regionalland use plans and economicdevelopment.

A much less direct connection between adjacent town centres would not be consistent withlocal and regional plans. Bridge approaches would impinge on industrial lands. The crossingwould also aect a less disturbed portion o the river and would require consideration relativeto environmental protection policies.

A much less direct connection between adjacent town centres would not be consistent withlocal and regional plans. Bridge approaches would impinge on industrial lands. The crossingwould also aect a less disturbed portion o the river and would require consideration relativeto environmental protection policies.

While a direct connection between adjacent town centres wvehicle capacity (8 or 9 lanes in total) across the river coulddevelopment. New bridge approaches would impinge on inwould also aect a less disturbed portion o the river and wto environmental protection policies.


Travel times and reliability would improve or some vehicle users but there would be nobenefts or trips to and rom New Westminster. Pedestrians and cyclists would likely fnd thecrossing location inconvenient. Goods movement might beneft overall, given more directconnections to Highway 1, United Boulevard and the northeast sector.

Travel times and reliability would improve or some users (pedestrians and cyclists would beunaected) but there would be no benefts or trips to and rom New Westminster. Goodsmovement might beneft overall, given more direct connections to Highway 1,United Boulevard and the northeast sector.

Travel times and reliability would improve or most users (punaected). Goods movement would be likely to beneft ovto Highway 1, United Boulevard and the northeast sector.


A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-impact standards than a rehabilitatedbridge and would be more resistant to river scour. Lane widths would meet modern guidelinesand walking and cycling acilities would be much better than existing.

A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-impact standards than a rehabilitatedbridge and would be more resistant to river scour. Lane widths and alignment would meetmodern guidelines. Walking and cycling acilities would be much better than existing on bothcrossings. The rehabilitated bridge would be more resistant to seismic events than today butnot to same standard as a new bridge.

A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-imbridge and would be more resistant to river scour. Lane widWalking and cycling acilities would be much better than exrehabilitated bridge would be more resistant to seismic evestandard as a new bridge.

8. Is cost-effective. Costs includecrossing and connections andremoval of existing bridgewhere required. Costs ofchanges to connecting streetnetworks, if needed, are notincluded.




High cost would not be recoverable rom user-based charges. User-based charges would notbe able to recover costs associated with the rehabilitation o the bike and pedestrian bridge.


High cost would not be recoverable rom user-based chargerehabilitated bridge would urther reduce the ability to rec






NOT RECOMMENDEFOR FURTHER EVALUA

DUE PRIMARILY TO OBJE


SAPPERTON BAR CORRIDOR continued




CROSSING ATTREE ISLAND CORRIDOR




• Marine Way• Highway 91

Notes

1) Richmond City Council

Richmond City Council has advised TransLink that

it is opposed to the consideration o a new Fraser

River crossing in the vicinity o Tree Island as part o

any alternative to replace or upgrade the Pattullo

Bridge, as this alternative is not in the City’s Ocial

Community Plan and it could have a signicant impact

on the land use in the area.

Legend:

Municipal Boundary

SkyTrain

New Bridge

Optional Rehabilitated Bridge orPedestrians and Cyclists Only

or Optional 2- or 3-Lane Rehabilitated

Pattullo Bridge

New Richmond-Burnaby Tree Island Bridge ◊

• With or without a rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or pedestrians and cyclists only

• Withorwithouta2-or3-lanerehabilitatedPattulloBridge

◊ Tree Island Crossing does not have a connection to New Westminster,

otherthanMarineWay/StewardsonWay.




