Although I have always been rather political – much to the chagrin of my Grade 5 teachers – I somehow ended up a scientist. That is what I studied in school, and what I have done for work for neigh 15 years.

My political views have changed quite a bit since my teenage days campaigning for the burgeoning Reform Party of Canada, and I suspect a large part of that change has resulted from my science education (if not from losing way too many debates to people with more book learnin’ than me).

Recently listening to one of my favourite podcasts, they were discussing the role of science in modern politics, or more specifically, how hard it is to base policy on even very well-established science (think anthropogenic global warming, harm-reduction drug policies, mandatory minimum sentences, etc). The problem, this group of scientists suggested, was too many lawyers.

Yeah, sure, it is easy to blame Lawyers, but they provided a foundation behind why Lawyers interpreting science is a problem. But first, are there too many lawyers?

This might be a bigger issue in the USA, but looking at our house of commons, there is a distinct paucity of people trained in the Sciences. The precise numbers for our MPs are not easy to get : You can see all of their occupations here , but with pretty much every Conservative MP calling themselves a “Businessman” first, then a farmer/engineer/lawyer/oystershucker later, and every NDP member calling themselves a “Community Activist” or “Unionist” first, then some long list of occupations after, it is not clear what people’s real training and occupations are. The NDP have a “Country Gentleman” representing in one riding, for FSM’s sake.

Still, we can condense somewhat. Of the 309 MPs, at least 50 are Lawyers. Only 8 are Scientists.

I am not counting Engineers as Scientists, for all sorts of reasons that probably deserve another blog post (short version – Engineers are trained to apply the results of science to specific problems; they are not trained to think like scientists or to apply the scientific method: quite the opposite). I will be generous and not count the four Chiropractors. Generous, because just as an anti-neutrino cancels out a neutrino, people who rely on such terrible science and ignorance of evidence-based medicine as a part of their regular practice should count as negative scientists and be subtracted from the 8. But I digress.

One issue problem for governance (one discussed at length in the Podcast) is that Lawyers and Scientists use similar language, but use it in very different ways. Especially the word “evidence”. To a scientist, evidence is something you gather to see if your hypothesis can be disproven. I once wrote a long post about common misconceptions of the scientific method, and I don’t want to go that deep into it here. The point is that a large pile of evidence that supports a scientists’ hypothesis can be made irrelevant by a very small piece of very good evidence that disproves it; and scientists, by their nature and their training, are looking for and evaluating that little piece. Lawyers, in contrast, are trained to weigh the evidence, and to present a compelling case that the evidence on their side of the scale is correct, and that the evidence on the other side of the scale is less worthy.

If this sounds unfairly critical, it isn’t meant to be, that is the job of a Lawyer. Our legal process is not constructed to allow Lawyers to look at all the evidence of a case, then decide which side they wish to represent. There are valid reasons for the legal system to provide equal voice and strong advocates on both sides of a given issue, it serves a purpose well. The problem arrives when Lawyers are presented with scientific evidence, they are simply not trained to address it the way it is meant to be addressed.

The most obvious recent example of this is Anthropogenic Climate Change, where there is simply no scientific debate on the cause or mechanism of the phenomenon that is clearly being observed. Still, too many legislators get confused by the legitimate policy debate about how to deal with it, and falsely assume “there is no scientific consensus”. The “environmental” side of the political spectrum falls under the same spell when talking about scientific topics they do not understand, such as “toxins” in our food or the alleged “link” between Smart Meters and Cancer.

This week, though, we have seen another form of this intellectual deficit caused by too many Lawyers: the discussion of the Dutch Disease. Thomas Mulcair has been criticised by many political opponents for suggesting that rapid development of Alberta hydrocarbons threatens the diversification of Canadian industry; that the “Dutch Disease” may be playing a role in the downturn in manufacturing in Ontario.

The Federal Ministers of Oil Sales reacted to this by calling such talk “divisive”, while Premier McSparkles referred to the entire concept as “goofy” and “gobbledygook”. However, none of them are discussing the point, nor are they addressing what the Dutch Disease is.

