Thought we had heard everything we could about the
bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel? Think again!
A transportation plan for the Greater Vancouver area
was started as early as 1994. It was set up by an industry-led organization of
senior executives from seaports, airport, carriers and other companies engaged
directly in the Gateway Transportation business.
Neither community input, safety nor the environment were
considered*. In the quest for jobs both Senior levels of Government have
forsaken social issues close to the heart of the electorate. This bridge is not
a bridge to serve transit infrastructure; this is a bridge to allow the
industrialization of the Fraser River. It does so by the removal of the George
Massey tunnel.
SPIN
As pressure is brought to bear on the Liberal plan
to build this bridge, the spin coming from Victoria changes according to the
criticism levied at the plan. The most recent comments from Todd Stone,
Minister for transportation and Infrastructure is that “Port Metro Vancouver”
(recently renamed “Port of Vancouver”) is NOT driving the decision for the
bridge. This statement is completely negated through a recent FOI request. The
height of the bridge is driven by the desire of the Port of Vancouver to get
LNG ships under the span. Previous transportation plans indicated twinning the
tunnel (with a 2 lane tube) was preferable to a bridge and more cost effective.
If that was the case why is the tunnel being dismantled if not to let deeper
hull vessels up the South Fraser River?
Robin Silvester, CEO of Port of Vancouver recently
stated that there were no plans to dredge the Fraser River. Oddly this belies
the fact that he has lobbied the Harper government multiple times to subsidize
dredging the Fraser. The dredging would deepen the Fraser to make the Fraser
Surrey docks (a tenant of Port of Vancouver) a deep sea port. This is made clear
by the Pacific Gateway Strategy Action Plan (see link). The plan shows that
this has been a part of the Port development strategy since 2006.
FACTS
Information acquired through Freedom of Access to Information
reveals that the Port of Vancouver clearly wants the Massey Tunnel removed.
“The tunnel is also a marine
bottleneck. It was not designed for the size of ships used in modern day trade,
which must access the Fraser River in Richmond and Surrey. As a result, the
tunnel is becoming a significant obstacle to international trade on the
Fraser.”
(Robin Silvester, CE0, Port Metro Vancouver:
Vancouver Sun, April 29, 2012)
The Port
of Vancouver made it clear to the government that plans should include air
drafts to accommodate large ships:
"Liquid bulk tankers with larger air draft
requirements (e.g. LNG) should be considered,"
(Port Development Strategies Manager, Jennifer
Natland, Nov. 29, 2012 to Project Planners)
If the Port of Vancouver is not driving these
decisions why are they so at odds with any real traffic infrastructure
planning? The required height of the bridge presents major challenges. It makes
access to Ladner and the Steveston highway very difficult. As well the support
for the towers becomes very expensive. This could be avoided and makes no sense
if only traffic issues were driving this decision.
The structure of the towers will be difficult to
install while the tunnel is in place. This fact recently came to light when their
required height was raised by Port of Vancouver. This will turn highway 99 into
a construction bottleneck for an indefinite period. What seems to be forgotten
is that this is the second busiest
access road into Vancouver. Commerce and commuters alike will be
hamstrung with delays and undoubtedly re-routed to the Alex Fraser Bridge.
As recent as 2006 the tunnel was deemed to be
safe and sound for many more years. With that understanding a $20 million seismic
upgrade was completed to the tunnel. The government stated all that was needed
was “additional seismic upgrading”. This additional upgrade was priced and
planned for but not carried out. Now that there is a plan for the bridge, the
tunnel is considered obsolete, unsafe and the seismic upgrading too expensive.
Delta
CAO George Harvie was recently quoted as saying “any kind of seismic problem
could ruin the current tunnel”. What he failed to mention was this: Any
earthquake strong enough to “ruin the tunnel” would also destroy the highway
leading to it. As well, any over-passes and crossings of the Lower Fraser
Valley delta would be at peril.
Douglas Massey is the son of George Massey whose
name is on the tunnel. Mr. Massey’s research shows a Dutch company specializing
in tunnels was contacted by the Provincial government. A team member from this
firm was emphatic that a plan to twin the tunnel was not seriously developed.
How then can a decision costing Billions of dollars have been made without a
clear assessment of this alternative?
The facts remain: All of this is a part of the
larger Pacific Gateway Strategy Action Plan.
The plan is comprehensive and large parts of it are
complete. Billions of dollars have been spent on the following projects: The
Port Mann Bridge, the Golden Ears Bridge, the Deltaport third berth, the South
Fraser Perimeter road and numerous others. For Mr. Silvester or Mr. Stone to
suggest that the bridge is not being driven by the Port of Vancouver is just
not true. Community input was never seriously sought and appears to be
irrelevant. Todd Stone is the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. In
recent presentations he has refused any questions regarding aspects of the
bridge. What the MoT has done instead is issue a bulletin called “debunking the
Massey replacement myths.
https://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/03/Fact-Sheet-Massey-Replacement-Myths-Mar-2016.pdf
One of the “facts” states that: “The project
will…… remove 9,000 tonnes of greenhouses gas each year”.
Adding
traffic to the existing traffic will only add to our greenhouse gasses. By not
addressing the Oak and Knight street corridors more greenhouse gasses will be
added. Waiting and idling times will only be increased. This is only the
beginning. If the Fraser is industrialized as planned our greenhouse gasses
will increase exponentially.
For a debunking of the
Provincial Government “debunking” see Pat Johnstone’s blog: https://patrickjohnstone.ca/2016/04/myths-and-lies.html
SPINNING, SPINNING, SPUN
Geoff Freer, project manager for the bridge recently
made a presentation to the Richmond council. In that meeting he stated that
there would be no loss of farmland. In fact he said there would be a gain in
farmland. These comments were reiterated by Robin Silvester, CEO for the Port
of Vancouver. The justification so angered the Richmond council that they
changed their support for the bridge and specified that they preferred to keep the
tunnel.
The government has stated that 59% of tunnel traffic
goes to Richmond, not Vancouver. The validity of the ‘Blue Tooth Technology’ used
has been questioned. Cars not equipped with this technology could not be
counted. Not that it matters, it is truly a moot point. The bottleneck at both
the Oak Street and Knight Street corridors are already problematic. By
constructing a 10 lane bridge, Delta will be opened to urban sprawl. This will create
additional commercial and passenger traffic to and from Vancouver. As a result these
two corridors will only become busier. Yet this “plan” does not deal with this
particular issue. No alternatives to these two traffic impediments have been
considered. How can this be considered planning for the future? Is it any
wonder that all the Metro Mayors (minus Mayor Jackson of Delta) are questioning
the wisdom of this plan?
What is truly amazing is that the Mayors of Metro
Vancouver are not fighting this issue tooth and nail. I can only assume the
reason is that we DO need a better crossing at the Fraser. By being against
“the bridge” we are delaying any
improvement. However, this “plan” really only deals with crossing the Fraser.
The lack of planning shows that overall traffic infrastructure is of no
interest to the provincial government.
What needs to be made very clear is that the Port
of Vancouver is in a conflict of interest. The port makes money from fees,
leases and rentals and has no interest in limiting its operations. In response Mr.
Silvester has made the following statement: “To suggest some inherent
self-interest is influencing the authority’s permitting decisions, or that
those decisions are not based on thorough environmental assessment, is failing
to recognize the port authority’s federal mandate and obligations”. This is
in-fact exactly what is at question. Mr. Silvester and/or the Port board appear
to be beyond Federal scrutiny. The Port appears to have but one interest and
that is to industrialize the Fraser River. In doing so it appears to have no
regard for the social or environmental consequences.
VISIONS SPUN
We are being subjected to Mr. Silvester’s vision
through a board that is an unelected and unaccountable body. Where the board is
in all this is a big question. Is the board driving Mr. Silvester or is Mr. Silvester
driving the board? The board community representatives have never been heard
from. Eight of the 11 board member are Federal Government appointees, seven of
which are chosen in consultation with the Port user advisory committee.
