First NameLast NameCityProvince/StateComment, Concern or QuestionEntry Date
SeanMoriartyVancouverBritish Columbia

I would prefer that a full review of the options are looked into, including revising the existing Massey Tunnel.

2016-01-22 10:41:53
Denise AbeggRichmond British Columbia

I have so many concerns about the bridge being build. The largest ones are as follows.

1 - Spending billions on infrastructure that benefits the ongoing use of fossil fuels. Whether it's moving coal or LNG fuel along the river thanks to a tall bridge and no tunnel or just the fact it's encouraging more commuting by car. Shouldn't we be investing in more sustainable ways of moving the population? Transit, for a example.

2 - placing the lions share of financial responsibility for this project on the individual consumer is just assine. There is a giant port, earning billions. We are clearly looking at building this bridge to benefit them, as a tunnel retrofit would make more sense for the traffic structure and car situation.

3 - The environmental impact. Never mind pandering to the movement and usage of fossil fuels this project puts the river and Deas island and burns bog at serious risk, to name just a few areas. This is an environmentally sensitive area, a public park that should be preserved. Also , in an age where we should be looking at persevering our agricultural land and growing as much of our own food as possible, here we go looking again at taking away prime agricultural land and making importing food easier. This is beyond counterintuitive, this is dangerous. Our children's children will not be thanking us for this in the future.

Thank you for your time.

2016-01-23 10:23:02
KathrynCumingBeaverdellBritish Columbia

The government recently spent millions of tax dollars on Seismic Upgrading of the Massey Tunnel 10 years ago, just twin the tunnel put two or three more lanes on either side to expand it. STOP wasting our tax dollars on bridges we don't want or need! Expanding the tunnel will be so much more cost efficient.

2016-01-23 17:36:55
RichardKlemmDeltaBritish Columbia

First and foremost, I don't believe that this liberal gov't is doing this for the benefit of the province. Christy Clark cannot be trusted. I think we should up-grade the existing tunnel. Why spend the extra money.
Perhaps these "leaders" are unable or unwilling to see, that society is wanting to move away from dependency on fossil fuels. We should start developing technology for a greener future.
I wonder what kind of secret kick backs that woman is getting. Don't trust her. She in not looking out for the best interest of the BC.
I really hope this works.

2016-01-23 21:40:57
DerekWilliamsRichmondBritish Columbia

I do not know of a city in the world that has built its way out of traffic congestion by building more roads.
Global warming is a real issue and HAS to be dealt with, and because we have let it slide for so long DRASTIC measures have to be taken.
Building a new 10 lane bridge will only allow more cars on the road. Congestion is only at certain times of the day.
TRANSIT is the answer to removing cars. A fully developed transit system that connects to out lying areas is where the money needs to be spent NOT on cars.
The ALRT lands need to be saved or even increased at all costs. We do not need coal or LNG, we do not need supper tankers using our river.
Alternate energy should be our main goal.
We have given in to BIG oil and BIG energy for to long and made them rich at our expense. Our waterways, our ocean's and air and land are being polluted beyond comprehension , this must stop....now
Take away funding for the new bridge and come up with a plan that will address the above issues.
Finally I am an avid cyclist and would dearly love a bike route across the Fraser with connected separated routes across our region, as would thousands of others but we do not need a 10lane bridge to accomplish this.
Re-think and provide Transit, Walking and Cycling,access for commuters, separate times and preference for trucks.
At off peak hours.

2016-01-24 10:55:59
DeniseBriardRichmondBritish Columbia

I have a great deal of concern about the construction of this bridge. My first concern is about how the traffic bottleneck will just be moved along to the Oak Street bridge. Secondly, there will be a loss of productive farm land in Richmond that affects food security, and underscores this government's lack of concern regarding food production (see arguments against Site C). Next, I resent having to pay for a bridge that will significantly disrupt the lives of many Richmondites and be funded by our taxes, while benefitting Port Metro Vancouver far beyond any benefit I receive. Why don't they have any skin in this game? Lastly, I am gravely concerned about the impact construction will have on the river itself. Salmon stocks are struggling with climate change as it is and the Fraser feeds so many runs of salmon throughout the province. Do we really want to put such an iconic fish at risk?

2016-01-24 17:18:40
RonMcKelvieLadnerBritish Columbia

Why charge a toll to the ordinary people when you can charge the corporations that have the most to gain (MONEY) like the docks OWNED by a foreign country and the YVR airport for their new fuel pipe line they are going to put in.

2016-01-24 20:08:20
Michael PowellRichmondBritish Columbia

I am opposed to the building of a bridge to replace the Massey tunnel. I believe that it will be detrimental to traffic and the environment. The financial cost is also too high. Also, what would happen to the extra traffic at Oak or Knight Streets? Build a better tunnel with better public transit. Reduce traffic rather than encourage it. Protect the Fraser. Remember why we built a tunnel in the first place. Think long term stewardship, not short term economic interests.

2016-01-24 21:59:33
SteveBridgerRichmondBritish Columbia

Absolutely opposed to this. Bad idea. Terrible use of money. Harmful to agricultural land, Metro's transportation system and the Fraser.

Real purpose of the project is surely to prepare the riverbed for tanker traffic. Choosing one, and one only, solution to the north-south traffic bottleneck, was a disingenuous ploy to cover the real motives here. That the traffic then gets dumped into a worse bottleneck in Richmond/Oak St. doesn't seem to matter a whit to the government. What's wrong with that picture?

Why was this massive project not put to a referendum the way the transit question was? The premier's choice to force a voteclearly doomed the transit proposal.

The premier's choice to keep the decision-making for this bridge project secret, simply imposing it on metro Vancouverites as the "only" solution, underlines the bad faith and duplicity driving decision-making by this government.

The whole scenario is more arrogant and duplicitous than the HST scandal ever was. Makes Gordon Campbell look like Mahatma Gandhi by comparison.

2016-01-24 22:00:35
AaronSigurgeirsonSidney BBritish Columbia

I grew up in Richmond, was born in Steveston. I am very concerned about two issues in particular.
1.) A bridge of this size is not required if rapid transit is considered as a part of the build. If no rapid transit, light rail would be preferable, is included then the gridlock is just moved down the road to the Oak Street Bridge. No real advantage and a huge amount of money to move the gridlock a couple of miles.
2.) A bridge of this size is only required to allow deep sea vessels access to the river above the existing tunnel. A smaller bridge would suffice but would not allow the LNG and coal bulkers access to the industrial areas planned upriver. I am a professional mariner and hold a Watch Keeping Officers certificate of competency. In my opinion allowing more deep sea ships to go up river is a very unsound and imprudent idea. Just look at incidents on the Mississippi river in recent years to see what could happen on the Fraser, an important salmon river.

2016-01-24 23:57:51
JaniceRichmondSurreyBritish Columbia

-an improved transportation system is needed, not just a new bridge. Where is a better public transit for example.

-what alternatives have been explored? Why have the public not been given an opportunity to comment on the alternatives, especially since we have to pay for them.

-since deep sea vessels will have access to upstream ports, currently not available, they should have to pay for to do so.

-the Fraser River will have increased deep sea traffic carrying more possibly environmentally deliterious commodities if the bridge is built ( including more industrial development). What is the impact of that and what if any mitigation is in place or would be in place?

-a new bridge will place a greater pressure for conversion of farmland into industrial and urban uses.

-truckers will have easier access to the existing and future ports, which will have no benefits to commuters.If tolls have to be charged, then it should be based on vehicular weight and length.

-the new bridge will dump increased traffic onto Vancouver streets. What provision has been made for this? Are you not just creating another bottleneck? What are the impacts on Delta, Richmond and Surrey and what improvements will be needed? Who will pay for that?

-how much farmland will be needed for the approaches to the bridge? Bc is losing good farmland at an astonishing rate. What other impacts will be felt, eg drainage. These Impacts must be taken into consideration.

-what short and long term environmental impacts to land water and air? How will these be mitigated and who will pay?

-where is the overall vision for the Lower Fraser Valley (more than Metro Vancouver plan) with commitment for its implementation?

2016-01-25 06:41:22
DavidDorringtonRichmondBritish Columbia

The bridge is being built so that MetroPort can make money from moving fossil fuels on the Fraser River. Jet fuel, LNG, coal etc etc. Metroport has no interest in the future of this planet. It has no interest in reducing our carbon footprint. The irony is that in promoting the increased movement and use of fossil fuels MetroPort is ensuring its own demise as rising sea levels will render most of its infrastructure useless. The people that run MetroPort are either stupid or greedy but they are certainly looking backwards into the future.

2016-01-25 09:56:33
KAthWuthrichWhite RockBritish Columbia

Upgrade the tunnel and improve public transit. To eliminate the tunnel and build a new bridge is to facilitate the transport and encourage more local use of fossil fuels; it goes against all logic. We need to turn a corner here and start thinking outside of our currently outmoded, lazy and greedy models.

2016-01-25 13:56:43
nadeanetrowserichmondBritish Columbia

I endorse any plan to retrofit Massey Tunnel as needed for safety and I oppose the new bridge plan.
This is because a new bridge will not relieve traffic congestion but just displace it.
Further, the measures to be taken on the bed of the Fraser River (deepening channels, etc, to allow passage for huge, deep draft vessels that cannot now travel through) is an ecological, hydrological, and ultimately public safety concern.
As well, the possibility that the new bridge will create a kind of real estate bubble in the areas of the bridge approaches is a concern for me because those areas are farm lands and BC needs every scrap of arable, farm-able land to be treasured and farmed conscientiously... especially now as we contemplate the results of California's big drought and the loss of food production related to it.
Besides these important concerns, there is the way this bridge project allows for upstream industrialization along the Fraser... the major salmon river in the province, where many of the salmon that feed killer whales and humans, of course too, come from.

2016-01-25 16:55:25
LisaMaloneLadner British Columbia

Leave the tunnel for South Delta residents (Ladner/ tsawwassen).
Build a new crossing at the north end of deas island park , crossing over triangle road for South Surrey/white rock residents. Charge $1 each way for all crossings in the lower mainland.

2016-01-25 17:22:33
JaredHoweSeattleWashington

Does the tunnel really need to be replaced? What are the other options?
Who should pay for this new bridge? Industrial users of the Fraser River? The Port Authority? BC taxpayers?
What impact will a new bridge have on traffic and urban development?
What impact will a new bridge have on fossil fuel exports on the Fraser River?

2016-01-26 08:01:34
DukeMETCHOSIN VictoriaBritish Columbia

The port authority is contaminated,,from within. The Proposed bridge is unwarranted. The Port authority will be dismantled before the proposed bridge is built,,leaving the tax payers on the Hook for unwarranted debt .Additionally ,unbeknownst to many in Government etc,there is a major subduction fault rapture 6 kilometres below ,,that poses a major impediment to any infrastructure project. This fault rupture is right below the existing tunnel. This proposed project will need more than luck . Blessings !

2016-01-26 08:27:24
MarionJolicoeurRoberts CreekBritish Columbia

It's going backwards to pave over any more farm land
A bridge will likely just move the congestion to a different area.
Any money that can be saved by finding a less expensive option than this proposed bridge should be spent on public transit.
Re-establishment of rail links in the lower mainland should be investigated as an option for reducing traffic congestion..

2016-01-26 08:35:29
HermanBakkerVictoriaBritish Columbia

A toll will not work, there are too may alternatives for motorists

2016-01-26 10:49:15
DouglasMasseyDeltaBritish Columbia

000The Vision to Build the George Massey Tunnel & the Road to its Removal: By: Douglas George Massey Jan 1. 2016. Page 1
The intention of this document is to show the intent from day one that any crossing of the Lower Fraser River, from the Gulf of Georgia to New Westminster, shall not and will not be granted approval unless it meets the approval of the present and future needs of Harbour Boards and industry, never mind the needs of the people, their environment, or the sustainability of the Lower Fraser River for fish and wildfowl.
The first person to meet that challenge was (Nehemiah) George Massey, who was born in Ireland in 1903 and had travelled the world on sailing ships before landing in Canada in 1923. Worked his way across Canada to Regina, Sask., where he established a business called Massey’s Garage, married Doris Holtham and had two children, Doreen (Kushnir) and me Douglas George Massey. In 1936 he sold his business packed up the family and moved to Ladner. On the trip across the Ladner Ferry from Richmond he was known to say “what a wonderful place for a tunnel crossing”. That same year he bought the original Ladner ferry landing property, at the foot of Delta St. on Chisholm St., and started his own business called Massey’s Machine Shop and expanded from there.
(Nehemiah) George Massey continued to advocate for the replacement of the Ladner Ferry and one day John Guichon a local Councillor gave him a magazine from the Netherlands that described the Mass River Tunnel that had been built in the Netherlands, in1942, on similar topography of the Lower Fraser River. From there he proceeded to sell the idea of a tunnel to neighbouring municipalities and the Provincial government, until it was built and opened for traffic in 1959.
Page 2
From the time the George Massey Tunnel was proposed by George Massey the government appointed New Westminster Harbour Board of 1913 (Renamed the Fraser River Harbour Commission in 1965) and their leaseholders with shipping facilities have opposed the idea of a tunnel, as they felt it would obstruct shipping and prevent them from expanding to handle larger an deeper ships. None of this happened, as the tunnel was built below the existing depth of the Fraser River and did not impede shipping or docking at facilities upriver from the tunnel.
Before and after the tunnel was built and In order for the Lower Fraser River to remain navigable for ships, dredging had to be maintained at 12.5m depth at low water with a 2 hour window in order for loaded ships to clear the river bed of the Fraser River at high tide: This, has led to dredging costs for 2014, of $15 million annually, of which only $10 million is recovered from the sale of sand. The remaining costs were charged as a dockage fee, to those with docking facilities on the Lower Fraser River by Port Metro Vancouver, who had taken over all local Harbour Commissions on the Lower Fraser River in 2008.
Port Metro Vancouver, Vice President Duncan Wilson, was quoted in a letter to the editor of Richmond Review on July of 2015, “The depth of the river is also a limitation. While the removal of the tunnel may create greater depth at that point in the river, the amount of dredging required on either side of the former tunnel would be extensive and potentially cost prohibitive.” End quote.

Page 3
The facts are: That In order for the proposed 14.5m depth to be achieved and maintained, the George Massey Tunnel would have to be removed along with GVWD 30” water main (costs yet to be determined) along with a one- time dredging cost of $200 million, and an estimated annual dredging costs of $30 million. There would be other costs, before any dredging to deepen the Lower Fraser River could take place:(1) The cost of a full hydrological study that would have to be undertaken, to determine what effects this would have on the sustainability of its ecosystem to support fish and wildlife. (2) The affects it would have on the existing dikes and the costs to rebuild them if necessary. (3) Determining if the deepening would result in the salinity advancing too far up river and affecting the ability of the farmers to use the water for irrigation.
Starting In March of 2005 an Action Plan to have the Lower Fraser dredged deeper, called the B.C. Ports Strategy, followed by Pacific Gateway Strategy Action Plan of April 2006 was initiated. This included, both senior level of government’s Department of Transport, Municipalities, all the Port Authorities, Terminals, Railways, Trucking, that were involved in the movement of bulk goods. Under this plan they discussed the proposed Terminal 2 and the Fraser Surrey Docks. The Pacific Gateway Strategy Action Plan stated that unless “additional investments for capital dredging to increase the depth of the river to allow more of the larger ships to be accommodated” the feasibility of any expansions of terminals above the tunnel would be in jeopardy.
.

Page 4
They went on to say “Absolute constraints to increasing this channel depth exist because of the Massey Tunnel”. The strategy to increase the depth of the Lower Fraser River would not be possible until a new crossing was built to replace the George Massey Tunnel.
Further on Feb.2, 2012, the B.C. Governments Department of Transportation met with Port Metro Vancouver, Surrey Fraser Docks, and Bridge Engineers, and Tran:Ex (A leading logistics company in the delivering of goods), to plan a strategy for the removal of the George Massey Tunnel and through Freedom of Information I was able to obtain copies of memos and e-mails to prove it.
On Nov. 19, 2012 they discussed the need to consider future new terminals. For example, liquid bulk tankers with large air draft requirements (e.g. LNG) and the expansion of the Auto Terminal, the VAFFC, Leigh and Richmond Properties, should also be considered.
Port Metro Vancouver was asked their opinion regarding what depth and heights they would require for larger ships to navigate to the industry and the docks above the tunnel, if a new crossing were to be built to replace the George Massey Tunnel.
In a memo on Dec. 4, 2012, they said “ the depth should be 15.5m over 50 years and 18.5 over a 100 year old period”, well beyond the initial proposal of 14.5 metres. In order to meet Port Metro’s standards, it would require the removal of the George Massey Tunnel, the lowering of Greater Vancouver Water District 30” water main (costs yet to be determined) and one time dredging cost of $200 million and an annual dredging cost yet to be determined.
Page 5
As far as a suggested bridge air draft (the clearance for a ship between the water line and the bridge deck), Port Metro requested it be at least 65 metres (213 feet) high rather than the proposed 57 metres (187 feet)proposed so as to allow for the biggest LNG tankers that could turn in the river.
This increased height to 65 (213 feet) requested by Port Metro Vancouver, would have no doubt, increase the $3.5 billion dollar cost of the bridge and affect its stability, requiring, adjustments to the design, as it only built on sand, and subject to seismic movement and liquefaction, and to reach bedrock, for more stability, they would have to go down some 600 metres (1969 feet) No mention as to who would pay for the extra costs. That is why a tunnel was chosen instead of a bridge in the first place. Was there ever a request for a bid on building another tunnel instead of bridge? If so, by whom and when?
A question needs to asked as to why would you encourage the establishment of an LNG storage terminal and shipping lane just upriver from the proposed new bridge crossing, when the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) recommend avoiding construction of terminals on narrow inshore routes, near population centres and to stay clear of other marine traffic and to avoid the possibility of an explosion from an accident or a terrorist act at the LNG terminal or carriers during transportation under the bridge. (One LNG ship if exploded is equivalent to a small atomic bomb).

Page 6
On March 21, 2013 a letter was written to the Executive Project Director of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project., by the Pacific Corridor Enterprise Council (the voice of cross-border business’s in the Pacific Corridors since 1989, and another letter by Port Metro Vancouver on April 26, 2013 and on March 28, 2013 and April 26, 2013 all supporting the removal of the George Massey Tunnel and the deepening of the Fraser River.
Why are we still talking about the removal of the George Massey Tunnel and the dredging of the river when the costs to do so are extensive and prohibitive?
The only way the costs of deepening the Fraser River would not be a charge against present or future leaseholders with docking facilities on the Lower Fraser River, would be if Port metro Vancouver and their leaseholders were to lobby the Federal Government’s Department of Transportation and Environment and ask them to absorb the excessive costs, by using taxpayer dollars to subsidize them. This is exactly what Fraser Surrey Docks a shipping terminal on the upper Fraser River and the Surrey Board of Trade did in 2014 when they went to Ottawa to try and get them provide the funding to offset the present and future costs of dredging. They were not successful at that time.
This would also have been a subsidy that would allow Surrey Fraser Docks, to load ships with U.S.A coal from Wyoming through the Fraser River Estuary.

Page 7
As a result of this heavy lobbying from industry and with little or no input from Trans link of Greater Vancouver, or the public, Premier Christy Clark on September 21, 2013 announced the Replacement of the George Massey Tunnel and the construction of a high level bridge that would improve the access to industrial properties on the Lower Fraser River.
On Oct. 13, 2013 I wrote a letter to the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project with some 14 questions to which were similar to the concerns and some of the questions that I have mentioned in this document.
Starting on Dec. 10, 2013 to Feb. 26, 2014 I received some e-mails, from different directors and consultants, representing the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, Port Metro Vancouver and the B.C. Government. They had discussed my questions in January of 2013 to determine how and who should answer my 14 questions (attached).
In one e-mail from Tran:Ex they said the George Massey Tunnel would be decommissioned and removed, restoring the riverbed to its original condition. It so happens, the river bed never changed once the tunnel was installed and was never an impediment for the shipping that was taking place at the time it was built.
The George Massey Tunnel would only be an impediment if and when Port Metro Vancouver and their Associates were given permission to dredge the Lower Fraser River deeper to 14.5 metres now and deeper in the future as the need arose, in their opinion.

Page 8
All during these discussions there has been little to no discussion about the need for a new river crossing to alleviate the congestion for people and their vehicles. The, emphasis of all previous and present discussions has been on the moving of bulk cargo.
Any new crossing of the Lower Fraser River should be to improve the movement of people and not just to make it possible for the complete industrialization and dredging of the Lower Fraser River, at the expense of the river’s ecosystem, that is so vital for its sustainability and ability to preserve its fish and wetlands that are so significant to the survival of the wildfowl and mankind.
Prepared by: Douglas George Massey, 875 Eden Crescent, Delta, B .C.

y

Attachment of Questions submitted to The George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project on Oct. 13, 2013, by Douglas George Massey
To whom it May concern: the following are questions that need to be answered before they require the George Massey Tunnel to be removed, then the Fraser River to be dredged to accommodate the largest sea-going ships to dock at the Fraser Surrey Docks, or any Fraser River destination, are as follows:
(1) Why is there not a full Cost Benefit Analysis required, along with a full Environmental Impact Assessment, on the affects this would have on the Fraser River Estuary and its ability to remain a Wetland of International Significance for wildfowl and fish ?
(2)What are the projected costs of removing the George Massey Tunnel and who would be paying for it?
(3)What would the cost of deepening the Fraser River to the depth required for the deepest sea-going ships projects to dock on the Fraser above the George Massey Tunnel ?
(4)What are the annual dredging costs presently required to accommodate ships above the George Massey Tunnel?
(5)What did it cost to install the training walls that were part of the Trifurcation Project to direct as much of the flow of the Fraser River down the shipping lanes to reduce the amount of dredging required?
(6)What will be the additional costs to maintain the deeper channel proposed and who will pay for it?
(7)Will dredging still be subject to the Department of Fishery Dredging Guidelines, that prohibit, dredging, during salmon migration?
(8)What affects will this have on the wetland so important to the Pacific Flyway and the ecosystem so important to the migration of salmon?
(9)What affects will this have of the flow of water and silting of the other branches of the Fraser River?
(10)What affects will this have on the stability of the dikes protecting both Richmond and Delta and who will pay for any additional works required to reinforce them?
(11)How much more will it cost to elevate the proposed bridge to accommodate the larger ships proposed? And who will pay for this?
(12)Whatever the cost why are we using tax payers money to accommodate a private company like the Fraser Surrey Docks?
(13)Why are we proposing to deepen the Fraser River when Port Metro Vancouver is spending 2 billion dollars of tax-payers money to build the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Container Project?
(14)Is the only reason for deepening the Fraser River to accommodate coal oil bearing ships to the Fraser Surrey Docks?
Answers to the above questions must be given with justification and proof that deepening the Fraser River is both economical and environmentally sound. Build a new bridge, but build it to accommodate people and rapid transit, not the Fraser Surrey Docks.

2016-01-26 10:53:26
BillieMcConnellNorth DeltaBritish Columbia

The proposal to remove the George Massey Tunnel are rebuild a new bridge will be far too costly.
The fact that it is being build is to accommodate the huge Tankers that will be transporting Coal and LNG up the Fraser River this leads me to believe that they should be covering the huge cost not the people.
These tankers are a threat to our environment including our waters.
The Patullo Bridge is in dire need of replacement which would make more sense to replace to accommodate the traffic flow in that area.

2016-01-26 11:43:20
KatherineMaasVictoriaBritish Columbia

I was surprised to learn of the BC government's plans to replace the Massey Tunnel with a toll bridge. It feels like the decision has already been made on this, without any public consultation. I have a lot of questions about this:

1. Why does the Tunnel need to be replaced? In particular, why now, after significant money has been spent to improve the tunnel's safety in case of earthquake?
2. If there really is a legitimate need to replace the tunnel, what other options have been considered? What are the pros and cons of all these options? In particular, have you considered a retrofit like that of the Maastunnel in the Netherlands, which cost much less than a new bridge would cost here?
3. If the Tunnel really needs to be replaced, then who should pay for the new construction? Industrial users of the Fraser River? The Port Authority? BC taxpayers?
4. What impact will the new bridge (or any other construction to replace the Tunnel) have on urban development and traffic?
5. What impact with any new construction have on fossil fuel exports on the Fraser River?
6. Is this project the best place to spend our infrastructure dollars right now?

I would like these questions to be considered during the public consultation on this proposed project, and I would like to be kept informed of the proceedings.

2016-01-26 12:33:57
CaseyHrynkowRichmondBritish Columbia

Having learned more about this project, I think it needs serious study and not to be rushed through. I feel the BC Government is pushing this project ahead to enhance the efficiency of the Port, without serious regard for other options. I am deeply concerned about loss of valuable farmland (and "replacing" it with topsoil covered unremediated previous infrastructure is not a viable option), loss of or damage to Burns Bog and the Deas Slough, increases in GHGs, and promoting a greater dependence on fossil fuel use.

It is also a horrendous cost when measured against improving the existing Massey Tunnel. And the plans simply push congestion further north to the Oak and Knight Street bridges.

I am asking all levels of government to look at this project in light of the greater awareness of the limited resources of this planet and Canada's greater commitment to reduction of greenhouse gases.

2016-01-26 13:28:28
Sheila PrattMaple RidgeBritish Columbia

The Massey Tunnel Replacement Project is a huge mistake. The environmental effects need to be assessed for what they really are, not what the proponents claim they are. Removing the tunnel will allow the industrialization of the river because shipping that is not possible now will become possible; the hazards to the marine environment are endless. Farmland (in this time of rising food costs from away) will be lost. Increasing the vehicular traffic may (only MAY) lessen the GHGs produced at the tunnel, but the tunnel bottleneck WILL just be moved north. (This will happen just as travel-time over the Port Mann Bridge has decreased, it has increased as drivers approach the Burnaby corridor shifting the GHG production from the Port Mann to Burnaby.)
Rather than replacing the tunnel, it would be much wiser to build a transit system that is efficient and attractive to those in mostly single occupancy vehicles. If a 10-lane bridge can be built over the river, surely a much smaller one to accommodate transit can be built. The BC Government should contact The Netherlands to see how retrofitting a similar tunnel can be done economically while investing in efficient transit.
Financing the bridge will no doubt be as unfair as the Port Mann Bridge. As with that bridge, the majority of users will HAVE TO use the bridge to get to work and they will be the ones who are paying for this new bridge. This is unlike the Sea-to-Sky Highway, a very expensive undertaking to accommodate the Olympics and now where the wealthy use the highway to go to their playground in Whistler, where there have been no tolls to pay for the very expensive upgrades.
It is very disappointing to see this same mistake being made over and over again. Isn't it time the government started learning from their mistakes?

