Translink public "consultation" frustrates real discussion and debate
It may have been a dark and rainy Tuesday night, but inside the Centennial Community Centre in New Westminster over 100 people showed up to participate in a TranslLink sponsored community forum. The session was ostensibly to consult with the community regarding the construction of a new Pattullo Bridge linking Surrey and New Westminster.
Considering how controversial this project has been so far, I wasn’t surprised to see a large crowd turn out. However, it’s clear TransLink wasn’t prepared for what was coming.
Not only were there not enough tables and chairs to accommodate the crowd, the meeting room was way too small. Needless to say, I wasn’t impressed with the first community gathering TransLink organized to involve local residents in the development of this important piece of transportation infrastructure.
I was told participants would be allowed up to thirty minutes to review about twenty separate poster boards outlining minute details of the proposed project. Given the configuration of the room and the number of people in it, this task was nearly impossible.
Then at precisely 7pm, a moderator made his way to the podium and told us they were going to bring in more tables and chairs to deal with the overflow. Once most folks were seated, the public portion of the consultation got underway. However, the moderator was very clear from the outset they were only going to take a few questions in this open format before moving into smaller breakout groups.
After about seven minutes of open questions, I raised my hand in order to ask why we were not being presented with an option of building a new four-lane bridge. Unfortunately the moderator said I couldn’t ask my question, and I would need to raise my concern in a smaller group session instead – we simply ran out of time.
Having worked in politics for a number of years, I’m quite familiar some of the tactics employed to ensure a crowd doesn’t get out of hand. If you don’t want people to stray from the script, it’s best to keep the open portion of a meeting limited and push everyone into more intimate group settings. Then make sure you have assigned moderators/facilitators to “keep the flow of the discussion moving.”
Given this was the first community meeting held in New Westminster, I must say the whole affair was rather disappointing. Not only were residents told the option of moving the bridge further north was not on the table, but the issue of four lanes vs. six lanes was not properly discussed.
What we were treated to this evening was a fait accompli from TransLink. You don’t like an expanded six lane bridge? Too bad. You don’t like tolls? Too bad. You want to know how we’re going to pay for all of this? We’ll have answers for you later.
At some point in the meeting I fully expected TransLink officials to get up and say “Okay now. Would you like the new bridge to be painted in a nice magenta or maroon?”
Tonight was the first meeting in what is being billed as a four-year consultation process with the local community. Based on what I saw tonight, there appears to be little hope that TransLink is really interested in hearing the views of citizens. That is unless you want to provide them with feedback on just exactly where the new off ramp should be located.
TransLink still has time to ensure there is a proper public consultation process in place. But considering what they told us about the condition of the current bridge, perhaps time really isn’t on their side. I’ll try to keep you up-to-date on this project over the coming months. Stay tuned.
- post by Daniel. See more images from Tuesday night's Pattullo Bridge meeting on our Flickr page.
PDF 
“Okay now. Would you like the new bridge to be painted in a nice magenta or maroon?”
Exactly. They actually asked us on the “feedback form” to opine if we wanted the new bridge 50m west of the old one, or 50m east, like that is relevant to anything. People wanted to see the case for expanded number of lanes (“safety”, apparently), wanted to know how it was going to be financed (“maybe tolls, maybe not, we’ll tell you later”), wanted to know how the impacts on New Westminster’s other roads will be mitigated (“we’ll figure that out after and let you know”).
Instead, we got to vote on which bowl-of-spaghetti lane design disappointed us the least.
It is important that we clarify a few points and share additional information on Pattullo.
We have been working closely with the cities of Surrey and New Westminster since 2006 on this important project, and while this is the first time we’ve engaged the public in discussions about the Pattullo Bridge, it will by no means be the last.
Prior to our first public session, we held five meetings with key stakeholders, which were identified in consultation with staff at the City of Surrey and the City of New Westminster; more than 120 individuals and organizations were invited to participate. That was where design options were discussed, and after evaluating the laning options, it became apparent that a four-lane bridge was not appropriate: it would be less safe, with more frequent lane changes; it would lead to more congestion and it would not permit efficient goods movement, with trucks mixing in with general traffic.
The six-lane concept includes “goods-movement-only” lanes, which keep trucks separate from general traffic and diverts them efficiently onto the Major Roads Network.
This is the first time we took the options to the general public, and there will be a lot more opportunity for people on both sides of the river to comment.
As for the engagement process, TransLink uses this framework so that people can have a constructive conversation around the table. Facilitators “keep things moving” so that everyone has an opportunity to speak, not just those who feel comfortable speaking in front of large groups; and more importantly, we have a chance to listen to as many points of view as possible. I understand that you may have left prior to the roundtable discussion portion, we’re sorry you weren’t able to see that in action.
As for funding, we’re still defining the scope of the project. Once that is confirmed, then we’ll determine the funding options, which may include: senior governments; a TransLink supplemental plan; tolls or a combination of those.
Finally, we really do want to hear what the public thinks about the proposed options for a new bridge; we’re still welcoming comments in person at the next three sessions, at our webinar on March 8 and online via our customer input form. All information can be found at http://www.translink.ca/pattullo.
Thanks for the increased clarity, Drew.
But can you explain how 6 lanes is “safer”? The same conditions will apply on the right-most lanes for a 2-lane route as for a 3-lane route. All three directions on the New West side are on the MRN, so will require truck and car access.
I also don’t know how you can plan infrastructure until you know if it will be tolled. Clearly, one of the major drivers towards TDM is whether tolls will be applied, the tolls will determine what capacity is required and will therefore inform what to build. TDM 101.
Will 6 lanes over 4 come at the expense of the multi-use path proposed as part of the BC Parkway system?
BooHoo: No, the bike/ped path will be a bauble they will attach to the side of any lane configuration. At this point, it is not even part of the planning.
During the meeting, I asked specifically how some of the proposed designs would integrate bicycle and pedestrians (i.e. the connections to the Central Valley Greenway from the east side of any design looks pretty sketchy), and they essentially said they would make anything work with the existing network, so don’t worry your pretty head. It will be a road bridge, other users will be accommodated, not an integrated design for all users.
They project a lot of pedestrians using this bridge, which is strange since the Surrey side of it is half industrial, half big box nightmare: a pedestrian dead zone. I can’t imagine any pedestrian destinations on that side.
Just went through some of the detailed planning mat’l on the Translink website, hunting for rationale for 6 lanes. Nowhere there is safety mentioned, it is all about connectivity to the SFPR and how 6 lanes is better at the Surrey end to accomodate increased truck traffic. Never mind that 6 lanes empty into the existing narrow road system of New West – all this does is bring the congestion into our City. Reminds me of the UBE. All traffic projections presented were based on a tolled bridge. It’ll plug New West as it is (100% more trucks, 50% more cars on same roads as now), let alone if the bridge isn’t tolled!
@Pat there is a community that is on the Surrey side north of the bridge called Bridgeview. I live there. I will walk the bridge when the weather is nice if I am going to New West.
Surrey is trying to destroy that community and make it into a truck park. Tuesday transit even thought it was all truck park west of 124th Street till I told them different.
Surrey wants to build up the residential on the south side of the Bridge with new development to go with the Kalsa school that was build a few years back.
I am not happy either. I am having a hard time to get out from where I live now because of the SFPR. Now with Surrey asking Translink to built an artery route from the SFPR to the bridge using 124 I will be ending in New West every time I try to go somewhere.
Currently trucks over 5000 KVG are not to come into our neighbourhood because of the boggy conditions of the land. But they want to build truck routes.
Bottom line all about trucks not moving people.
I would have more to say about this, but my blood gets boiling when the “experts’ think they know what we need and don’t listen to us and give others who will not be directly affected by this to decide for us because they may use the road/bridge.
Thank God I don’t have to cross it! Patullo Bridge… your moneies and mine!
It is not a minor issue that the funding for the new Pattullo Bridge has not been defined.
In the oral presentations made at the open house no mention of tolling was made and it was clearly stated that TransLink would be looking for Senior govn’t sources to fund the bridge. When asked, the TL reps did say that tolling is a possibility if senior sources are not found.
Fine… but then the traffic projection numbers were given for the new bridge indicating a slow but steady increase in traffic over more than 20 years. Only when asking the TL rep afterwards was it known that the traffic projections were made assuming that tolling is in place. The problem is that if the bridge is NOT tolled, then the projected numbers given at the meeting are completely meaningless as the bridge will be the de facto free alternative to the soon-to-be-tolled Port Mann bridge. It will be no surprise if the projected 20 year –50% increase in traffic occurs on the bridge –overnight– when the PM tolls go on.
