Login / RegisterNew West residents reject TransLink plan for Pattullo Bridge, survey shows
Most respondents to a City of New Westminster survey do not favour TransLink’s proposal to demolish the aging Pattullo Bridge and build a larger, six-lane replacement.
The City of New Westminster launched its own public consultation on the future of the bridge earlier this year amid concerns TransLink was not considering enough options. Many residents have also expressed worry about the potential for increased vehicle traffic through the city with a new bridge.
As part of the consultation, the city held two open houses in May and received 210 responses to a community questionnaire.
According to a city staff report, more than 80 percent of the survey respondents think the city should not support TransLink’s proposal while 11 percent disagree. Six percent had no response.
The survey also shows respondents are divided on which city-proposed option for the bridge to support. The most support, at around 25 percent, came for demolishing and not replacing the bridge.
Meanwhile, there was between roughly 15 to 19 percent support for each of the other options: rehabilitating the old bridge, building only a four-lane replacement, or demolishing the old bridge and building a new crossing at other proposed locations.
Most respondents also expressed support for adding tolls on the Pattullo Bridge to discourage drivers seeking to avoid paying to cross the Port Mann Bridge.
Built in 1937, the Pattullo Bridge is a four-lane crossing over the Fraser River that links Surrey and New Westminster. It is owned and operated by TransLink.
New Westminster city council is set to consider the survey results at a meeting on June 18.
What the twits in New Westminster don't seem to understand is that they live in an isolated backwater of the metro area. I'm more than happy to confine them to that backwater, where there are virtually no jobs, and the most exciting shopping experience is Army&Navy.
Have a nice life, folks.
People should educate themselves a little about this boondoggle waste of taxpayers money, and the reasons many residents of New Westminster and Surrey are standing up against TransLink on this one .
http://nwimby.blogspot.ca/2012/06/whats-next-for-pattullo.html
The new bridge, to be efficient, must cross at Sapperton Bar so we can go North from King George via Bridgeview St. or the new South Fraser Perimeter Road in Surrey, cross the river at the upstream edge of Sapperton Bar and land at Fraser Mills at the Coquitlam/New West border, where we would connect immediately to Hwy 1, Lougheed, and 3 Skytrain lines, with plenty of room for Park & Ride on both sides of the river.
Not sure how it would effect Kiddyyy Magazine though, he lives in his parents' basement.
You're both. New West is the Luxembourg of the Metro area - in the middle, and trying to remain isolated. In the long run, it won't work.
New West is to Burnaby what White Rock is to Surrey ... a rather annoying and pointlessly expensive obstacle that needs to be absorbed, for the greater good. People in New West (and White Rock) want the best things that come with being part of the Metro area, but none of the bad ... and many of us are tired of it.
At best, New West is a large residential subdivision, and the residents are firmly in favour of NIMBY-ism. They need a serious wake-up call.
2nd news flash - There is nowhere for two more lanes of traffic to go on the New West side. The North Fraser Perimeter Road has been cancelled. Why build a billion dollar bottle neck?
Just for added info, the SkyTrain bridge right next to the Pattullo carries less than half the SkyTrain cars and people it was designed for. Why not invest TransLink's resources (our money) into transit, such as more SkyTrain cars and surface rapid transit in Surrey. See http://nwep.ca/2012/06/06/media-release-surrey-and-new-westminster-joint...
The region's transportation planners have made an absolute mess of the region beginning in the mid 60's. Cities in the region continue to develop in ways that make transit alternatives expensive. Is the region doomed?
That said, I do not support any further spending by Translink until such time as they deliver on long overdue promises to the South Fraser region to improve service. Why bother talking about building a bridge you have no money to build? Lets be honest here: Translink has no money. Any new span will be paid for by the taxpayers - twice; first with tax dollars, then again by tolling. Tolling the Pattullo would mean there would be NO UNTOLLED CROSSING OUT OF SURREY. This is patently unfair in a region that refuses to allow tolling anywhere else. Of course, this is quite fine with the New West residents who have other options; its ok for drivers to congest Surrey and Delta neighborhoods trying to reach the Alex Fraser; its ok to burn additional fuel driving farther to reach an untolled bridge, as long as its not thru New West.
I get that you don't want more traffic. I also get that trucks should not be using the Pattullo at all. Agreed. So, lets come up with a solution that doesn't, once again, leave Surrey without alternatives. We drive because we have to; to punish us for this is ignorant at best, and will not solve the problem.
Please don't be so naive as to believe that toll-free hunting commuters will not be using the McBride corridor, if the six-lane bridge is constructed of the proposed two options; it'll be a train wreck deluxe. Have you applied for your transponder, yet?
Why don't you try actually reading my previous post before assuming you know what it says?
You are assuming that a new, six lane bridge will be built and NOT be tolled, and you call me naive????!
I have reread the post, looking for what you think is naive, and come up empty. I did not suggest there would be no tolls added, nor that there would not be toll evaders using the Pattullo until tolls are applied there. I also did not support the six lane bridge, nor trucks using it at all. So, way to go, you've alienated someone who was actually on your side!
Which is what the 210 New West respondents to the 'survey' have done - they are creating a situation that pits Surrey against New West, when they should be looking to us for support. Remember, we have the space to extend the highway on our side...
That said, I will reiterate my original thoughts:
I am NOT in favor of a six lane bridge, unless the new lanes are for bikes and pedestrians.
I am NOT in favor of big rigs using the bridge at all - we've built them the SFPR, they can use it.
I am NOT in favor of tolling ONLY Surrey crossings, as this simply creates 'avoidance' behaviors we would best eliminate.
I AM in favor of improved transit service South of Fraser - we've paid for it, and we're still waiting.
If this is 'naive' according to you, so be it.
I think it is important to stay focused on facts, and the fact is that a six lane bridge does NOT have all six lanes terminating in New West, something that the 'misrepresenters' continue to rag on about. Lets stick to reality and fix what's wrong instead of just moving the problem to someone else's back yard.
It is true that the Surrey side has a great deal of unused avvailable land area for development purposes, however that is not the case on the New West side.
Can you imagine what a six-lane highway with the necessary clover-leaf approach and exit ramps would do to parts of Queens Park and the old Woodlands School areas? They would literally be disembowled!
And we'll still direct traffic up the McBride-10th Ave. corridor? No thanks.