Dear Editor
Further to the letter of March 10th past regarding the river vista that New Westminster has the good fortune to enjoy, I must say that I am both surprised at the misunderstandings and disturbed at the degree of vitriol contained within some of the responses found on the Record's website.
It was certainly not this writer's intention to offend, but rather to ask at what point do we draw a line between what is good and worthy of preservation in nature on the one hand and, on the other, what is necessary human progress. If some have taken offence, then I sincerely apologize to them.
It didn't occur to me that - especially here in beautiful BC - this question would generate any negative commentary. Yet generally speaking the responses fail to address this question at all. Instead there is a mix of the reactive and hostile, the defensive, the patently false and fantastic, a certain romanticism, as well as a bit of the constructive.
For some reason, a number of respondents refer to the views of those living along the Quay in derisive and dismissive tones. I have no idea what the opinions of folks living along there have. The letter is quite specific: it describes a beautiful river vista of several miles long (of which residents only live along a portion) and how enjoyable it is for the hundreds of visitors every day and, yes, for those fortunate enough to live there, and expresses concern that this vista may be in danger of being lost.
A lot of the respondents' letters were regarding the proposed Q2Q bridge. Fair enough.
While that was not the focus of my letter, this seems to be a real concern, especially for the folks in Port Royal and Queensborough (whom, I might add, are similarly fortunate to enjoy stunning natural river vistas rarely found elsewhere). So, for what it's worth, here's my take on the proposed crossing.
We know from your newspaper's reporting that a large elevator complex will be erected on the Quay side directly in front of a strata. Now some of your respondents, while not mentioning this structure specifically, have plumped what they perceive as the benefits of the proposed bridge. Many welcome what promises to be the large influx of pedestrians and cyclists travelling this bridge. Once again, fair enough. However, I think that these writers may have inadvertently highlighted potential concerns that both the Quay and Port Royal/Queensborough share and they need to be addressed before construction is considered.
One needs to remember that a bridge is a two-way route: what flows one way will also flow in the other direction. Now the Quay is a city park, and it enjoys a large capacity for pedestrians. Unfortunately the same can't be said for Port Royal. It is a constricted area.
Indeed, should building of the bridge proceed to completion, Port Royal may fairly be regarded as a major portal for the Quay park. So with pedestrians - some arriving in cars - and cyclists from as far away as Richmond, how exactly is this traffic going to impact what is currently a quiet, beautiful and largely family oriented neighbourhood? Combine immediate proximity to homes along narrow winding paths heavy with foliage and with increased traffic day and night, and personal security will surely need to be taken into account.
As well, one presumes that if a three story elevator housing structure is to be built on the north side of the channel, won't the same also happen on the other side? In front of whose strata will this be built? Can those affected reasonably expect the market values of their properties to decline? Will they be compensated and, if so, by whom?
So you see, any emotion around building such a connection needs to be set aside. There are serious practicalities to consider and certainly more than the few I've tossed up here.
In conclusion, therefore, at this point I'm neither opposed nor unopposed to a pedestrian crossing. I simply don't know enough about what is entailed to come to a decision. But I do strongly feel that it must be as non-intrusive as possible and its existence must provide a number of reassurances to both communities, otherwise it's not worth doing. As it stands now, neither of these conditions are in place.
Thank you. I hope this has clarified things for your good readers.
Brian Macandrew, New Westminster