I’m no economist (“the dismal science” – Thomas Carlyle), but even I am reasonably familiar with the term. At the base level, it is when a sudden natural resource boom inflates a nation’s currency to the point where other industries cannot compete on the global market due to high export costs and low import costs. It was named (well after the fact) after the rapid exploitation of offshore natural gas fields in the Netherlands the 1960s. It is interesting to note that the eponymous case is probably not as good an example of the phenomenon and other instances such as the Australian Gold Boom and the Nigerian Oil boom, but the Dutch get the credit (glory? ).

This simple description of the Dutch Disease, although perfectly condensed for the third paragraph of a wire service new report, is only part of the story. For it to truly be “the Dutch Disease”, the economic sector providing the income must be non-renewable natural resource based. There are a couple of reasons for this, but it has to do with the disproportionally low employment numbers compared to the incomes collected from the extraction activities, and the limited long-term gain from re-investment back into that specific extraction activity. The income earned by the industry must also represent a significant portion of export trade, and the economy has to be unfettered enough to allow the markets to adjust prices according to market demands. Further, the source country must receive the benefit of the exporting industry right away, and not specifically apply this income towards subsidizing the other impacted industries. There are few other nuances, but I’m sure you are bored already. I know I am.

Now, you can debate whether Canada is suffering from the Dutch Disease, or even how much the Dutch Disease is responsible for the recent manufacturing downturn in Ontario. But you cannot argue that the Dutch Disease is a “goofy” idea or “gobbledygook”. And if mentioning it is being “divisive”, then it is reality that is being divisive, not the person who mentions it. A child mentioning the Emperor’s lack of clothes is not a pornographer.

Having read into this quite a bit over the last few days, I might offer my (not an Economist) opinion on whether we are suffering the Dutch disease in Canada. Surely, all of the makers of the Dutch Disease exist. Our manufacturing sector is being impacted by our high dollar (just ask them), and our high dollar is being propped up by our oil export activities (ask those commie radicals at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce). The number of people working the Oil Sands (~150,000) is not offsetting the number of lost Manufacturing jobs (~500,000) [see above references]. Further, many of the actions taken by more progressive governments with oil resource booms (like Norway and Azerbaijan) to avoid the Dutch disease are not being taken. These would include limiting the growth of the sector, placing all of the royalties into a sealed legacy fund to spread the economic impact over a longer period of time and as a hedge against currency fluctuation, building infrastructure that is not directly related to the primary export industry, etc. (Note, shutting down the industry is not a cure that anyone, including Thomas Mulcair, has proposed).

I cannot see any reason to disagree with the Economists who were paid by the Federal Government and came to the conclusion that the Dutch Disease is impacting Canada.

One thing is for certain: if we ignore the science like the Federal Government seems prone to do, or (even worse) belittle the science like our Premier, then we are not going to make the necessary adjustments to avoid the Dutch Disease, and it will become a certainty. It’s not gobbledygook, it is basic Macroeconomics. Forget the Scientists and the Lawyers, there are more than 70 MPs who list their occupation as “Businessman” or “Businesswoman” or some such derivative – why don’t they take their own advice?

Dear Ms. Myers,

Thank you for writing such a heart-felt and well-presented case for the Pattullo Bridge. You offer a genuine voice of people who use the Pattullo regularly. In community discussions about Big Things like the future of the Pattullo, people with differing opinions too often ignore the voice on the other side of the table, or worse, replace it with their own hastily-painted chariacture, whose opinion is not worth regarding… discussion is important.

So before I go on, I want to clear up one misconception about how one person (me) who thinks we don’t need to expand capacity on the Pattullo actually views the issue: I don’t want you to be “re-routed around the Royal City”. I want you to live in the Royal City. Or at least, I would rather you had better options for work, living, and commuting so the Single Occupancy Vehicle wasn’t the only option you had, or even the best option to choose. Cars are expensive, they are inconvenient, they are unreliable due to the vagaries and unpredictability of traffic. However, as you demonstrated, a car somehow became the best option for you. That is not your failure, that is a failure of infrastructure and community planning, failure of a hundred decisions made by people other then you.