TREE ISLAND CORRIDOR

OBJECTIVES 23) NEW 4-LANE RICHMOND–BURNABY TREE ISLAND BRIDGE ◊ 24) NEW 4-LANE RICHMOND–BURNABY TREE ISLAND BRIDGE ◊WITH A REHABILITATED PATTULLO BRIDGE FOR PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS ONLY

25) NEW 4-LANE RICHMOND–BURNABYWITH A 2- OR 3-LANE REHABILITATED

1. Moves towards the regionalgoal that most trips will be bywalking, cycling and transit

A Tree Island crossing would not eectively serve the demand that is currently using thePattullo Bridge. The remote location o the bridge could encourage more use o SkyTrainbetween Surrey and downtown New Westminster. Although a new bridge would improvethe comort o walking and cycling by incorporating acilities with modern standards anddimensions, the location would not be very useul or these modes, given its location anddistance rom destinations on the north side o the Fraser River.

A Tree Island crossing would not eectively serve the demand now using the Pattullo Bridge. Theremote location o the bridge could encourage more use o SkyTrain between Surrey and downtownNew Westminster. Although a new bridge would improve the comort o walking and cycling byincorporating acilities with modern standards and dimensions, the location would not be very useulor these modes, given its length and distance rom destinations on the north side. The pedestrian andcyclist crossing in the existing corridor would beneft rom these modes, though mode shit to walkingand cycling is likely small, due to the lengths o the crossing.

Capacity reduction in the existing corridor and the consIsland crossing due to existing congestion on the Alex Fpositive eect. (This alternative implies removal o one Fraser River.) Cyclists and pedestrians would have accesthough mode shit to walking and cycling is likely smallthe crossings.

2. Minimizes single occupant

vehicle (SOV) use and vehiclekilometres (VKT) travelled.

This crossing location would provide a more circuitous and less attractive route to and

rom New Westminster, thereby discouraging driving and reducing overall VKT, GHGs andpollutants. However, the likely diversion o driving trips to other crossings, some o which arealready congested, could cause net increases in VKT, GHGs and pollutants.

This crossing location would provide a more circuitous and less attractive route to and

rom New Westminster, thereby discouraging driving and reducing overall VKT, GHGs andpollutants. However, the likely diversion o driving trips to other crossings, some o which arealready congested, could cause net increases in VKT, GHGs and pollutants.

A shit may occur rom SOV to transit, walking and cycl

existing corridor. The diversion o driving trips to other cin VKT, GHGs and pollutants. A Tree Island crossing wouthe Queensborough Bridge but the impact may be limit


4. Is capable of supportingneighbourhood liveability byminimizing and mitigatingimpacts, including duringconstruction, and provides anaesthetically pleasing structure.

Liveability impacts may result rom trafc using more circuitous routes to downtownNew Westminster. These impacts could exceed the benefts o diverting trafc rom theQueensborough Bridge.

Liveability impacts may result rom trafc using more circuitous routes to downtownNew Westminster. These impacts could exceed the benefts o diverting trafc rom theQueensborough Bridge.

Some liveability benefts may occur due to the diversionBridge. However, queuing or the reduced-capacity rehaliveability impacts.


No connection would be provided between adjacent town centres and this would not beconsistent with local and regional plans. The south end o the bridge would be in Richmondand the City o Richmond has expressed their ormal opposition to this location, as it is notconsistent with their Ofcial Community Plan. The City o Burnaby has expressed similarconcerns or the north end o the bridge. Bridge approaches would impinge on agriculturaland developed industrial lands, counter to local plans. The new crossing would aect a lessdisturbed portion o the river and would require consideration relative to environmental

protection policies.

No connection would be provided between adjacent town centres and this would not beconsistent with local and regional plans. The south end o the bridge would be in Richmondand the City o Richmond has expressed their ormal opposition to this location, as it is notconsistent with their Ofcial Community Plan. The City o Burnaby has expressed similarconcerns or the north end o the bridge. Bridge approaches would impinge on agriculturaland developed industrial lands, counter to local plans. The new crossing would aect a lessdisturbed portion o the river and would require consideration relative to environmental

protection policies.

