The George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

This is a letter sent to a number of people that could be essential to the decisions process of this project.

January 27, 2016

The Hourable Amerjeet Sohi, Minister of Infrastructure and communities

The Honourable Marc Garneau MP, Minister of Transport
The Honourable Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, MP Delta
Alice Wong, MP Richmond Center

House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

cc:

Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau

Cabinet Ministers, Government of Canada
Port Metro Vancouver Board of Directors

Re: Infrastructure spending, Real Change, Smart Growth and protection of the Fraser River

 

In a recent contact with Mr. Garneau about the flawed environmental processes for Port Metro Vancouver undertakings, the following response was received:

“Canada Port Authorities must comply with the Canada Marine Act, other laws and regulations, and their individual letters patent.  The Act does not allow the government to direct Port Metro Vancouver; rather, section 20 of the Act makes the Board of Directors responsible for the management of the activities of Port Metro Vancouver.  

I would therefore encourage you to make your views known directly to Port Metro Vancouver at http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/contact-us/.”

Mr. Garneau’s statement appears to contravene the doctrine of “nondelegation” which directs that a branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function to which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself.  As stated in the guidelines for “Open and Accountable Government” declared by the new Liberal Government on November 27, 2015:

“However, Ministers remain accountable to Parliament for the organizations in their portfolio, and are responsible for taking appropriate corrective action to address any problems that may arise, consistent with the Minister’s role with respect to the organization in question. This applies regardless of whether the problem has been brought to the attention of the Minister by the representations of a constituent, or any other source.”

The Port Metro Board is made up largely of Industry Professionals only one of whom is chosen by the communities affected. Eight of the 11 board members are Federal Government appointees, seven of which are chosen in consultation with the Port user advisory committee. As you can see the board is heavily weighted to favour Port activity with really only one member ostensibly concerned with community issues. As such it is easy to see how community input is marginalized.

For years many people including professionals have expressed their views to CEO Robin Sylvester and the Port Authority with little response. A recent comment made by Mr. Sylvester stated that: “As a federal body here at Port Metro Vancouver, we have supremacy.”

There are a number of Infrastructure projects being planned by Port Metro Vancouver. Several of these will be applying for Federal Infrastructure funding, the biggest of which is a bridge across the Fraser River ostensibly planned by the British Columbia Government. The driver for this traffic and transit project appears to be Port Metro Vancouver. Mr. Sylvester has stated for years that he wants to see the existing tunnel moved in order to allow deeper hull vessels to travel up the South Fraser River.

This project is in almost every possible way in direct conflict with the REAL CHANGE directives the Liberal government espouses. It does nothing for public transit, and fails as a ‘green infrastructure’ or ‘social infrastructure’. As such it does nothing to achieve any of the “Smart Growth Communitiesto ensure that growth is fiscally, environmentally and socially responsible. Nor does it recognize the connections between development and quality of life. A number of the Metro Mayors are not supportive of this project probably because:

-          Only bus lanes are added, no transit infrastructure is considered or budgeted

-      More fuel will be consumed accessing this long tall bridge than any tunnel access

            -          A perfectly functional tunnel will be dismantled creating unnecessary waste
            -          $20 Million recently spent on Seismic upgrading for the tunnel will have been wasted
            -          More farmland will be taken over for the additional roadways and access points
            -          Overall roadway infrastructure for the Metro region will not be improved
            -          Urban sprawl will result from this 10 lane bridge putting more traffic on the roads
            -          This urban sprawl will take over some of the best farmland in Canada
            -          This farmland easily supplies a lot of local produce to the nearby Vancouver market

The consultation for this project was minimal and all options presented led to the bridge being the best option. Appropriate (non-political) planning would show that much better solutions are possible. Using the existing tunnel as a base, LESS traffic would be directed towards the existing corridors. All this could be achieved with a much lower budget. This would allow money for actual public transit to the region taking vehicles off the road rather than putting more vehicles on the road.

The plan for the bridge is in almost every possible way in direct conflict with the REAL CHANGE
initiative. It does very little for public transit and fails as 'green infrastructure' or 'social infrastructure'. Neither does the plan fulfill the Port's vision or mission statement: 

"Inspiring support ….from communities locally and across the nation,"

 

“To lead the growth of Canada's Pacific Gateway in a manner that enhances the well-being of Canadians and inspires national pride”.