Now I realize that last paragraph has me sounding like a radical anti-car nut with my head in the clouds, or even a holier-than-thou eco-facist, but let me try to convince you I am not. I own a car. Sometimes I use it to commute to work, a single occupancy vehicle when I do. I have cursed the intersection at the north end of the Queensborough at 7:30 am as much as anyone in this town. I know a couple on New West who commute to opposite ends of MetroVancouver daily, have two kids, and lives full of volunteer commitments, and do this without owning a car. I am not nearly that dedicated or organized. I make different choices, sometimes using transit, sometimes riding my bike, sometimes driving my car.

The problem with the car choice is that cars are bad for us. They make us less healthy, they make our cities less healthy. They cost us lots of money, they take up a disproportionate amount of our valuable urban space, and they damage the environment disproportionally with the benefits they deliver. They are by far the #1 cause of death for school-aged children in North America. They are, by almost any measure, a bad choice, yet here we are, both of us, and 400,000+ other people, making that daily choice to drive through New Westminster; all for good, rational, considered reasons. How did we get here? But first, why should anyone care?

“Increased traffic” is not a side effect, as you suggest, it is the main effect. The continued renaissance of New Westminster is not going to depend on a few of the 400,000+ commuters stopping to pick up a few groceries or noticing a new boutique on the way by, nor on 700 people filling the empty Waterfront Parkade spots. In the hierarchy of car-oriented retail, we will never compete with Coquitlam Centre, Lougheed Mall, or even King George Highway. Those days are gone: left New Westminster on the 60s, and are not coming back.

The future of New Westminster is in re-developing an urban environment where people want to live, work, shop and play. The 10,000+ people who live downtown, and the 500,000+ who are truly 20 minutes away by SkyTrain. For us to realize this future, we need a variety of good shops and entertainment opportunities (and that is coming along very nicely), and we need to produce a friendly, clean, safe environment inviting to people, not a space dedicated to the movement of cars and trucks. You know, a “fantastic place” to be.

You outlined the decision process that led to your workplace – home -commuting choice. Part of that choice of that was a cognizance of how long it would take you every day to drive to work. I have no idea how long it takes you, 20 minutes? 40? I will bet it is less than an hour. People who study commuting behaviors know that would be a safe bet, because very few people willingly choose to commute for more than an hour a day, regardless of the mode they choose. That has been true for centuries, and actually has a name: the Marchetti Constant.

As an aside, there is another factor here as well, and that is failed expectations. Especially when home-shopping, if we find a place we like, we tend to sell ourselves that the commute won’t be so bad. We often think of “central” as (to quote the radio ad) “20 minutes from everywhere”. Problem is, when driving in Vancouver, we are rarely 20 minutes from anywhere.

As an example, Tim Hortons are ubiquitous in this town, but if you stood up right now, got your coat and your hat, grabbed your car keys, walk to your car, wherever it is parked, get it started, drive to the nearest Timmy’s, find parking nearby, park, and walk to Timmy’s, (or sit in the drive-thru line, ugh) I’ll bet you the price of your doubl-double it is more than 20 minutes before you take your first sip. (Not fair to say “but I can walk to a nearby Timmy’s in 5 minutes”. Actually, if you say that, you are making my point that we unfairly justify the convenience of cars).

Back to the point, if your daily drive to work took an hour and a half each way, you would be much less likely to make that choice, to find that combination of home, work, and lifestyle acceptable. You would instead choose another home, another job, or another mode of travel. If that same trip takes 20 minutes, you are more likely to make that choice. This is, boiled down to the substance, what traffic planners call “Induced Demand”. This is the reason many people (including me) are afraid of the impact to our City of an expanded Pattullo Bridge.