Compare the lofty Vision of the Port of Vancouver:
"Inspiring
support ….from communities locally and across the nation,"
and Mission Statement:
“To
lead the growth of Canada's Pacific Gateway in a manner that enhances the
well-being of Canadians and inspires national pride”.
to the current reality. A part of the Pacific
Gateway Plan was to “engage communities”. One way to achieve this was through a
questionnaire. The questionnaire was a one-way stream of port information. This
was given to participants at a convention of BC municipalities. Only 28% of
participants responded. This is no surprise as there was no dialogue. No
interest was expressed in community input. So much for community engagement or “inspiring
support”.
What is being sold is a vision
of the economy driven by industry and hammered home with the promise of jobs.
The loss of farmland, the environment and communities were not considered. The
process shows a serious lack of appropriate infrastructure planning. How
else do we get a 3.5 million dollar decision without any record of the decision
process? Misrepresentations of our Provincial and Federal representatives are more
than by-products. It is a given that transparency is not public entitlement.
Our Crown Corporation is used as a shield for the Federal MP’s and their responsibilities.
The port has been given powers reaching well beyond its mandate. Under “roles
and responsibilities” on the port website it states:
Infrastructure
development to support growth and efficient operations, including
collaboration with government and others on projects beyond port lands.
THE REALITY
What exactly does the “projects
beyond port lands” cover? How is it that an expensive, short-term, partial
traffic fix can be driven by Port of Vancouver? The terms “efficiency” and
“collaboration” need to be considered for the community in order to be
meaningful and effective. The bridge does not serve Metro Vancouver. It does not
serve Richmond or Delta. The bridge only serves the Port of Vancouver and
commuters south of the Fraser going as far as Richmond.
All of these undertakings will critically affect the
ecology of the Fraser estuary and river. This fact is being ignored by the
Provincial and Federal Governments. Both levels of government are satisfied
with a piecemeal approach to environmental assessments. The Federal Government states
that it is “unfair” to require proponents to restart environmental assessments.
Even while admitting these may have been flawed under the Harper government. The
agreement with the Paris accord should require higher environmental standards. However,
this does not appear to be the case for the Fraser River. The “proponent” for these
undertakings is the Port of Vancouver. As a Federal Crown Corporation, the port
needs to be held to a higher standard. A full environmental assessment of all
port undertakings including the proposed bridge should be required.
While considering Port of
Vancouver activities we need a review of the Board of Directors. It is clear
that the Board is industry driven and not community driven. The sole speaker
for the port is Mr. Silvester. A Community and Corporate Social Responsibility committee
exists and is never heard from. There is no community presence other than an
office in Ladner. One
community representative contacted was clear: Little credence was given to
feedback. The community liaison committee seemed little more than an exercise.
A legislated/ required meeting with representatives with no apparent value or
outcome.
The bridge will completely change the nature of the
community Mayor Jackson governs. She has waved off the environmental and social
implications as “myths”. Mayor Jackson remains the only Mayor in support of the
bridge.
We can do better than this! We deserve co-operative
planning with communities to get the infrastructure that supports a strong
city. If it improves our harbor, great! However, let’s be clear; transit
planning should not be done for the needs of the Port of Vancouver. Such a myopic
outlook doesn’t serve any of the Metro communities. If this bridge is built we
will be spending much more money to rectify our transit needs. Lastly, these
are the same people that missed the South Fraser Perimeter Road budget by more
than 100%. If this is any indication of their planning ability the Bridge will
cost a lot more than $3,500,000,000.
If you feel
strongly about more positive transit planning and community involvement, get
involved! Write or contact your MLA and MP. Let them know you’re not happy with
the decision to build this bridge!
* “While there are other considerations, such as safety and
environmental concerns, the proposed MCTS (Major Commercial Transportation System) was only evaluated on the economic benefits of proceeding
with the proposed investments versus the consequences of inaction for the
Regional and Western Canadian economies.”