2016-01-26 13:34:47
Jan CernyDeltaBritish Columbia

This is an absolutely wrong idea. What is necessary is a light rail connection between (possibly) White Rock, but surely between Ladner and Richmond. A new bridge will only contribute to more congestion. And why to replace something that works just fine? Solve the problem during the rush hours, but keep the tunnel.

2016-01-26 16:51:39
PatriciaKealyWhite RockBritish Columbia

I think we should keep the tunnel. I don't think this project has been thought through well enough and suspect it is only being done so large ships can go up the river. This would not be good the river, surrounding neighbourhoods or the people of the Fraser Valley.

2016-01-26 17:02:45
Susan HodgesDeltaBritish Columbia

To: Honorable Members of our Federal Government, Provincial Government and City Councils,.

THE PREMISE for the tunnel has been put forth by our Provincial Government that it is for automobile traffic improvement crossing the Fraser River in place of the tunnel.

NO WORD about the fact that currently, as stated by Robin Silvestor, President and CEO of Port Metro Vancouver, that the large tankers currently on the river are only able to cross the tunnel at high tide for 120 mins. thirty times a year at high tide, when it is deep enough. I heard him say that at a Richmond meeting with city officials, open to the public.

NO WORD about the Panamax tankers coming if some huge industrial projects desired by Port Metro Vancouver are approved. Such as the marine traffic needs for proposed Wespac Jetty, the proposed Fortis LNG project at Tilbury Island. Currently approved is the Surrey Fraser Docks taking US Thermal Coal received by rail and to be shipped by barge and tankers. Obviously if the bridge is built to accommodate tanker height needs, they will come.

Common knowledge for a long while now in Delta, Richmond, probably whole of Metro Vancouver, as stated on radio shows and even the TV Global news that the bridge replacement is to meet the needs of these projects requiring huge tankers. The Panamax tankers are unable to currently cross our tunnel.

PREVIOUS STUDIES of the tunnel have been done. At the Richmond City Council meeting Jan. 25th, 2015, it was stated that the former BC Minister of Transport, Kevin Falcon stated that the tunnel had been studied and was determined to have at least 40 more years of use.
Now with a different BC Minister of Transport, Todd Stone, he is stating the tunnel is at the end of its life. The question raised was, “does the life of the tunnel depend on the current BC Minister of Transport.?”
How within a few short years did it lose 40 years of good use?

STUDY ON TWINNING TUNNEL done by a Dutch Engineering Company.: The results have NOT been shared with the public.
We have a huge opportunity to save possible mega costs, mega environmental degradation, farmland degradation, and yet the information is being withheld and not shared for the public or City Councils to study.
Doug Massey, son of the builder of the tunnel, which it is named after has a letter on the website of Against Port Expansion. I include the link here, http://www.againstportexpansion.org/news, as it has much information on the tunnel for Rotterdam, which is built by the same company that built our tunnel, only it is much older. The Rotterdam tunnel upgrades will be done from 2017 to 2019.

CURRENT TUNNEL CONGESTION concerns would be alleviated by twinning it, just as building a bridge would. I consider such as irrelevant.

WE HAVE MUCH EVIDENCE for keeping the tunnel, not removing it. It could be used for an emergency vehicle access, as Richmond City pointed out. If there is a problem with the new crossing, it could be a temporary alternative. Extreme icing conditions etc.

DETAILS ARE TOO FEW provided by the Provincial Government on this proposed bridge project. This was repeatedly stated at Richmond Council Meeting. That it is extremely difficult to make any informed decision. At the Council meeting a Richmond, BC resident came forth. She inquired of The BC Gateway staff at their office at Ironwood Mall, in Richmond, BC to explain how their stated “NET GAIN of Agricultural Land” will occur. They were unable to explain it and thus arranged a special meeting for her with the appropriate Minister. One which Richmond Council has been unable to get. This is relevant to me as it portrays the depth of manipulation on this project by our Provincial Liberal Government, leading to extreme distrust. All of this is in records at council meeting, online. We all await an answer.

FOI: Another question I feel is relevant as it directly relates to the origin of this project. Richmond Council referenced a Freedom of Information request, an FOI, to find out who asked for the bridge to be built. The answer is Port Metro Vancouver and Surrey Fraser docks. It is contemptible the hinderance of information by our provincial government on their open and transparent process, that FOI’s must be made on such a basic question.
This I believe exposes the core reason for the bridge proposal.

65% Longer THAN PORT MANN BRDGE to date is what we know. This is unbelievable given the much smaller population of the S.Fraser region compared to the dense Coquitlam-Surrey corridors. Further confirms calculations this bridge is being built for the port's tanker needs.

ALONG HWY 99 through Richmond, the Hwy was widened to include an HOV-bus lane. Agricultural land was "borrowed" from a Temple along the corridor, for staging and construction supplies. When it was returned, it had been so damaged with gravel and misuse that it is unusable as farmland. This will be repeated in a multitude of properties if this bridge is allowed to go ahead. The loss of farmland will not be recorded in any document, nevertheless, the loss is there.

THE POSSIBLE EXPROPRIATIONS OF FARMLAND may be up to 20M wide, Richmond Council has been informed . However there is no stated length. This could amount to a huge distance, for the biggest bridge to be built in BC. If the government plans to compensate loss of farmland by replacing it with land in Northern BC that is unacceptable. Here in the estuary of the Fraser River, Richmond and Delta we have three growing seasons a year. Northern BC has only two growing seasons a year.

THE RICHMOND POVERTY RESPONSE COMMITTEE has brought forth concerns for low income workers. With drastic increased traffic congestion at the Richmond side of the proposed bridge route to Vancouver and deletory impacts on Richmond commuters. It is stated by the Provincial Government that Translink has no money for expansion in our areas.

REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY of Metro Vancouver does not accept another 4 lanes of auto traffic on this crossing. They are against it.

Urban Sprawl will occur after any bridge is built. There will be much agricultural land rendered unusable that would become residential or feed the appetite of Port Metro Vancouver for Industrial Lands. UNACCEPTABLE.
With population growth, increased food demands we can hardly rely on imports from countries that are experiencing fires, droughts and floods and a decrease of food production themselves.

PORT METRO VANCOUVER: Richmond City Council noted it chose to not purchase Industrial land in Richmond. Instead it purchased a farm, the Gilmore farm, agricultural land. It has increased its appetite for farmland to 3600 acres from 2600 acres a few years prior. This bridge will hinder farming with overpasses and broad expanses and intersections that will not work with slow farm vehicles, increased diesel pollution, much more. Thereby smoothing the path for further purchase of farmland.

COST: Proposed costs of $3.5 billion which will surely rise as did the Port Mann Bridge fixed costs rise dramatically. If it was known the cost of twinning the tunnel, monies saved from not building a bridge could allocated to rapid transit and improved bus transit thereby actually improving options and commutes. Port Metro Vancouver requested this bridge, let them pay for it.

P3: It is yet to be determined if there will be federal funding. We will be paying for it with tolls and taxes for years to come. As Port Metro Vancouver requests this bridge, they should be footing the costs as we will be living with the environmental degradation. Additionally, a fee for every tonne of coal, LNG or Jet fuel should be collected that passes under the bridge and put to regional improvement.

COP21 Paris Nov./15: This is in direct opposition to the direction our federal government deemed it wished to move at COP21. Increasing traffic to sit in gridlock on Hwy 99 is not a solution or an effort to move towards a lower carbon neutral future.

HEIGHT OF BRIDGE: From everything I understand, it will be a steep incline and decline. It needs to be high for tankers on the Fraser River, or it could be a simple up and over. Thus being a negative for already overburdened truckers.

3 LEVEL OVERPASS at Steveston Hwy: Over engineered and over reach again.

This entire process is unacceptable. From its manipulative communications, few details, FOI's required, to cost of $3.5 billion to move cars to gridlock on Hwy 99. Further urban sprawl, loss of farmland, using back roads in Richmond such as Westminster Hwy and others that will occur to avoid traffic, lack of increased public transit, this bridge affects all of our futures in a hugely negative way. I stand with Regional Growth Strategy, Richmond City Council and many other groups against this proposed bridge.

Susan Hodges,
Delta, BC V4L 1P2

2016-01-27 00:07:44
joyceflemigSURREYBritish Columbia

We are extremely under served with crossings. The tunnel should continue to be used and a bridge added. The only reason the government wants to dredge the river and have a high bridge is to pander to the industrialists who want to bring mega ships up to the Fraser docks in Delta.
If anyone of our government officials had an once of common sense we would all be paying a small fee to use every bridge as well as the sea to sky highway.
Everyone should pay their fare share, not just those who live south and east of the Fraser.

2016-01-27 11:41:15
margie ostroffsurreyBritish Columbia

I don't want the proposed tunnel replacement so that big barges can go up the fraser for fossil fuel exports. It is not being done for the public's benefit. Plus south of fraser residents should not have to pay for this and any other way of crossing the river as opposed to north of the fraser residents. Instead we should have more public transit and make another road so we can double the passage over the river. perhaps for multiple passengers and buses.
thank you for asking for my input.

2016-01-27 13:22:09
georgealstonVan AndaBritish Columbia

I feel this is a shortsighted, small minded project whose only benefit will be to industry... but that is what this government is all about.. industry over environment and the taxpayer.
A retrofit of the existing tunnel is doable at far less costs with the same result...
As far as easing congestion it will merely move said congestion further into the city...
We also would lose invaluable farm land which is becoming scarcer all the time..
And it could have catastrophic results on the environment and marine species like salmon and whales.
This proposal is only about bringing bigger ships farther up the Fraser River for the purpose of shipping coal and oil & gas.. not taking into account the effects on Climate change.
Not that this government will listen to the people but my vote would be for a retrofit of the existing tunnel.
A TAXPAYER
George Alston

2016-01-27 14:14:49
SidneyShniadSurreyBritish Columbia

The Mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, has explained the folly of building a massive bridge, which will only relocate the existing traffic jam north to the Oak Street bridge.

Furthermore, it is clear that the primary purpose of such a bridge is to facilitate the creation of a coal port in Surrey for the export of American coal. Given the fact that the burning of coal poses an extreme threat, given burgeoning climate change, as well as the fact that American communities up and down the Pacific Coast have rejected the building of such a port on both health and environmental grounds, it is outrageous that this project is even being considered.

Stop this insanity now!

2016-01-27 14:40:36
GlenMcGarrigleDeltaBritish Columbia

Why would you want to get rid of 4 perfectly good lanes? If 4 lanes aren't adequate then add to them, don't replace them. Decisions like this one is why I voted NO in the recent transit plebiscite. If I thought the money would have been spent wisely, I would have supported it but here is proof that otherwise. It would be a lot less expensive to build another tunnel or bridge with 6 more lanes and leave the Massey Tunnel's existing 4 lanes for a total of 10 lanes. It also makes sense to separate the new bridge/tunnel from the existing one by as much distance as possible. Any traffic problems on a bridge affects all traffic going in that direction but if the new crossing was a separate entity, problems on it wouldn't affect the Massey Tunnel and visa-versa. The new crossing should be located midway between the Massey Tunnel and the Alex Fraser Bridge. This would give great access to the industrial area (Tilbury etc) along River Road and would be a very easy connection to Hwy 17 in either direction.
Thanks
Glen McGarrigle

2016-01-27 15:58:49
JohnStevensDeltaBritish Columbia

I believe that the proposed bridge is the worst option ever. the Massey Tunnel should be twinned, and the new tunnel should include a light rail line to help keep cars off of our roads. The Fraser River is much more important to society as a food source than an industrial conduit. This proposed bridge would compromise the ecological integrity of the Fraser River.

2016-01-27 16:31:06
PennyOyamaBurnabyBritish Columbia

WE DON'T NEED A BRIDGE,,!
WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER BRIDGE!!!
The downsides of this insane idea completely OBLITERATE the benefits, unless you're talking about the already filthy rich corporations!
Everything needed for healthy living in the lower mainland will be destroyed!
So how about TRANSIT?? It will solve rush hour problems, and keep development under control. Everyone knows that, as David Suzuki has said, the more pavement that is provided for cars, the more cars will come, so the situation will be the same as before!
When corporations complain that they aren't making enough profit, make them re-tool and change their business to renewable energy creation!
Thank you!

2016-01-27 19:51:32
KathyBoothSurreyBritish Columbia

I understand the new bridge will cost several billion dollars.
I know that the region desperately needs new rapid transit infrastructure now.
There are limited dollars for transit needs and although I travel through the tunnel very often, I understand it could be upgraded to handle more traffic at a much reduced cost than a bridge.
I also do not support the plan for increased barge traffic on the Fraser to accommodate large ships carrying coal to China.
I wonder if the desire for a bridge is influenced by pressure from the Vancouver Port Authority.for such a transportation route?

2016-01-27 22:58:39
DianneMcPhersonSurreyBritish Columbia

Prefer to keep the tunnel. If needed, upgrade. Any new bridge should only be paid for by industrial users of the Fraser river and the Port Authority. I do not want any fossil fuel exports in B. C., and certainly not on the Fraser river. Also, all environmental impacts should be seriously considered. Thank You.

2016-01-28 09:04:45
JohnMillarSurreyBritish Columbia

I would like to voice my support for this proposed new bridge / tunnel replacement.
Ever since Prime Minister John McDonald pushed through a railway coast to coast, despite lack of funding. and considerable lack of public support, the need to continuously improve our infrastructure and ability to move vehicles or goods has always been seen as a financial impossibility. Yet in the end, we manage.
Whether it be electric cars, or horse and buggy, we will still require roads and bridges to transport a growing population, and I strongly feel that public transit will NOT or CANNOT meet the needs to manage all transport requirements.

The balancing act of saving farmland or river ecosystems will be offset by achieving a reduction in traffic waits and 'idling' pollution by reducing this traffic bottleneck.

Finally, the support of replacement / aging infrastructure was one of the key components in the Federal election winning results, and was recognized by the majority of thevoting public,..... which also strongly vetoed down the 'Regional PST' referendum for mismanaging translink as well as a poor plan for an upgraded Patullo bridge.

I do not have a problem with tolls being added to the financial consideration as part of the financing requirements necessary to build this new crossing, but I would prefer to see an across the board road user fee to ensure ALL vehicles / drivers are equally sharing in the cost of transport across our region.

2016-01-28 12:30:34
PaulMagnusRichmondBritish Columbia

Massey Bridge Feedback
Massey Bridge Project

Dear Ministry of Transport and Environment BC,

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the proposed Massey Tunnel replacement bridge proposal. I am a Richmond citizen with a background in telecommunications, computer science, and farming. I have had a keen interest in climate science over the past ten years.

Some points on the current bridge proposal which I feel should be addressed:

Congestion: The morning commute will become more congested in central Richmond. The airport, Oak and Knight Street bridges and their approach routes will all be affected; moreover, this will also lead to more congested Richmond streets and many local residents will be impacted. The capacity of the bridge will be utilized in a short time frame. For the Alex Fraser apparently this occured within one year of its opening. What are the planned traffic rates for the bridge over its life span? Within a time frame of approximately one to two years, Richmond will again start experiencing traffic congestion in the afternoons at peak rush hour (which now starts at around 3pm), and Delta will also experience backups on the south approaches to the bridge.

Value for money: Bearing the above in mind, is this good value for money for the B.C. tax payer? The bridge only alleviates traffic in the evening rush hour peak. It will only do so for a limited period of time until the new capacity of the bridge is filled. For commuters, tolls in the region of $10 when complete, will not be seen as value for money. One option to keep the toll low is to consider recouping money from marine traffic which uses the under pass of the bridge with a toll for marine traffic. We know from FOI that Port Metro Vancouver and Surrey Fraser Docks were influential lobbies at the start of consideration for the project and are big stake holders in seeing the bridge built. Maybe The Port should contribute to the cost of the project. Liquefaction profiles of the ground on which the bridge sits makes it much more expensive than it should have been. So are the BC taxers and commuters going to be getting value for money for a bridge which will cost in the end ~$5B. This is a major reason in itself NOT to build the bridge. It is not good value for money when measured against it’s main criteria of reducing vehicular congestion.

Air Quality: This will mainly be a Richmond issue as the congestion that currently sits on the south approach to the tunnel in the morning rush peak moves in to central Richmond. As mentioned above, it will not only be the Highway 99 corridor which will buffer the congestion, but the approach routes to all Richmond bridges. Richmond, from Steveston Highway north will become a temporary carpark with engines belting out exhaust. Again, within one or two years there will be increased traffic filing the capacity of the expansion lanes on the bridge and congestion on the afternoon rush hour commute to Delta. Then ultimately, like the Alex Fraser, congestion will return at peak times on the south approach in Delta. In addition the increase in large ships, tankers, and the industry associated with it will impact the air-shed in the region. For example the 15 worst polluting ships emit the equivalent of all vehicle traffic in the world! The air quality in central Richmond will become a critical issue. I can not overstate this. How will the bridge project mitigate against this? What are the projections for the air quality impacts for Richmond and the air-shed of the region in general?

Safety: The bridge looks like a marvellous bit of engineering and very aesthetic. However, there seems to be a safety concern with the exit going north on to Steveston Highway. This exit, I am sure, as it is proposed is too closely restricted and the curve on the bend is surely too sharp for the dimensions of the bridge and the resulting speed at which vehicles will be exiting at this point. The Alex Fraser bridge provides some insight here as well. The Alex Fraser is a tall bridge and has a similar design vertical profile to the proposed, which is even higher. It has sharp exit bends for commuters on both ends. Recently, I can say that there is typically an accident every other day on the Alex Fraser due to this design deficiency. It would be much better if the Massey Steveston exit looped around further on north of the junction then switch-back south to join Steveston Highway. If the existing design is adopted I guarantee it will become a Richmond accident black spot. This is something Richmond City should be aware of as I think the approaches will be their responsibility.

Those are the comments I have on the general design of the bridge and its local impacts and implications.

I also have a few points about the more general and overriding reasons for not opting for this bridge…

Loss of Farm Land: Rapid urbanization of Delta will follow this bridge to match the increased lane capacity. There will be pressure put on farms in the Agriculture Land Reserve south of the river. This is a huge issue for food security in BC and for cities of the lower mainland. Especially with the impacts of Climate Change and Global Warming on food production abroad in more venerable areas such as California, but also even here with the disruptive local weather. The bridge and highway expansion itself will result in a small direct loss to quality farmland.

Biodiversity: Industrialization of the Fraser Estuary. The Fraser river is probably the second most important Salmon bearing river in the world. The estuary is also a world class bird migration route stop over. The South Fraser arm of the river has currently relatively little industrialization. Much of the reasons why can be attributed to the Massey Tunnel. Putting in this bridge and removing the tunnel will open up the South Arm to major industrialization which will follow as larger ships and tankers make their way upstream to expanded and new ports. There will be increased dredging to deeper profiles and many side impacts, such as salt water intrusion and silt extension at the mouth of the river, (introducing very real landslide dangers). Together with the expanded urbanization of Delta and South Surrey due to the bridge, the cumulative impact on the region, estuary and river will not be sustainable. Will there be DFO assessment of these impacts? As far as I am aware from Environment BC, cumulative impacts will not be a factor considered for the project. That is unacceptable. Biodiversity plays a crucial, essential role in our economy and in maintaining sustainable, healthy communities (Biodiversity in the Fraser..). Finally..

Climate: Climate Change is the overriding and critical issue of our time. For this reason alone, this bridge should not be built. Canada has just come back from Paris agreeing to a limiting target of 1.5C warming caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions. A ten lane super highway bridge does not fit anywhere under the concept of this criteria. It is the wrong project for our time. As explained above, by increasing the throughput traffic rates the increased capacity of the bridge will be filled in short stead and will ultimately increase the overall GHG footprint of the lower mainland substantially. Your argument of reducing GHGs by preventing idling for afternoon peak rush hour traffic for a short period is pathetic compared to the overall increase that will result within one to two years of bridge completion (re Alex Fraser). Where are your figures for the overall project life cycle compared with alternative lower capital cost, lower emissions footprint options?

In conclusion, this project is the wrong project for the reasons stated above. We need a more cohesive and comprehensive transport infrastructure for the lower mainland - one which will meet our climate mitigation commitments and support a safer, healthier and sustainable standard of life for those in the region now and into the future.

2016-01-28 20:08:01
KEITHHODGESDELTABritish Columbia

I am against the proposed bridge for the Massey Tunnel Replacement project as
in my opinion 3.5 billion is an exorbitant cost and will as Gordon Price has stated be closer to 8 billion dollars with rising fixed costs, taxes and tolls that we will lose from this region.

The Maastunnel in the Netherlands that is 20 years older than our Massey Tunnel is being retrofitted for no more than about 450 million Cdn. Dollars. It is completely reckless and glaringly irresponsible to spend billions when it can be retrofitted for about half a billion. Also we need to see the study of twinning the tunnel that the BC Government has not yet released to the public.

It will open the door to urban sprawl and industrialization through our priceless farmland thereby depleting our population of fresh local food and increasing food prices. Increasing our dependency on other countries which are experiencing their own disasters and reduced food production.

Again, I am opposed 100% to the Massey Tunnel Replacement Project.

2016-01-29 13:25:39
MikeBallRichmondBritish Columbia

The tunnel absolutely needs to be replaced!

It's a piece of 60+ year old infrastructure that has outlived - by at least a decade - it's usefulness. It is a major bottleneck in the transportation network of the region and replacing it is vital to ensuring the smooth flow of goods & services throughout the region.

Replacing the tunnel with a multi-lane bridge would / could also greatly enhance public transit options south of the Fraser and would also open an entirely new crossing over the Fraser to bicycle traffic.

I have heard some people suggest that upgrading the existing tunnel is an option worth pursuing. In my opinion, this would not be a good idea. Upgrading infrastructure that old, it seems to me, would be like renovating an old house: The rule in renovations is that it will take twice as long as planned and cost twice as much! For example of that truism here in British Columbia, look no further than the work being done on the swing bridge in downtown Victoria. It's years behind schedule and $100's of millions over budget.

I would have no objection to reasonable tolls on the bridge not unlike those on the new Port Mann. User pay is, to me, a fair way to help fund public infrastructure such as this.

2016-01-29 13:56:25
susanmurajasurreyBritish Columbia

To whom it may concern,
A resounding NO to the 10 lane bridge, here are the many reasons why:
please note, I have taken many of the concerns from others and compiled....
Climate Change is the overriding and critical issue of our time. For this reason alone, this bridge should not be built. Canada has just come back from Paris agreeing to a limiting target of 1.5C warming caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions. A ten lane super highway bridge does not fit anywhere under the concept of this criteria. It is the wrong project for our time. By increasing the throughput traffic rates the increased capacity of the bridge will be filled in short stead and will ultimately increase the overall GHG footprint of the lower mainland substantially. Your argument of reducing GHGs by preventing idling for afternoon peak rush hour traffic for a short period is pathetic compared to the overall increase that will result within one to two years of bridge completion (re Alex Fraser). Where are your figures for the overall project life cycle compared with alternative lower capital cost, lower emissions footprint options? COP21 Paris Nov./15: This is in direct opposition to the direction our federal government deemed it wished to move at COP21. Increasing traffic to sit in gridlock on Hwy 99 is not a solution or an effort to move towards a lower carbon neutral future.