The existing bridge would provide a link between adjacIsland Bridge approaches would impinge on agriculturacounter to local plans. The south end o the bridge wouo Richmond has expressed their ormal opposition to twith their Ofcial Community Plan. The City o Burnaby the north end o the bridge. The new crossing would ariver and could counter environmental protection policie

6. Provides reliable access andpredictable travel times for allmodes, users, and for anappropriate level of goodsmovement.

Travel times would get longer or all modes and reliability would be reduced, given thecircuitous travel and reliance o this crossing on the already congested Alex Fraser Bridgeto complete the link across the Fraser River. While some goods movement would beneft,especially to and rom the Big Bend area, the net eect is expected to be negative.

Travel times would get longer and reliability or vehicles would be reduced, given thecircuitous travel and reliance o this crossing on the already congested Alex Fraser Bridgeto complete the link across the Fraser River. While some goods movement would beneft,especially to and rom the Big Bend area, the net eect is expected to be negative.

Travel times may be longer and reliability may be reduceand reliance o this crossing on the already congested Alreduced capacity on the Pattullo Bridge. While some gooespecially to and rom the Big Bend area, the net eect be negative.

7. Provides a safe crossing for allmodes, is structurally soundand meets current standardsfor seismic and ship impacts.

A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-impact standards than arehabilitated bridge and would be more resistant to river scour. Lane widths and alignmentwould meet modern guidelines. Walking and cycling acilities would be much better thanexisting.

A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-impact standards than arehabilitated bridge and would be more resistant to river scour. Lane widths would meetmodern guidelines. Walking and cycling acilities would be much better than existing onboth crossings. The rehabilitated bridge would be more resistant to seismic events thantoday, but not to the same standard as a new bridge.

A new bridge would be built to higher seismic and ship-imbridge and would be more resistant to river scour. Lane wmodern guidelines. Walking and cycling acilities would bcrossings. The rehabilitated bridge would be more resistanot to the same standard as a new bridge.

8. Is cost-effective. Costs includecrossing and connections andremoval of existing bridgewhere required. Costs ofchanges to connecting streetnetworks, if needed, are notincluded.


A Tree Island Bridge would unction as an alternative to the Queensborough Bridge. Giventhe proximity o the two bridges, it would be difcult or a Tree Island Bridge that includeduser-based charges to attract travellers rom a “ree” Queensborough Bridge just upstream,especially outside peak hours. Consequently, it is unlikely that revenues would be sufcientto oset costs.


A Tree Island Bridge would unction as an alternative to the Queensborough Bridge. Giventhe proximity o the two bridges, it would be difcult or a Tree Island Bridge that includeduser-based charges to attract travellers rom a “ree” Queensborough Bridge just upstream,especially outside peak hours. Consequently, it is unlikely that revenues would be sufcient tooset costs.

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ($B): $1.2––$1.3

A Tree Island Bridge would unction as an alternative toGiven the proximity o the two bridges, it would be difincluded user-based charges to attract travellers rom a upstream, especially outside peak hours. Consequently,be sufcient to oset costs. This would not be overcom

rehabilitated bridge in the existing corridor.



DUE PRIMARILY TO OBJECTIVES 5, 6 AND 8


DUE PRIMARILY TO OBJECTIVES 5, 6 AND 8

NOT RECOMMENDFOR FURTHER EVALUA

DUE PRIMARILY TO OBJECTI

◊ Tree Island Crossing does not have a connection to New Westminster, other than







Feedback FormFeedback Form

1. Problem Statement and Other Issues (see page 5)

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The Pattullo Bridge may not survive a moderate earthquake or ship collision, the piers are at risk o being

undermined by river scour and many bridge components have surpassed their useul lives.

OTHER ISSUES

When considering the best alternatives or the problem, it is an opportune time to establish the optimal

roles or the crossing and also to address other issues with the current crossing, including:

1. The Pattullo Bridge does not meet current roadway design guidelines, including or lane widths and

curvature, potentially contributing to collisions.

