West Lethbridge priorities need to be assessed
By Letter to the Editor on June 17, 2021.
Editor:
When we moved to Lethbridge in 1967, there was a common community understanding that the third bridge land reserve was in the City master plan just north of Tudor Estates.
Mark Lenchucka’s letter clearly shows the City’s priority planning in the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) with single occupancy automobile being the last priority.
And, Mark notes the third bridge is missing from the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
The debate on the requirement of a third bridge is exhaustive.
The response from City engineers remains: utilization statistic on the Whoop-Up bridge does not warrant construction of a third bridge.
As the debate continues, three immediate steps need to be undertaken to assess the priorities of West Lethbridge residents:
1. An independent survey on what the priority is for the construction of the third bridge in the context of the MDP and the CIP, or a referendum on what the priority is;
2. The release by the City on the utilization rates of the numerous walking and bicycle trails, and;
3. Overall support for capital expenditures on electric buses and terminals in the context of utilization rates on the existing transportation services provided by the City.
Should the City be willing to address these steps we can expect that residents will express a very high priority on a third bridge, utilization rates on trails is low meaning the City need not invest in additional trails, and utilization of the transportation service is also low meaning there is a much higher priority.
For those who use existing bridges, congestion, traffic interruption and emergency backup plans when bridge access is compromised are well understood.
During the fall municipal election, voters need to understand where candidates are on this issue.
In the Herald’s coverage on Blaine Hyggen’s announcement for the position of Mayor, Blaine has expressed his support for the construction of a third bridge ahead of other approved plans.
John Percevault
Lethbridge
-1
Perhaps the $20-30 billion infrastructure debt left to Albertans from the Klein era, of which we are still struggling to fix, could be a factor here. And, long range planning in Alberta has been woefully inadequate, for years, let alone development of cities on both sides of a river. Just even look at the dangerous Coalhurst and Kipp intersections where development has been allowed where overpasses should have been. Now that the oil and gas sector is fading and why coal would never be a financial savior for Alberta, and how other avenues of revenue are not being pursued by the Kenney UCP, this sort of infrastructure development may be iffy. Perhaps the $1.3 billion paid out/ frittered, to TC Energy could have better been spent on another Lethbridge bridge.
Why would put the decision about a massively expensive infrastructure project like this in the hands of uneducated and selfish citizens when the experts say there’s no need for a third bridge? Here’s an idea: if you don’t like the travel times and the occasional delay due to congestion, maybe don’t live out in the middle of nowhere instead of asking half the city to pay for your life choices.
what certain “neighbourhoods” on the west and south sides need is more of the multi-unit and low rent housing that exists everywhere else. as for a third bridge, let those that want it fund it. in fairness, i am in favour of the city funding only as much as a “third bridge” flag to be flown at city hall.
I wonder if JP has a BH sign on his lawn already?
What? The cities priorities not meeting your expectations? Join the club. When I moved into my first home in the London road district in the 90’s they had my sidewalk on my street set for replacement the next year. Moved 25 years later, same original sidewalk still there. Now i have a back alley falling apart for the last 5 years. I’m not holding my breath on them fixing that.