As per the Mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, the building of such a massive bridge, will only relocate the existing traffic jam north to the Oak Street bridge. As far as easing congestion it will merely move said congestion further into the city... It is absolutely ridiculous to not include the traffic patterns north of the tunnel.
It is clear that the primary purpose of such a bridge is to facilitate the creation of a coal port in Surrey for the export of American coal. Given the fact that the burning of coal poses an extreme threat, given burgeoning climate change, as well as the fact that American communities up and down the Pacific Coast have rejected the building of such a port on both health and environmental grounds, it is outrageous that this project is even being considered. This proposal is only about bringing bigger ships farther up the Fraser River for the purpose of shipping coal and oil & gas.
A retrofit of the existing tunnel is doable at far less costs with the same result.
We also would lose invaluable farm land which is becoming scarcer all the time. The shear size of the proposed replacement bridge and its longer approaches would severely impact viable farmland at a time of increasing global concern for food security, as well as the Fraser River as a marine ecosystem.
The risk to the Fraser river and the most important Salmon run in the world is unacceptable. The project spends 3.5 billion tax dollars to move the parking lot from delta to south of 70th and Oak this is unacceptable. The Fraser River is too important a marine ecosystem to be subject to the increasing industrialization that would come with allowing deeper draft vessels farther up the river;
The cost (at $3+Billion) is absurd, when compared to the cost of adding a third tunnel section - an improvement that would resolve safety and traffic congestion issues and afford the region the time to work out longer-term regional planning and transportation solutions for areas south of the Fraser.
The proposed $3+Billion earmarked for this project could (and MUST) be better spent on long-term public transport solutions and more affordable housing (for those with lower incomes) throughout the region.
I have no confidence that a) the project cost, as it is currently estimated, will be anywhere near the final cost, and b) that those costs will NOT be borne, to the extent that they should be, by the industrial interests that will benefit most from the Massey Tunnel\'s replacement.
PREVIOUS STUDIES of the tunnel have been done. At the Richmond City Council meeting Jan. 25th, 2015, it was stated that the former BC Minister of Transport, Kevin Falcon stated that the tunnel had been studied and was determined to have at least 40 more years of use. Now with a different BC Minister of Transport, Todd Stone, he is stating the tunnel is at the end of its life. The question raised was, "does the life of the tunnel depend on the current BC Minister of Transport.?" How within a few short years did it lose 40 years of good use?
STUDY ON TWINNING TUNNEL done by a Dutch Engineering Company.: The results have NOT been shared with the public.
We have a huge opportunity to save possible mega costs, mega environmental degradation, farmland degradation, and yet the information is being withheld and not shared for the public or City Councils to study.
Doug Massey, son of the builder of the tunnel, which it is named after has a letter on the website of Against Port Expansion. I include the link here, http://www.againstportexpansion.org/news, as it has much information on the tunnel for Rotterdam, which is built by the same company that built our tunnel, only it is much older. The Rotterdam tunnel upgrades will be done from 2017 to 2019.
WE HAVE MUCH EVIDENCE for keeping the tunnel, not removing it. It could be used for an emergency vehicle access, as Richmond City pointed out. If there is a problem with the new crossing, it could be a temporary alternative. Extreme icing conditions etc.
DETAILS ARE TOO FEW provided by the Provincial Government on this proposed bridge project. This was repeatedly stated at Richmond Council Meeting. That it is extremely difficult to make any informed decision. At the Council meeting a Richmond, BC resident came forth. She inquired of The BC Gateway staff at their office at Ironwood Mall, in Richmond, BC to explain how their stated "NET GAIN of Agricultural Land" will occur. They were unable to explain it and thus arranged a special meeting for her with the appropriate Minister. One which Richmond Council has been unable to get. This is relevant to me as it portrays the depth of manipulation on this project by our Provincial Liberal Government, leading to extreme distrust. All of this is in records at council meeting, online. We all await an answer.
FOI: Another question I feel is relevant as it directly relates to the origin of this project. Richmond Council referenced a Freedom of Information request, an FOI, to find out who asked for the bridge to be built. The answer is Port Metro Vancouver and Surrey Fraser docks. It is contemptible the hinderance of information by our provincial government on their open and transparent process, that FOI's must be made on such a basic question. This I believe exposes the core reason for the bridge proposal. 65% Longer THAN PORT MANN BRDGE to date is what we know. This is unbelievable given the much smaller population of the S.Fraser region compared to the dense Coquitlam-Surrey corridors. Further confirms calculations this bridge is being built for the port\'s tanker needs.
ALONG HWY 99 through Richmond, the Hwy was widened to include an HOV-bus lane. Agricultural land was \"borrowed\" from a Temple along the corridor, for staging and construction supplies. When it was returned, it had been so damaged with gravel and misuse that it is unusable as farmland. This will be repeated in a multitude of properties if this bridge is allowed to go ahead. The loss of farmland will not be recorded in any document, nevertheless, the loss is there.
THE POSSIBLE EXPROPRIATIONS OF FARMLAND may be up to 20M wide, Richmond Council has been informed . However there is no stated length. This could amount to a huge distance, for the biggest bridge to be built in BC. If the government plans to compensate loss of farmland by replacing it with land in Northern BC that is unacceptable. Here in the estuary of the Fraser River, Richmond and Delta we have three growing seasons a year. Northern BC has only two growing seasons a year.
REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY of Metro Vancouver does not accept another 4 lanes of auto traffic on this crossing. They are against it.
Urban Sprawl will occur after any bridge is built. There will be much agricultural land rendered unusable that would become residential or feed the appetite of Port Metro Vancouver for Industrial Lands. UNACCEPTABLE. With population growth, increased food demands we can hardly rely on imports from countries that are experiencing fires, droughts and floods and a decrease of food production themselves.
PORT METRO VANCOUVER: Richmond City Council noted it chose to not purchase Industrial land in Richmond. Instead it purchased a farm, the Gilmore farm, agricultural land. It has increased its appetite for farmland to 3600 acres from 2600 acres a few years prior. This bridge will hinder farming with overpasses and broad expanses and intersections that will not work with slow farm vehicles, increased diesel pollution, much more. Thereby smoothing the path for further purchase of farmland.
COST: Proposed costs of $3.5 billion which will surely rise as did the Port Mann Bridge fixed costs rise dramatically. If it was known the cost of twinning the tunnel, monies saved from not building a bridge could allocated to rapid transit and improved bus transit thereby actually improving options and commutes. Port Metro Vancouver requested this bridge, let them pay for it.
P3: It is yet to be determined if there will be federal funding. We will be paying for it with tolls and taxes for years to come. As Port Metro Vancouver requests this bridge, they should be footing the costs as we will be living with the environmental degradation. Additionally, a fee for every tonne of coal, LNG or Jet fuel should be collected that passes under the bridge and put to regional improvement.
HEIGHT OF BRIDGE: From everything I understand, it will be a steep incline and decline. It needs to be high for tankers on the Fraser River, or it could be a simple up and over. Thus being a negative for already overburdened truckers.
This entire process is unacceptable. From its manipulative communications, few details, FOI\'s required, to cost of $3.5 billion to move cars to gridlock on Hwy 99. Further urban sprawl, loss of farmland, using back roads in Richmond such as Westminster Hwy and others that will occur to avoid traffic, lack of increased public transit, this bridge affects all of our futures in a hugely negative way. I stand with Regional Growth Strategy, Richmond City Council and many other groups against this proposed bridge.
A bigger bridge equals more cars in the long term, more urban sprawl, more pollution, and more congestion elsewhere - rail the opposite.
Rather than replacing the tunnel, it would be much wiser to build a transit system that is efficient and attractive to those in mostly single occupancy vehicles. If a 10-lane bridge can be built over the river, surely a much smaller one to accommodate transit can be built. The BC Government should contact The Netherlands to see how retrofitting a similar tunnel can be done economically while investing in efficient transit.
Financing the bridge will no doubt be as unfair as the Port Mann Bridge. As with that bridge, the majority of users will HAVE TO use the bridge to get to work and they will be the ones who are paying for this new bridge. This is unlike the Sea-to-Sky Highway, a very expensive undertaking to accommodate the Olympics and now where the wealthy use the highway to go to their playground in Whistler, where there have been no tolls to pay for the very expensive upgrades.
Regards,
Susan Muraja

2016-01-29 15:32:43
BrianLauderSurreyBritish Columbia

Why is Port Metro buying up farmland etc along the Fraser River? Is it your intention to move as much industry away from expensive land in False Creek or the inner harbor in Vancouver or Indian Arm? Is that the real intention for the bridge and the trucks it will carry? Is also the intention to get way more ships to these places once you remove the tunnel. What kind of danger are you putting the Fraser River in. Why are we spending that incredible amount of money just to give incentive to put more cars into the lower mainland and more exhaust into the atmosphere contributing to global warming. The vast amount of money needs to be put into rapid transit in a big way to give people more reason to leave their cars. Forget the bridge.

2016-01-29 16:03:17
BarbaraBeamissLangleyBritish Columbia

I would like the BC government to consider more economical and long term options in replacing the Massey tunnel. As anyone who has driven between Hwy 99 and Vancouver knows the current tunnel is insufficient to handle the amount of traffic that needs to pass through it on a daily basis. Why hasn't the option of expanding the current tunnel been explored? Why hasn't light rail infrastructure been explored? Long term planning should include putting more emphasis on public transit so commuters aren't forced to drive their vehicles into the city.
A 10 lane bridge is a short sighted and expensive proposal which will bring even more vehicles into the city and they'll be stuck in yet another bottleneck on the Oak St bridge.

2016-01-29 21:28:53
AndrewHodgesDeltaBritish Columbia

I am against the proposed bridge for the Massey Tunnel Replacement project as I believe the Dutch study for twinning the tunnel should be released for public comment and study as an alternative option must be done first.

2016-01-29 21:55:09
CathyKnappSurreyBritish Columbia

I believe that one of the main reasons driving the movement to the tunnel is Fraser Surrey Dock's project to build a thermal coal port at Fraser Surrey Docks allowing them to bring in larger ocean bearing vessels to the port. I'm dead against the FSD Coal Port Project and as such do not support the replacement of the Massey Tunnel.

2016-01-30 12:22:33
HisaoIchikawaVancouverBritish Columbia

It does not make sense to spend so much money for a new bridge which would give people more incentive to drive. we can spend that money to develop BC wide public transport in a most environmentally friendly way possible. We can make it much cheaper and faster to go around, especially densely populated area, so many people will leave their cars at home and use it. So far most people drive to commute alone in their cars, which creates much wast of gasoline, gas, or electricity. This collective waste of energy is the direct cause of many oil spills, LNG toxic water pollution, and global warming. Faster we waste things, faster we harm our planet, because every thing comes from Earth. We are standing at a critical moment in our history. We must leave fossil fuel under ground and get into renewable energy, so the new generations also can keep living without gasping for air. We cannot think continual economical prosperity which is an illusion and does not make us really happy. Even we have millions of money, without clean air, water, and soil, how can we lead an happy life? We must step on Earth lightly thinking about our children, their children, and all the new generations to come.

Thank you,

Hisao

2016-01-30 15:01:09
RobertMcCroskeySurreyBritish Columbia

The location of the Massey Tunnel is not an appropriate site for a bridge. As people should know, at the time of the present tunnel's construction, engineers came over from Europe to study the site, and decided that the sand was too deep to support a bridge, but the site was perfect for a tunnel.
Yet we are supposed to have a huge new bridge standing on only two posts, on sand? This is a massive catastrophe waiting to happen.

The original highway was and is a complete environmental disaster and should be removed in its entirety. It cut and filled most of the foreshore of Boundary Bay, cut and filled the south and west perimeter of Burns Bog, and cut and filled a strip right through the heart of Richmond, damaging sub-surface westward drainage flow in a major part of the Fraser delta. It encroached upon and introduced noise and disturbance into one of the most important points in the Pacific migratory bird pathway, but all this damage was done before people really considered such impacts on the environment.

Also, the Hwy 99 is a truly stupid way to get to Vancouver, and an ugly route as well, since it passes over that most unsightly Oat Street Bridge, which is more like a slot-car track than an entrance to a supposedly "Green" city.

As well, Hwy 99 is part of the deliberate obfuscation of a junction between I-5 and the Trans Canada Highway. Heaven forbid that someone would want to come up I-5 and turn right and travel to Canada! Therefore the junction between I-5 and Hwy 1 is so thoroughly obfuscated that I bet you don't even know where they do join up! I-5 turns into Hwy 99 at the border, then follows that horribly environmentally destructive path that I have described, then passes through the city streets of Vancouver, then passes through Stanley Park, then over that old 3-lane bridge, the Lion's Gate, than FINALLY, you come to the junction at the top of Taylor Way and the Upper Levels Highway. Absolutely ridiculous!
Take the Massey Tunnel out, and take Hwy 99 out entirely, and restore that severely damaged wet-lands habitat! Do it NOW!

All along the west coast (except for B.C.), communities are taking a stand against coal exports, which are ripping coal out of public lands at a fraction of it's worth or ripping off native lands, and selling it offshore at a discount to compete with other world-wide extractive industries. Yet here is B.C., we calmly let export coal trains from USA crawl through our communities spewing coal dust, and sucking up to port developments to facilitate this crime against the climate by being an enabler to China's belching CO2 emissions. And further yet, we are expected to pay a toll on this proposed new bridge, to cover the cost of getting the old tunnel out of the way of deeper-draft coal carriers, so that we are each personally subsidizing the export of American coal through our ports. Could this get any more unfair?

And to top it all off, over the next 40 years, before this foolish project is paid for, the road network leading up to it will be under water from sea level rise. So once again, like Site C, we are building yet another hard-hat photo-op for Cristy Clark in the next election campaign, as she builds a glorified version of the past.

2016-01-30 16:15:44
TonyValenteNorth VancouverBritish Columbia

The continued prioritization of major road works Port Mann / Highway 1 and this project, for example, divert investment from public transportation and active transportation in Metro Vancouver.

I am supportive of projects that allow our economy to grow and I recognize what this bridge will make possible for Port Metro Vancouver, but is it the top priority?

Why do we allow Vancouver which is the province's major economic engine to continue to suffer congestion while prioritizing this project which with 10 lanes will induce more traffic over time. More single occupant vehicles, more people in their cars more hours, more negative health impacts from driving hours and air pollution. Meanwhile BC taxpayers pay for the bridge and the negative health impacts.

I am looking for a more comprehensive vision from our provincial government when it comes to making the right investments for transportation.

2016-01-30 23:20:34
Jennifer ThossDeltaBritish Columbia

The proposed LNG bridge over the Fraser River is not about traffic alleviation, combating pollution, or transportation solutions. It is about facilitating the further industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary. If the BC government proceeds with this project, they will be committing the citizens of BC to subsidize the outdated, unsustainable and destructive fossil fuel industry.

If the bridge must be built then I call on the BC Liberals/Christy Clark, as well as Delta Council and the Federal Government, to work together to protect the Massey tunnel, in place, if for no other reason than to protect the Fraser River's ecosystems.

In addition, the Massey tunnel is a historical landmark and will cost a lot to remove.

Respectfully,

Jennifer Thoss

2016-01-30 23:57:25
Jennifer ThossDeltaBritish Columbia

The proposed LNG bridge over the Fraser River is not about traffic alleviation, combating pollution, or transportation solutions. It is about facilitating the further industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary. If the BC government proceeds with this project, they will be committing the citizens of BC to subsidize the outdated, unsustainable and destructive fossil fuel industry.

If the bridge must be built then I call on the BC Liberals/Christy Clark, as well as Delta Council and the Federal Government, to work together to protect the Massey tunnel, in place, if for no other reason than to protect the Fraser River's ecosystems.

In addition, the Massey tunnel is a historical landmark and will cost a lot to remove.

Respectfully,

Jennifer Thoss

2016-01-30 23:57:29
SiobhainPhaguraLadnerBritish Columbia

I drive through the tunnel twice a day 5 days a week. It doesn't work the way it is now. Having said that, I don't think a toll bridge is the answer either. People in Maple Ridge and Surrey have alternate routes out of their cities and can avoid the toll. I and many others like me don't have that option. Added to the expense of my current drive is another $8/day? It's outrageous. There has to be something more cost effective that could be put in place? I think this decision came as an election move and now has to be followed through. There are people getting paid a lot of money in positions making these decisions, surely they can come up with another solution.

2016-01-31 10:34:17
SharonMacGouganRichmondBritish Columbia

I believe that building a bridge is a bad idea—one that will have long-term repercussions; environmental and social.

We are a community. Livability and the environment are important.

A bridge would increase unsustainable development, degrade the environment, impact on farmland and the ability to feed ourselves and increase congestion.

I was a little girl when the tunnel was built. I prefer to see it retrofitted and continue to be in use for future generations.

Building a bridge, I believe, would overall decrease our quality of life. It's a bad idea.

2016-01-31 11:22:06
ScottMcMullanSurreyBritish Columbia

I believe it is a huge mistake to eliminate the existing tunnel and replace it with an expensive and unnecessary bridge.

To start with, the bridge will permit and encourage industrial and residential development south of the Fraser (not to mention increasing and displacing motor vehicle traffic) as well as resulting in the loss of much-needed agricultural land.

The announced goals of the project are to “support objectives for regional people movement”, to “relieve congestion” and to “improve safety”, all of which could be accomplished for a fraction of the cost by simply upgrading the existing tunnel. (the cost of the bridge is projected at $3 billion which is certain to balloon to $5 billion by the time it's completed).

It is certainly contrary to logic that such a massive investment in our road network makes sense as a legacy for our children in the face of the increasing evidence of rapid climate change. It simply cannot be right to deliver such expensive infrastructure at the end of the first quarter of the 21st century which further ties us to the burning of fossil fuels. By some estimates this will result in a million more cars on our roads, This money would be much better spent by improving mass transportation options in the region.

From what I understand, experts say there are many years of life left in the tunnel (although it looks shabby at the moment because it’s being left to decay to justify the decision to tear it out). Not to mention that the 3 to 5 years estimated to complete construction will result in significant disruption to the residents of White Rock, South Surrey, Delta and Richmond, tourism, ferry traffic and truck & commercial traffic (aside from the inevitable introduction of road tolls for what is currently a free crossing)

For a fraction of the $3 billion, we could forgo the bridge and instead add a third tunnel to support expanded public transportation. This would address the objectives of “people movement” and “relieving congestion” while providing a more sensible legacy. This appears to have been ruled out because it doesn't meet the implicit goal of allowing ocean-going vessels to travel up the Fraser river (which is necessary to facilitate plans by Port Metro Vancouver to ship American thermal coal for burning in Asia).

Finally, I do not feel there has been adequate discussion of the profound and far-reaching consequences of this project.and I believe the government proposing it should be required to face the electorate with this firmly on the agenda before committing the people of BC to such an expensive and ill-advised plan.

2016-01-31 13:54:49
MarkBignellDeltaBritish Columbia

Retrofit the tunnel. Don't build a bridge to increase fossil fuel production. We should stop being so reliant on fossil fuels and try more renewable energy alternatives. Also the tunnel retrofit makes way more economic sense than a bridge.

2016-01-31 15:05:41
RuthWalmsleyBurnabyBritish Columbia

I am writing to express my strong objections to the proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel with a bridge. My objections are based on the following:

#1: It would cost billions more to build a bridge than it would to upgrade the existing tunnel, AT TAX PAYERS EXPENSE. The money saved could be spent on other projects to reduce traffic congestion, such as public transit.

#2: By keeping deeper draft vessels off the river, the Massey Tunnel has been a check on industrialization of the Lower Fraser - an ecosystem which is extremely important to salmon, killer whales and other sensitive marine life. I am extremely concerned that removal of the tunnel will allow fully loaded coal freighters on the river and bigger LNG carriers loading at the proposed Wespac-Fortis LNG terminal in Delta.

#3: Removing the tunnel will also encourage the industrialization of farmland in Richmond and Delta to serve the Port Authority’s planned expansion of the DeltaPort Container terminal at Roberts Bank.

#4: Removing the tunnel will encourage development — including further residential development south of the Fraser River and additional big box retail development near the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. Eventually, new development will lead to new, higher levels of traffic.

The short term benefits of a new ten lane bridge are not worth the long term costs of paved-over farmland and urban sprawl that this development will bring to our region.

2016-01-31 16:10:28
LoriGoldmanVancouver British Columbia

No bridge. It will come into Vancouver where it will bottleneck and back up to Richmond. It will destroy land that people need for food production. It will increase pollution. This is not the correct path to take at this time of climate change. Rapid transit it a better solution.

2016-01-31 23:11:03
StephenReesVancouverBritish Columbia

https://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/the-case-for-replacing-the-massey-tunnel/

Summary

"It seems to me that we are repeating the same pattern we saw with the Gateway. The arguments to justify the expansion of the freeways – and the building of the South Fraser Perimeter Road – were always about trucks. But the real agenda is to encourage the typical pattern of suburban sprawl that the Regional Growth Strategy was supposed to deter."

2016-02-01 08:33:43
HarryWhiteDeltaBritish Columbia

Waste of money, there will be a bottleneck on the Oak street bridge anyway.

2016-02-01 11:07:00
monicawylliedeltaBritish Columbia

I do not think that the George Massey tunnel needs to be replaced! The new bridge will not save me any time, actually it will take longer and it will cost me money.
I am very concerned about the impact of blowing up the tunnel will have on the environment especially Burns Bog.
The ONLY reason the Bridge is going to be replaced is so that SUPER tankers can go up the Fraser River.
I say Retrofit!

Just because something is old, does not mean that it has no value!

2016-02-01 13:38:21
LeslieGaudetteLangleyBritish Columbia

My concern is that building this bridge will only lead to further traffic problems with access to the Oak Street bridge in Vancouver. It already jams up there - and this would get much worse. It will do little to improve my access as a Langley resident to Vancouver.

Also, the current plan is that the bridge will be tolled. I fail to see the logic of the BC govt deciding that we needed an expensive referendum to fund much needed transit expansion where the user is expected to pay more, and that same government turning around and announcing a new bridge with no consultation and funding that out of our tax dollars.

I would much rather pay for improved transit than for tolls on an over-sized bridge.

Best for the environment would be to have better transit options and fewer cars on the road.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this. And should not this also be sent to the Minister of Transportation in BC?

2016-02-01 21:12:39
TeresaDiewertSurreyBritish Columbia

I do not think we should be supporting the fossil fuel economy by building bigger bridges. Investments must be made to improve transit and make communities self sustaining so there is not the same need for people to travel in to the city. We must be more creative and take into consideration the future of our communities. If we allow for more resource extraction industry infrastructure (which this bridge is part of - making the river navigable for larger ships) we are contributing to climate change and an inevitable collapse of our ecosystems.
We also need much more transparent processes by which the public can discern the needs of their communities.

2016-02-01 22:18:27
AgnesJacksonDeltaBritish Columbia

I feel that we should replace or retrofit our present tunnel for various reasons. Cost is one reason, another is that the bridge only moves the congestion further down the line, does not solve the problem. I believe that the decision to replace it with a bridge is solely for the purpose of allowing larger ships to go up the river.
I doubt that public opinion will have much if anything to do with the final decision, so if the bridge goes ahead, then the commuter, should not have to pay the bill for the cost, but the ships that go under it and the many transport trucks that cross over it.

2016-02-02 12:16:10
MargaretMeggyDeltaBritish Columbia

A 10lane bridge is not to the benefit of Delta commuters. Instead, we should either leave the existing tunnel & retro-fit it, and add better transit options; alternatively, we could retro-fit the existing tunnel, and add an additional tunnel. This would disturb our environment much less, be less expensive, and solve the current traffic issues. Engineers have declared that a bridge is not the best option on Delta soils, whereas a tunnel is much more environmentally friendly & less expensive.

Our senior governments must take a stronger role in regulating the anti-environment, anti-community actions of Port Metro Vancouver. Delta residents understand the need for infrastructure and for business trade; we do not understand the indiscriminate attitude towards the industrialization of our communities, and towards the best farmland in Canada.

If a bridge is in fact built, the provincial government must recognize that the most expensive option has been chosen solely for the convenience of Port MEtro Vancouver. The port and its customers should therefore be liable for these huge added costs.

2016-02-02 14:16:26
KellyThomsonSurreyBritish Columbia

The removal of the Massey Tunnel should have a lower priority than the replacement of the Putullo Bridge which is much older and has a higher risk of failure.
The reason behind the removal of the Massey Tunnel, and expected dredging, is to enable extremely large ships to move further up the Fraser River.
The significant increase in ship traffic, with its accompanying noise and incidental pollution, will have a negative impact on fish in the Fraser.
The EAO should also consider the future cargos removal of the Massey Tunnel will enable and their potential impact on the environment. Currently the Fraser Surrey Docks are proposing creation of a new coal terminal, a project that has not had a proper environmental assessment, and the ability to bring larger ships up the Fraser River will result in a significant increase in coal and a related increase in coal dust entering the water negatively impacting the environment.
The Massey Tunnel replacement is unnecessary and the subsequent impacts seriously harmful to the environment.

2016-02-03 06:35:35
MyraCreaghSurreyBritish Columbia

I am happy to hear of the replacement plans for the Massey Tunnel.
It is time to get traffic moving and stop the pollution of having cars and trucks sitting almost idle every rush hour, twice a day, trying to move through the existing route. This is also the main route for visitors to the largest Pacific Canadian city; currently an embarrassment of non moving traffic. As a resident of Surrey I wouldn't take a chance of not leaving my home with hours to spare whenever I go to YVR for a flight or take friends.
With regard to the toll I have never been against a user pay program but a reasonable rate should be the norm. A one dollar ($I.) per passage would still pay off the debt in a viable fashion without draining the regular commuter making his or her way to work on a daily basis. The toll on the Port Mann is just terrible for those regular people in regular jobs with family expenses. It's just too high.

2016-02-03 11:08:22
LorraineSharpsteenVanoouverBritish Columbia

I am very concerned about the drive to replace the Massey Tunnel with a bridge over the South Arm of the Fraser River.

I am concerned because the bridge will be very tall, tall enough for ocean going vessels to sail under it, and very long, taking up large areas on both sides of the river.

I am concerned because the bridge will be very expensive to build.

Before the decision to build the bridge should be made, the following questions need to be addressed:

How will the bridge impact the land on the South Fraser River, and especially, will there be a negative impact on Burns Bog, an internationally recognized important and sensitive ecological area, which lies directly to the south of the river?

How much will the bridge cost and how will it be financed: through increased taxes, diversion of tax dollars from valuable, worthwhile programs, tolls, or by other means?

Why is the proposed bridge so high? Is there a presently existing need for the height? Or is it being built for a need that may exist sometime in the future? If so, can it be justified?

Does the Massey Tunnel really need to be replaced? Is it structurally deficient? If it needs expanding to allow more vehicles, can this be done in another way which will be cheaper and not affect Burns Bog?

Thank you for allowing me to give imput. This is a massive project and requires careful consideration.

thank you.

2016-02-03 17:33:42
AllanWarnerDeltaBritish Columbia

The Massey Tunnel? Replace with a 10 lane bridge to allow Big ship traffic to travel up the Fraser River about 5 miles or expand the tunnel, or what else?

THE WHAT ELSE should be to build a two track rapid transit bridge a short distance up river from the tunnel, that intersects the existing transit system across Richmond to the Airport This would provide a positive solution to the highway 99 and commuter traffic that the proposed bridge would only move northward through Richmond onto the North Arm , Oak Street Bridge.

In due course, this rapid transit could eventually continue on through Delta to South Surrey and eventually White Rock, where it would bring US tourist traffic to the heart of Vancouver and area.

We must stop planning and building infrastructure systems that become obsolete even before they are finished, but rather we must finance and design for the future, with unstoppable population growth by using modern and forthcoming technology.

2016-02-04 19:00:16
Keith and NedaMcDonaldRichmondBritish Columbia

I would be in favour of a Massey tunnel expansion/twinning and seismic upgrades. An assessment, feasibility study and costing should have been done and made available to the public. I am opposed to the proposed Massey 10 lane bridge for the following reasons:

1. The overbuilt bridge was approved to facilitate larger vessels for export of coal, and LNG – adding to global carbon emissions
2. increased domestic carbon emissions with a car-centric model
3. lack of a well defined regional transportation plan or regional plan in general
4. potential negative environmental impact, expropriation of agricultural land, potential health hazards from coal transport
5. resources should be directed into transit, fast rail and renewable energy
6. increased corporation profits at the expense of livable, sustainable communities
7. payment of the bridge should not be borne by taxpayers alone but also by the industrial users of the Fraser and the Port authority.

2016-02-04 20:30:44
ISaramaGibsonsBritish Columbia

Why are taxpayers being asked to destroy a perfectly good working tunnel, and replace it with an extravagently expensive and unneeded bridge?

Could it be so as to allow larger tankers and coal carrying ships the extra depth they need to go upriver?

Could it be to allow the expansion of dirty fossil fuels?

Could it be as a significant taxpayer funded subsidy of private industry so as to make them more profitable at public expense?

Could it be as one more example of corporate welfare?

Stop it, enough of this nonsense, now.

2016-02-04 23:12:53
MarnieNewellLadnerBritish Columbia

I have a few questions and concerns about the proposed Massey Tunnel replacement with a bridge.

Firstly, I would like a conclusive answer as to why a bridge is needed over a new tunnel. Who will benefit from a bridge versus who will benefit from a tunnel?

As a Ladner resident, I am also concerned about the noise that will be created by the construction of a bridge as well as noise from it's later use. I am also concerned about the impact on local parkland, waterways and wildlife. I would like to see information that shows the pros and cons for bridges versus tunnels on this point.

Lastly, I would like information as to how a new expanded bridge will help reduce congestion on connecting routes and why this is a superior plan to increasing public transit infrastructure.