2. Pattullo Bridge acilities, such as sidewalks and barriers, and connections or pedestrians and cyclists,

are inadequate and do not provide sucient protection rom trac.

3. During rush hours, travel demand on the roads leading to the Pattullo Bridge results in queuing and

unreliable travel times or the movement o people, goods and services.

4. Current trac (including truck) volumes aect the liveability o adjacent communities due to air

quality, noise and resulting health impacts, as well as due to neighbourhood trac inltration.

Do the Problem Statement and Other Issues incorporate your concerns with

Pattullo Bridge? Would you add anything?

F db k F




Feedback Form

2. Objectives- Initial Screening of Crossing Alternatives (see page 11)

Based on examination o the local, regional and provincial policies and plans (page 9), the Pattullo Bridge

Review team established the ollowing objectives to evaluate alternatives, including connections, based on

their abilities to address the identied problems and deliver a supportable alternative.

Meets transportation, environmental and health objectives including:

1. Moves towards the regional goal that most trips will be by walking, cycling and transit.

2. Minimizes single occupant vehicle use and vehicle kilometres travelled.

3. Minimizes emissions o greenhouse gases (GHGs) and pollutants.

4. Is capable o supporting neighbourhood liveability by minimizing and mitigating impacts,

including during construction, and provides an aesthetically pleasing structure.

5. Supports local and regional land use plans and economic development.

6. Provides reliable access and predictable travel times or all modes, users, and or an

appropriate level o goods movement.

7. Provides a sae crossing or all modes, is structurally sound and meets current standards

or seismic and ship impacts.

8. Is cost eective.

Are there any urther objectives that the Pattullo Bridge Review should consider?




Initial Screening of Crossing Alternatives Against the Objectives (see pages 13-23)

Twenty-fve alternatives or the Pattullo crossing were developed based on previous technical work and suggestions rom the public and stakeholders during

previous consultations. The Pattullo Bridge Review team conducted an initial evaluation and screening o each alternative against the Objectives shown in Question 2.

3. Alternatives that require FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Based on the screening work completed, the ollowing six alternatives require urther consideration.

3.7 Comments:

Please rate your level o agreement with each o the ollowing alternatives requiring urther consideration. StronglyAgree

SomewhatAgree

Neither AgreeNor Disagree

SomDis

3.1 4) Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge 3 Lanes requires urther consideration

3.2 5) Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge 4 Lanes requires urther consideration

3.3 6) New 4-Lane Bridge at Existing Location requires urther consideration

3.4 7) New 5-Lane Bridge at Existing Location requires urther consideration

3.5 8) New 6-Lane Bridge at Existing Location requires urther consideration 3.6 19) New 4-Lane Surrey-Coquitlam Bridge, with a 2- or 3-Lane Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge requires urther consideration

F db k F




Feedback Form

4. Alternatives NOT RECOMMENDED for Further Evaluation

Based on the screening work completed, the ollowing 19 alternatives are not recommended or urther evaluation.

Please rate your level o agreement with each o the ollowing alternatives being NOT recommended or urther evaluation. StronglyAgree

SomewhatAgree


SomewhDisagre

4.1 1) No Bridge is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.2 2) Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or Pedestrians and Cyclists Only is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.3 3) Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge 2 Lanes is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.4 9) New 8-Lane Bridge is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.5 10) New 4-Lane Tunnel without Branch is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.6 11) New 4-Lane Tunnel with Branch is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.7 12) New 4-Lane Tunnel without Branch with Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or Pedestrians and Cyclists Only is NOT recommended orurther evaluation

4.8 13) New 4-Lane Tunnel with Branch with Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or Pedestrians and Cyclists Only is NOT recommended orurther evaluation

4.9 14) New 4-Lane Sapperton Bar Crossing is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.10 15) New 4-Lane Sapperton Bar Crossing with Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or Pedestrians and Cyclists Only is NOT recommendedor urther evaluation