 

Please insure that no Infrastructure funding be allocated to any projects on the Fraser until they meet the goals you have set forth both in Paris and with your REAL CHANGE initiative

 REAL CHANGE

 
      PROTECTING OUR FRESHWATER AND OCEANS

 RESTORING CREDIBILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

 “We will work with the provinces …..creating incentives for investments that lead to cleaner air, healthier communities, and better quality of life for all Canadians.

 

REAL CHANGE initiatives can protect the Fraser River. It can do this while offering economic opportunities that enhance quality of life through 'Smart Growth' principles.

 

Federal pre-budget feedback

In an effort to engage the Canadian public the honourable Bill Morneau, Minister of Finance, has invited feedback for the budget. The following letter was sent along with regards to the REAL CHANGE directive and how it can affect Delta and the Fraser Estuary as well as Metro Vancouver.

 

There are a number of projects planned for the Delta area that will negatively affect the local area and the environment of the Fraser River Delta. They are;

-Adding a second container terminal to the Roberts Bank

-Replacing the Massey Tunnel with a 10 lane bridge

-Bringing deeper hull ships up the Fraser River to the Fraser Surrey Docks

-Shipping larger quantities of (American) thermal coal from the Fraser Surrey Docks

-Adding facilities for the handling and shipping of LNG gas

 

It is clear that the Port Metro Vancouver impetus is from an economic development and jobs based perspective. We are constantly reminded that we need “more industrial land” and “greater container capacity” and that when these needs are fulfilled everyone will benefit.

 

A lot of the information that PMV has made available in these regards has been questioned.  Environmental concerns have been marginalized and container traffic growth has not been accurately presented. Any public consultation has left the local people feeling less than satisfied and unheard for ALL of the planned undertakings. This includes the planned bridge. The Provincial Government has not been forthright in the business case for removing the tunnel and building the bridge. The only apparent reason for removing a tunnel (that by all accounts will be functional for decades to come) is to allow deeper hull vessels up the Fraser River.

 

Two American ports have refused to handle thermal coal for environmental reasons. It is not clear why PMV has chosen to let this coal be shipped from the Fraser Surrey docks without any real environmental impact studies. The Fraser Surrey Docks do not have a stellar environmental record and PMV has done nothing to ensure that they improve.

 

At this moment a state of emergency has been declared in California from a methane gas leak. The leak has been spewing the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide from 7 million cars DAILY into the atmosphere since October. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/methane-leak-california-1.3385262  According to SoCalGas it will be 4 months before the storage facility can be capped to stop the leak. This is exactly the type of scenario depicted by research from the Pembina institute http://www.pembina.org/, which states that 30% of gas losses in the production chain will be at a terminal or handling facility. According to Pembina figures this could amount to 4 million tonnes of carbon pollution ANNUALLY for Delta.

 

It is for the following reasons that we hope that the Liberal government will review all of the Port Metro Vancouver undertakings from the REAL CHANGE perspective.

 

Terminal 2 expansion

-Is the second container terminal necessary

-why is it being considered when studies have chosen other port developments

-do the economic benefits outweigh the;

            -loss of farmland

            -the environmental consequences to the Fraser estuary

            -the increased strain on Vancouver roadway infrastructure

And, lastly; if this development is to go ahead why are we not making more stringent environmental requirements of PMV in the construction and operation of this facility. Why are we not asking PMV to live up to their vision:

 

"Inspiring support from our customers and from communities locally and across the nation,"

 

or their 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. 

 

In a recent article PMV claimed to be concerned about it’s investors. PMV is a Federal Crown Corporation, making the Canadian public its sole stakeholders. This corporation should be held to a higher standard. It is doubtful that they inspire “support” or “national pride” at any public level, especially in Delta.

 

Replacing the Massey Tunnel

 
            -why is this even being considered; this tunnel will remain viable for decades to come

            -the tunnel is much more effective at vehicle fuel use than the bridge

            -how does the additional dredging affect the Fraser River and why has this not been studied in depth before making this decision

            -why is the need for deeper hull ships the deciding factor behind a Metro traffic infrastructure decision

  Building the 10 lane bridge

-the bridge will NOT improve traffic infrastructure for Metro Vancouver. It only enhances traffic from South Surrey and Delta as far as Richmond

-the bridge will actually add to traffic difficulties into Vancouver at both the Oak Street and Knight Street corridors.

-it is a known planning fact that this bridge will add to urban sprawl. This will take away prime farmland from an area with Canada’s best climatic conditions

- importing more food products will make Canada more dependent on products it can now produce and for which a LOCAL market exists with limited transportation requirements

-the additional stress for residential development will put more (not less) strain on the Oak Street and Knight Street corridors into Vancouver

-massive amounts of additional carbon pollution will be created daily to climb the grade to the bridge and to navigate the ramps to and from Steveston and Ladner

 Thermal Coal and LNG

            -the Fraser Surrey docks have a less than stellar environmental record and have created an adversarial relationship with Metro Vancouver over regulations. PMV has done nothing to control this tenant, allowing them to go to court rather than regulate them. With this corporate attitude it is hard to believe that no government agency can/will step in and take control.

            -without an appropriate protection structure PMV appears content to show little concern over these locally expressed issues

            -is LNG the way of the future? If so why are we not making the necessary requirements for a safe and protective industry?

 

“If LNG development proceeds as the B.C. government hopes, we will face a climate challenge nearly as big as the Alberta oilsands, and all the risks and reputational issues that go with it.”  Alison Bailie of the Pembina Institute

How are the people of Delta protected? Only the Federal Government appears to be capable or interested if we can believe Canada’s stance at Paris and the Real Change incentive.  This will present new opportunities to develop new sustainable economic proposals and a chance to correct old ones.

 

It is hard to believe that the economy cannot be developed in a more sustainable way. As Prime Minister Trudeau has expressed, “It is 2015!” Please, let’s get serious about REAL CHANGE; put a halt to all of the PMV proposals on the Fraser River. Stop all funding to these projects and let’s do some serious planning for the future!             

LNG and the TFN

On December 16, the Tsawwassen First Nation (TFN) will be asked to vote on whether an LNG terminal will be placed on their lands. As this proposal is to be built on native land, the community of Delta will have no say in this matter.

This proposal appears to be driven by Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) to simplify the installation of a terminal for the storage and handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). It is not a surprise that they would choose to install the terminal in this location on Tsawwassen band lands. This could avoid conflict in the community and possibly expensive, time consuming consultations.

The drive to have a positive result from this vote has been supported by two letters from FortisBC to the Delta Optimist. These letters state that not only is LNG not harmful, but an expansion of LNG facilities in Delta will be good for the environment.

LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) is largely made up of methane gas. The gas is cooled to a liquid state and thus reduced to 1/600^th of its volume for transportation. It can only stay in its liquid state as long as it is contained and kept cool. When it escapes, as it will during handling, it will revert back to its original state and volume.

The effects of LNG on the environment have been researched and well documented. In fact, the BC government has hired consultants to see what can and needs to be done to mitigate the dangers.

“If LNG development proceeds as the B.C. government hopes, we will face a climate challenge nearly as big as the Alberta oilsands, and all the risks and reputational issues that go with it.”

This quote is from Alison Bailie, a senior advisor with the Pembina Institute in B.C.

The Pembina Institute suggests that as much as 30% of carbon pollution from the LNG supply chain will occur at the Terminal. Under “normal operating conditions” this could mean as much as 4 million tonnes of carbon pollution annually in South Delta at the Fraser estuary.

Sadly, before an article in the Optimist this week, none of this was being discussed, and the vote is just four days away. All that we have is the assurance of Chief Bryce Williams that “best practices” will be followed. How that will be controlled or monitored by the TFN is not clear. How well it has been researched or discussed by the band in preparation for this vote is not clear.

What is clear is that the incentives for the TFN are financial. Undoubtedly, the pressure to perform has been there since the treaty negotiations and agreements of 2004. Agreements in which Port Metro Vancouver is a major participant.

Once again native people are being asked to trade their values of stewardship for the land in exchange for needed economic progress: pitting the value of economic gain from trade of their land against the consequential damage to their land, their surroundings and the environment. In his book, The Inconvenient Indian, native author Thomas King says; “It is beginning to look like colonization, part two”. Hopefully, the band will speak out against this ill-advised use of their land by voting against it.

 

Oh behave!

Below my response is a letter to the editor of the Delta Optimist. It is written by PR Vice President, Doug Stout of FortisBC. The heading and article completely avoid discussion of air pollution due to LNG. Perhaps their argument is that when it's in the pipes it is in liquid form and not a gas. Obviously the discussion needed is about what happens to the LNG when it escapes and changes from the Liquid state to the gas state and expands.

Oh Behave!

There is a small ad in the Optimist with a heading; Oh Behave! I would like to suggest that be the comment for the various executives of FortisBC.

Last week Mr. Michael Mulcahy, the President and CEO of FortisBC wrote to tell us that the Tilbury LNG expansion was “good for the environment”. The most recent comments come from Doug Stout, the Vice President for External Relations (ie PR). In Fridays’ Optimist his letter to the editor is titled “LNG can’t contaminate water or soil”. In his article Mr. Stout actually tells us that LNG is non-toxic.

I expect Mr. Stout wants to convince us that this (predominantly methane) gas, either in the gaseous or liquid state is not harmful. This seems strange even coming from a person we assume has been trained in Public Relations. Methane gas-not harmful??

In a study conducted for the government of BC by the Pembina Institute it is made abundantly clear that all along the LNG production chain there is carbon pollution. “Assuming standard practices, one typical LNG Terminal and the associated shale gas development would result in 12 million tonnes (MT) of carbon pollution annually”. 30 per cent of this pollution would specifically take place at the terminal (ieTsawwassen). 4 million tonnes of carbon pollution right here in Tsawwassen. If you want to discuss the ENVIRONMENTAL effects of LNG gas this is what you will need to address.

Mr. Stout must be in the minority in his belief that because LNG is non-toxic it is not harmful or a pollutant. His ingenious comment is that “LNG….would disperse into the air not harming marine life”. Leaving out the little bit of information about what it will do to the air. Interesting. LNG is a gas and yet only potential harm to the soil or water is covered with this article. No mention at all about the possible effects to our air quality from this gas substance.

Please, FortisBC, show a little more respect for the intellect of the Optimist reader. Spin is just spin. If you really want to convince us how you will make this proposal safe or good for the environment you will need to do much better than these whimsical comments.

LNG can't contaminate water or soil

Editor: Re: LNG plant comes with too much risk, letter to the editor, Nov. 27 I would like to address Bill Sharkey's question about how the processing and transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are different from crude oil. The most important thing for people to know is LNG is non-corrosive, non-toxic, non-flammable and non-explosive. It cannot contaminate water or soil. In the past 50 years, LNG carriers have travelled 135,000 voyages and 240 million kilometres worldwide, and there has never been a major release of LNG from a carrier due to a collision, explosion, fire or hull failure. If LNG ever did contact water, it would float on the surface, and as it quickly warmed up, it would disperse into the air without harming marine life. Like our Tilbury LNG facility, which has safely operated since 1971, a facility on Tsawwassen First Nation lands would be built in a designated industrial area. The facility and any associated natural gas pipelines would be built to withstand natural hazards, including earthquakes and flooding. FortisBC's facilities and transmission system have excellent safety records because emergency preparedness is woven into our culture. It will be up to Tsawwassen First Nation members to determine if LNG is something they would like to see on their lands. We look forward to their decision. Doug Stout Vice President, Market Development and External Relations FortisBC - See more at: http://www.delta-optimist.com/opinion/letters/lng-can-t-contaminate-water-or-soil-.

Musings on the massacre of the Massey Tunnel

The Massey Mayhem; let’s build a bridge!

Having planned to build a new ten lane bridge over the Fraser River, the BC Government has yet to provide a business case for the proposal. In the meantime, a $3 Billion price tag has been proposed for the bridge and removal of the existing Massey tunnel. Now, with the possibility of LNG ships passing under the bridge, Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) has stated that they need an additional 8M (24 feet) of height for the bridge. This will not only increase the cost of the bridge, it will add to the difficulty of locating off-ramps for Steveston and Ladner.

Why build a bridge?

The primary reason to replace the tunnel is to allow PMV to bring deeper hull ships through to the Surrey Fraser docks. The tunnel has had $20 Million in seismic upgrades in the past ten years and is known to be serviceable for a long time. Why is it that we are even considering replacing the tunnel? It can be an effective part of the solution to the “congestion” experienced in the Lower Mainland. As long as the tunnel is there it will restrict access to both the Oak Street and Knight Street corridors.

Wait, what, why not a bridge?

That may sound like a self defeating notion and is quite likely why a large part of the population is in support of the bridge. It will be more effective at getting cars across the Fraser. However, those same  travelers coming from South Surrey and White Rock are then being restricted when crossing into the Vancouver core. The proposed bridge does nothing to solve the traffic nightmare at the Oak Street and Knight Street corridors. Both of these bridges into Vancouver can be as congested as the approach to the tunnel. Once the government commits to building the Massey bridge there will not likely be any funds, desire -or ability- to deal with this “congestion.”

What’s all at stake?

What we haven’t been told is that replacing the tunnel is only a fraction of the cost; there is still more at stake. The Metro Vancouver Water District apparently has a 32” water main near the tunnel that serves Delta. This water main would also have to be removed in order to achieve the desired depth.  No cost accounting has been done for moving the water main. It is not clear at this time if Hydro also has any utilities that need to be moved.

The additional one time dredging costs to lower the river bottom to the 13.5 M (44 feet) depth proposed by the Provincial Government is estimated to be $175 Million. The new ongoing annual cost for the deeper proposed dredging depth has not been determined or accounted for. Presently Port Metro Vancouver pays $15 Million to dredge the river annually to a depth of 11.5M. Only $10 Million of that cost is recovered by the sale of sand and the remaining sand has to be disposed of at cost.

There is more to the dredging than a financial cost. A report called “Sediment management in (the) Lower Fraser River (March 20, 2010, Michael Church) states that to avoid “serious adverse affects to fish population… a long term management program should be initiated before additional sediment is removed by gravel or sand dredging”.  No such plan has been undertaken or, at least, made public.

So what’s all the fuss?

The Fraser River estuary has been designated a RAMSAR site by the UN. The estuary is considered an area of international ecological importance for migratory birds and fish species. The removal of the tunnel and increasing shipping traffic along the Fraser River is just one of the proposals that PMV has on the table. An additional 3 birth container terminal is being planned at the mouth of the Fraser and LNG shipping is being planned.  As well, soft (thermal) coal is now being shipped from the States through the Surrey Fraser Docks and Texada Island. Only ad-hoc environmental planning has been done for these projects and no full-scale overview has been required by any of our environmental agencies.

So what else is involved?

The latest word on LNG is that it will be handled in and shipped from 80 acres of the Tsawwassen lands. Nicely done PMV! Now you can honestly say it is beyond your jurisdiction and wash your hands of the whole affair. No pesky environmental undertakings needed. The leadership of the Tsawwassen First Nation says it’s committed to ensuring best practices are used in all aspects of this proposal. How this will be achieved was not made clear. Chief Bryce Williams, the youthful leader said that “they would work with their partners to ensure best practices”`. The proposal will be voted on by the members of the band in mid December. No other public input will be required. This has to be a coup for Robin Silvester and PMV. What a way to circumnavigate all those environmental concerns!

Promises, promisezzzzz!

When Premier Christie Clark announced the bridge proposal she stated that “a new bridge will open the corridor to future rapid transit options”. The operative word here being “future”. The failed Translink plebiscite showed no improvements or transit offerings to the South Delta area. One can only assume that with the proposed bridge costs it will be a long way into the future before funds are available for those “rapid transit options”.  

Rapid transit is generally driven by population growth.  It is clear from the Provincial Government initiative to weaken the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) how this will affect Delta.  A weakened ALR puts South Delta farmlands at risk. In most parts of the world Agricultural land is at a premium.  Obviously the present Provincial Government does not see it this way. As well, the CEO of Port Metro Vancouver, Robin Silvester, responded to these concerns by stating that we could “import our food”.

Why would any business person consider it prudent to rely on imports for our food needs? The South Delta farmlands have some of the best climatic conditions in Canada. The food grown here serves a large local population and shipping to this market is environmentally effective. We have a finite agricultural land base. We would be weakening our ability to be self reliant by reducing any of our agricultural lands, especially those in South Delta. If recent increases in food prices can be attributed to problems with agriculture in California we need to protect our agricultural interests. Anything less does not serve our self interest. No matter how much PMV wants to create a “Gateway to the Pacific”.

The fly in the ointment.

Lastly, why are the needs of Port Metro Vancouver driving the transportation planning process for the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD)? How is it that this Federal Crown Corporation has the power to influence Regional decisions of this magnitude without being made accountable?

As a Federal Crown Corporation, the residents of Canada are PMV`s largest group of stakeholders. We need to ensure that PMV stays true to their vision; "inspiring support from our customers and from communities locally and across the nation," as well as their 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. 

If the community of Delta were polled about Port Metro's various undertakings on the Fraser, the response would be very interesting. I very much doubt that "inspiring support and... national pride" or "enhancing the well-being of Canadians" would ring true for anyone in Delta.

Why are BC residents being asked to pay the price?

“As a port authority under the Canada Marine Act, Port Metro Vancouver is mandated to facilitate Canada's trade, while ensuring environmental protection and safety”. Under the direction of CEO Robin Silvester they seem to be concentrating on the trade aspects and not the environmental protection or safety. Sadly ‘facilitating Canada’s trade’ leads to BC residents paying for and living with second rate transportation solutions. Surely our Premier Christy Clark and her government can demand more than that from the Federal Government. As premier of this province her position should be to represent BC in Ottawa; not to present Ottawa’s position to BC.

Recent concerns about the business plan for the new bridge over the Fraser River

Vancouver infrastructure; Federal Funding and a Provincial dilemma

The bridge across the mighty Fraser

Promises of Federal infrastructure funding and recent transparency issues with our Provincial government have brought the planned bridge across the Fraser River back into focus. Questions dating back to 2014 about the public input process have been renewed. These points have been accentuated by recent revelations about the lack of any background to the decision. Apparently the business plan is still being put together after missing two deadlines. And yet, the decision to move forward has long since been made. Freedom of information requests regarding the decision making process have shown little success. Les Leyne of the Victoria Times Columnist reported in an article of June 4, 2014 that a 14 page FOI response on the business plan was largely redacted.

Some serious concerns and questions have been raised.

One of the main questions that concern a lot of people is: Why is the tunnel being forsaken?

It is clear from recent work on the Maas tunnel in Rotterdam that the almost identical Massey tunnel will continue to be very functional for years to come. The Maas tunnel is 20 years older than the Massey tunnel, and has recently been upgraded making it viable for an indefinite time. $20 Million has been spent on seismic upgrading to the body of the Massey tunnel. Another $17 Million was identified to deal with the access points and the ventilation equipment. These costs are paltry compared to the proposed $3 Billion costs of the bridge. It seems that dismantling the tunnel will be an unnecessary expense when it could be a part of the solution, to the traffic issues, and not the problem.

Is a bridge the answer?

 Another crossing of the Fraser for highway 99 is definitely in order. However, placing a bridge at the location of the tunnel will mean two things. First, this major traffic artery will be compromised for a period of 3-5 years during construction. The current bumper to bumper rush hour from White Rock will become an increased burden for everyone in Delta/South Surrey, not to mention Commercial and Tourism traffic from the border. The second issue is this: Present traffic from the tunnel to the Oak street corridor is already a problem as it approaches the Oak Street Bridge.

How will the bridge affect the Oak Street corridor?

The Province has given us some stated statistics for Richmond drop-offs after coming through the tunnel.  The government claims that the larger percentage of traffic from the tunnel stops in Richmond. However, you just need to experience the Oak Street bottle neck to understand a ten lane bridge leading to this corridor will not make the problem go away. The bridge will not improve the traffic numbers in the Oak street corridor; it will only increase this traffic. The increase in urban sprawl it will bring to the South Delta area will continue to draw from the Vancouver work force intensifying the need for transportation infrastructure.

 How did the public consultation assist the decision for the proposed bridge?

The announcement to build a bridge was made in September 2012 with planning for the bridge to start immediately. The planned bridge is supposed to be a direct result of public consultations held from November 2012 through 2013. A process the government called “exploring the options”. Sadly the options presented for the consultations all led to support the construction of a bridge.

Proposed Alternatives to the tunnel:

The alternatives were; to retain the tunnel, (without any additional crossings built) a bridge built replacing the tunnel  connecting to the existing Highway 99 in Richmond, adding a bridge alongside the tunnel ( again, directing traffic back to highway 99 in Richmond) and replacing the tunnel with a new tunnel. Finally, the last option was to build a new bridge with a new corridor and maintaining the tunnel. All the alternatives were not well enough developed to qualify as viable options. The final option was supposedly not acceptable due to the perceived loss of agricultural land and the onset of urban sprawl. By improving the access to and from Delta with any of the options, urban sprawl will follow.

If not a bridge to replace the tunnel, what is the answer?

This is a great question. A question that brings to light more questions. What is the ultimate goal? Is it to improve traffic across the Fraser? Is it to have more land for residential development? Is it to have deeper hull ships reach the Fraser Surrey docks? Is it to develop the Fraser harbors and Industrial land and better utilize the South Fraser Perimeter Road? Is this a political decision or a planning decision?

What is driving the new crossing?

Vancouver is a growing residential and commercial center. Because of its location and climate this will continue, driving a need for residential and industrial land. The main driver behind replacing the tunnel is Port Metro Vancouver (PMV). PMV wants the tunnel removed in order to facilitate deeper hulled vessels moving through to the Fraser Surrey docks. Is this a realistic driver for removal of the tunnel? This was primarily a planning exercise in transit infrastructure to “ease congestion”. The original public feedback listed “jobs and the economy” in fourth place after efficient transport, safety and the environment. Somehow in the final report “jobs and the economy” moved ahead of “easing congestion”. How did that happen?

What should be driving this decision?

One of the concerns of this planning process is that the all information is based on existing traffic patterns. It is a given that, as with the construction of the tunnel, the bridge will change traffic patterns as well as the Delta population base. The proposed bridge does nothing to alleviate existing congestion at the Oak Street and Fraser corridors. These issues should be central to the discussion if the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) is to be served by this plan. It would make better planning sense to look at future needs of the GVRD. Especially when the Province is planning to spend an (estimated) $3 Billion on this project. How can this one bridge possibly serve future needs when it does not address the existing problems? The planning for this crossing should be based strictly on present and future transit needs. The need for Industrial land, residential land or the needs of PMV should be considered, but should be  side bars of/to the decision making process.

What would be a logical solution?

One option that did not have close scrutiny is the fifth option. A bridge, but near #8 Road. If this bridge has a connecting road and bridge to Burnaby it would take traffic away from the existing Oak Street and Fraser corridors. This option would upgrade the tunnel and allow re-routing traffic from the existing overloaded corridors and keep unnecessary traffic out of Richmond and the Vancouver center. The main opposition to this was the agricultural community in Richmond. This is understandable. However, eventually this road will become a necessity. Especially given the likely growth of Delta if the ten lane bridge is built. It would be logical –and just good planning- to build this bridge instead of the ten lane bridge planned at the tunnel. It would save the tunnel, save agricultural land in the long run and allow for a more holistic plan to serve all of the GVRD. Understanding the possibilities means that there must be more plans out there that would make infinitely more sense than the proposed bridge.

Federal involvement?

The newly elected Federal government has put a high priority on infrastructure and listed Vancouver as one of the possible recipients of funding. This opportunity to effect change should not be wasted.  The possibility of actually planning and building a transportation network that will improve traffic for the GVRD is long overdue, and the proposed bridge is nothing but an expensive stop-gap measure.  The North/South movement of traffic needs to be improved from the border, but a plan to integrate this with East/West traffic should be integral to the outcome. The present proposal is linear and really only addresses the issue of crossing the Fraser and with no real outlook to future needs.

Speak up!

This is the time to let your new MP’s know that you want accountability. If the Federal Government wants to put our tax money into infrastructure let’s make sure that the effort and money is not wasted. This is a great city. With the Provincial Government working with the Municipalities and the Federal Government it can even be better. Talk to your MLA and your MP. Let them know that you expect more!