Kind regards,

2016-02-05 09:08:24
joannajamesladner, DeltaBritish Columbia

I believe that if the tunnel is replaced with a bridge it should be done with a light transit train incorporated. Patterson Park would be a great place to have a transit station, the train would go to bridgeport skytrain station and that would alleviate so much traffic on the road to richmond. It would be a total missed opportunity and cost so much more money to do this later.
Let the train take the strain, if the line could go out to the ferry at Tsawassen, stopping at the new shopping centre, even better.

I am also concerned about funding the bridge I feel it should come from government federal and provincial budgets plus the Delta Port and industrial and container users of the river. A special toll rate for people who have to use it everyday from Ladner and Tsawassen should be offered.

We lost our direct bus into Vancouver with the sky train, we lost our fight with the exlectric lines, burns bog has been compromised by the new perimeter road, we are fighting Delta Port expansion and we have had nothing in return except loss of farmlands and threats of LGN plants, and more fossil fuels being transported under our noses.

I feel that a bridge is not the solution to congestion unless it is coupled with train and more bus options. Our aim must be to get car traffic off the road and encourage others forms of transportation to cut traffic jams and pollution together.

Thank you for listening.

2016-02-05 11:01:05
GeorgeShipleyDeltaBritish Columbia

If the new bridge charges tolls, the Port Mann bridge experience tells us some people will choose the Alex Fraser bridge instead of the new bridge. The Alex Fraser bridge is already a bottle neck during rush hour. A transit plan, including funding sources and more public transit, should be decided before planning a new bridge.

If the new bridge is wanted to export coal from the US, we should be sure that natural gas is not going to replace new coal-fired operations.

LNG - Isn't Prince Rupert closer to our gas fields than Delta? BC gas comes from fracked wells. Is the BC public going to tolerate the known and unknown environmental impacts from fracking?

BC government answers to these issues are superficial to non-existent. The public is entitled to decent answers before more planning is done on a new bridge.

2016-02-05 11:10:38
JordanSoetVancouverBritish Columbia

I have a large list of concerns about the upcoming George Massey Tunnel replacement, most of which are detailed on this page:

http://masseytunnel.realhearings.org/

First, I'm wondering about why improving the tunnel was not considered.
"The George Massey Tunnel was modeled on the Maastunnel in the Netherlands which was built 20 years earlier. Instead of replacing their tunnel with a bridge, the government of the Netherlands is currently upgrading their tunnel at a cost of $262 million Euros – about $420 million Canadian dollars. In comparison, a new bridge over the Fraser River is expected to cost at least $3.5 Billion dollars.

Is a new bridge over the Fraser River the best place to spend our limited public infrastructure dollars? Can we upgrade the Massey Tunnel instead and spend the money saved on other projects, like public transit?"

Second, I'm wondering if full upstream and downstream impacts of creating a bridge will be considered.

"

By keeping deeper draft vessels off the river, the Massey Tunnel has been a check on industrialization of the Lower Fraser.

Tearing out the tunnel will allow fully loaded coal freighters to travel to and from Fraser Surrey Docks. It could mean bigger LNG carriers loading at the proposed Wespac-Fortis LNG terminal in Delta. What other fossil fuel export proposals will come forward once the tunnel is gone? How much development on the river will be enough? How will we manage impacts on salmon, killer whales and other sensitive marine life?

Before the province rushes ahead with this proposal, we need to develop a comprehensive vision for the future of of the Lower Fraser that guides development and protects this important ecological lifeline."

As well, I'm wondering about the impacts on suburb growth of a new 10-lane bridge that doesn't fit into the regional growth plan

"

The existing Massey Tunnel represents a safety valve that keeps growth under control in our region. Yes, rush hour congestion in the tunnel is a problem that needs to be solved. But replacing the tunnel with an expensive ten lane bridge will just shift that congestion problem somewhere else — likely to the Oak Street Bridge further north. We need a comprehensive plan for regional transportation. Instead, the BC government creates obstacles to securing long term regional transit funding and rushes ahead with an expensive bridge replacement project that benefits industrial interests and will likely cause as many problem as it solves.

Removing the tunnel will encourage development — including further residential development south of the Fraser River and additional big box retail development near the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. Eventually, new development will lead to new, higher levels of traffic. As regional planners have known for some time, we simply can’t build our way out of congestion.

Removing the tunnel will also encourage the industrialization of farmland in Richmond and Delta to serve the Port Authority’s planned expansion of the DeltaPort Container terminal at Roberts Bank.

The short term benefits of a new ten lane bridge are not worth the long term costs of paved-over farmland and urban sprawl that this development will bring to our region."

2016-02-05 11:15:32
LaszloBendoRichmondBritish Columbia

I think we need to step back and address future concerns, and look at an overall lower mainland plan.
1) the proposed bridge does not fully address automotive congestion. Congestion hot sports are only move north of the south are of the Fraser River.
2) Rapid Transit is not even on the radar. In 1986 there was a rapid transit plan for south Surrey, non exist now.
3) As the toll bridge is finished I thing auto mobile usage will drop and therefore income. More and more people are working from home or working in the valley. Look at Microsoft. It moved because of poor transit service.
4) Is there a compensation plan in place for Richmond, Delta and Surrey farmers. As you increase the water flow by dredging the river, the salt content of the ground water will increase.
5) are you going to remove the tunnel completely or just what is in the river? If you remove the tunnel completely what is the additional cost in bridge structure to compensate the removal of the tunnel between the bridge supports.
Laszlo Bendo

2016-02-05 11:17:29
Susanne Kennedy DeltaBritish Columbia

All the listed concerns on this petition are valid in my opinion. ..I think there are other options to improve the crossing including twinning the tunnel and improving transit

2016-02-05 12:08:45
DukeMETCHOSIN VictoriaBritish Columbia

An extra crossing is needed,,whether it is a bridge or an other tunnel,,but if the 31/2 billion is being spent so they can transport more coal to China ,,than don't touch it...Fire the whole board of the port authority for Vancouver .,,besides there is an earthquake fault right beneath the existing tunnel,,blessings

2016-02-05 12:16:41
DonBruchetDelta (Ladner West)British Columbia

As a 24 year South Delta Resident, Taxpayer, Voter!, USER, and COMMUTER - the New & Improved & TOLLED 10 Lane (or more?) Massey Bridge is a MUST! (should have been started years ago! = Liberal B.C. Lack of Foresight, Planning, etc.)
- as a user and commuter - The Thousands of Hours WASTED in my use - the Daily Crawls, The Parking Lot's, The DAILY FRUSTRATIONS!. and the years of and the Need To Plan for Use Of - Quasi Efficiency (Off Peak Hours, Now Diminishing!) vs. GRIDLOCK (and the Increasing Peak Hours of operation)
**********
- NOW - More importantly is the "SHEAR B.C. Liberal GOVERNMENT'S STUPIDITY!", Yes, "Today's B.C. Liberals!" and their Lack of Foresight and Planning in NOTHING BEING DONE, in conjunction with the New Bridge Build - TO REPLACE BOTH THE OAK & KNIGHT STREET BRIDGES!
- Oak Street Bridge - Old, Outdated, Inefficient, Etc.and the resulting Daily Traffic CHAOS, and the Prime Entry/Exit to Vancouver City Proper; albeit right into/out of Gridlock Gregor's Worst Traffic North America + Mayor Moon Beam Bike Lane Mania
- Knight Street Bridge - Old, Outdated, Inefficient,Etc. and now add the Soon To Be Increase in Shipping & Container Traffic (Deltaport ll) to/from the Inner Harbor and being the secondary entry/exit to/from Vancouver City Proper; and more of Gridlock Gregor.on the East Side.
*********************
- Yes the new Bridge "will Increase Shipping!" (THE PRIME PURPOSE FOR THE BUILD!) ((currently planned U.S. "Thermal Coal" + LNG + Jet Fuel + ETC!,)), The Ship Size (Panamax!), The Frequency (LNG - a ship every other day, from WesPac, Tilbury, alone), and The Myriad other Shipping Products not yet realized! - Alberta OIL?
- Affordable Growth in the South of the current Tunnel IS ALREADY HAPPENING!, has been for a good long time; Hence the TUNNEL MESS WE HAVE BEEN IN AND STILL ARE! and for another 5+ Years
- Rapid Transit Beyond what is in place now is a PIPE DREAM!; especially what with the Historical & Existing TRANSLINK (mismanagement?) supposedly building and running the Train's NOW!
- at the same time, Lets Face IT - Vancouver Inner Harbor IS AT CAPACITY NOW! - East Delta, Surrey Shoreline and New Westminster and Upriver, are the only REMAINING AREAS FOR FUTURE SHIPPING GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT!, right over the Tunnel (currently sitting Too High!) or Under the New Bridge.
- Lastly, being a Betting Man - the day after the New Massey Bridge is opened, we will see the exact same Traffic Patterns as the Alex Fraser
today & god Help Us!
3rd Fraser Crossing coming soon to a Theatre Near You?

Don Bruchet
V4K 3N2

2016-02-05 12:22:48
HeidiBoehmRichmondBritish Columbia

Environmental factor would be the Biggest Issue if this was implemented!!!!

2016-02-05 13:00:44
DianneBurdittLadnerV4British Columbia

Hello: If this tunnel goes through EVERY vessel should be charged a toll and not the drivers who are using this unneeded bridge. I personally do not believe that this bridge is being builtt to help the average commuter, it's to help Big Business. This bridge will caus4e conflict with the birds and other wildlife populations and I believe cause more air pollution.

The big question I have is how do you filter 10 lanes of traffic into Richmond and then cross the Oak Street bridge? I hear more negative comments from people I talk to than positive; unfortunatly, many people do not know that they have a voice and hesitate to speak up.

Many of us are concerned about urban sprawl, especially here in South Delta (Ladner) where more and more farmland is being taken over.

For shame that this government puts big businesses needs before what the average BC'er wants.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of change, not change that will harm so many.

Thank you for your time in reading this.

Sincerely,
Dianne Burditt

2016-02-05 13:31:04
EnaCassellsLadnerBritish Columbia

It is my opinion that this is puposed only because the BC Liberal Government is hoping to increase the Roberts Bank Terminal and wants to deepen the Faser in order to facilitate larger ships. It wil not aliviate traffic problems, it will only move them down the road, and I will then be paying for the same traffic delays. How can this government believe that taking property out of the ALR is a right minded decision - do they honestly believe California can continue to supply our food when they are no less than a desert. They could ease the congestion by providing some kind of credit for large commercial vehicles that travel between midnight and 5:00 am thereby freeing up road space for commuters. All in All I am horrified wit this decision.

2016-02-05 13:45:06
ChrisArmstrongLADNERBritish Columbia

Where is the REAL "COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS" I can read that demonstrates the overwhelming BENEFIT of this bridge for the citizens of BC? Further plugging up Vancouver is NOT A BENEFIT in any way, shape, or form, in my humble opinion!

2016-02-05 14:37:44
LeslieStanickRIchmondBritish Columbia

I am deeply opposed to replacing the tunnel with a bridge.
1. A bridge is being created, requiring dredging for deep ships to travel inland to Delta to the proposed LNG loading facility. I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to LNG facility in the heart of our growing urban areas. LNG is NOT a safe fuel, and terrifying explosions have happened in other locals. This loading facility would be a terrifying target for an act of terrorism.
2. The Coal Port is also being planned in Delta, again, a terribly polluting source of fossil fuel that will spread coal dust into our air, agricultural land, and water, poisoning people, food supplies, fresh water and fish, and all the other wildlife in the area.
3. The bridge will require dredging and deep drilling for deep structural stability, which could destabilize the land around the area, especially during an Earthquake.
4. Farmers need fresh water for their agricultural needs.
5. Fish and other wildlife need fresh water, and the quietude of the Fraser, especially our salmon.
6. The increase in boat and tanker traffic will devastate the quietude and beauty of the Fraser River estuary, and damage salmon and other wildlife.
Our water, air, agriculture, farmland, peace, safety and the safety of salmon and is more important than LNG and COAL. Both of which will add a huge burden of CO2 and other chemicals to our air, water, land...
7. Sickening local communities and wildlife.

It it imperative that we look to a new plan, one that puts our priorities first, for the next 100's of years, so our agricultural land, our beautiful Fraser River, and our air is kept clean, for future generations of humans and the more than human worlds.

I agree, lets add a train through an add-on to the tunnel. Stop pandering to big coal and LNG. This is not the wave of the future, these fuels have the potential to create disaster in the midst of a growing urban environment.

We MUST consider many options, and give ourselves the time to examine the risks and benefits in the long term. We cannot continue glorifying car culture, and continue to put our energy eggs into fossil fuels. It is time to be proactive, examine our water and food security future, and prepare for a warming world, by reducing emissions rather than pandering to the coal and LNG industry. There is a cleaner, greener, safer way forward.

2016-02-05 14:59:52
TiffanyChoiRichmondBritish Columbia

I DO NOT WANT THE MASSEY TUNNEL BRIDGE BECAUSE I DO NOT TRUST CHRISTY CLARK AND HER HIDDEN AGENDA FOR LNG, JET FUEL AND COAL!!!!!!!!! I AM A 22 YEAR OLD FEMALE - RICHMOND RESIDENT AND I AM SO UPSET WITH THIS PROPOSAL!

2016-02-05 17:05:26
JeffreyChoiRichmondBritish Columbia

I do want the Massey tunnel because it will end up spending too much of our tax dollars on a bridge that we do not need.

2016-02-05 17:13:50
PaulLedaireSurreyBritish Columbia

I do not disagree with the need to build an earthquake resistant crossing of the Fraser River, but the choice of a ten lane bridge in the middle of a four lane highway seems odd. Why so many lanes? None of the other bridges over the Fraser River are that wide. As the congestion is always on the approaches it is that design, not the width of the bridge, which will determine the overall speed of the traffic.

Living in South Surrey I have discovered that the only sensible way to travel to Vancouver or Richmond during peak traffic hours is by bus. Doing so also removes the need to park a car for the day, and greatly reduces the environmental damage from commuting. The history of urban planning since the 1940’s has shown us that building new roads has never solved congestion. If you build them, surely they will come until the roads are again clogged. Perhaps we should be considering alternatives to the commute by automobile.

We need to think very deeply about what we are going to build. It will be with us for a long time, probably a century, or so. We need to immediately reduce our carbon footprint if we are to keep this planet livable. We need to immediately start modifying our cities and lifestyles to accommodate that reduction. An obvious part of that change must be a reduced reliance on cars and trucks. Why build infrastructure that is adding to our problems when we should be trying to solve those problems?

We should start with the publication of the engineering report that recommended a ten lane bridge as the replacement for a seismologically inadequate tunnel. The report must exist. As an Architect I would never start designing a building without first determining what that building should be, or if it should be, and what it would likely cost. If such a report does, in fact, not exist, this process is lunacy!

2016-02-05 17:34:12
ChristianAvendanoRichmondBritish Columbia

This Bridge is a bad idea because it puts our environment and food security at Risk! We need better transit not bridges.

2016-02-05 17:50:16
BrianKirtonAbbotsfordBritish Columbia

I don't care how we make a crossing be it bridge or tunnel. It does well for the spot at hand but the new Port Man bridge just pushed the bottle necking and plugging in different spots. This crossing backs up the same way and I don't believe this will make any difference. If it gives this government the appearance of doing something, it is non effective. Also I would like it to be made by CANADIANS NOT AMERICANS. Keep the money at home not to Peter Kewitt. I am sick of governments thinking they are so smart they can do what they want and to hell with the public. You people have never done anything right and you are corrupt. I don't trust you to be able to run a popsicle stand. Can't wait to see them voted out. Please check with the public. Not lip service Brian Kirton

2016-02-06 09:54:16
Brian kirtonAbbotsfordBritish Columbia

This will do no good like the Port Man bridge did, It just moved the bottlenecks. I also want it done by Canadians, Not Americans. Quit selling us out

2016-02-06 09:57:59
DavidDorringtonRichmondBritish Columbia

So it would cost $ 600 million to seismically upgrade the schools in the Lower Mainland and make our kids safe but the Province does not have the money for it. But they do have enough to build a $3.5 BILLION bridge across the Fraser so that MetroPort can make more money from shipping fossil fuels. Which do you think is more important ? Money or children ?

2016-02-06 10:43:42
timivensdeltaBritish Columbia

has anyone considered upgrading the tunnel ,instead of the bridge and with the money saved use to upgrade oak street bridge or build another crossing of the Fraser river . I remember the old rail crossing at five road in richmond that later became a car bridge. That is where sky train now crosses, could there not be some thing near number six road or seven?? Another issue with replacement of the tunnel is bed rock for footings , I know from several drillers that worked doing test samples at the tunnel that there is nothing but sand for 900 to 1000 feet below the surface because it is all river delta!!! Should the planners use some common sense and work with both Richmond and Vancouver city councils so that bottle necks just don`t get moved further north. Try some thing simple like closing the on- off ramps at steveston hwy and moving the north to blundell road. closing the lights at 70th and Oak to get traffic further into town off the bridge. Oak street could be just one direction (north) Granville street ( south) The GVRD must work together ,other wise the problem just gets passed to another partner. If the bridge is to be tolled , keep the cost down( a townie in either direction of use)

2016-02-06 12:56:35
PhyllisRuthvenDeltaBritish Columbia

The big push for this is Port Metro's desire to industrialize the lower mainland and turn the Fraser River into a shipping channel .We have some of the best food growing soil and climate. It is being wantonly desicrated by Port Metro pushing their adgenda forward and ignoring the fragile nature of the natural balance of the region.
Our politicians have been bought by dangling $$ in front of their eyes and often into their political pockets by big corporation whoes only perogatve is earning more money , tne environment be damned.
Proper transit can solve tbe congestion and good upgrade and possible expansion of tunnel is a cheaper more ecological option.
Proponants state that the magoritybof tunnel traffic is to Richmond. In tbat case why has Translink taken out our bus to south Richmond nessecitating us to go toBridgeport and back into Richmond from there.In my opinion a bus direct t Steveston Hyw into Steveston to connect along that route makes more sense.
There are better options to a 10 lane bridge that will eat up precious famland and ultimately bringvmore traffic and pollution to the area.
It is time to rethink this proposal and consider our environment and a future liveable region.

2016-02-06 13:15:33
markdaltonsurreyBritish Columbia

The environmental assessment should not focus solely on the impact of the bridge itself but on the impact of all activities in the region that result from its construction. We all know that Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) has requested a clearance of 65 metres so that large ships can access the LNG terminal and Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD). The danger presented by tanker ships loaded with a highly flammable fuel like LNG travelling through an urban area cannot be ignored. International standards advise that a 3.5 km buffer zone be established around an LNG terminal. Does this exist? PMV also wants to increase coal exports via FSD. We all know coal is the dirtiest of fuels whose use is decreasing. as a result of global pressures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. There are also local air and water quality concerns created by the transfer of coal at FSD. The Fraser River is a major salmon bearing stream. Salmon populations are already under tremendous pressures and this increased traffic on the river can only increase the stress. The increased marine traffic through the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca must also be considered. What will the effect be on resident killer whale populations and other marine mammals? There is also the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Expansion that will result in even more ship traffic in the area. (And the destruction of crucial feeding grounds for a large portion of the world's population of Western Sandpipers.) The cumulative effect of all these projects must be considered and development in the Fraser River Estuary must be limited or this extremely valuable natural environment could be destroyed.

2016-02-06 18:49:57
DeirdreWhalenRichmondBritish Columbia

I am really concerned that not enough investigation has been done in these areas:
1. Environmental assessments regarding the effect of river dredging and disruption to the estuary to, species at risk, birds in the Pacific flyway and migrating salmon;
2. Geological and Engineering assessments considering the project contemplates connecting one delta to another (where is the bedrock?);
3. Traffic congestion and climate effects with 10 lanes narrowing into 4 at the Oak Street bridge;
4. Toll studies that all show a toll causes avoidance behavior. People headed to Vancouver will take an un-tolled alternative;
5. Lack of consideration/costing for on/off routes for bikes (how will people use the bike lanes and reduce their carbon footprint?);
6. Bus/transit routes promised to reduce carbon footprint but what is the incentive to actually build them if the province gets tolls for every car crossing?
I need answers to these queries. At this point I am NOT in favour of demolishing the Massey Tunnel. This is NOT a long-term plan and not enough work has gone into it to make me, an ordinary citizen, believe a huge bridge at the Massey Tunnel is the best solution for Metro Vancouver.

Sincerely,

Deirdre Whalen
Richmond, BC

2016-02-06 20:40:41
SarahWestwickVancouverBritish Columbia

I live in Vancouver but work part time in Ladner, and use the Massey tunnel every week. I believe the tunnel should be upgraded but not expanded or turned into a mega-sized bridge. The money saved should be spent on public transit to make this region more liveable. The last thing we need now is bigger bridges and highways, putting more cars on the road and polluting the air we try and breathe.

2016-02-06 22:06:52
RichardPalbergBowen Island British Columbia

I lived in Ladner for over 30 years, worked there for 25 as well as worked downtown for 5. I'm very familiar with the tunnel from both a drivers as well as transit passengers point of view.

It is absolutely ridiculous that the current BC Liberal party is attempting to force this over priced bridge down the throats of Lower Mainlanders. A retrofired tunnel is by far the superior solution.

Please stop this madness.

sincerely,
Richard Palberg

2016-02-07 07:19:34
CourtneyNeishRichmond British Columbia

I am against construction of a new bridge being built to replace the George Massey Tunnel. Why use more resources and allow freight traffic through an environmentally sensitive zone when you could replace or retrofit the current tunnel for a fraction of the cost? The money saved could be used towards a better transit system to the areas affected. Please think about our environment before anything else as this bridge will not help when we have destroyed our planet.

Sincerely,

Courtney Neish

2016-02-07 08:52:42
PennyOyamaBurnabyBritish Columbia

WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER BRIDGE!!! We need more transit! This bridge is SOLELY for the benefit of fossil fuel exports, which absolutely DEFEATS Canada's committment to reduction in emissions!!
SUPPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY INDUSTRIES NOW !!!

2016-02-07 09:51:48
Harvey OstroffsurreyBritish Columbia

I take the Massey Tunnel into town. As a regular user, I feel that replacing the tunnel with a toll bridge is entirely unnecessary. I am certain that the only reason that the province is considering this change is to allow Oil Tankers and Coal Barges access to our waterways and ports.

If the government truly desired to improve traffic tie ups, they need to spend a great deal more money on public transit, which would alleviate the problem.

At this point there is no efficient way to commute from South of the Fraser to Vancouver. An expensive bridge, however is not the answer.

Yours truly,

Harvey E. Ostroff.

2016-02-07 10:19:39
JenniferMacArthurSurreyBritish Columbia

I believe that an upgrade to the tunnel and much improved rapid transit is the answer. A ten lane bridge to replace the tunnel will only cause further traffic congestion at other points (Oak St. bridge for example).

Dredging the river so that a new bridge can be built and larger sea going vessels can travel further up the river is a disaster waiting to happen. We need to live with our environment. This project would be detrimental to the environment.

2016-02-07 10:23:41
RosemaryNeishRichmondBritish Columbia

There is no doubt that something must happen at the tunnel to reduce traffic bottlenecks but I don't think a huge bridge is the answer. I would like to see more attention paid to improving public transportation to eliminate the number of cars on the road. As for the trucks and commercial vehicles, retrofitting or even twinning the tunnel would be preferable to sacrificing farm land that would be required by the long access routes to the bridge.

I wonder why there has been such a sudden rush to build a bridge when other alternates might be far less expensive and destructive. If the primary reason for a bridge is to allow bigger ocean vessels that transport coal or jet fuel to go upriver, I am adamantly opposed.

As others have suggested, let's come up with a comprehensive transportation plan that takes into account the environment, and the health of the river and the people who live on its banks.

2016-02-07 14:38:54
LeslieSlackDeltaBritish Columbia

As a resident of Delta, I am very disappointed that an in depth investigation has not been donein order to determine if the current tunnel could be upgraded and expanded, which would be cheaper than building a mega-bridge. The decision to go ahead and build this bridge was pushed through by the government and corporate parties involved before the concept was ever announced to the public. It is obvious that the Port Authority stands to make a great deal of money from the construction of a bridge, why would the public be responsible for paying for it? Building a mega-bridge will not solve traffic congestion problems, it will only move them to other areas, such as the Oak St. bridge. What the residents south of the Fraser River desperately need is serious investment in our transit system, which is almost non-existent.

2016-02-07 15:18:55
al`etmanskisurreyBritish Columbia

I don't support replacing the tunnel with a new bridge.
I support more transit options from South Surrey/White Rock * Delta as a high priority. If necessary retrofit the bridge.

Significant public expenditure for a bridge is too costly to taxpayer, the environment and the future.

Thank you
Al Etmanski

2016-02-07 17:41:37
VickieCammackSurreyBritish Columbia

Is there not a way that public transportation could be improved to such an extent that a new bridge would not be required?
How does the plan for a new bridge address the congestion at Oak Street?

2016-02-07 17:50:22
Fraser CrinklawSurreyBritish Columbia

I opposed to the replacement of the Massey tunnel with a bridge for the following reasons:

1. It will only shift north bound traffic to the south end of the Oak Street bridge.
2 We do not need or want more traffic going into Vancouver. We do want to encourage people to take public transportation.
3. The bridge will only benefit the shipping that will now being able to travel further up the river and I believe this will have negative effects on the river and surrounding areas. Let the ships go to Roberts Bank or pay for the new bridge.
4. I as a tax payer do not want to pay tor a bridge I do not want nor that I need.

I would be in favor of an updated tunnel - perhaps a 4th lane and also seismic upgrading. which I fully expect would be cheaper than a new billion plus dollar bridge. There must be expanded public transportation from south of the Fraser to Vancouver.with incentives as this will reduce traffic congestion.

I have talked to many people and everyone I have spoken to believes that the only reason for the bridge option is so that the deep draft freighters can travel up river.- NOT for traffic improvement..

I am not opposed to a toll to pay for an expanded tunnel . I am very much opposed to paying for new bridge.

2016-02-07 18:15:44
AngusMorrisonVancouver British Columbia

my concerns are with the the damage that will be done to the invaluable farm land in delta. Also the development of the south Fraser, increased deep sea vessels and the impact of this to the environment.

2016-02-07 19:47:36
AndrewCuthbertVancouverBritish Columbia

Building highway infrastructure induces traffic. A new tunnel will contribute to higher traffic volumes for the region and will move the problem elsewhere. Invest in transit and active transportation to solve problems.

This project is wrought with the old thinking that caused our problems in the first place.

If it must be built, do not increase the capacity of the route.