4.11 16) New 4-Lane Sapperton Bar Crossing with a 2- or 3-Lane Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.12 17) New 4-Lane Surrey-Coquitlam Bridge is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.13 18) New 4-Lane Surrey-Coquitlam Bridge with Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or Pedestrians and Cyclists Only is NOT recommendedor urther evaluation

4.14 20) New 6-Lane Sapperton Bar Bridge is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

Continued on next page

Feedback Form




Alternatives NOT RECOMMENDED or urther evaluation (continued)

4.20 Comments:

Feedback Form

Please rate your level o agreement with each o the ollowing alternatives being NOT recommended or urther evaluation. StronglyAgree

SomewhatAgree


SomDis

4.15 21) New 6-Lane Sapperton Bar Bridge with Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or Pedestrians and Cyclists Only is NOT recommended orurther evaluation

4.16 22) New 6-Lane Sapperton Bar Bridge with a 2- or 3-Lane Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.17 23) New 4-Lane Richmond-Burnaby Tree Island Bridge is NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.18 24) New 4-Lane Richmond-Burnaby Tree Island Bridge with Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge or Pedestrians and Cyclists Onlyis NOT recommended or urther evaluation

4.19 25) New 4-Lane Richmond-Burnaby Tree Island Bridge with a 2- or 3-Lane Rehabilitated Pattullo Bridgeis NOT recommended orurther evaluation

Feedback Form




Feedback Form

5. ADDITIONAL COMMENTSAdditional comments on any aspect o the Pattullo Bridge Review:

Feedback Form



Feedback Form

HOW INPUT WILL BE USED

Input received during this consultation will be considered, along with nancial and technical inormation, in rening the long list o a

rehabilitating or replacing the bridge and in identiying ewer alternatives or additional evaluation and consultation. This rened list

inormation on road connections and trac, will be presented or public and stakeholder eedback in all 2013.

DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK IS JUNE 28, 2013.

1. Please indicate the city you live in and/or represent:

Surrey

New Westminster

Other:

(Name o the municipality)

2. How oten do you use the Pattullo Bridge?

Almost daily

Once or twice a week

A ew times every month

A ew times every year

Almost never

3. How do you most commonly travel on the Pattullo Bridge:

Vehicle

Walk

Cycle

To receive Pattullo Bridge Review community upd

uture public consultations, please ll in the ollow

First Name: Last Name:

Organization (optional):

Position (optional):

Email:

Phone (optional):

I acknowledge that, rom time to time, the Pattullo B

provide inormation and updates about consultation

The personal inormation collected relates directly to the consultatio

and stakeholder engagement activities o the Pattullo Bridge Review

Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act . The Pattullo

disclose this inormation or the consultation process o the Pattullo B

Pattullo Bridge Revie w (the City o New Westminster, the City o Surre

provisions o Part 3 o the Freedom o Inormation and Protection

consultation process can be directed to the Pattullo Bridge Review by

email at [email protected]. Questions about the collectio

can be directed to TransLink c/o Privacy Ocer, #700 – 287 Nelson’s C

or 778-375-7702 or to pr [email protected].

We Want To Hear From You

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation takes place

rom June 3 through June 28, 2013. Materials,

including this Discussion Guide and Feedback

Form, are available at:


You can learn more and provide eedback by:

• Attending an Open House or

a Small Group Meeting (see schedules)

• Providing eedback online by:

• Visiting the Pattullo Bridge

Review website:


• Visiting PlaceSpeak: www.placespeak.com/

PattulloBridgeReview

• Visiting City o Surrey’s City Speaks:

www.cityspeaks.ca

• Sending written submissions to

[email protected]

or

PO Box 2225 Vancouver Main

Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3W2



pattullobridgereview.ca | placespeak.com/PattulloBridgeReview | cityspeaks.ca/Pattullo

Documents

Pattullo Bridge Review Discussion Guide June 2013