This is extremely misleading on the part of TransLink and really made the entire evening a waste of the public’s time. The impact of the traffic generated by the bridge is night and day depending on whether the facility is tolled or not. (again in particular due to its proximity to the tolled PM bridge)
Given that TL has been talking to the stakeholders since 2006 this detail should have been well established by now and appropriate plans made for the expected traffic demand. To not have this issue resolved by now suggests that TL is either being deliberately misleading or they are completely incompetent.
Now to make matters worse, the PM toll effect will likely start next year with the old Pattullo bridge still in place. Does TL have any plans to manage traffic demand on their facility or will it become a paralyzed transportation link overrun with toll-avoiding commuters and useless as a transportation route? Or is their roads dept. too busy playing with construction toys?
Pat,
Thanks for the douchebag answer, don’t hurt your ‘pretty head’ coming up with that kind of thing.
It’s going to be tolled, no reason it shouldn’t be. Funny there was an article I only scanned quickly about road tolls all over Metro Van. The days of ‘freeways’ are happily ending.
Boo, I don’t think Pat was trying to be insulting. “Pretty head” was a reference to the facilitators’ condescending approach. Let’s not resort to name calling.
Thanks.
Ok, I’m so used to being insulted here I assumed it was. My bad if true.
No offence meant, Boohoo, We’re on the same side of this one!
Actually, Mike, the people at the meetings were anything but condescending, I think the facilitators and TranLink staff in attendance are trying to do the best with the crappy situation they are dealing with. It isn’t the people in the room I found condescending, it is the process!
Now that I have had the benefit of attending both a stakeholders meeting and a public consultation on the Pattullo Bridge replacement I offer this evaluation. The question that has not been answered is why does New Westminster need to provide additional access for the lower mainland? With the expanded capacity of the Port Mann Bridge, the addition of the South Fraser Perimeter Road, the expanded capacity coming soon with the Evergreen Line and the expansion of transit service to Surrey do we need more expansion?
Before proceeding it is important that we reflect on the days and weeks when the Pattullo was closed due to the fire at the south end. People seemed to get around, trucks managed to deliver goods and New Westminster was eerily traffic deprived. Kind of like the time when the rail bridge was knocked out and the city was eerily noise deprived. Imagine the perfect storm if both incidents took place at the same time! It seemed that goods were delivered, stores were stocked and not one commercial enterprise or resident could be found to complain. With the exception of the rail companies that were inconvenienced for a short time in both cases everyone seemed to manage using other ways to move around. A real opportunity to experience our Mayor and Council dream of an affordable sleepy little bedroom community called the Royal City.
For 10 years I used the Pattullo daily on my drives to and from Surrey. So I am not advocating that we not replace the unsafe Pattullo but simply asking the question – do we need the Pattullo much more do we need an expansion to six lanes? In the big picture we will have a new South Fraser Perimeter Road; access to New Westminster via the Port Mann (newly expanded), the Fraser and the Queeensborough bridges and even the Massey Tunnel. So truck routes can be established and a lot of cars would find other faster ways around and those that come to New Westminster will have plenty of ways to get here. Translink has the Millennium, Expo and soon to be Evergreen lines for people so movement for pedestrians would be simple enough and there is a comprehensive bike option on the way.
So to simply provide a billion dollars to build a bridge for convenience seems frivolous in these times of restraint and financial difficulties. So it’s fair to ask do we need the Pattullo. What may be required is a safer 4 lane crossing limited to cars, people and trucks making deliveries to New West. Let’s be reminded that there is no need for the North Fraser Perimeter Road, already removed from the options. Sure many will have arguments for and against this concept; I just wonder what it would be like to have this discussion in a proactive way. Instead we are asked at these consultation meetings, “do you prefer the bridge upstream or downstream” huh! What about showing us the modeling if there was no bridge or no connection to the South Fraser Perimeter Road? All they will tell us is that gridlock will continue but what happened when the bridge was closed? Did they monitor that time do we need to close it again so they can see where the traffic goes? Likely not a chance they will try that because they may discover that a Pattullo Bridge is exactly what many suspect it is – a bridge of convenience and not a bridge of necessity.