The bridge now carries 60,000 or so cars per day. TransLink estimates a 6-lane bridge will carry 90,000 or so. Those extra 30,000 will be people who choose to use the bridge because it is the easiest, most convenient route. This choice will mostly not be made when they get into their car in the morning and turn on the traffic radio, but will instead be made the way you described it: when people are shopping for homes and doing that complex calculus about commute times, yard size, amenities, and price per square foot. Nothing makes that decision easier than the promise of a big new bridge that will solve traffic congestion problems once and for all. Hence “demand” for traffic lanes is “induced” not by bumper-to-bumper traffic lanes, but paradoxically, by the promise of empty traffic lanes.

Except, of course, the bigger bridge will do nothing to improve traffic congestion. Simple math says 90,000 vehicles cannot cross a 6-lane bridge any faster than 60,000 can cross a 4-lane bridge. Traffic will, as TransLink suggests, increase until the same state on congestion is reached as exists now ( see Marchetti Constant above). Of course, this will be limited slightly by the increased congestion on the surface roads on either end (see the Braess Paradox), not too mention that they really can’t be built to accommodate the increase. If they are, you can kiss that Livable City goal goodbye.

The promise of solving congestion by building lanes has always proven false in the past, there is no reason it will be proven true in this one case. This is why it is frustrating to hear people opine that New West has always been a “speed bump” where traffic grinds to a halt. The implication is that if we just build more lanes through New West, that problem will be solved. However, we can never build enough lanes (and if you don’t believe me, spend some time on Lougheed Highway anywhere it has seen recent expansion – if you have a few hours to spare).

Yikes. Went off on a lecture there. Let’s bring this back down to earth.

Your article shouldn’t be a “confession”, as that implies you have done something wrong. You made rational choices for yourself and for your family, with many of the confounding factors not within your control, what is wrong with that?

I ask you only to consider carefully what you want when thinking about the future of the Pattullo. Do you want a bigger bridge, or do you want a shorter commute, more predictability of travel times, and more time to spend with your family? Are you sure a bigger bridge will provide the things you want? Perhaps spending the same $800 Million on improved transit South of the Fraser, so people in Surrey have the same access that New Westminster enjoys, is more likely to address traffic issues on both sides of the Fraser. If nothing else, it will “induce” some of those 60,000 drivers to choose transit instead of the single occupancy vehicle, resulting in less of those negative affects cars bring to our communities.

Let me finish how I started, by thanking you for your article. Yours is an important a voice in the future of the Pattullo as is mine, or anyone else’s; We need the entire community involved in this discussion. But first, we need to convince TransLink that there needs to be a discussion. As things stand, TransLink has made a choice based on short-term thinking that contradicts their own master planning document , and the modern science of Transportation Demand Management. The results of that bad plan could make my home, New Westminster, a much less pleasant, more expensive, and less safe place to live, while failing at the promise of making your commute slightly shorter. Worse, their “consultations” have not included any real discussion of options or the needs of the community.

I happen to agree with you: tearing the bridge down is an extreme position, but so is building a bigger bridge and dumping that unsustainable traffic load on a City trying so hard to be a modern, compact, transit-friendly community. Presumably, somewhere between those two extremes is a viable compromise.

All I have heard New Westminster ask for up to now is a true consultation: the very conversation we are having right now, and that the decision on the fate of the bridge, the compromise, be based on what the Community decides. “Debate then Decide”, to borrow a phrase from the recent City open house.

Let’s hope your voice, and mine, will be heard by TransLink, and the Community makes the right decision.

Wow. What a weekend. Great weather, fun evenings with friends, a whole lot of gardening, Ryder leading the Giro. I’ve been too busy enjoying life to post my gripes.

So I saved them all up for Sunday Night.

Interesting event #1:
I went to a local retailer, who shall remain nameless for obvious reasons. There was a big multinational chain nearby I could have gone to, but I like to support the local guy. I bought a dozen items, he gave me a deal on a few, gave me some advice on some others, general good customer service experience.

But while I was shopping on my own, I overhear the proprietor talking about gas prices with another customer. The general consensus was that they were being screwed, and the best solution was to use their big Tidy Tank to gas up across the border. The proprietor didn’t see the irony in the conversation.

Interesting Event #2:
Went to a movie on Friday Night: the Avengers at the Landmark Cinema at Plaza 88. I came out of the movie wondering why everyone was fighting everyone else, and why, the minute the portal to the netherworld appears in the sky about New York, someone didn’t just call the Ghostbusters. Maybe I am getting too old for this stuff. The Theatre itself is what you expect in 10-screen modern movieplex: smallish rooms; comfy, new-fangled chairs; good sound (thankfully NOT turned up to 11); and a super clear, bright screen. The staff were mostly new young folks (a few trainers came in from the Landmark location in Abbotsford) but managed to handle all the appropriate transactions… uh… appropriately?

Most of the top floor of the Plaza 88 is not yet open, but things continue to evolve at this site. Not the least being the sale of the entire Plaza 88 retail complex for a cool $100 Million. More proof that we have good reason to be bully about the future of Downtown New Westminster.

Interesting Event #3:
55km in midday Sunday, crossing the Queensborough Bridge on the way home, we stopped at the north end of the pedestrian overpass. There were two clearly confused ladies standing there next to their bikes. I asked where they were headed and confirmed my suspicions when I first spied them. They wanted to get down to the Quay and the River Market, but had no idea how to get there from where they were.

It is almost exactly a year since I wrote this post detailing the issues with wayfinding around the (otherwise excellent) Queensborough bridge pedestrian and bike infrastructure. I know that original post generated discussion in the Transportation staff in New Westminster and Richmond, and with MoT and TransLink staff, and with people at VACC (now HUB) and B.E.S.T. None of these discussions have generated any actual changes in the signs at the Queensborough. It was interesting to see the lack of signage almost prevent two potential customers from reaching the Quayside (they had arrived from Burnaby).

As I suggested last year, that location would be perfect for a large-format wayfinding map, as it is where three different bike routes intersect with the SkyTrain. It would be great if these potential customers know how to get from that spot to Queensborough, Downtown, and Uptown New Westminster, instead of just turning around and going home. This type of signage would require some sort of partnership between TransLink and the City.

The signs on the bridge are ultimately MoT responsibility. I think about them every time I cross that bridge, and every time I ride my bike along Westminster Highway by Gifford (the “Casino Road”) and see this:

A big electronic wayfinding sign that must have cost hundreds of the thousands of dollars (I suspect, read: hope that the $2.7 Million price tag on the attached propaganda sign is for a larger integrated system and not just this sign). This sign has been installed less than a kilometre from the Queensborough Bridge, and installed after my whinging post of a year ago.

You would think if the Province can invest $2.7 Million on a fancy new illuminated signs, they can afford to open a bucket of green paint and fix the signs on the Pattullo?

It having already been established that the problem TransLink has with the Pattullo is not a traffic problem, but an aging bridge problem, I want to poke at the edges of that problem a little bit.

We can all agree that the Pattullo is an old steel structure. The world is full of old steel structures, many well past their design life: The Lions Gate Bridge, the Eiffel Tower, the Canadian Navy. To bring this back down to earth, I own a couple of old steel structures: my 1996 Honda, and my commuter bike. Admittedly, not as old as my other examples, but both built with the cheapest steel they could find at the price point, and in very good shape considering their design life.

The thing all old steel structures have in common is the need for maintenance. Steel rusts, so you need to get ahead of the rust. Water and salt exacerbate the rust problem, so you have to manage those corroding elements. Bare steel rusts faster, so you have to keep up on the paint. If you do these things, steel structures can last nearly forever. Even ones that bounce around in the ocean getting shot at.

On the flip side, all steel structures similarly turn to dust faster than you can imagine if the basic maintenance above is ignored.

With this in mind I took a walk across the Pattullo Bridge this weekend, and I took a camera. I ask you, does this look like a steel structure where the maintenance is being kept up?

you can click on any picture to fully appreciate the majesty.

Where they are staying ahead of the rust?

If the traffic is quiet enough, you can hear the bridge rust.

Where the paint is regularly inspected and renewed?

Where corroding elements are controlled?

Every drain on the Surrey side was plugged. Every single one. where does the water go?

…some goes into this pothole with an actual piece of rebar sticking out of it.

