Surprise, the construction costs to widen the Burrard Bridge are over $60 million [“Early critic of Burrard Bridge costs was right”, May 1-8]. In fact, the true costs are significantly more when the heritage impacts are included.

The city should now study the traffic-congestion impacts by reallocating traffic lanes. Gridlock fears sound just like the myth that the bridge could be widened for $15 million. The Lions Gate Bridge manages well with more vehicles per day in one half the traffic lanes.

Yes, lane reallocation would change the traffic patterns on the Burrard Bridge. Congestion might increase during rush hours for, at most, 20 percent of the time. The tradeoff is significant benefits 100 percent of the time for cyclists, pedestrians, wheelchairs, strollers, and other nonmotorized users. Motorists will adjust and change their behavior. Claims of gridlock and backed up queues of motorists onto West End streets sound a bit extreme.

The city claims transportation priorities of, first, pedestrians, then cyclists, public transit, goods movement, and, finally, private motor vehicles. These transportation priorities are even more important in order to manage peak oil and climate change, issues that were barely on the radar screen a few years ago.

> John Whistler / Vancouver