2016-02-07 22:23:06
HansElfertRichmondBritish Columbia

Very little discussion has taken place about the catastrophic effect of the dredging of deeper channels in the main arm of the Fraser River. That deep dredging to accomodate larger vessels will seriously change the flow in other branches of the river which in turn will result in silting up of those other branches. Many other users of the river (including ourselves) will be negatively affected by this change. In fact the entire delta of the Fraser River will be affected by this change in the flow. I strongly support the maintenance of the tunnel.

2016-02-07 23:01:11
GrahamMulliganSurreyBritish Columbia

Dear Sirs and Madams,
I am opposed to this project. I am a longtime resident of Surrey and have used all of the bridges and the tunnel to travel to Vancouver for many years. The congestion on the roads is an issue of too many cars, not too few bridges. To solve this problem we need to solve the public transportation issues. There are many ways to do this and the government of the province needs to take the lead, not play games like it did with the Translink plebiscite.

Sincerely,
Graham Mulligan

2016-02-08 08:35:40
JacquelineSteffenCoquitlamBritish Columbia

BC Environmental Assessment Office:

Here are my following concerns with the Massey Tunnel Replacement Project.

The BC government promised a ‘RapidBus BC’ service to White Rock which would have eliminated any need for a new bridge.

Tearing out the tunnel will allow fully loaded coal freighters to travel to and from Fraser Surrey Docks. It could mean bigger LNG carriers loading at the proposed Wespac-Fortis LNG terminal in Delta.

Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser up to deeper dredging for larger ships like tankers carrying liquefied natural gas, coal and tar sands bitumen.

What other fossil fuel export proposals will come forward once the tunnel is gone?

How will we manage impacts on salmon, killer whales and other sensitive marine life?

Building a bridge destroys a 20 metre wide swath of prime agricultural land plus the land consumed by the resulting sprawl – places British Columbia’s long-term food supply at risk.

The Vancouver Authority Port and Fossil Fuel exporters are clearly the ones who stand to benefit from this project.

Wasting $3.5 billion of taxpayer money to build an unnecessary bridge is a gross misuse of public funds. when we should be upgrading our transit system to decrease congested traffic in all areas of the city.

I am calling on the BC government to NOT rush ahead with this proposal, we need to develop a comprehensive vision for the future of of the Lower Fraser that guides development and protects this important ecological lifeline.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Steffen

2016-02-08 12:33:17
RobertWinstonSurreyBritish Columbia

Greetings -
I have concerns about the decision regarding upgrades/replacement of the Massey Tunnel.

1) Moving the congestion northward does not improve transportation in the lower mainland. Improving public transit requires reducing congestion which will not be improved by a 10 lane bridge. The investment must be made in light rail/skytrain not in a massive bridge that merely shifts congestion a few kilometers northward.

2) Bringing ocean going LNG/coal transport ships into the lower Fraser River will be detrimental to the airshed of the Fraser valley. The increase in diesel particulate matter will increase the incidence of cancer, cardiac and pulmonary disease in our population. The human suffering and financial costs are borne by the citizens of BC.

3) The addition of coal dust (which will occur as shipment of US thermal coal to Asia) to the sewer system of Surrey will have a negative impact on where that more toxic water and sludge is currently used, ie: farmland.

4) The impact on plants, fish and birds of this construction, the increase in ship traffic and the addition of toxins to the water and mechanical disruption of habitat in the river and ocean is unknown but certainly is likely to be negative.

In summary, the construction of a massive bridge will result in financial benefit for a very few individuals, mostly NOT Canadian, and result in increased costs to the citizens of BC. Adding to wealth inequality in our country will be another negative result of this project.The facilitation of fossil fuel exploitation in the US and BC is exactly the wrong direction for BC & Canada.

I strongly recommend that retrofitting the Massey Tunnel and expanding public transit is the rational response to our current congestion. This would result in an improvement in air quality and an improvement in the quality of life for BC residents.

Sincerely,
Robert Winston, MD, FRCP(C), FACP

2016-02-08 13:02:43
JudyGreenRichmond British Columbia

The George Massey Tunnel: should it stay or should it go?!!!

Removing the George Massey tunnel and replacing it with a 10 lane (toll?!!!) bridge sounds great in theory, but...
what would the true realty of the repercussions be????

It would encourage the "industrialization of farmland" in Richmond and Delta to serve the Port Authority’s planned expansion of the Delta Port Container terminal at Roberts Bank and the expansion of coal transportation (US coal exports) through the mouth of the Fraser using deep draft, heavily loaded ocean going vessels and still...
there would be bottle necks in terms of traffic, made even greater, as even more traffic travelled north through Richmond
trying to make their way into Vancouver.

The short term benefits of a new ten lane bridge are not worth the long term costs of paved-over farmland and urban sprawl that this development would bring to our region.

This in a time where sustainable local farming and preservation of farmland should be supported, encouraged and treasured.

The cost for this... an estimated $3.5 Billion as opposed to a $420 Million "retrofit alternative", which the Netherlands are doing to their similar, 20 year "older" tunnel, of which ours was modelled after???

The BC government says that the bridge is being built to benefit commuters, but the Port and industrial users of the Fraser River are the ones who are "clearly" going to benefit if this project goes ahead. Of course the developers will as well, as they haphazardly pave their way south of the Fraser.

Life on the mouth of the Fraser River would change dramatically as we know it and I believe, not for the better; inducing untethered urban sprawl and untold ecological damage.

I vehemently oppose the building of a new 10 lane bridge and support the alternative: Upgrade our existing George Massey Tunnel.

2016-02-08 15:06:39
NathaliePasinDeltaBritish Columbia

I don't have a problem with a new bridge as long as the tolls to pay for it are shared by all commuters using all bridges and tunnels in the lower mainland. As a North Delta resident, I am sick of traffic shifting to other locations as we have seen by the toll on the Port Mann bridge resulting in traffic going in other directions and thereby disrupting traffic in other spaces.

If a new bridge must be built, all of the lower mainland needs to pay for it. And, I'm not suggesting a $3 toll for all. But rather a $1 toll for all that MUST be connected to the existing TREO or that is added to car insurance rates.

I hope that the tunnel being torn out does not mean deeper draft vessels will now be able to go up the river, thereby making it easier to allow coal bearing vessels to travel. I and my neighbours are all vehemently opposed to the coal trains, coal loading in north delta/ north surrey area and coal barging down the Fraser. However, it would be a very good idea to charge all ocean going freighters a toll to pass this route given the elimination of the tunnel will now make this voyage possible. But again, NO coal freighters please !!!!

2016-02-08 17:11:17
ThelmaParmenterRichmondBritish Columbia

#1 Extend sky train from Surry Central to Morgan Creek #2 Install round about on highway 91 at 72 nd ave and 64 ave # 3 On and Off ramps on Highway 99 at Blundell Rd . Richmond .#4 Light Rail from White Rock to C N station A M. P M I E like the West Coast Express . #5 No Parking traffic 24 / 7 on Oak St ,, Granville St ,, and Cambie St ,, and Knight St , in Vancouver. # 6 Instead of Tolls General tax increase to lower mainland tax payers I E $ 200;00 and the rest of B C half the amount as we have all paid for the new Sea to Sky Rd . The new upgrade of the Loins Grate Bridge , the extension of Highway #1 and the new Ring Road . These ideas should be done before anything else takes place .. Thank you
.

2016-02-08 20:56:11
ThelmaParmenterRichmondBritish Columbia

#1 Extend sky train from Surry Central to Morgan Creek #2 Install round about on highway 91 at 72 nd ave and 64 ave # 3 On and Off ramps on Highway 99 at Blundell Rd . Richmond .#4 Light Rail from White Rock to C N station A M. P M I E like the West Coast Express . #5 No Parking traffic 24 / 7 on Oak St ,, Granville St ,, and Cambie St ,, and Knight St , in Vancouver. # 6 Instead of Tolls General tax increase to lower mainland tax payers I E $ 200;00 and the rest of B C half the amount as we have all paid for the new Sea to Sky Rd . The new upgrade of the Loins Grate Bridge , the extension of Highway #1 and the new Ring Road . These ideas should be done before anything else takes place .. Thank you
.

2016-02-08 20:56:14
GenevaStowellVancouverBritish Columbia

I am against building a new bridge. I would like to see more affordable, and accessible public transit. I also feel that retrofitting would be a better option that replacing.

2016-02-09 00:08:40
ClaireMartinRichmondBritish Columbia

Something definitely needs to be done in regard to the tunnel - the traffic congestion on both sides is ridiculous. It can take over an hour just to get to the highway 99 intersection from the Ironwood plaza if someone is willing to wait in that traffic. Also, the tunnel has never been completely seismically upgraded since it was built - in 1959! Since then we have learned so much about earthquakes and earthquake safety that I think it's unacceptable how much of a danger the tunnel would be if and when we have a major earthquake. I do believe something needs to be done, but the projected bridge is NOT the way to go. I'm sure you know that the bridge is going to be heavily funded by the Port of Metro Vancouver and other "possible funding partnerships". The proposed bridge is going to be massive - as tall as the Alex Fraser Bridge. Once the tunnel is fully removed, they will be able to dredge the river as deeply as they please, and start sending HUGE tankers up the South arm of the Fraser River into greatly expanded Ports of New Westminster and Surrey. This new bridge is purely for the benefit of private companies. Now this is a tough decision to debate. Economic growth is always good, and we do heavily rely on our import / export industry, especially here in BC. These particular ports are of decent size but the only way they can grow is if they start sending larger ships, which can only be done by this new extravagant bridge.However; more, larger barges and tankers are NOT what our environment needs. Our oceans here are extremely polluted as they are - the last last thing we should be doing is increasing the risk of even more disaster. That is my number one concern - our oceans and marine life. The health of our fish and porpoises and whales directly reflect the health of our planet, and so far it's not looking good. So the next questions are, how do we go about improving our infrastructure to become safe for our current population and to SUPPORT our future population growth? And how do we shift our economic needs to suit our environmental needs? Because without an environment, we can't have an economy!

2016-02-09 02:09:58
RyanSullivanCoquitlamBritish Columbia

Do not feel consulted, nor that the current liberal government has considered the project's long term impact on the public and regional traffic. This is a bandaid solution, and needs to be reconsidered.

2016-02-09 06:01:29
MatthewEllisVancouverBritish Columbia

GIven the numbers of transportation needs around the region and the province, this plan seems like a terrible idea.

Moving the traffic bottleneck down the pipe .. fail
Leaving areas struggling with poor transit .. fail
Not taking advantage of existing resources and funding a retrofit .. fail

2016-02-09 10:18:11
RobertMeggyDeltaBritish Columbia

It would make a lot more sense for the bridge to be built substantially smaller (thereby costing less) and for transit to be built at the same time; more environmentally sound, and would offer commuters more choices. Commuters south of the river are currently under-served and over-charged for transit; this proposed bridge will make the situation worse, not better.

2016-02-09 12:04:28
RobinDel PinoVancouverBritish Columbia

Does the tunnel really need to be replaced? It appears to be working. However, if changes are required, I would like to see upgrading the tunnel, rather than replacing it with a new bridge.
I am opposed to a new bridge because of damage to the environment and more urban sprawl.

Based upon other bridge development in our area, impact from building a new bridge will have a negative effect on traffic, while it is being built and will require more land use development in the surrounding areas.
This land around the river should be protected to maintain healthy ecosystems and clean water.

Additionally, a new bridge may expedite more fossil fuel exports on the Fraser River which I am opposed to. Vancouver is a endeavoring to be one of the world's greenest cities and must take the lead in sustainable energy and green urban planning.

Delta has great leaders who want to acheive the vision to be the greenest city in the world. Maintaining a sustainable future by choosing to upgrade the tunnel is an easy way to begin.

2016-02-09 12:53:20
LouiseBjorknasWhite RockBritish Columbia

The importance of regional transit in reducing traffic congestion has been ignored by the provincial government in favour of a massively expensive bridge.

Why did we have a referendum on transit funding, but not on this bridge?

The fact that the bridge will serve industries (LNG,coal) that are destructive to our climate is another insult foisted upon the lower mainland.

Why is the BC government moving ahead with this proposal with a $3.5 Billion price tag?

Why not follow the Netherlands in retrofitting/upgrading the tunnel, with a cost saving of at least $3 Billion?
Why would the provincial government choose a solution that will burden tax payers to an amount eight times the Netherlands' solution?

The provincial government continually reveals their inability to comprehend how vital it is protect the environment.

2016-02-09 13:04:51
AliyaKhanSurreyBritish Columbia

My name is Aliya Khan and I am writing in regards to a call for comments on the environmental assessment of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. I have compiled a list of reasons as to why there needs to be a more thorough environmental assessment of the project.

The BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure needs to include what they will be doing to ensure wetlands and other wildlife are maintained.

I understand that the Fraser River Delta Ramsar site includes Burns Bog, Sturgeon Bank, Boundary Bay, South Arm Marshes, Alaksen, and Serpentine. Ramsar is an international agreement outlining the guidelines and principles for conservation and management of wetlands and their resources. Wetlands are included for their plant and animal diversity, importance to inland water bodies and water systems, or ecology. I understand that Environment and Climate Change Canada, Metro Vancouver Parks Department, and BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations manage different parts of the Fraser River Delta Ramsar Site. Is the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure working within the context of the Ramsar convention, the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation, and other initiatives to ensure wetland and other wildlife values are maintained at the Fraser River Delta Ramsar site? The bridge is being built right over the South Arm Marches Wildlife Management Area. This is concerning.

The BC EAO needs to ensure that a Qualified Environmental Professional conducts a science-based assessment of the proposed bridge and its surrounding areas.
The BC Government defines The Riparian Areas Regulation as:
- “The Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) was enacted under Section 12 of the Fish Protection Act in July 2004. It calls on local governments to protect riparian areas during residential, commercial, and industrial development by ensuring that a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) conducts a science-based assessment of proposed activities.”
Will there be qualified environmental professionals looking at different aspects of this project assessing its impact on biology, wildlife, hydrology, and ecosystems?

“Support increased transit on the Highway 99 corridor. Provide dedicated transit/HOV lanes on the new bridge to improve travel time reliability and add capacity for long-term transit improvements.“
Will Translink vehicles be paying a toll to cross the bridge? Are they funding some of the bridge project? Will Translink’s toll be included in our taxes. Will ships sailing under the bridge be paying a toll?

“Dedicated transit/HOV lanes will encourage transit and carpooling, to help manage growth in auto traffic. Travel time savings and reliability benefits are expected to be more than $70 million in the first full year of operation, increasing over time.”
Does this value take into account the costs of paying the toll to cross the bridge? Does it include the cost of reducing nature’s benefit?

“Additionally site investigations such as a geotechnical drilling programs.”
How will these drilling programs affect marine populations? Is the sound and waste produced from this operation being taken into account? How will this work impact the endangered Fraser River Sturgeon?

“Existing utilities along the Highway 99 corridor include power transmission, communications, water, natural gas, and sewer services which may need to be temporarily or permanently relocated or protected during construction.”
Is the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure including safety plans in the case of an accident during the relocation of the following items?

The Draft’s “waste disposal” section is very ambiguous. How will they be getting rid of the waste? What waste will be generated? Do greenhouse gases being emitted count as waste?

“Activities associated with Tunnel decommissioning may temporarily affect water levels, river velocity, sediment transport and turbidity, as well as erosion and deposition patterns, and result in changes to flow patterns and scour. These potential changes are expected to be limited to the location of the Tunnel.”
Shouldn’t the changes in the area of the Deas Slough bridge also be taken into consideration during bridge construction? How will this impact the leaving and returning salmon to the Fraser River? Has any consideration been given to their migratory patterns?

“Results of the river hydraulics and morphology studies will be used to support the assessment of potential effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat, marine mammals, agricultural use, and marine use.”
What will the potential effects be on bird populations, or other animal species that rely on these marine populations as a food source?

“There may be a small loss of fish habitat within Deas Slough in areas that overlap the Project footprint; however, removal of the Deas Slough Bridge is expected to offset this loss and result in a benefit to fish and fish habitat.”
How will this be a benefit to fish and fish habitat? Is there scientific evidence that support this claim? How small is “small”?

“Vegetation clearing along upland watercourses during construction will result in a temporary loss of habitat.”
How long is temporary? If it throughout the process of bridge construction (i.e. 6 years), will it be long enough to affect the animal populations that rely on these areas for food and habitat?

“A study is being undertaken to identify wetlands in and around the Project alignment with potential at-risk amphibian habitat, and to determine at-risk amphibian presence, if any, in those wetlands. The study focuses on habitat of norther red-legged frog, which is provincially Blue-listed and designated as of Special Concern under the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.”
What plans are going to be included after the study is conducted to ensure that the red-legged frog and its habitat remains untouched throughout the duration of this project?

“Terrestrial wildlife along Highway 99 consists primarily of common species of raptors, riverine birds, and small mammals. Some suitable barn owl and Pacific water shrew habitat has been identified along vegetated sections of Highway 99; however, barn owl nesting and Pacific water shrew occurrence has not been confirmed. Barn and cliff swallow nesting activity has been documented under Deas Slough Bridge.”
How will the extra traffic/lighting during and after bridge construction affect bird populations (namely owls)? How will removal of the bridge affect birds that create their habitats under it?

“Grassy areas adjacent to the highway provide habitat for small mammals, such as voles, and foraging habitat for raptors and other birds that prey on small mammals. Large mammals, specifically black-tailed deer live in areas adjacent to the highway (Burns Bog); however, monitoring of the existing collision impacts of Highway 99 by the Ministry indicates limited impacts along the portion of the highway that is proposed to be upgraded as part of the project.”
Will these grassy areas next to the highway be removed during the construction phase? How will this affect the small mammals that live there and large animals/birds that prey on these small mammals?

“The Project is expected to result in an improvement in air quality, especially in the vicinity of the Tunnel, as a result of improved traffic flow, since vehicles driving at highway speeds consume less fuel and generate lower emissions.”
Greenhouse gases released during the project should also be taken into consideration.

“Noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Project alignment may experience an increase in noise over time as vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, and the proportion of heavy trucks increase."
Wouldn’t this lead to decreased air quality too? Wouldn’t traffic volumes and heavy trucks contribute to more air pollution? Will the increase in noise over time affect land animals and human beings? Shouldn’t studies be conducted on this aspect of the Project?

“Several areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the official community plans of Richmond and Delta are located near the Project. The Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area (Delta) and the Richmond Nature Park are located in the vicinity of the Highway 99 corridor. The South Arm Marches Wildlife Management Area is located in the Fraser River South Arm downstream of the Tunnel.”
What is being done to ensure that these conservation areas are kept unharmed? What steps are being taken to ensure that the Corporation of Delta, Metro Vancouver, the province of British Columbia and Canada’s commitment to honor the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance?

2016-02-09 14:05:00
DanielBelkinRichmondBritish Columbia

I do not want the bridge as it has severe implications for the environment

2016-02-09 14:55:38
Burns BogConservation SocietyDeltaBritish Columbia

The Burns Bog Conservation Society is writing in regards to a call for comments on the environmental assessment of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. Below is a list of reasons as to why there needs to be a more thorough environmental assessment of the project.
The BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure needs to include what they will be doing to ensure wetlands and other wildlife are maintained.

I understand that the Fraser River Delta Ramsar site includes Burns Bog, Sturgeon Bank, Boundary Bay, South Arm Marshes, Alaksen, and Serpentine. Ramsar is an international agreement outlining the guidelines and principles for conservation and management of wetlands and their resources. Wetlands are included for their plant and animal diversity, importance to inland water bodies and water systems, or ecology. I understand that Environment and Climate Change Canada, Metro Vancouver Parks Department, and BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations manage different parts of the Fraser River Delta Ramsar Site. Is the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure working within the context of the Ramsar convention, the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation, and other initiatives to ensure wetland and other wildlife values are maintained at the Fraser River Delta Ramsar site? The bridge is being built right over the South Arm Marches Wildlife Management Area. This is concerning.

The BC EAO needs to ensure that a Qualified Environmental Professional conducts a science-based assessment of the proposed bridge and its surrounding areas.
The BC Government defines The Riparian Areas Regulation as:
- “The Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) was enacted under Section 12 of the Fish Protection Act in July 2004. It calls on local governments to protect riparian areas during residential, commercial, and industrial development by ensuring that a

- Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) conducts a science-based assessment of proposed activities.”
Will there be qualified environmental professionals looking at different aspects of this project assessing its impact on biology, wildlife, hydrology, and ecosystems?

“Support increased transit on the Highway 99 corridor. Provide dedicated transit/HOV lanes on the new bridge to improve travel time reliability and add capacity for long-term transit improvements.“
Will Translink vehicles be paying a toll to cross the bridge? Are they funding some of the bridge project? Will Translink’s toll be included in our taxes. Will ships sailing under the bridge be paying a toll?

“Dedicated transit/HOV lanes will encourage transit and carpooling, to help manage growth in auto traffic. Travel time savings and reliability benefits are expected to be more than $70 million in the first full year of operation, increasing over time.”
Does this value take into account the costs of paying the toll to cross the bridge? Does it include the cost of reducing nature’s benefit?

“Additionally site investigations such as a geotechnical drilling programs.”
How will these drilling programs affect marine populations? Is the sound and waste produced from this operation being taken into account? How will this work impact the endangered Fraser River Sturgeon?

“Existing utilities along the Highway 99 corridor include power transmission, communications, water, natural gas, and sewer services which may need to be temporarily or permanently relocated or protected during construction.”
Is the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure including safety plans in the case of an accident during the relocation of the following items?

The Draft’s “waste disposal” section is very ambiguous. How will they be getting rid of the waste? What waste will be generated? Do greenhouse gases being emitted count as waste?

“Activities associated with Tunnel decommissioning may temporarily affect water levels, river velocity, sediment transport and turbidity, as well as erosion and deposition patterns, and result in changes to flow patterns and scour. These potential changes are expected to be limited to the location of the Tunnel.”
Shouldn’t the changes in the area of the Deas Slough bridge also be taken into consideration during bridge construction? How will this impact the leaving and returning salmon to the Fraser River? Has any consideration been given to their migratory patterns?

“Results of the river hydraulics and morphology studies will be used to support the assessment of potential effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat, marine mammals, agricultural use, and marine use.”
What will the potential effects be on bird populations, or other animal species that rely on these marine populations as a food source?

“There may be a small loss of fish habitat within Deas Slough in areas that overlap the Project footprint; however, removal of the Deas Slough Bridge is expected to offset this loss and result in a benefit to fish and fish habitat.”
How will this be a benefit to fish and fish habitat? Is there scientific evidence that support this claim? How small is “small”?
“Vegetation clearing along upland watercourses during construction will result in a temporary loss of habitat.”
How long is temporary? If it throughout the process of bridge construction (i.e. 6 years), will it be long enough to affect the animal populations that rely on these areas for food and habitat?

“A study is being undertaken to identify wetlands in and around the Project alignment with potential at-risk amphibian habitat, and to determine at-risk amphibian presence, if any, in those wetlands. The study focuses on habitat of norther red-legged frog, which is provincially Blue-listed and designated as of Special Concern under the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.”
What plans are going to be included after the study is conducted to ensure that the red-legged frog and its habitat remains untouched throughout the duration of this project?

“Terrestrial wildlife along Highway 99 consists primarily of common species of raptors, riverine birds, and small mammals. Some suitable barn owl and Pacific water shrew habitat has been identified along vegetated sections of Highway 99; however, barn owl nesting and Pacific water shrew occurrence has not been confirmed. Barn and cliff swallow nesting activity has been documented under Deas Slough Bridge.”
How will the extra traffic/lighting during and after bridge construction affect bird populations (namely owls)? How will removal of the bridge affect birds that create their habitats under it?

“Grassy areas adjacent to the highway provide habitat for small mammals, such as voles, and foraging habitat for raptors and other birds that prey on small mammals. Large mammals, specifically black-tailed deer live in areas adjacent to the highway (Burns Bog); however, monitoring of the existing collision impacts of Highway 99 by the Ministry indicates limited impacts along the portion of the highway that is proposed to be upgraded as part of the project.”
Will these grassy areas next to the highway be removed during the construction phase? How will this affect the small mammals that live there and large animals/birds that prey on these small mammals?

“The Project is expected to result in an improvement in air quality, especially in the vicinity of the Tunnel, as a result of improved traffic flow, since vehicles driving at highway speeds consume less fuel and generate lower emissions.”
Greenhouse gases released during the project should also be taken into consideration.

“Noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Project alignment may experience an increase in noise over time as vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, and the proportion of heavy trucks increase."
Wouldn’t this lead to decreased air quality too? Wouldn’t traffic volumes and heavy trucks contribute to more air pollution? Will the increase in noise over time affect land animals and human beings? Shouldn’t studies be conducted on this aspect of the Project?

“Several areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the official community plans of Richmond and Delta are located near the Project. The Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area (Delta) and the Richmond Nature Park are located in the vicinity of the Highway 99 corridor. The South Arm Marshes Wildlife Management Area is located in the Fraser River South Arm downstream of the Tunnel.” (Recall: The South Arm Marshes Wildlife & Burns Bog are part of the Fraser River Delta Ramsar Site).
What is being done to ensure that these conservation areas are kept unharmed? What steps are being taken to ensure that the Corporation of Delta, Metro Vancouver, the province of British Columbia and Canada’s commitment to honor the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance?

2016-02-09 16:02:29
SheenaDevotaRichmondBritish Columbia

As a Richmond citizen I would like my mayor's concerns and questions about this initiative to be addressed, and for this issue to be brought forward for further discussion amongst Richmondites. New construction seems like a major expense with potential environmental impact.

2016-02-09 20:59:22
HartejJohalDeltaBritish Columbia

We do not need to replace the tunnel! This change is to support the Port and industrial users only. If the bridge is being built to benefit the commuters, ask how many commuters are actually supporting it! Most commuters would rather have the wait than have a daily toll. this is purely a business decision and those businesses which will benefit from this should be paying for it! Rather than fixing our traffic problems, now Alex Fraser bridge will become a huge traffic problem! Commuters are already talking about rerouting to Alex Fraser bridge rather than paying the toll. How will this benefit anyone other than the Port and industrial users?!!