Or does this look like a bridge where maintenance has been ignored, and is turning to dust?
??

Noting inspires confidence in a railing like being able to stick your finger in rustholes.

??Yes, I am suggesting part of TransLink’s aging bridge problem is created by TransLink, themselves. Once again falling back to Hanlon’s Razor, I have to assume that this is not an intentional move, but more a result of bad planning, misplaced priorities, and lack of budget (a three-step program which is starting to sound like TransLink’s Modus operandi). That does not excuse them, though. The obvious neglect of basic maintenance is an irresponsible way to manage an expensive public asset. You own this bridge, you pay for it, and they are responsible for maintenenace. You are getting ripped off.

I was thinking maybe it is just a funding issue; that seems to be the cause of most ails of TransLink. At the “consultation” meetings that TransLink held back in February, TransLink mentioned that they spend $3 Million a year to maintain the Pattullo ( see page 4 of this document). You would think $3 Million would buy a hell of a lot of paint, or at least allow them to occasionally pressure-wash the plant ecosystems off of the steel trusswork.

This is not, unfortunately, the only place where plants are growing on the steel truss.

Except, TransLink does not spend $3 Million a year maintaining the Pattullo as claimed. That is obvious if you look at it, but more obvious when you look at their budget documents. There is a line item for bridge operations and maintenance, and it has averaged about $1.5 Million per year over the last few years (see this document). That $1.5M is spread amongst the Pattullo, the Knight Street Bridge & associated overpasses (a bridge that, I note, has a worse safety record than the Pattullo), and the old Westham Bridge (which is an old swing bridge with actual moving parts and machinery and such).

Maybe if they actually spent $3 Million a year on the Pattullo like they claimed, we could get another 50 years out of the Old Steel Structure. That would equal $150 Million, or a fifth of the cost of a replacement. We can even drop and extra $200 Million for the upgrades to make the bridge safer, and still be way ahead.

But TransLink wants a new bridge, just like I want a Porsche. My wife won’t let me get a Porsche. But maybe she will change her mind if I stop putting oil into my Honda…

I am just starting to get back to regular life, after all the excitement of this week.

In New Westminster, there have been no less than two major twitterstorm brous-ha-ha (which I contend is the appropriate plural form of that word).

One is the announcement that the City will charge ahead with the MUCF and office tower, after their developer-partner bailed. I have had a lot of conversations with a lot of people about this in the last week, and will opine soon.

The bigger news story to me was the huge turnout by the people of New Westminster at the Master Transportation Plan open houses. Yes, there was discussion about the MTP, but (and it pains me to say this as a member of the MTP Committee) the real issue of the night was not the MTP, it was the damn Bridge. The MTP was like Larry Holmes vs. Rodney Bobick in Manila in 1975: a nominally interesting lead-in to the real show.

The meeting I attended at the Justice Institute was very well attended. The room has a seating capacity of 250, and there were not many empty seats. Apparently, the daytime meeting at the Century House was also very well attended, with estimates north of 100 people (“crowded enough to be just uncomfortable” was how it was described to me).

More than 300 people from across the City come out on a Thursday to debate transportation policy. This is why I love New Westminster.

Another reason is that this meeting was live-streamed by a group of volunteers: and that video is available for you to watch now. Got to http://www.newwest.tv to see the video, and thank the people who produced it.

Again, New Westminster demonstrated to TransLink what consultation looks like. The consultant engaged by the City outlined the proposal presented by TransLink, and then showed various other options that TransLink had not offered. More importantly, he talked about the myriad of things we need to discuss when talking about the future of the bridge.

First, the options.

Options 1 & 2 are, respectively, the upstream and downstream options of the six-lane bridge, as proposed by TransLink. Enough said about those. The one interesting point raised at this meeting is that this option may cost in the order of $750 Million, which is less than the $1 Billion that TransLink suggested during their initial consultations.

Option 3 is the refurbishment of the existing bridge. This would reduce the lanes to a three-lane counterflow design similar to the Lions Gate, and would cost in the order of $200Million. It was suggested at the meeting that this would result in increased congestion, but that is a debateable point. Most urban transportation experts and the experience of every other city in the history of earth suggests the exact opposite.

