Dear Editor:
We want less traffic in New Westminster, not more!
TransLink's question - "Do you want the new Pattullo Bridge with six lanes, two extra, and they'll be truck lanes, 'here' or 'there'?" - has got our attention.
Remember when that bridge was closed due to a fire? No problem. Drivers got used to the other options. We don't need that bridge, for reasons your writers and readers have mentioned.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the traffic could go under the city, like it does under the English Channel, in the "chunnel"? Or like our SkyTrain does in some areas of Vancouver? The "cut and cover" method is not always used. That caused a lot of disruption for business on Cambie Street in Vancouver. We know how to "tunnel."
As I listened to others at the afternoon (transportation) meeting at Century House, I thought, if we're having a bridge as offered, how can we not have more traffic come through our city? The tunnel concept came to mind. This option has not been explored by our professionals.
So I thought, we're not ready to decide where the new bridge should be, because we don't know whether the right way to deal with the traffic would be a tunnel.
If a tunnel is a good idea, then the question of the best location for the tunnel might be important to be considered, before deciding about the bridge.
But as I heard more, I thought this is our opportunity to get rid of the Pattullo Bridge. Money might be better spent investigating the feasibility of a tunnel or tunnels. Maybe we can build something around the trains. Traffic is the curse of this city. Imagine a New Westminster without rush hours or trains.
Let's think outside the box that TransLink gave us.
Franci Louann, New Westminster