2016-02-09 23:23:46
TjJohalDeltaBritish Columbia

The bridge is not envinmentally feasablle

2016-02-09 23:28:51
DouglasMasseyDeltaBritish Columbia

To whom it may concern:
1.How much of the design costs of the proposed Massey bridge are a result of the demands of Port Metro Vancouver to deepen and industrialize the Fraser River?
2. How much of the design costs of the new bridge foundation are attributed to the soil conditions and the lack of bedrock stability?
3. What are the grade differences between building a another tunnel and the proposed new bridge? What would be the fuel cost differential?
3. If you were to meet the height requests for the bridge by Port Metro Vancouver what would be the additional costs? What would the grade be? Where would the approaches hit the land on either side in Delta and Richmond?
4. Would not an immersed tunnel have a lot less grade with shorter approaches?
5. Would not an immersed tunnel better meet the soil conditions than a bridge? Immersed Tunnels have been constructed successfully in water depths up to 58 m below sea level, in very poor soil conditions and increasing lengths, in an urban environment or when high air clearance of deep navigation channels are required?
6.The Caland tunnel is atypical river crossing, located in a very busy part of the Rotterdam port, with a total length of 2.500m (4921.26 feet or .93 miles or 1.5 kil).
7. What consideration was given to the fact that bridge height would interfere in the flight of wildfowl, being as it is being built over wetlands of international significance and under a Ramsar designation?
8. Have you reviewed the location and height regarding the flight path of aircraft to and from the Vancouver Airport?
9. Would an immersed tunnel not be more suitable at this location?
10. Why would allow the location of both an LNG storage facility and the route of LNG carriers to be so close to a high level bridge when every were else in the world this is avoided, due to the susceptibility of an accident or terrorist act?
11. Would not an immersed tunnel better suit light rail?
12. Why would you not renovate the present GMT and use it for light transit rather than destroy it?
13, Did you not just spend $20 million retrofitting the tunnel for seismic conditions?
14. Were you not going to spend another $17 million to upgrade the seismic conditions around the approaches?
15.The Maas river tunnel built in 1945 some 14 years before the GMT is planning on renovating it at the cost of 262 million euros or 411 million Canadian dollars, why when the GMT is 14 years newer than the Maas River tunnel should we not spend the money and continue to use it for many years to come?
16.Why do you suggest that a bridge that is some 200 feet high in the air built on nothing but a sand, and gravel sediment base be any safer that a tunnel in an 8.25 earthquake?
17. Why do they feel that immersed tunnels can be built safely in Europe, Japan and China who have a much greater earthquake conditions?

2016-02-10 12:04:57
CarlosSilvaRichmondBritish Columbia

I have a number of concerns and I hope this project is dialed back significantly. While I appreciate that the bridge will open up the Fraser to additional trade via the Port, it opens up a Pandora's box of other issues, as listed here.

-The impacts of this Project are far-reaching and should include a Review Panel federal environmental assessment.
-More information is needed and there should be a future opportunity for input on Scoping and Valued Components before the Application is allowed to proceed,
-The Project is too large and too expensive (where's the referendum on this? The region needs investments in moving people not cars and trucks).
-Traffic Congestion will increase at the Oak Street and Knight Street Bridges.
-The Project information fails to recognize the national and international significance of the Fraser River Estuary for salmon, sturgeon, eulachons, endangered whales and migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.
-A 45% percent increase in truck traffic in this region is unacceptable and credible alternatives are available.
-The Project will have a negative impact on regional air quality.

2016-02-10 14:18:17
IreneNasdulRichmondBritish Columbia

Why are you planning to spend $3.5 billion on building a bridge anchored on nothing but sand when the Netherlands are spending $0.5 billion retrofitting theirs?

2016-02-10 17:46:59
S. JaneGoundreyWhite RockBritish Columbia

I think expanding Skytrain out to Delta, South Surrey, White Rock and even Langley would be a far more environmentally sensible option than increasing the number of private cars that can pollute their way across the Fraser into Vancouver every day.

I believe in rapid public transit.

2016-02-10 19:21:19
Greg J.EdwardsTsawwassen, DeltaBritish Columbia

BC EAO

Re: More weight to transit by rail and to the Fraser River's ecology are needed in consideration of Massey Tunnel's future

To Whom It May Concern:

It's distressing to see transit by rail being given short shrift to date in the proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel should replacement be necessary.

It's equally distressing to see such little consideration being given to the ecology of the Fraser River.

No provision for transit by rail and so little regard for the Fraser River tells me and others that the unspoken plan calls for the the Fraser River and its delta to take on Vancouver's shipping so that speculator friends of government can redevelop the shores of Burrard Inlet.

Kitimat, Prince Rupert and other points along our long coast, as well as alternative ways of handling cargo, can share the load.

A plan that includes light rail transit and a doubling or tripling of the Massey Tunnel's capacity would go a long way to preserving the Fraser, too.

Yours truly,

Greg J. Edwards
5078 Walker Avenue
Delta BC V4M 1A7
604-948-5149

2016-02-10 19:29:41
David F.Boehm, B.Sc.,(Zool)Gabriola IslandBritish Columbia

Using the Fraser River as a ship canal is a dreadful idea. This some of the nest salmon habitat on earth in the river and the adjacent delta.
Coal export projects of this magnitude would fuel global warming precipitously. And for what ? to benefit American coal billionaires.At the expense of the salmon and wildlife? A dreadful proposal. So colossally risky,it beggars the imagination.With bridge supports 600 metres deep to bedrock.
Retrofit the tunnel at most and upgrade Transit service for Surrey with expanded sky train development.
Thank you for providing this opportunity for input.
db

2016-02-10 22:00:34
StuartSmithVancouverBritish Columbia

I do not support building new vehicle infrastructure unless tolls capture 100% of operating, capital, and land acquisition costs and communities are compensated for externalities like pollution, noise, and risk.

To unilaterally move ahead with a project benefitting a few tens of thousands of people, just after forcing a similar sized transit investment that would benefit hundreds of thousands of people to go through a decisive regional referendum is either ignorance or hypocrisy.

The EAO presentation I attended did not feel like a neutral or unbiased review of the project, it felt like a sales job and did not give me confidence that any concerns would be treated fairly.

As evidenced by hundreds of vehicle infrastructure projects around the world, this project will only increase pollution as it encourages people to select homes further away from their destinations and subsidizes long distance trips over short distance trips. It will encourage people to spend more time in vehicles rather than in their community. It will reinforce a message to large businesses that the government is willing to subsidize transportation for them, as long as whatever being transported can use rubber wheels on asphalt.

A review of the long term environmental impact of this bridge compared to the status quo, or a simple toll on the existing tunnel, should easily find that the project does not meet environmental or community or regional goals. It sacrifices the interests of the many for the interests of a few.

2016-02-11 08:52:22
DorothyWattsVancouverBritish Columbia

I don't understand why there isn't money for public transit. I know that this bridge will be over-capacity within five years. Let's look at some better long term solutions, rather than huge projects like this. A rapid transit system is a much better long term solution. Furthermore, having a ten lane bridge lead into four or even six lanes and then onto the Oak St. Bridge is simply ridiculous. No doubt that something has to be done, but I decry the reactionary thinking on this.

2016-02-11 10:15:36
AliceCavanaghNew WestminsterBritish Columbia

The longer term impact (beyond the next 2 election cycles) will be increased traffic and need to trap that side of region into a continuous arms race of larger highways. Many of our cities are reaching their maximum capacity for traffic anyway and we don't need to be faced with having to bulldoze, parks, farmland and houses to make more room for cars.

2016-02-11 10:30:53
MarkListerVancouverBritish Columbia

I am concerned that a full analysis of alternate, less expensive options (e.g. tunnel retrofit, tunnel twinning, new, but smaller bridge) has not been presented to the public. An upgraded tunnel or smaller bridge would improve seismic stability, allow for dedicated transit lanes, and limit environmental damage from industrialization by preventing freighter traffic from using the Fraser River.

Equally importantly, alternate options could accommodate growth in people movement (via increased public transit use) at a much lower cost than the proposed 10 lane bridge.

2016-02-11 11:06:50
EricDohertyVancouverBritish Columbia

Comments on Massey Tunnel Replacement “Project Description and Key Areas of Study” Environmental Assessment document

By Eric Doherty MCIP, Ecopath Planning - www.ecoplanning.ca
Vancouver BC Feb 11, 2016

1) Key Areas of Study, alternatives, and the role of federal agencies
The list of ‘Key Areas of Study’ in Section 5.0 of the Environmental Assessment and Key Areas of Study (KAS) does not include greenhouse gas pollution. A credible environmental assessment cannot be carried out without serious consideration and study of greenhouse gas pollution implications of the project and of alternatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution.

Disturbingly, section 2.3 of the KAS claims a 10-lane bridge and associated freeway expansion would result in “lower idling-related greenhouse gas emissions.” This is misleading to say the least, and should be corrected in an assertive and timely manner by the responsible federal agencies. (Misleading claims in the KAS are discussed in more detail below in Sections 4 and 5).

According to the SightLine Institute, adding just one mile of new highway lane increases carbon emissions by 100,000 tonnes over 50 years. The bridge proposal feeds a continuing dependence on fossil fuels and is at odds with Canada’s international commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 °C.

The KAS document states that the “list of key areas of study presented here may be refined based on the results of feedback on this Project Description and guidance from the EAO” P 28. Climate impacts, including alternatives designed to reduce GHG pollution should be added as a stand-alone item to the Key Areas of Study.

At the Richmond open house, I was told by BC EAO staff that this process is intended to meet the requirements of federal as well as BC environmental assessment. However, the applicability of federal law and the roles of federal agencies are not spelled out in the document. The role of federal law and agencies should be clarified in future communications.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency gives the following interpretation of federal law related to EA as a planning tool and the role of alternatives:

Environmental Assessment as a Planning Tool

This guidance on “alternatives to” and “alternative means” emphasizes the use of environmental assessment as a decision-making and planning tool, in addition to a project impact assessment tool.

The approach links considerations of “need for” the project, “purpose of” the project, “alternatives to” the project and “alternative means” of carrying out the project, in the early stages of project planning, and before irrevocable decisions on the project are made.

In this way, a responsible authority and/or proponent will be in a better position to define potential solutions to a problem, and to establish the viability of alternatives.

Our present federal government was elected on a promise to restore the credibility of environmental assessments, including by ensuring robust consideration of greenhouse gas pollution impacts.

The alternatives to the project considered to date do not include any substantial transit service improvements or transportation demand management measures. Even the obvious step of tolling the existing bridge to the level foreseen on a new bridge has apparently not been considered.

In a letter of guidance regarding the Port Mann/Highway 1 Project Environmental Assessment, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency stated that "As responsible authority under CEAA [Canadian Environmental Assessment Act] Transport Canada is requiring a consideration of alternatives to ensure that the proponent of this large infrastructure project has shown due diligence in planning the project." The letter of guidance also clarifies that "As part of the analysis of alternatives to the project, the proponent would describe the relative costs, benefits and environmental effects of these alternatives. Through this analysis a preferred option would be selected." The Port Mann/Highway 1 project is similar in many ways to the Massey Tunnel replacement project, and the effects of these and similar projects are cumulative.

Any credible assessment of greenhouse gas pollution implications must include well researched alternatives to the project specifically designed to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. Alternatives should include various combinations of:
• Tolling the existing tunnel at levels comparable to those envisioned for the new bridge (at least during times when significant congestion occurs on a regular basis). These tolls should be tested for a reasonable period of time such as 12 months to get the most reliable data on the effects on traffic volumes, congestion delays, and greenhouse gas pollution levels.
• Enhanced bus service throughout the catchment area of the tunnel, using existing transit lanes and transit priority measures. Transit priority measures requiring cooperation from the City of Vancouver, such as bus lanes allowing efficient operation of direct buses through the existing tunnel to downtown Vancouver should be included.
• Enhancements to Canada Line service and facilities, including consideration of re-locating bus connections to Brighouse Station so that connecting passengers have a better chance of getting a seat. Facilities enhancements might include a heated waiting room with washrooms at the main bus transfer point at the Canada Line (presently Bridgeport Station).
• Enhanced transit priority measures wherever traffic congestion causes significant delays and/or lack of reliability for people riding transit through the tunnel.
• Other transportation demand management measures. E.g. see the Victoria Transport Policy Institute’s TDM Encyclopedia http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/index.php
• Enhanced region-wide goods movement measures to reduce the need for container truck movement via the existing tunnel, such as short sea shipping (tug and barge) on a region wide basis.
• A new transit link or links across the Fraser when ridership warrants. For example, a passenger or bus and passenger ferry connecting Steveston and Ladner (or even an eventual extension of the Canada Line to Tsawwassen).

Further background on measure specifically designed to reduce GHG pollution is available in the CCPA / Wilderness Committee report Transportation Transformation: building complete communities and a zero-emission transportation system in BC https://www.wildernesscommittee.org/publication/transportation_transformation

2) Rushed timeline
“The Ministry proposes to submit the Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the Project in 2016 to support a thorough and timely review, so that construction can begin in 2017” (pi)

This extremely rushed timeline is inconsistent with a thorough and credible environmental review for a project of this magnitude, consistent with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA). On the face of it, this project should trigger CEAA provisions on multiple grounds.

Enough time must be allowed for a thorough environmental assessment.

3) Climate and the case for Environmental Assessment by CEAA Review Panel
Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change “may refer an environmental assessment to a review panel if the Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so” Canada and BC are both on track to spectacularly fail in meeting their GHG pollution reduction targets. Clearly, it is in the public interest to meet and exceed these GHG reduction targets. But this cannot happen if billions of dollars are spent to increase GHG pollution, as would be the case with a ten-lane bridge replacing the Massey Tunnel.

The Massey Tunnel replacement scheme is not a stand-alone project. It is merely a $3.5 billion part of ongoing provincial and federal policies that drive up transportation GHG emissions at the cost of tens of billions of dollars annually. Canada, and BC, cannot feasibly meet the ambitious agenda to avoid catastrophic climate change set in Paris without a new direction on transportation, such as the one outlined in Transportation Transformation
Building complete communities and a zero-emission transportation system in BC. And since Canada is now being looked to for leadership on climate, other countries will be positively influenced by a good example here.

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change staff involved in this project should recommend that the Minister refer the Massey Tunnel Replacement environmental assessment to a Review Panel, and give that review panel direction to examine the larger policy implications of alternatives to this project.
4) Federal responsibility for accuracy of information: GHGs and regional pollution
A credible environmental assessment process, which the federal government has pledged to provide, is not possible if the project proponent systematically provides misleading information that is not challenged. Responsible federal agencies should ensure that inaccuracies are challenged early in the process and not allowed to stand unchallenged in future documents presented to the public.

Federal Agencies have commented on misinformation from provincial agencies and their contractors in past roadway expansion environmental assessments in the past. However, the same pattern of misinformation continues with this project. Federal agencies and elected representatives need to be more assertive and timely in upholding the public’s right to accurate information, if environmental assessments are to have any credibility.

This KAS document shows that the provincial government is continuing a pattern of misinformation on GHG and regional pollution impacts, despite past protests from federal agencies.

Section 2.3 of this KAS document claims a 10-lane bridge and associated freeway expansion would result in “lower idling-related greenhouse gas emissions.”

According to the SightLine Institute, adding just one mile of new highway lane increases carbon emissions by 100,000 tonnes over 50 years. The bridge proposal feeds a continuing dependence on fossil fuels and is at odds with Canada’s international commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 °C.2

Section 5.9.2 states “The Project is expected to result in an improvement in air quality” and section 5.14.2 states that the project “is generally anticipated to result in improvements in human health with respect to air quality and noise conditions, as well as in consideration of broader determinants of human health”

In response to similar statements made in Port Mann/Highway 1 documents, Health Canada stated that “the misdirected focus of this assessment is inappropriate and may be misleading to the general reader”. Environment Canada echoed the sentiment, and stated that the highway expansion “is predicted to contribute to some deterioration of air quality and an increase in GHG emissions.”

5) Other misleading information in KAS document
Safety:
Section 2.3 Project Benefits includes “Improved Safety” The claimed “decrease in the frequency of collisions” is not a real claim of improved safety. Slow speed ‘fender-benders’ which account for most collisions in congested conditions are for the most part not sources of significant injury. Fatality and serious injury statistics are not even mentioned in the document. Urban freeway expansions, and the arterial road widenings that generally accompany them, generally cause increased crash fatalities and serious injuries.

KAS Section 2.1 states:

“safety and traffic congestion issues associated with the existing Tunnel are the primary reasons for the Ministry’s decision to proceed with the proposed Project”

KAS Section 2.1.1 states:

“With narrow lanes and multiple merge points, crashes in and around the Tunnel happen with higher frequency than along other parts of the Highway 99 corridor.”

Apparently there are no particularly significant traffic safety problems related to the existing tunnel and approaches, otherwise the data for traffic fatalities and/or serious injuries would likely be cited in the KAS.

Section 2.4 includes the statement that “Seismic upgrades, including installation of an advance-warning system, were made in 2006.” The next stage of seismic upgrades has been delayed, and should be prominently featured as part of alternatives to retain the existing tunnel in this EA process.

Congestion & Traffic Volumes
Section 2.3 Project Benefits includes “Reduced Congestion” However, the area of supposed benefit is not clearly defined. Region wide, a project of this type would be expected to increase the person hours spent in congestion and resulting negative effects (excluding any impact of tolls, which could equally be applied to the existing tunnel).

KAS 2.1.2 Traffic Congestion

“The Tunnel has been congested during the weekday morning and afternoon rush hours for decades”

Apparently, there has been no significant worsening of congestion delays over this time period, otherwise this would be documented.

“TransLink’s Regional Transportation Model indicates that . . . traffic volumes through the Tunnel will grow over time”

In fact, traffic volumes through the Massey Tunnel have declined slightly over the last decade. Black box transportation models, as widely used in North America, were developed with funding from General Motors and are usually worse than useless in forecasting traffic volumes. See Cooking The Books: Cooking the Planet (Eric Doherty 2007) http://www.spec.bc.ca/Resources/Documents/Cooking_the_Books_Report_Final_05-02-07.pdf

Federal agencies should ensure that TransLink’s Regional Transportation Model is tested to see if it accurately predicts traffic volumes through the existing tunnel over the last two decades, and the results should be made public.

Transit
Section 2.3 Project Benefits includes “Improved Transit”. However, the main limiting factor in transit improvement along the corridor is money. And the $3.5 billion dollar bridge translates into $3.5 billion less available for transit or other public purposes. Highway 99 already has near-continuous bus and high occupancy vehicle lanes, which could be further improved for a very modest cost. There is no data in the document suggesting transit vehicles are being delayed to a serious extent merging into traffic and travelling through the existing tunnel.

2016-02-11 11:33:36
KateWalkerVancouverBritish Columbia

Will tankers and marine traffic pay tolls to use the river?

Is this bridge being built to be followed by dredging the river to allow LNG tanker traffic to pass? That would be extremely dangers, putting too many people in the "blast" zone should there be an accident.
Upstream carbon costs from fracking for LNG make any exporting of LNG a very bad idea. We should stop all fossil fuel exports.

Has the Federal government approved this project?

Transit and bicycle travel over any new bridge should be given a very high priority in the planning. Driving more by individuals should be discouraged. What are the plans to make this happen?

2016-02-11 13:06:26
JasonWilliamsVancouverBritish Columbia

I think all other options should be pursued in public before a bridge is settled upon. Especially upgrading the current tunnel as it looks to be cheaper and will keep large ships from passing upstream

2016-02-11 13:07:15
AndrewMurrayNew WestminsterBritish Columbia

Once again a major road infrastructure project jumps to the head of line out of nowhere driven by special interests and subsidized by the public. We already have two white elephants in the Golden Ears and Port Mann Bridges which are totally under utilized.
This project is not about solving a congestion problem it Is about the industrialization of the Fraser River. There are numerous options that could be used to alleviate the congestion on this route. This decision is being driven by Port Metro Vancouver and the previous Harper government based on a faulty endless growth strategy.
A new bridge will exacerbate sprawl , threaten valuable farmland, and increase fossil fuel exports at a time when the world is turning to a low carbon economy. This project should be subject to a full federal gov't environmental assessment.
At 3.5 billion this project will continue to drive up the Provincial debt and become a burden on future generations. Who will pay for the annual 30million dredging costs?
Retrofit the existing tunnel and put a toll on it. This is old economy thinking at a time when the global economy is grinding to a halt.

2016-02-11 14:13:45
Carolyn TanakaRichmondBritish Columbia

I am not in favour of rebuilding the Massey Tunnel.

1. It does not support the natural habitat and ecosystem of BC fish, wildlife and farmland.
2. It will cost tax payers 3.5 billion dollars to rebuild a new bridge when federal and provincial net debt is at an estimated $1.3 trillion.
3.Implementing a toll fee will simply direct traffic and congestion to other areas of the city, thereby not creating an effective solution to traffic problems.
3. Building a 10 lane bridge will increase the amount of greenhouse gas emission into our atmosphere.
4. The negative consequences in building the bridge outweighs the claimed "benefits" that the bridge would provide
5. The number of pedestrians that would actually use the bridge to walk or bike will make little if any difference to reducing negative impact on the environment
6. Our priorities should be placed in areas that encourage environmental sustainability like building proper and efficient sky train systems, not industrialization of natural land and rivers.

2016-02-11 15:46:01
BrendaMcNairCampbell RiverBritish Columbia

Upgrade the tunnel & add a rapid transit component to benefit commuters. Do not build a bridge & dredge the channel, as this will enable more coal & LNG carriers on the Fraser River, which presents health & environmental concerns.

2016-02-11 16:09:01
LarryColeroDeltaBritish Columbia

I question the wisdom of building such a monstrous and expensive bridge that does not provide dedicated space for public transit, and in fact shows no foresight at all for making the Lower Mainland a more liveable region. I could list many other concerns, such as environmental impact and traffic congestion at the Vancouver end of the bridge, but my primary concern is the deliberate lack of transparency or probity shown by the BC government in deciding to build an anachronism and trying to convince the public that this represents progress.

The public not only needs an opportunity for input. It also needs some honest answers to questions about why such a ridiculously costly alternative was chosen over much less expensive reasonable options prior to public input. All I ask is for some honest reasons why this bridge has already been selected as the best option, and why replacing the tunnel has already been announced through media and highway signs - all prior to this public input process or, apparently, a thorough review of all of the much less costly and more forward-thinking alternatives.

A responsible evaluation process is needed, and I strongly suspect it will lead to a different outcome than the giant bridge.

2016-02-11 16:18:03
EoghanMoriartyDeltaBritish Columbia

This project is significant enough to warrant a Federal Environmental Assessment due to effects on the globally significant Fraser River.

2016-02-11 18:17:25
Brian KingDeltaBritish Columbia

Replacing the tunnel with a 10 lane bridge to another bottle neck is not a traffic solution. Charging the local area residents to transverse it when they have no alternative is robbery.

I propose that the government pose a 1% increase to the provincial sales tax to fund translink and remove it completely from the private sector. The WHOLE province benefits from the shipping of goods through Vancouver and the WHOLE province benefits from it. And the WHOLE province should pay for it.

2016-02-11 19:57:42
Mr. NicolaySlaterDeltaBritish Columbia

(1) The head of Port Metro Vancouver, Robin Silvester claims the Massey Tunnel removal is not necessary in this Feb. 9, 2016 article. This is contrary to his 2012 position that removal is necessary. (see lower quote) When heads of Federal Port Authorities can distort their own words so clearly, it is then time for those Authorities and all their operations to be questioned, as to the validity of any of their claims and their very raison d'etre.

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/who-benefits-from-a-bridge-1.2166706

"The environmental group Voters Taking Action on Climate Change has been echoing those concerns, last year making public documents it obtained that suggest the port asked the government for a bridge several metres higher than what has been proposed to accommodate taller liquefied natural gas transport ships at a proposed terminal in Delta.
Port Metro Vancouver president and CEO Robin Silvester told the Optimist the port was among those consulted about the potential bridge design, but says the constraints of the river, including depth and turning radius, limit the size of ships that can ply the waterway.
“We would like to be able to fully load the size of ships that we can get up the river, which is the current Panamax ships, but the idea that they’re going to be super tankers or mega ships going up the river is just rubbish. It’s completely misplaced because you couldn’t turn them around.
“When the province asked us about how big the bridge should be, what we looked at was what’s the largest air draft – the distance above the water – that a ship going up the river could foreseeably need.
Two types of ships we look at there: One was a cruise ship, because we can see in the long-term maybe having a cruise ship terminal on the river. The other was an LNG ship. Between cruise ships and LNG ships, they have the highest height above the water.”
But does that mean dredging?
Not according to port chief financial officer Allan Baydala, who in open letter on the port’s website says that while the removal of the tunnel may create greater depth at that point in the river, the amount of dredging required on either side could be extensive and potentially cost prohibitive."

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/resources/Robin+Silvester+Port+vital+local+economy/6543564/story.html

"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.
Eliminating bottlenecks and improving roads and road safety for trade and community traffic alike is a port priority. We trade with the world, true, but this is where we live, this is our home. We want to be a part of a neighbourhood and a wider community that works for all who call it home."

Robin Silvester is president and CEO of Port Metro Vancouver.

(2) When considering the previous comment # 1, Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) Federal Authority has apparently asked recently that the bridge design have it's height increased and is now pretending to have changed their request for a deeper channel to one where the existing Massey Tunnel depth is adequate for their current purposes. One has to ask, why the change? Are they expecting the oceans to rise allowing for larger ships in the tidal waters of the Fraser River Delta and/or are these climate induced changes going to require a higher bridge as well. Does PMV have information that might shine a light on their inconsistent requests?

(3) As a taxpayer in Delta, BC and Canada I would strongly condemn the replacement of the Massey Tunnel with a bridge. All the evidence shows that this would be a costly and futile effort to improve traffic flows into the City of Vancouver when the current bridges on the other side of Richmond have less capacity than the proposed bridge. This simply points out the futility of funnelling the traffic to the other side of Richmond.

2016-02-11 20:05:54
SylviaDenzDeltaBritish Columbia

I have many concerns. Below are some of them in brief point form:
• The impacts of this Project are far-reaching and should include a Review Panel federal environmental assessment.
• More information is needed and there should be a future opportunity for input on Scoping and Valued Components before the Application is allowed to proceed,
• The Project is too large and too expensive
• Traffic Congestion will increase at the Oak Street and Knight Street Bridges
• The Project information fails to recognize the national and international significance of the Fraser River Estuary for salmon, sturgeon, eulachons, endangered whales and migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.
• A 45% percent increase in truck traffic in this region is unacceptable and credible alternatives are available.
• The Project will have a negative impact on regional air quality.

2016-02-11 20:12:17
TheaBridger DenzDeltaBritish Columbia

My concerns about this proposal include the following points:

· The impacts of this Project are far-reaching and should include a Review Panel federal environmental assessment.
· More information is needed and there should be a future opportunity for input on Scoping and Valued Components before the Application is allowed to proceed,
· The Project is too large and too expensive
· Traffic Congestion will increase at the Oak Street and Knight Street Bridges
· The Project information fails to recognize the national and international significance of the Fraser River Estuary for salmon, sturgeon, eulachons, endangered whales and migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.
· A 45% percent increase in truck traffic in this region is unacceptable and credible alternatives are available.
· The Project will have a negative impact on regional air quality.

