New Surrey bridge better off with just four lanes, says expert
The Pattullo Bridge opened more than 85 years ago, in 1937, and does not meet modern design standards, especially when it comes to being resistant to the kind of “big one” earthquake experts predict is inevitable in Metro Vancouver one day.
Building a modern and safer bridge is the reason cited by the provincial government for replacing the Pattullo with the stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) bridge that is expected to open in just days.
For some politicians and business leaders in Surrey, however, the new bridge should have been about speeding up traffic by making it six lanes instead of four.
In 2024, Mayor Brenda Locke said it was “absurd” the bridge isn’t six lanes. BC Conservative MLA Harman Bhangu said it doesn’t make sense to replace four lanes with four lanes.
But is it really “absurd”?
Dr. Anthony Perl doesn’t think so.
Perl is a professor of urban studies at SFU and one of Canada’s leading experts on transportation.
To Perl, four lanes actually makes more sense than six lanes.
One main reason is the lack of spaces for an extra lane on the New Westminster side. Perl called New West a “chokepoint” for traffic, especially for trucks. There simply is no space to add another lane on either side of the road in New West after vehicles get off the new bridge.
And so, eventually, even if there was a third lane heading north on the new bridge, traffic would automatically funnel into two lanes and just back up onto the bridge. Drivers would only experience a few seconds of driving faster before having to stop again.
“For maybe a minute … you would speed up on those six lanes and then as soon as you hit New West you would be back in stop-and-go traffic again – even more so perhaps with more traffic coming across. That’s not really a very good use of public investment just so people will have a 60-second thrill of speeding across the Fraser River.”
Perl reiterated that it would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars to add another two lanes to the new bridge – money that could be better spent on transit to get people out of their vehicles to reduce overall traffic.
“Six lanes would just be a huge over investment in a future that is unlikely to pay off or justify that kind of cost,” Perl said.
Society has changed with more transit and people working from home, Perl said.
Perl said the Port Mann Bridge is an example of government overbuilding a bridge. He said the amount of lanes built is equal to the main bridge in Oakland, California – a place that services nine million people.
The difference between the Port Mann and the new Riverview Bridge is that at least the province was able to add more lanes on either side of the bridge to keep traffic moving – something that isn’t really possible in New Westminster.
It should be noted that the new bridge is configured so it can be expanded into six lanes sometime in the future if the province decides it wants to fund that.
Author
Thank you for explaining the decision to only have four lanes on the Riverview Bridge. I had heard that the problem was on the New Westminster side, but it’s great to know that experts in this area agree, that it was the right decision.
For New West, it may makes sense. For Surrey though, 6 lanes make more sense than 4. King George and Scott Road right off the bridge combined have way more than 4 lanes. If the bridge was built with 6 lanes, it moved the traffic off Surrey and pressures New West to solve the traffic problem. Now with the bridge being 4 lanes, Surrey misses out on another opportunity to improve access. Transit is good, but it is not like the province or TransLink will invest more in Surrey either even with the bridge underbuilt for Surrey’s needs.
It’s good to save money when it’s not beneficial. It’s not only good but it necessary 💯 👌
I still believe it should have been 6 lanes. They already went over in costs.
And another thing…….there’s no reason to have one Lane open on the new bridge. DON’T OPEN UP ANY LANES ETC. UNTIL EVERYTHING IS COMPLETELY FINISHED,!!!!
You put up a fancy blue fencing etc., just so you can say it’s open by Christmas……lol
You’re not fooling anyone!
Typical of an “expert” to say it’s not worth it and that transit can take care of the problem. How many years have we heard that? Drive that route every day before you make any comments on what’s needed not sitting at a desk talking hypothetical. They could have made an exit lane into New west toward the freeway if it was planned early, that’s where most of the trucks go anyway. People won’t give up cars because governments want them to, transit doesn’t take you where you need to go it only gets you close and what happens when there is a strike? Do what people want and stop the social engineering
Of course Dr. Perl is correct. As someone who navigated through the New Westminster choke point for decades, I could not understand where the critics of a 4 lane bridge thought the traffic would go? It’s elementary physics 101. Mayor Locke and MLA Bhangu should sign up for a night school course. Or go down to the playground and watch 5-year olds play cars in the sand.
I disagree with this expert … 3 lanes northbound could include 2 that continue north as existing and one that exits onto Columbia Street. Similarly, southbound could have had as many as four lanes but 3 would all 3 lanes that access the bridge to move feely and could deliver drivers to the 2 King George and 2 Scott Road lanes efficiently.