A war of the words has erupted with Coquitlam’s mayor asking New Westminster to “abide by the law” so it doesn’t have to take legal action about the Bailey Bridge.
New Westminster is hot under the collar about Coquitlam mayor’s request that it “abide by the law” so it doesn’t have to take legal action regarding the Bailey Bridge.
In an April 3 letter to New Westminster city council, Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart said he was “astounded” to read media reports suggesting New West intends to proceed with the installation of a single-lane Bailey Bridge to replace the current damaged structure. He said Mayor Wayne Wright assured him that New Westminster would not act unilaterally and would have the bridge repaired so the area could continue to serve traffic until an arbitration decision is reached about the Bailey Bridge.
“The province has acknowledge that our dispute must proceed to arbitration; that dispute has two possible outcomes – the arbitrator will decide that the replacement for the current bridge (installed in 1994) will be either a one-lane Bailey Bridge or a two-lane Bailey Bridge,” Stewart wrote. “In that context, it would be entirely inappropriate, and would thwart and frustrate the resolution process laid out in legislation, for New Westminster to unilaterally install a replacement one-lane bridge before that arbitration decision is rendered. This bridge is an inter-municipal bridge, and all decisions related to it are to be made jointly.”
Wright said the city will respond to the letter and set the record straight about the city’s stance and its plan for a temporary replacement bridge. After that, he said the city will go through the arbitration process.
Members of New Westminster city council expressed dismay with the letter and suggested Stewart is playing politics.
Coun. Jaimie McEvoy said the tone of the letter is “completely unnecessary” and alleges that New Westminster is breaking a law based on Stewart’s interpretation of media reports. He said New Westminster entered into discussions with Coquitlam in good faith, but the intent was always to have a local bridge that serves a vital industrial area of the city.
“We never agreed that we would try to find some quick, rushed process that would satisfy only the mayor of Coquitlam and nobody else,” he said.
Given all of the other issues in Coquitlam, McEvoy said he was surprised to read recently that Stewart has declared the Bailey Bridge to be his number one policy priority.
“We are approaching an election. We know that people may be looking for feathers in their cap, but New Westminster never walked away from this conversation,” he said. “We did find out that there would be a serious increase in traffic if there was a two-lane option.”
McEvoy said discussions between the two cities should strive to find a solution that is fair to all involved.
“I don’t think we have seen that. I was very disappointed when these negotiations came to an end. Let’s be clear: it was Coquitlam that said they were no longer interested in pursuing this discussion with New Westminster,” he said. “It was Coquitlam’s consultant – Coquitlam’s own consultant that they paid for – that came up with the final report that showed what an impact this (two-lane bridge) would have on New Westminster.”
McEvoy questioned if Coquitlam is willing to waste millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to funnel traffic into an area where motorists will encounter semis serving an industrial area and 40 to 60 train crossings a day.
Until the arbitration process determines whether the permanent bridge should be one or two lanes, Coun. Betty McIntosh said the city needs to find a temporary solution for the industrial users in the area. (The province has a one-lane temporary bridge that the city can use until a permanent solution is determined.)
“Staff have brought to us that there is a temporary solution. We have said to staff, ‘Go for it.’ Our community needs to have that,” she said. “Everything that Mayor Stewart says needs to happen is happening. It’s appropriate that a one-lane bridge be put in place so that we have safety issues looked after.”
New Westminster needs to respond to the letter from Coquitlam’s mayor, McIntosh said.
“It is just not very becoming to be suggesting litigation with your neighbours,” she said. “We really don’t want to do that. All it does is cost your taxpayers so much more money that can be put into a permanent solution.”
Coun. Jonathan Cote said it’s disappointing to read this type of letter from a neighbouring municipality.
“There’s no doubt there’s some difference of opinions. We have started a process and New Westminster has engaged in the arbitration process that will be going to the province,” he said. “With respect to replacement of the existing bridge, I just don’t understand the city’s position.”
Cote said Stewart wants the existing bridge to be repaired, but that would be costly and there’s no guarantee can be done or result in a safe crossing. He said a temporary bridge is the best way to move forward and gives the cities an ability to engage in the arbitration process that’s underway.
“I read letters like this and I don’t find them particularly helpful in these situations,” Cote said. “It really looks like the City of Coquitlam and the mayor of Coquitlam are just trying to play politics with the Bailey Bridge. New Westminster has acted in good faith and has been working in the arbitration process. Ultimately, that process will result in a future outcome here.”
Cote believes New Westminster is making a “strong case” for a one-lane bridge, as an expanded Bailey Bridge won’t have the “positive effects the mayor of Coquitlam seems to think” will result from a bigger bridge.
“The traffic will just get caught at the rail lines and a very busy intersection at Brunette and Braid,” he said. “The two-lane Bailey Bridge is not the magical traffic solution seems to be touting. I am hoping that will be flushed out in the arbitration process.”
Coun. Bill Harper said the city shouldn’t even respond to Stewart’s letter.
“I don’t think it deserves a response,” he said. “I think that basically it is important for our own citizens to understand the issue really clearly. The accusation is that you, your worship, made a commitment to the mayor of Coquitlam that you would proceed to have the current bridge repaired. Well, the bridge is unrepairable, if that’s a word. That’s our assessment. If we could repair it we would. What we are saying is we can put a one-lane bridge in there for X amount of dollars and it can be done in a few weeks. We are going to go ahead with that. We could say leave it as it is, we won’t repair it until the arbitration is over, which could be a year-and-a-half from now.”
McIntosh said the city needs to respond to Stewart’s letter, otherwise it could be deemed to be accurate.
“It’s not accurate. He has put in his letter that all decisions related to this bridge, including a decision to replace it, must be made jointly. I don’t believe that is accurate,” she said. “We want to facilitate a temporary solution. Even if we all agreed that a two lane was the way to go, you wouldn’t get that in six months.”
Staff will draft a letter in response to the letter from Stewart.
“He has had all the information – I did question our staff if we were responding with their counterparts over there, and there was no doubt that we were,” Wright said. “It’s just a little bit of a bafflegab.”