2016-02-11 20:29:31
ElizaOlsonDeltaBritish Columbia

The more I hear about the proposed bridge, the more concerned I become.

From the information I have obtained, a tunnel is the cheapest and the safest, so why isn't the government considering this option. I understand that when the tunnel was originally put in, there was discussion of the pros and cons of a bridge and it was decided that the tunnel was the safer and cheaper choice.

I am also concerned that the Province is ignoring its international commitment to the Ramsar Convention of Wetlands of International Importance in regards to the Fraser River Delta Ramsar site, No. 243. All four levels of government (Corporation of Delta, Metro Vancouver (GVRD), the BC Province and Canada) agreed to honour this international convention. Now the building of this bridge places the South Arm Marshes at direct risk.

Deep dredging could have an impact on the marine wildlife and their ability to survive. This includes the salmon that migrate up and down the Fraser River. Their presence is why the Fraser River is called the largest salmon-bearing river in the world! Herring, Eulachon, the endangered sturgeon are a few species. Reduced salmon has the potential to negatively impact the whales due to reduced food source.

There are other unintended consequences that have not been addressed. These include the potential to reduce the water table in Burns Bog and flooding of the mouth of the Fraser River. This includes Ladner in Delta, parts of Richmond and along the river right up to Surrey.

The open land in the Fraser Valley that absorbed much of the flooding in the 1940's is no longer there. Wetlands have been filled in and no longer able to carry out their natural function.

This means there are fewer places for the flood waters to go. This environmental assessment needs to take into consideration these unintended consequences including the loss of farmland. Our population continues to grow while the arable land in BC continues to shrink.

Engineers believe they can do anything. The question is, should they?

The depth needed to reach a solid base for the bridge raises a lot of concerns. These include the impacts of pounding pilings to about 800 feet deep; the stability of the soil on either end of the bridge

The drought in California, the reduced Loonie,climate change and lost farmland all paint a challenging picture for us
to feed ourselves.

Please take into consideration all the concerns of people who are sending in their comments.

Several years ago, I was told a letter represents the opinion of up to 1,000 people. The reason being, so many plan to write but so few do so.

I urge you to consider other alternatives to this bridge.

2016-02-11 21:26:28
Alison Gillis Courtenay British Columbia

No further industrialization should be allowed on the lower Fraser River.
A Federal environmental review should be done and publicized. If necessary the tunnel should be expanded.

2016-02-11 22:10:56
Janice HeslopDeltaBritish Columbia

Does tunnel really need to be replaced?

The replacement is evidently to support the thermal coal exporting. What environmental impact will large ocean vessels have on the Fraser River? How does this align with the new Canadian commitments at the Paris Climate Change conference?

Is a Federal environmental assessment also taking place? If not, why not?

Where is the business plan that supports the tunnel replacement and the bridge as the best option?

Who will benefit the most from the bridge and will that party pay for the bridge?

2016-02-11 22:29:41
DanaCrudoVancouverBritish Columbia

We need to making decisions based on what is best for our environment, not based on promoting business for fossil fuels!

2016-02-11 22:58:36
DuncanbrayvanBritish Columbia

no need to replace

2016-02-11 23:09:20
BarbaraEtchesVancouverBritish Columbia

A multi-million project that encourages more cars on the road is exactly what Greater Vancouver doesn't need. It's time that the provincial government woke up to the fact that encouraging fast, efficient and affordable public transit is not only environmentally sound policy, but also economically prudent. I'm a senior and appalled by the 'dinosaur' thinking that promotes such a project; I can only imagine the resentment with which younger generations, quite rightly, will view it.

2016-02-11 23:50:31
David HallPort Moody British Columbia

Did the Provincial Government and/or any consultants and/or any subconsultants consult with Kinder Morgan and/or any LNG proponents regarding the design of the bridge?

Did the Provincial Government seek money from Kinder Morgan and/or any LNG proponents in order to build the project?

What assurances do we have that backroom deals with Kinder Morgan and/or LNG proponents regarding the opening up of the Lower Fraser to deep sea vessels were not made?

Has the Provincial Government been informed that Kinder Morgan is seeking to relocate the terminus of the Trans Mountain pipeline project to the lower Fraser Delta?

Has the Port of Metro Vancouver been involved with the final design of the project?

Will the Provincial Government commit to banning deep sea oil tankers in the Lower Fraser?

Could the Province please provide the rationale as to why the bridge design was chosen over retrofitting of the tunnel?

Was opening up the lower Fraser River to larger ocean going vessels the main reason for choosing the bridge option?

What accommodations have been made to First Nations claims concerning the proposed development area?

Why was this Massey Tunnel replacement project not included in the recent transit referendum if the replacement of the Pattulo Bridge was included?

Were any other locations for the new bridge even considered?

Will the Province commit to making a public statement that Kinder Morgan was in no way consulted/involved in the design and/or is part of the rationale for the project?

2016-02-12 05:41:02
DavidRileysurreyBritish Columbia

Professional Planners of international stature like Patrick Condon have made clear that our transportation system has to stop replacing efficient with sexy. Failure to implement a better bus system while circling around various rail options [all of which are exponentially higher in cost per passenger mile than buses] is a huge part of our road congestion problem, a problem that will not be aided by this bridge because of the myriad of other bottlenecks in the system, all of which need attention before another white elephant like this is considered. Often environmental sense and common sense reach the same conclusions.

2016-02-12 07:22:47
KathrynColbyVancouverBritish Columbia

We do not want another port Mann bridge debacle. Just repair the tunnel and run transit. This is SO BASIC. Traffic congestion is getting worse and worse and you cannot build your way out of a traffic jam. Preserve the beauty of the area and help people enjoy their time there. Do NOT build a bridge!

2016-02-12 07:24:05
ruthquirkrichmondBritish Columbia

This is project has a not so hidden agenda of getting tankers up the Fraser. The tunnel could be twined for a fraction of the cost. We need to start encouraging less single car travel and more rapid transit.

2016-02-12 08:18:58
NormanHillVancouverBritish Columbia

The Massey tunnel should not be replaced with a bridge or any new structure. It has several decades of useful life as is. It is sufficient to meet our transportation needs. Building a bridge or any new structure that would facilitate more fossil fuel traffic on the Fraser River would be a huge and costly mistake. We are faced with catastrophic climate change; we must work to immediately wean the world economy off fossil fuels, not facilitate more of their consumption. Instead of spending money on a bridge, we should invest heavily in improving public transit, which would lessen the pressure on the existing Massey tunnel. In the future, if necessary, we could spend a modest amount to repair the existing tunnel to extend its life even longer.

2016-02-12 08:55:57
melaniethompsonsalt spring island/stevestonBritish Columbia

PLEASE think again and DO NOT proceed with this costly, destructive, and ill considered project.

2016-02-12 09:02:17
Erin RyderRichmondBritish Columbia

Building new freeways when droughts, floods and extreme weather
already wreak havoc on BC communities is highly irresponsible. Adding just one mile of new highway lane increases carbon emissions significantly and unnecessarily. The bridge proposal feeds a continuing dependence on fossil fuels and is at odds with Canada’s international commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 °C.2.

Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser up to deeper dredging for larger ships like tankers carrying liquefied natural gas, coal and
tarsands bitumen. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems. The focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port.

In 2008 the provincial government promised a ‘RapidBus BC’ service to White Rock which would have eliminated any need for a new bridge.
Unfortunately, despite new bus lanes being built we are still waiting for the buses to show and transit service through the Massey Tunnel has actually been cut. A ten lane highway expands vehicle usage and hinders the switch to electrified mass transit.

Commuter traffic volumes through the current Massey Tunnel could be reduced with improved transit. This Project will just push the traffic bottleneck up the highway to the Oak Street Bridge and onto Richmond streets. It is one of the reasons the City of Richmond voted to oppose the expansion. Research and experience confirms you can't build your way out of congestion.

Several designations recognize the ecological importance of this Canadian Heritage River which supports the most productive salmon fishery in the world. A declared RAMSAR site as wetlands of international significance, the delta supports Canada’s highest density of wintering waterfowl and migrating shorebirds of the Pacific Flyway. It is also Canada’s top site for wintering birds of prey.

No credible rationale is provided for the option of a massive Bridge. Only one group benefits: Port Metro Vancouver. Options of upgrading the existing tunnel, twinning the tunnel, a smaller bridge, or status quo with restrictions on truck hours have not been fairly considered.

2016-02-12 09:44:01
MaitreyiSalmonDeltaBritish Columbia

Spending $3.5 billion of taxpayers money on an unneeded bridge is shortsighted if you considered some of the issues of this project:
- damage to the Fraser River by larger ships exporting fossil fuels like LNG and coal
- retrofitting the tunnel would cost a fraction of the bridge plan ($262M euros in the Netherlands)
- why should commuters be the only ones to pay tolls? why not industrial users too each time they cross underneath
- if traffic numbers are decreasing why do we need a 10 lane bridge which will just move traffic jams elsewhere?
building a high bridge is bad for the climate. Port Metro Van's requirement for 10 meters extra bridge clearance vastly increases fossil fuel use instead of a submersed tunnel which uses gravity
- what about the resulting sprawl and loss of farmland supporting this huge bridge project?
- how can you build a bridge on 800M of sand in an earthquake zone?
- why not spend the money on transit infrastructure instead?

2016-02-12 11:07:34
MOIRASILCOXRICHMONDBritish Columbia

Residing on the Fraser River, we have strong concerns about the replacement of the Massey Tunnel for a mega bridge. It is important to find ways to keep our local economy healthy, but this bridge will potentially cost more than the projected 3.5 billion dollars in terms of loss of farmland, elevated risk to the sensitive Fraser River delta and salmon runs, among other environmental impacts. Further, as a resident of Richmond, we are appalled at manner in which this huge project has been handled by the Province, notably the intensional withholding of pertinent information from our Mayor Malcolm Brodie and our City Council. It appears as though the Province is fast-tracking project decisions and acting unilaterally. It seems evident that little foresight has been applied in decisions regarding this project. To propose a 10-lane roadway/marineway in a time when reductions in the use of fossil fuels (whether auto or marine) are deemed imperative, reflects how out-of-step the present Provincial government is with the times.

2016-02-12 11:50:35
MichaelAgesVancouverBritish Columbia

The climate crisis is the greatest threat to human security ever. We need immediate worldwide action to avoid an unimaginable catastrophe for the human race. There is no doubt in that fact whatsoever.

Considering the impact any project has on worldwide climate change must be a part of any environmental assessment.

For our part here in BC, reducing the number of cars on the road is an extremely important part of us to reducing our contribution to this potential catastrophe. Considering the fact that only a few buses pass through the Massey tunnel every hour carrying a tiny percentage of the total people passing through the tunnel, surely an increase in transit service through the tunnel is a much more more efficient lever for reducing the congestion, and at the same time helping us reduce our contribution towards potentially devastating climate change.

Please consider the much cheaper and more environmentally sound option of retrofitting the tunnel and increasing transit service.

2016-02-12 13:06:45
LeonoraGrandeRichmondBritish Columbia

The environmental impact of any project needs to be looked at very very closely.
Folks who live along the Fraser don't want much traffic, and little fossil fuel traffic for sure. You know already, I hope, that most folks in the Lower Mainland are anti-fossil fuel. Look at this demographic. We are the most affected by the traffic and the bridge.

Look at the Netherlands project very closely. A mega-bridge is not the answer.

No one wants a ten-land bridge. No one.

Folks, young and old, are moving south of the tunnel because they can't afford Vancouver. Don't give us worse problems and a Ladner that my kids don't consider as an option. Don't touch the possibility of harming farmland and fishing.

Frankly, mistake after mistake after mistake is making the Lower Mainland a hellish place to live in, and not be able to afford on top of that.

Screwing up this project would be the icing on the cake.

I'm not being long or intellectual - I am in severe physical pain right now but I do want to add my 2 cents.

Sincerely,
Leonora Grande

2016-02-12 13:08:40
UlrichGaedeRichmondBritish Columbia

When I hear that the tunnel could be upgraded and twinned for a less than a quarter of the cost of a bridge it just makes me think that the Province working for Port Metro Vancouver is railroading the locals with another mega project that simply has their (PMV's) interests in mind and NOT the folks that live and use the area.

2016-02-12 16:17:12
DavidM.GoldWhite RockBritish Columbia

We live in White Rock and frequently need the use of a replacement for The Massey Tunnel.

I have driven in 27 countries and 30+ states.
Never have I seen a tunnel so ugly, dirty and potentially dangerous.
I am not subject to claustrophobia except when I drive through this tunnel.
In summer, when you enter this tunnel,the brightness of the sun is blinding.
For most people who live south of the Fraser River it is incomprehensible that anyone could be against rebuilding or replacing this eyesore.

David Gold

White Rock B.C.

2016-02-12 17:22:30
nadeanetrowserichmondBritish Columbia

please don't let the bridge project go forward.
It won't fix traffic congestion, just move it up to Oak Street.
It won't make life better, greener or more productive for anyone.
It WILL irremediably harm the Fraser River, its fish, its other necessary but less visible species.
It WILL allow the reconfigured Fraser to be the means of moving deadly products further inland and out to markets.
It WILL enable LNG projects and these project, given the new energy situation and very obvious climate change, just make climate change worse.
It WILL allow crazy land speculation around the ends of the bridge happen, threatening farmland, and farming, and reducing BC's ultimate sustainability.

2016-02-12 19:59:53
Jim MunroRichmondBritish Columbia

There are so many problems with this bridge, it is difficult to know where to start.
Firstly the money would be far better spent on public transportation systems. The Bridge will not alleviate traffic problems. It will only aggravate them by skyrocketing the number of cars entering Vancouver.

The degradation of the farmland and the dredging of the river will do nothing but harm ALL living species, plant and animal in that region.
At a time when the biggest problem facing humanity, is the expanding industrial degradation of the planet, it would seem obvious that this will do absolutely nothing to solve that problem. In fact exactly the opposite.
The size and frequency of large ship traffic and their cargo, that will result from this scheme, can only end with horrendous results.

Many have outlined the litany of problems with this project.
Add my voice to the growing numbers who say NO to the Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. It is lunacy to the max.

Thank you

Jim Munro

2016-02-12 20:06:35
JordonMillerVancouverBritish Columbia

Retrofit. The proposed 10-lane bridge does nothing to alleviate congestion in the long term. Time after time, we've seen that projects such as this one (ie. adding more lanes to mitigate congestion) only work for a short period of time until people's habits change. Once people become acclimated to this new piece of infrastructure, we will be back to a similar problem, only this time the increase vehicular traffic will place further stress on downstream bottlenecks. More lanes equals more cars. Please, as a province that views itself as progressive, we must avoid making the same thoughtless infrastructure mistakes of other similarly-sized metropolitan regions.

2016-02-12 23:02:28
KateEllisonVancouverBritish Columbia

I would like to see this project go to an independent federal review, not an assessment by the proponent itself. The impact would be quite significant, not least in light of the necessity - for our air, water, and wildlife - of a long-term transition *away* from fossil fuel exports. If the tunnel can be upgraded, it would be much cheaper, and the money saved could be invested in public transit, which is so desperately needed.

2016-02-12 23:13:13
NatashaHawkinsRichmondBritish Columbia

My key concern is the plan's failure to recognize the ecological significance of the Fraser River delta. Several designations recognize the ecological importance of this Canadian Heritage River which supports the most productive salmon fishery in the world. A declared RAMSAR site as wetlands of international significance, the delta supports Canada’s highest density of wintering waterfowl and migrating shorebirds of the Pacific Flyway. It is also Canada’s top site for wintering birds of prey.

2016-02-13 06:29:11
BarbaraPetiteSeattleWashington

I oppose the bridge project because of its enormous impact on the enviornment in the delta.

2016-02-13 10:07:02
JasonHallVancouverBritish Columbia

I should be obvious to anyone that building a new bridge will do nothing to preserve the dwindling reserve of arable land south of the river. It's clearly an enterprise designed to open this region to urban development and in particular the port at Tswwassen.
It's unacceptable and unsustainable to pave over our local farmland in the capitalist exploitation of fossil fuels to bring in the produce from elsewhere.

2016-02-13 11:27:47
BrigidTingRichmondBritish Columbia

I am opposed to this 10 lane bridge to replace the Massey tunnel. Where will 10 lanes disperse to after the bridge? I anticipate to Richmond streets and bridges or to the already congested Oak street bridge. This provincial govt " solution" continues to place emphasis on motor vehicle traffic rather than rapid transit. In the process our precious high quality farm land becomes highways and access roads. We already see this year how our reliance on Californian fruits and veggies has substantially pushed up our cost of living in BC, due to the California's drought and the low Canadian dollar. Lets aim for a more climate neutral regional policy, supporting the local farmers and public transport. NO to the 10 LANE BRIDGE !

Brigid Ting

2016-02-13 11:45:40
MarianneKaplanVancouverBritish Columbia

My reasons for opposing the building of a new bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel are myriad, from the need to protect the Fraser River and salmon stock, to discouraging more vehicle and truck traffic into Vancouver. The existing tunnel can be renovated at far less cost than building a new bridge. More public transit will lessen the number of vehicles on the road. How can our provincial government go to Paris and say they support climate change mitigation and then turn around and propose a project like this? We need visionary thinkers who are willing to look at real substantive measures to protect our environment. This project is not part of the needed climate change solution. It just perpetuates the kinds of thinking that got us into this environmental mess in the first place. I say no to the bridge.

2016-02-13 12:07:20
Kathy & JasonSnyderRichmondBritish Columbia

As a long term Richmond residents we have witnessed unchecked growth including; needless destruction of farmland, expansion of roads for single vehicle traffic, and inefficient and ineffective development. Watching the residents grow with the community it does not seem like any of this is enhancing our quality of life. In our opinion it’s time to stop repeating the pattern of development and expansion simply for the sake of money and ‘the economy’. This particular project should be re thought in the context of the environment, long term public interest, and what do we really want in our communities and quality of life. We do not believe a large bridge is going to bring anyone happiness, invent ‘more time with family’ or a lead to improvements in our collective health and wellness.
The real solution will take courage, intelligence, and the collective will to stop and rethink our objective.
Kathy & Jason Snyder

2016-02-13 13:11:48
MichaelLanyonvancouverBritish Columbia

There is no need for this bridge. I believe it is solely for coal shipping which is repulsive ancient thinking. Also they forecast it to cost I believe around 3 Billion dollars but when have the Liberal party EVER met the projected costs on any of their projects? This destructive bridge will cost 6 billion dollars or more given their track record. It is just so her supporting contractors can make more millions at the expense of taxpayers. Few of us can afford more taxes as we don't get severely overpaid ass our hapless lying premier. It will destroy salmon, farmland, air quality and more. Real intelligent people who care about humanity rather than profit recognize the need for people to get out of their cars and onto good transit so an enormous bridge puking cars into over crowded Richmond and Vancouver is destructive in so many ways.

The tunnel is good for many years with slight reworking. A second tunnel with 1 lane of traffic would end the congestion as there would be 2 lanes in each direction at all times. Within the second tunnel should also include room for rapid transit. Extend surface rapid transit under the river all the way to Tsawassen, even the ferries. I imagine all those who are now sitting for 1 or more hours to get through the tunnel would happily leave their cars to take a ride into the cities in comfort and speed. I know this will not please the greedy premier but it would suit the people the atmosphere and the tax burden.

I hope and pray that the citizens of B.C. will route Ms Christy Harper from her terrible destruction of B.C. She does not look like a dinosaur but her thinking is so 1950's. If we can get rid of that virago then we can stop all her stupid and harmful sell off of our descendants world.

I hate being lied to and hope most thinking peope will realize that she is against the people, has done nothing but lie to the people and can only be expected to lie and try to instill fear in her next campaign. Pity there was not birth control around when she was born. Yes I truly dislike this false prancing premier and all of her nasty, dumb plans. She is a twunt!

2016-02-13 13:37:34
CynthiaBlumPowell RiverBritish Columbia

The thinking behind replacing the tunnel with a 10 lane bridge is very old fashioned thinking. We are in a transitional period in BC and throughout the world . We don't know what's coming next and it would be a great idea for citizens to take an even stronger stand on NO pipelines . The reason I say it's old-fashioned thinking is because we know that oil is not a renewable resource and that we are coming to the end of it. We know this is true. And it is far more important that we research and use other less harmful/polluting methods and stop depleting the Earth's precious lifeblood. Do not add outdated infrastructure such as a 10 lane bridge. Refurbish the tunnel and keep it well maintained. Stop insisting on allowing more pipelines to be built in BC and Canada. Take on the challenge of being innovative and find new solutions to the environmental and or eco- problems that we are now all trying to deal with .

2016-02-13 13:43:06
GenevieveTokgozVancouverBritish Columbia

I would like to see a Full Panel Review done before a decision is made.
Thanks, Genevieve

Ecological Impacts
Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems.

The Fraser Delta including Burns Bog is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

Port Messaging
Port Metro Vancouver has been working overtime to frame a public conservation about a desperate industrial land shortage. If it was not obvious before it is certainly clear now that there is a large overall plan for the industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary and it is unfortunate that an independent review has been avoided in favor of less rigorous environmental assessments.

It is important to provide a counter message that the Fraser River is not an appropriate location for deep water shipping activities in the first place. A bridge is presented as the only option and treated as a consensus concluded by project proponents.

The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

Broken Process
The National Energy Board reviews of new tar sands pipelines is a broken process. In reaction the federal government announced last month (January 27th) that direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects. The five principles are transitional measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place. Extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public.
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1029999
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1029989&crtr.tp1D=930

The assessment process for Lower Fraser River projects faces similar criticisms. A vacuum of science-based independent oversight has been created, the current Federal environmental review process is compromised by the dismantling of Canadian Fisheries and Environmental Assessment Acts. Cumulative impacts and climate change are essential components of any long term project assessment, upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project need to be assessed and the information made public. The Massey Tunnel project is based on weak information and needs to be held to higher standards. The full regional impacts of the project need to be fully considered and Federal funds should not be spent on making the climate crisis worse.

Climate Test
The Pembina Institute equates pipeline related greenhouse gas emissions to CO2 pollution produced by cars. Building the Energy East pipeline would be the equivalent of adding 7 million cars to Canada's roads. The Transmountain pipeline alone would contribute 150% more CO2 emission than BC's current provincial total.
http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/energy-east-pipeline-co2-output-equivalent-of-7-million-cars-report-1.2526303

The proposed bridge is intended to facilitate coal, jet fuel, LNG or tar sands oil transport. These CO2 emission contributions should be added to the actual contributions from future vehicle pollution encouraged by a new 10 lane bridge (12 lane highway) expansion. The totals should be compared with transit alternatives (LRT) and extended for at least the life of new bridge (100 years). Imposing a freeway driven car culture on local communities for the next 100 years is not a regional plan.

The Massey Tunnel project is an important line in the sand. Port Metro Vancouver is out of control and dismantling its unchecked authority is an important next step.

2016-02-13 14:22:32
Neil WHumphreySurreyBritish Columbia

Please look at the Femern Tunnel which is being built between Denmark and Germany. It's 18km long and being built for $7B. Compared to the George Massey Bridge at $3.5B something is terribly wrong with the BC Governments selection process. Especially when the existing George Massey Tunnel is only around 800 meters long!

http://femern.com/en

As a taxpayer, I feel I'm getting abused by the BC Government who seems to have decided everything in the usual non-transparent manner of theirs to favor some hidden agenda only they seem to know. Their consultant says they have talked to some of the best crossing design firms in the world yet there is no documentation. Again, I refer to the Femern Tunnel and ask who did they talk to and prove it? Further what consultant can prove the George Massey bottleneck isn't going to end up at the Oak Street, Arthur Lange and Knight Street bridges as per usual. None as the problem isn't going to change until Vancouver allows freeways in Vancouver..

The new crossing not only looks like we are overpaying but it's not about fixing the traffic or transit problem. Looks more to be about getting some of the largest LNG, thermal coal, container, and maybe crude (Kinder Morgan crossing is at the Port Mann) vessels in the world into the South Arm of the Fraser. Heck what about the Fraser Salmon run and BC's responsibilities to the 12+ BC First Nations traditional territories along the Fraser River.

Sure Port Metro Van wants their high or deep water crossing but maybe it's time to say no or make them pay for everything. After all they are a arm of the Feds who we get very little benefit or protection from while we assume all the risks. Also, they take prime and ALR land and put the public in danger by storing and shipping dangerous materials. In the USA Homeland Security will not let dangerous plants and materials near the public population. Read some of the security standards here - http://www.cfr.org/natural-gas/liquefied-natural-gas-potential-terrorist-target/p9810

Just think if BC could save $1-2B on the George Massey crossing, the savings could go towards Light Rail Transit or Rapid Transit to Surrey to White Rock and to the border. Hey, maybe even pay for HOV lanes South of the George Massey crossing. Maybe affordable housing too!

2016-02-13 14:33:31
AlanaCunninghamDeltaBritish Columbia

As a close resident to this massey tunnel replacement project, I am very concerned by the proposed massive development that will negatively impact the environment for wildlife and residents alike.
The proposed bridge is only part of the package that seems to be a foregone conclusion according to political ads being shown on local TV, all to massively grow the lng and shipping interests. eg. Site C dam, Tilbury lng terminal, Lelu Island lng, Roberts Bank Port expansion, etc. Where are the safety/hazard studies?
Take heed of the methane gas leak in the porter ranch area of Calif. that drove people from their homes -- this gas is not safe!
Why are we not being offered the option to retrofit/twin the tunnel especially since millions have been spent for seismic upgrades already.
Also why are we rushing through this public commenting period-- more time needs to be given. I hope it is not because of the upcoming election timetable.
After reading the report given at the recent open house, I was concerned about the misinformation and lack of detail in it. Where is the protection for our salmon, whales, migratoy birds and BC's tourism industry that depends on our natural beauty.
This bridge will not improve our air quality as claimed! Do not allow more shipping of coal or lng here, please!

2016-02-13 15:53:09
MikeBotjmaWest VancouvrrBritish Columbia

We do not need or want this replacement. We do not need or want more tankers. Please do the responsible thing and protect our province from commercial invaders. This is not the way we want to live.

2016-02-13 16:21:58
ClareYowVancouverBritish Columbia

The bridge is unnecessary and will merely move congestion to the Oak Street Bridge. Instead, the tunnel should be improved. Tolling the bridge will also detract people from its use. What a waste of money.

Furthermore, the Fraser River is an important part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds and is highly significant to salmon runs as well. Please don't ruin it for future generations.

Above all, I demand a Federal Environmental Review on this project.