Options 4 & 5 are replacing the bridge in approximately the same locations TransLink has proposed, but building a modern 4-lane bridge. Order of magnitude costs for this are $600 Million. This option provides all the safety and structural benefits of the TransLink proposals, at a lower costs, and has the bonus of not causing a major shift in the traffic situation on either side of the bridge.

Option 6 involved simply decommissioning the bridge and replacing it with air. I have to admit, 6 months ago when I started blogging about this, I would have thought that a fanciful option, but a couple of New West City Councillors have mentioned it as an option, and judging by the response of the crowd at the JI (watch the newest.tv coverage at 51:40, that is the loudest reaction at any moment in the presentation), I am coming around to seeing that this might be a viable starting point for negotiations, and an idea worth exploring.

This option was priced at about $40 Million. I heard it said after the meeting by a business leader in the City; “Give me two weeks, I’ll get you the $40 Million”. She might have been being facetious, but there is no doubt that money would be easily returned just by developing the land freed up by the removal of the bridge.

Options 7 & 8 are both about moving the bridge to different locations, each explored at different times in the past, one upstream at Sapperton Bar, one at Tree Island. Both of these are less compelling to me, both because they are more expensive than the Pattullo replacement ($2.5 Billion and $2 Billion respectively), and they both smack somewhat of Nimbyism. If a new bridge and more traffic is bad for New West, it is also bad for Coquitlam and Burnaby, and the resultant increase in traffic from any big bridge on our doorstep will have negative impacts on our City (see the Port Mann experience).

The consultation part of the meeting was further helped by the consultant discussing that there are factors in choosing a bridge other than lane count. He raised some interesting points about how a bridge fits into the community. A strong point is that this bridge is different than the Alex Fraser, the Golden Ears, or even the new Port Mann, in that this bridge is located in the centre of a dense urban area, and is connected to surface streets, not limited-access freeways.

One result of this is that it would be inappropriate to build the cheapest bridge possible, built by the lowest bidder. That will no doubt be TransLink’s intent, but we need to resist that intent.

When building a new crossing out in the country, this may be the approach to choose, just like if you are building an electrical switching house or a water pump station out in the country, you might put up a bland concrete box. If you are building a pump house or an electrical substation in the middle of a dense urban area, you need to incorporate design and aesthetics.

The same goes for a bridge.

If one is to build a major piece of infrastructure that will dominate an urban skyline for 50-100 years, most Cities would engage in an international design competition. There are architects and bridge designers who would love to apply their skill and talent to an iconic structure. Think of the roof of BC Place, the Vancouver Convention Centre, even the stations on the Millennium SkyTrain Line: like them or hate them, they are designed with aesthetic values, not dull pre-stressed concrete function-only structures, like the three five cable-stayed bridges over the Fraser River (if the throw the Skytrain and Canada Line bridges into the discussion).

A second point is that we need to carefully consider the transportation engineering of the bridge. Again, using the Alex Fraser, the Golden Ears, and the Port Mann 2 as examples, all are built to expressway standards. This makes sense, as they are on expressways. But if we build a new bridge in the middle of an urban area, connecting to surface streets, should it be built more like a surface street?

TransLink is likely assuming that the new bridge will be built with open wide lanes, as you would design for 80km/h or 100km/h traffic. As the roads on either side are 50km/h, the bridge will no doubt have a similar speed limit, and everyone will ignore it. If we were building a surface street, it would have curb bulges, roundabouts, a planted median, etc. to create a dynamic visual landscape, and to slow traffic.

The discussion included many other topics, including costs, traffic impacts, visual and safety impacts, maintenance issues.

Clearly, there are lots of things to discuss about the future of the Pattullo other than how the offramps will attach to the existing streets.

When they got to the point, it was this: Consultation is not TransLink telling us what they are going to build. Much like the Lions Gate process, we need to “debate then decide”, not the other way around.

So let’s get this debate started.