Stephen Rees's blog

Thoughts about the relationships between transport and the urban area it serves

Translink abandons United Boulevard Extension

with 4 comments

In my email inbox this morning was good news from New Westminster Environmental Partners’ Andrew Feltham

… tonight [Thursday May 19, 2011] TransLink announced that they could not find agreement on how to build the United Boulevard Extension (UBE) through New Westminster and they will not be recommending to the Councils of New Westminster and Coquitlam that they can proceed with this project. The planners have been asked “to put their pencils down”. Further it was pointed out that the entire North Fraser Perimeter Road (NFPR) through New Westminster is not a priority as declared by the Mayor’s council which directs TransLink. (This was not news, but reiterated that there was never a priority to do anything about the rest of the road system in the City even if the UBE was built).

I would like to say that TransLink, their consultants and staff carried out the most detailed series of consultations that I have ever participated in and it seems that, in the end, they did listen to the community. Further the community deserves a lot of credit for coming together and articulating the issues and making TransLink aware that the projects they favoured would not solve the traffic issues they sought to address.

From a sustainable transportation perspective it is perhaps encouraging to note that many have recognized that its not easy, if not impossible, to solve traffic congestion problems in New Westminster by simply building more roads. The issue is not finished. The traffic problems still exist at Braid and Brunette, as well as air quality and rat running problems in Sapperton. The industrial area is still overrun with traffic, making the busineses there less viable. We do need to keep talking about solutions to these issues, but at least we now have the opportunity to start to talk about other ways to allow people and goods to move through our community without destroying the quality of life, or simply making things worse. The City can now move forward with its Master Transportation Plan to establish a vision how transportation in our City should evolve, meeting both local and regional needs. I hope everyone will be part of this process and to explore the variety of options which have been implemented around the world to deal with transportation congestion in urban areas.

Let’s make this our “Vancouver moment” and create the change in transportation thinking which is so needed in our City and region.

Thanks to everyone who participated in the community workshops, and wrote letters or emails to TransLink, the City, and the local papers.

Andrew.

The foregoing paragraphs have been lightly edited for clarity.

I would add that it has long been recognized that building roads in urban areas can never solve traffic problems. Induced traffic always results in continuing congestion. Only reducing road capacity and our reliance on personal automobiles has ever lead to traffic reduction and less congestion.  This as true in New Westminster as any other urban area. It is perhaps unfortunate that Translink does not recognize this truth and continues to pursue road network expansion projects such as the proposed 6 lane Patullo Bridge. On the other hand at least they backed down: unlike the province which continues with its destructive South Fraser Perimeter Road and threatens to issue injunctions against those who try to draw attention to its folly.

Written by Stephen Rees

May 20, 2011 at 9:59 am

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Interesting news indeed…Power to the people and all that..
    Talking about New Westminster, I have driven (as a passenger) by the angled parkings on Columbia St. several times and every time felt that something was very wrong…
    The other day it finally dawned on me that they were angled the wrong way…
    I used this type of parking a lot when living in France and they opened towards the traffic flow. Meaning that I am driving on the right side, see a free spot and do a 45 degree (or whatever angle it is 60?) turn to the right to park, entering front first. When backing out of it is easy because, due my car being in an oblique position, after backing up 2 ft,I can see the cars coming and they can see me.
    But in New West. you have to drive past a free angled post and back in at an angle …quite a problem for many drivers….especially those that can’t do proper parallel street parking or 90 degrees mall parking.

    Red frog

    May 20, 2011 at 12:22 pm

  2. Translink seems to really want to go with option B, but it was obviously going nowhere. They didn’t have the gut to find way to make the option E working, like suggested here .
    SO they sign down the whole project, but problem well recognized by resident, as reflected by the email above, still exist, and need to be addressed. I have heard Ken hardie interview this morning at CBC, and it was (toot) quick has blaming Sapperton resident…The project was not opposed only by Sapperton resident…it was a bad project with no good rational, and was well recognized as such by New West resident and its council.

    PS: redfrog, on angled parking at Columbia street…very good observation…you are very right: they put it in the wrong direction: it has probably been designed by some imperialist British engineer …or do they want to be more British than the “perfidious albion” ?
    ..then bring the roundabout! ;)

    Voony

    May 20, 2011 at 7:45 pm

  3. The back in angle parking on Columbia St has been implemented because this part of the road is also part of the Central Valley Greenway. It is much easier and safer for cyclists to make eye contact with drivers who are leaving their parking spots and it eliminates the possibility of cyclists getting “doored” by careless drivers. To my understanding this has been implemented in other jurisdictions and the results are typically enhanced safety.

    Yes I’m sure its a bit awkward to park if you’re not used to it.

    Andrew

    May 20, 2011 at 11:18 pm

  4. Voony, I agree, Hardie’s message seemed to be that Sapperton was hurting everyone’s progress for selfish reasons. This did not reflect accurately the concerns about the project, which were much more holistic. Unfortunately, this message is disingenuous, and contrasts sharply with the message Andrew is giving above (that TransLink was listening and made the right decision).

    As for the back-in angle parking, it also increases driver safety, as no-one has to back a car into oncoming traffic from a parking position.

    Pat Johnstone

    May 21, 2011 at 11:20 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,059 other followers

%d bloggers like this: