A lot of little lies our Liberal leader leaves us with: A bridge to nowhere.

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.

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=pacific%20gateway%20strategy%20action%20plan

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.

https://www.th.gov.bc.ca/PacificGateway/documents/PGS_Action_Plan_043006.pdf

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.

 

Recently the Federal Government has been asked by the Metro Vancouver Board to insist on an environmental assessment of the bridge. Such an assessment would require the assessment of all undertakings on the Fraser, something the ‘Port of Vancouver’ has refused to do. This would include; Roberts Bank Terminal 2 expansion, the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project, the WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal for the exporting of LNG, the direct transfer coal facility at the Fraser Surrey docks, as well as the removal of the tunnel, the subsequent deeper dredging of the Fraser and the construction of the bridge.

 

It is obvious that these projects really will industrialize the Fraser River. With the exception of the LNG terminal all of these are direct proposals of the ‘Port of Vancouver’. They are also parts of the “Pacific Gateway Plan”. This plan is all about the development of serving trade with Asia.

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.

 

It is time for an elected board that represents the communities the Port most affects rather than the corporations that it serves.

 

Sadly the Municipality of Delta has been swept up by senior levels of government and is in agreement. At a cost of $16,000 Mayor Jackson and CAO George Harvey traveled to Norway in 2013. The Delta delegation was invited by Robin Silvester to visit port facilities and meet industry representatives. Undoubtedly they were persuaded that the vision of Port of Vancouver would serve Delta.

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.”

See: http://edrgroup.com/library/multi-modal/economic-impact-analysis-of-investment-in-a-major-commercial-transportation-system-for-the-greater-vancouver-region.html

 

See also: http://www.againstportexpansion.org/

and: http://www.teresamurphy.ca/could-the-massey-bridge-be-metro-vancouvers-keystone/

 

 

 

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.