2016-02-13 17:48:20
MarilynnKingDeltaBritish Columbia

The environmental health of the whole Fraser River delta will be jeopardized if this project should go ahead. Many concerns include plans for massive and more ships on the river with potential for spills and damage to our already fragile air quality, loss of important farmland (food security), negative impacts on wildlife including migratory birds, salmon and endangered orcas. This project needs to have a full Federal Review Panel Environmental Assessment.

2016-02-13 18:03:49
NicolaBeningerRichmondBritish Columbia

I demand the inner be upgraded and rapid transit to the southern municipalities be considered. No to a bridge!

2016-02-13 18:46:29
Bruno VernierRichmondBritish Columbia

The only bridge that makes sense post COP21 is a bridge for pedestrians, cyclists, public transit, and possibly zero emissions private vehicles. Conventional cars should use the existing Alex Fraser bridge.

Otherwise, expanding the existing tunnel seems a far more reasonable option. Would it not be nice to have a wholistic approach to the problem of post-COP21 transportation in this region? What good is improving flow across the South Arm of the Fraser if there will just be a bigger backlog at the North Arm? What good is it to encourage more use of private cars on a 10-lane bridge when our 2040 plans all require us to decrease the overall proportion of private car use?

I dont understand why or how the un-elected Vancouver Port Authority has become such a powerful player in provincial decision making, and why they appear to be blissfully unaware of COP21 (commitment to massive carbon reductions) and instead seem hell-bent on being the intermediary between all the major carbon polluters of North America and those in Asia. How did it manage to get away with being in charge of its own project's environmental assessment ... what happened to "conflict of interest"?

I really want the Federal Government to conduct a Full Panel Review with a Panel that is conscious of Canada's COP21 commitments. I also want the Federal Government to assert its democratic authority over the Port Authority ... even if it requires restructuring or re-appointing its head.

I am also concerned about the un-explored effects of this project on the ecology of the Fraser River Delta, including increasing salt water in irrigation water, insufficient disaster preparation, increased economic pressure on ALR farmland, and so on

2016-02-13 19:25:12
BrennaCarrollRichmondBritish Columbia

I am concerned about the financial and environmental consequences that would be caused by the bridge construction.

2016-02-13 19:48:53
JenniferLarsenRichmondBritish Columbia

If you missed "Road to Collapse"....a 2010 documentary under the National Geographic Specials collection, shown again on our Knowledge Network, evening of 15th Feb...please view after...or before ...adding your name to this.. This includes our elected at local, prov and Fed levels that receive this. Exactly what we are contending with now was spookily warned about and shown us by documentary at time it was made 6 years ago!! It can be seen on You Tube and via Google.

2016-02-13 20:28:02
KellyDuartePort MoodyBritish Columbia

10 lane bridge will only take us further and further away from our climate goals. Refurbish and invest in getting people out of their cars, not into them. Less cars on the road means easier time for transport trucks. The old adage is true: you can't build your way out of congestion.

2016-02-13 21:23:38
FrankSutoEichmondBritish Columbia

The more I read and learn about the proposed bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel the more confused I get. Given the City of Richmond and Lower Mainland’s penchant for growth through building and development, the need for matching transportation infrastructure improvements should not come as a surprise to anyone. Richmond is an island which means you need to cross water to get here or to go somewhere else. And because of its geographic location the city will continue to experience as much growth in transportation volume that transits the island as to and from the island.

The daily northbound and southbound lineups on both sides of the tunnel on Hwy 99 are a huge drag on the economy and an environmental embarrassment for the entire region. The same can be said for the lineups on both ends of the Alex Fraser Bridge. No wonder a recent study found that Lower Mainland residents experience the worst traffic congestion in Canada.

I’d like to suggest that we need to add transportation infrastructure and routing options, not just replace existing infrastructure with something bigger. We need, as many have suggested, new crossings of both the north and south arms of the Fraser River. I suspect two smaller length bridges where the river is narrower (east of the tunnel and east of the Knight Street Bridge) could be built for the same cost as the proposed bridge while leaving the tunnel in place. The reported cost of tunnel upgrades and ongoing maintenance is less than a rounding error compared to the cost of the proposed tunnel replacement bridge project. Once the new bridges are in place consideration could be given to diverting all heavy truck traffic away from the tunnel to the new bridges to reduce wear and tear and to extend the life of the tunnel.

As a concluding comment I can’t understand why roadway improvement and transit seem to be planned, designed, funded and built in isolation from one another. You could call it a silo approach to infrastructure. While the proposed tunnel replacement bridge project purports to incorporate some kind of express bus component, I can’t recollect a Ministry of Transportation/Translink announcement that suggests there is any cooperative funding under consideration or any cooperative planning going on.

2016-02-13 22:24:55
Ming Huey ChangVancoyverBritish Columbia

-I love the Fraser River and its salmon runs.
-The Fraser River is an important part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds.
-Don't pave farmland to build on-ramps to a bridge!
-Don't ruin the Fraser for my grandchildren!
-We don't need a Bridge-improve the tunnel instead.
-We need more buses through the tunnel, not more cars.
-A Massey Bridge will only move congestion to the Oak Street Bridge.
-Why build a bridge for congestion then toll it so people don't use it?

2016-02-13 22:34:05
KarenDar WoonVancouverBritish Columbia

The Fraser River is so important to the health of our food system region. Its use for agricultural irrigation, and as a salmon run. We NEED TO CONDUCT a Federal Environmental Review on this project.

2016-02-13 22:42:11
TylerGreavesNew WestminsterBritish Columbia

Massive expenditures for an otherwise simple and cheap solution. The 800% cost difference should be enough to make this an obvious decision, and yet this gets proposed at the expense of commuters and taxpayers, while politicians and industrialists make off with massive benefits at no cost of their own. Do we live in America now? It's shocking to me that a city that prides itself on being progressive and modern would spend the same amount of money to CLOSE another bridge for yuppies to stretch on, before proposing shit like this.

2016-02-13 22:42:39
LindaChinfenvancouverBritish Columbia

The Massey Tunnel can be upgraded at a significantly lower cost than is what is estimated for a new bridge build. At a time when we should be finding ways to fund and expand more rapid transit trains and routes within the lower mainland, as well as other infrastructure spending, the 3 billion dollars saved by upgrading the tunnel (estimated at $420 million) makes much more taxpayer and environmental sense. I think an honest public disclosure that gave all the facts would result in similar conclusions.

2016-02-13 22:57:06
MarinaSzijartoRichmondBritish Columbia

Hello,
I am asking for the Federal Government to conduct a Full Panel Review of this project.
My concerns with the proposed project
are many.
The proposed 10 lane $3.5 BILLION bridge project will be impacting the Fraser River - an important economic, cultural and environmental world class gem that I believe we have a moral obligation to leave as a legacy for future generations.It seems obvious that a 10 lane Massey Bridge will change all that.

Ecological issues
Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems, not to mention the possible dangers such larger ships might bring in regards to cargo (LNG to name one)

The area close by is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year. It is a designation tourist area for its beauty, wildlife, plant and fish - boat trips and festivals draw thousands of people yearly to celebrate the Fraser river, its history and cultural significance.

Industrialization of the Fraser
Port Metro Vancouver (one of the major players behind the push for the bridge) and it is clear now that there is a large overall plan for the industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary and it is unfortunate that an independent review has been avoided in favour of less rigorous environmental assessments.

I urge you to provide a counter message - that the Fraser River is not an appropriate location for deep water shipping activities in the first place.
The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.
A bridge is presented as the only option and treated as a consensus concluded by project proponents.

Please add into your environmental assessment:

*Impact on First Nations communities and fishers for who the Fraser River Salmon run is an integral part of lifestyle, cultural heritage, spiritual practices and economic self-sufficiency. This includes all the communities who are situated ALL the way along the Fraser River.

*Long term impact - using the First Nations concept of making decisions on the bases of '7 generations' - what will be the environmental impacts for 7 generations of communities in the lower mainland and along the whole Fraser River.

*Impact on the environment not only of the actual bridge building and its then use, but the possible (probable) use of the area - dredging,

*increase in dangerous goods being shipped, loss of both farmland and natural areas. The pollution that will come with all of these changes (water, air quality, light pollution).

*Dangers of ecological disaster - When (not if) something happens, what will be the damage. What will be the actual costs of these in real terms. Can we afford to risk so much?

*What will be the impact of deeper dredging and increased saiine on farmland (some of the most fertile in the world) - what will be the impact on our need and desire for increased food security in these times of global climate changes and unstable political situations?

What will be the impact of both the building of the bridge and removal of the tunnel - realistically, both short term and long term in regards to the environment and the sensitive wetlands, plants, birds and fish etc?

I urge you to please do a thorough investigation of the project, and please lets have a Federal Government Full Panel Review of this project. - We have one Fraser River - it is an important economic, cultural and environmental world class gem that I believe we have a moral obligation to leave as a legacy for future generations…… and the proposed 10 lane Massey Bridge will change all that. Once the Fraser River is opened up - and the proposed bridge is so clearly the first step to this - to increased industrialization, pollution, LNG tankers, fuels & chemicals and other dangerous this short sighted old fashioned plan supports, we will not be able to turn back the clock.

Sincerely. M.S.

2016-02-13 23:32:52
ChavahAvrahamVancouverBritish Columbia

Improving the tunnel is the cost effective option. A bridge is not required. Ulterior motives are shameful.

2016-02-13 23:56:53
AdolfManzVancouverBritish Columbia

Instead of replacing the tunnel, look more seriously at expanding it, before the huge expenditure of $3.5 billion on a new bridge.
Upgrade the Massey Tunnel instead, and spend the money saved on other projects, like public transit.
Tearing out the tunnel will allow fully loaded coal freighters to travel to and from Fraser Surrey Docks. It could mean bigger LNG carriers loading at the proposed Wespac-Fortis LNG terminal in Delta.
How will we manage impacts on salmon, killer whales and other sensitive marine life?
This project warrants a Federal review and not an assessment by the proponent itself.
Replacing the tunnel with an expensive ten lane bridge will just shift congestion somewhere else — likely to the Oak Street Bridge further north. We need a comprehensive plan for regional transportation. Instead, the BC government creates obstacles to securing long term regional transit funding, and rushes ahead with an expensive bridge replacement project that benefits industrial interests that will likely cause as many problem as it solves.
Removing the tunnel will also encourage the industrialization of farmland in Richmond and Delta to serve the Port Authority’s planned expansion of the DeltaPort Container terminal at Roberts Bank.
Before the province rushes ahead with this proposal, we need to develop a comprehensive vision for the future of the Lower Fraser that guides development and protects this important ecological lifeline.
Don't spoil what you can't fix.

2016-02-14 00:03:11
HenryJesionkaVANCOUVERBritish Columbia

I know that the Losers in this proposal are:
-Farmers, who use the Lower Fraser for irrigation and may see the water
increase in salt-content due to dredging a deeper channel
-Salmon who rely on the relatively clean and cold fresh waters of this gateway in their migration deep into/from BC's valleys will be unhappy
-First Nations, who rely on salmon for food fishery and income
-Commercial Fishermen, who rely on healthy salmon stocks for income
-Powerless Lifeforms, and Riparian Habitats which have existed for eons happily clinging to the shores and waters of the estuary
-Migratory Birds, who rely on healthy estuary and those habitats
-Taxpayers can imagine much better uses of their contributions to the public good, some of whom live very close to proposed LNG and airport fuel infrastructure upriver.
-Richmond Residents will see the Delta traffic jam move across the river, trading southbound afternoon gridlock for northbound morning gridlock.
-Humans of the Future, who will puzzle over why we went so wrong
-The Planet, who is suffocating under the stresses of Climate Change

Who are the winners? ... really?

2016-02-14 03:49:10
LaurieMcEwanRichmondBritish Columbia

Destroying a prime agricultural corridor to build this bridge –
plus the land consumed by the resulting sprawl – places British Columbia’s long-term food supply at risk.
The farmland also supports several species of wildlife that rely on the interdependent, interactive habitats of the river, ditches, waterways, farmland and Burns Bog.
Also Commuter traffic volumes through the current Massey Tunnel have not increased over the last decade, and could be pushed even lower with improved transit.
This Project will just push the traffic bottleneck up the highway to the Oak Street Bridge and onto Richmond streets. It is one of the reasons the City of Richmond voted to oppose the expansion. Research and experience confirms you can't build your way out of congestion.
Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser up
to deeper dredging for larger ships like tankers carrying liquefied natural gas, coal and Tarsands bitumen. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems. The focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port

2016-02-14 07:21:10
PattiFraserVancouverBritish Columbia

Ecological Impacts - we need to keep the tunnel.

We need farmland, fish stocks, and ecological wetlands preserved not more transportation systems in the lower mainland.

Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. It is obvious this is going to damage fish habitats. With the coming climate change we need to protect food sources closest to our population centres. Food will soon become more important than global transportation systems based on fossil fuel as energy.

The Fraser Delta including Burns Bog is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

It is not realistic to think we can completely rid ourselves of industrial land needs at this point. But there needs to be a complete and thorough over all plan approved by all levels of government, including environmental agencies before moving forward

Port Metro Vancouver has been working overtime to frame a public conservation about a desperate industrial land shortage. If it was not obvious before it is certainly clear now that there is a large overall plan for the industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary and it is unfortunate that an independent review has been avoided in favour of less rigorous environmental assessments.

The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

Broken Process

A vacuum of science-based independent oversight has been created, the current Federal environmental review process is compromised by the dismantling of Canadian Fisheries and Environmental Assessment Acts. Cumulative impacts and climate change are essential components of any long term project assessment, upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project need to be assessed and the information made public. The Massey Tunnel project is based on weak information and needs to be held to higher standards. The full regional impacts of the project need to be fully considered and Federal funds should not be spent on making the climate crisis worse.

2016-02-14 07:25:09
EmilyVeraRichmondBritish Columbia

There are many potentially negative environmental impacts as a result of this bridge development and I am not in favour of this solution. Surely in this day and age, we can look to other more creative ways to find a solution to this problem without impacting our natural environment. Please re-consider this replacement project as look for other ways!

2016-02-14 08:06:01
allancrawshawvictoriaBritish Columbia

Once again the environment is taking the back seat - retrofitting is cheaper for taxpayers and makes more sense - its time to get more cars off the roads not encouraging more pollution. The impact on future events never seem to be taken seriously into consideration by these unnecessary projects.

2016-02-14 08:32:12
MandaAufochs GillespieVancouverBritish Columbia

This bridge is not in the best interest of the region, the people or the environment. Please listen to the people and invest in regional transit and stop this expensive boondoggle.

2016-02-14 08:42:21
SusanStoutNorth VancouverBritish Columbia

I feel strongly that the Massey Tunnel should not be replaced by a bridge. BC should follow the example of the Netherlands and retrofit the tunnel to today's needs.

A bridge would simply be another step toward massive tankers in the Fraser River, home to important salmon runs and of traditional importance to BC's First Nations.

Look before you leap! Think of all aspects of the environment! Think about future generations!

Sincerely

Susan Stout

2016-02-14 08:49:49
GeorginaLedinghamBelcarraBritish Columbia

I have grave fears that the proposed bridge across the Fraser River will open the waterway up to increased industrial use, putting one of the largest salmon populations on the planet at risk. Not only will industry have increased use - shipping of hazardous materials, for example - but increased urban development will also have an effect, especially with waste management issues.
At the very least, having modeled the George Massey Tunnel on the Maastunnel in the Netherlands, it would now make a lot of sense to assess the retrofitting the Dutch are doing and follow suit if that proves to be the best solution - all things considered.
Pressure on our agricultural land reserves is already intense. How much more difficult will it be to hold on to our precious food-producing delta land once a 10-lane bridge is in place? Developers will be eager to pressure local governments for variances and down-sizing the very land that has the capacity to sustain the Lower Mainland as California - our major supplier of fresh fruit and vegetables - is increasingly suffering drought.
Impact and environmental studies at every possible level of government, First Nations and academia need to be done before proceeding.

2016-02-14 08:58:18
DeborahAyersRichmondBritish Columbia

I don't understand why/how the provincial government can push this through? This bridge will not benefit anyone and the costs are outrageous.
First my concern is with the wildlife on the Fraser River, birds, seals, fish, the salmon run, how does this protect our future? With running LNG tankers, Jet fuel tankers up the river, if anything happened to one of these tankers, Richmond/Ladner banks both wildlife and human life would be lost! They will have to dredge the river even deeper so larger vessels can go through and I think that is way the government is pushing this for the LNG/Jet fuel tankers. We have enough large ships going up the south arm of the Fraser now.
Also, the problem with air pollution, global warming, are we not to be moving away from fossil fuel to clean energy?
I think that twinning the Massey tunnel is the only way to do this and then spend money on the Oak Street Bridge to help with the rush hour madness that will ensue!

2016-02-14 10:02:17
BrianBennettRichmondBritish Columbia

I don't see the need for such a large bridge that funnels into two lanes.

There is no provision for future rail.

Do you seriously think the cycling/pedestrian lanes would be utilized? How often?

Why will it be tolled? Why is the Sea to Sky highway not tolled?
Will the large ships be tolled? If not, why not?

Public - Private partnerships are always more costly to the taxpayer than borrowing from banks, it has been proven time and time again.
There is no reason to have a PPP.

I would prefer a twinned tunnel or at least keep the existing tunnel as a non-tolled option.

Brian Bennett

2016-02-14 10:12:14
CatherineShieldsVancouverBritish Columbia

I am opposed to replacing the tunnel with a bridge for two main reasons.

First, loss of agricultural land for roads and approaches to the bridge because agricultural land is continuously decreasing while our population increases. And recently high cost increases of imported foods to Canada.

Second, with a bridge and deeper waterway then marine traffic will be less restricted on the river and there is no assurance that the increased traffic and vessel size will not carry goods that could cause horrific damage to the habitat, including salmon, of the Fraser River in the event of an accident. This again could reduce the food source for the local population, damage the river for years to come and destroy habitable area for wildlife and people.

2016-02-14 10:28:18
JoyFraserAbbotsfordBritish Columbia

I am deeply concerned about the effect of a bridge on the habitat of salmon, and all the people and animals that depend upon them.
I think that the process should be slowed down and more environmentally friendly options should be sought out.

2016-02-14 10:31:14
tomparkerrichmondBritish Columbia

I demand a Federal Environmental Review on this project.
the Fraser River salmon runs are vital to the BC economy - don't dredge the river.
The Fraser River delta is the only part of canada which does not experience severe winters - we need it for food production
Don't pave farmland to build on-ramps to a bridge!

We need more buses through an improved tunnel, not more cars.

2016-02-14 10:58:32
CindyLawSurreyBritish Columbia

I am not sure how well a tunnel bridge would withstand an earthquake. I am concerned about the bottleneck that will no doubt for on Oak St. bridge & feel a solution to this matter should be addressed before moving ahead with replacement of the tunnel. I am concerned about the impact of coal or the potential for other toxic spills from tankers along the Fraser River.
If transportation of goods that could negatively impact the Fraser River (including those resulting from a spill) could be banned I think that would make sense. Let's face it....if it costs those transporting toxic materials that could impact the Fraser more to transport same a different route too bad....it is a cost of doing business in an environmentally proactive way. If we truly want to pave the road for more environmentally sound forms of energy then we cannot continue to ignore the environmental consequences of poor decisions which make it harder for more environmental solutions to compete economically as we cater to those producing goods that are not environmentally friendly by helping them reduce their cost of doing business. Pleas keep this in mind when making your decision.

2016-02-14 11:04:16
Shelley DietzRichmondBritish Columbia

What will happen to the tunnel? Years of toxins absorbed into the cement will poison the river. Why replace? Can't it be used and maintained? Shuttle service, bikes, busses, something? Destroying it might be more costly or dangerous than anyone can imagine.

2016-02-14 11:14:40
LoraineWellmanRichmondBritish Columbia

I feel that we should retrofit the tunnel at less expense. We do not need a bridge which will create many more problems. Prime concern should be protection of the Fraser River, surrounding environment and the fishery. We should not export fossil fuels from the Fraser River. The ecology of the Fraser River must be considered - no more ruining of the planet.

2016-02-14 11:50:12
Tom ChildsRichmond British Columbia

My concern is climate change. This outrageous plan for a new 10 lane Massey bridge over the Fraser River is one of many massively ignorant infrastructure plans by a 'head-in-the-sand provincial govt. Were they not paying attention to the outcome of COP21 climate summit? The proposed bridge and deconstruction of the Massey tunnel is all about fossil fuel export. This project is all about perturbating viable life support and increasing GHG. It's insane. It requires a federal (scientific) assessment beforehand. The life of all living creatures depend on smart decisions and stewardship. This bridge proposal is reckless and unsustainable. Stop the madness.

2016-02-14 11:58:34
DaleOdbergDeltaBritish Columbia

Decrease our carbon footprint! Use funds for transit to decrease Tunnel traffic. Fraser River does not want to be invaded by large container ships going to Surrey Fraser Docks for coal. Fraser River does not want to be threatened by a jet fuel storage tank looming over it's shoulder.
Gas & diesel taxes per liter collected for years to protect the environment, improve transit.
Metro 32.17 Victoia 24.67 remainder of province 21.17 All lies if bridge built.
Fraser River wants to support those that creep, those that swim, those that fly, the rock people, the water people, the star people.
The Fraser River wants to support the gifts of the Great Creator. In turn we must support and protect the Fraser River.

2016-02-14 13:00:24
Sarah RedmondVancouverBritish Columbia

I am concerned that the bridge project will open up the Fraser (the largest river in BC, with the worlds biggest Salmon run) to mega industrialization, LNG fuel and other dangerous and short sighted plans.

2016-02-14 13:17:22
SusanJonesDeltaBritish Columbia

Project Assessment Manager, BC Environmental Assessment Office
February 14, 2016
susanj@dccnet.com

Valued Components of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project
Comments on the Project Description and Key Areas of Study

Insufficient Information to Make Informed Comments

I am opposed to this over-sized, over-priced Project.

The Open Houses and public information document, ‘Project Description and Key Areas of Study’ have failed to provide sufficient information for the public to make informed comments on the Scope and Valued Components of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project (GMTR).

The B.C. Environmental Assessment process states scoping should be prepared by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office prior to request for public input on the scope and valued components:

“Issues scoping should begin early in project planning, before initial regulatory submissions, such as the Project Description and draft AIR, are made, as the information gained during issues scoping will inform not only the selection of VCs but also the determination of the scope of the assessment...”
(Note: AIR – Application Information Requirements)

Page 8: EAO: Guideline for the Selection of Valued Components and Assessment of Potential Effects

There needs to be a future opportunity for public comment on a credible document which clearly outlines the Scope and Valued Components as identified by the Proponent; the BC Ministry of Transportation; the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office; the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; Transport Canada; the Canadian Ministry of Environment and Climate Change; Health Canada; and Public Safety Canada.

While the document claims engagement has taken place with Provincial and Federal regulatory agencies, no information is provided as to Scope and Valued Components. It states that will come later. The public and municipalities cannot be expected to comment on Scope and Valued Components without any substantive information from the government agencies. As Scoping and identification of Valued Components are essential to the environmental assessment, the public must be afforded an opportunity to provide comment once these have been credibly identified with supporting documentation.

Massive Project Requires a Review Panel Federal Environmental Assessment

The information is incomplete as it does not include the requirement of environmental assessment pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Due to the ecological significance of the Fraser River Estuary and the cumulative impacts of this Project and other past, current, and planned projects, a Review Panel Environmental Assessment is required. Some reasons for a Review Panel Assessment:

• Requirements under the Fisheries Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Navigation Protection Act, Species at Risk Act, Migratory Bird, Environment Protection Act, Canada Health Act
• Decommissioning of the Massey Tunnel
• Length and height of the new bridge - safety, ice, interference with migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway, Sandhill Cranes, night hunters and the largest number of wintering raptors in Canada
• Ecological and social upstream and downstream effects – scour and infill processes
• Endangered and threatened streams critical to viable fish habitats and migratory birds
• Watercourses that support fish and fish habitat
• Fish species and fish habitat are not correctly identified in this document. This section should include studies done over the years by the Fraser River Estuary Management Program that include habitat classifications. Areas of the bridge project include important riparian habitats. These are coded red which are shoreline areas having highly productive habitat. Credible evidence needs to be provided for blanket statements of “low aquatic habitat values.”
• Impacts on interactive, interdependent riparian habitats between the shoreline and the Fraser River critical to viable fish habitats and species at risk
• Permits required from Fisheries and Oceans for changes in Fraser River hydraulics, water quality and sediment.
• Health of fisheries and potential impacts on commercial fishing
• Impacts to water quality of the Fraser River and adjacent communities
• Effects on the salt wedge
• Permits and approvals that are required for the Project – need to identify and list
• Effects on navigation in the Fraser River and the shipping route to the open Pacific
• Plans for a new turning basin
• First Nations interests, information, land use, Fraser River use and claims
• National, provincial and international designations recognizing international ecological significance of the Fraser River Estuary
• Cumulative effects of past, current and planned Projects on the South Arm of the Fraser
• Hydro technical impacts
• Need for a risk analysis to address uncertain residual effect predictions
Significant Residual Adverse Environmental Effects
The document fails to credibly recognize the international significance of the Fraser River delta. Rated as one of the world top 50 Heritage Rivers, the Fraser delta hosts the top three Most Important Bird Areas in Canada due to the largest number of wintering waterfowl, shorebirds and birds of prey.

In 2012, the whole lower Fraser River Delta was declared a RAMSAR site by the International Convention on Wetlands. It is recognized as significant site under the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN). Three provincial Wildlife Management Areas are linked by the inter-connected, interdependent habitats of the Fraser River delta.

Unique habitats and interdependent aquatic ecosystems of the Fraser River delta are now under threat due to mismanagement and compromised environmental assessments such as this one which fail to recognize and protect these internationally-valued components. The health of these habitats require the farmland, the treed areas, the ditches, the streams, the mudflats, the marshes, the riparian areas and the rich estuary where fresh and salt water combine to support millions of migratory birds, migrating salmon and other fish species.

Failure to consider all these values and the cumulative effects of numerous past, present and future developments on this world-class river and estuary is a disaster in the making.

Numerous Projects and Plans

A Cumulative Impact Assessment of Residual Adverse Environmental Effects should be included of all past, current and future projects including, but not limited to:

• Construction of the Roberts Bank Terminals and plans for Container Terminal 2

• WesPac Tilbury LNG Jetty to export LNG gas: “it is estimated that up to 90 barge calls and up to 122 LNG carrier calls (of various sizes) could occur at the jetty per year.” (WesPac Tilbury website)

• FortisBC LNG Tilbury – plans for build-out from current 5,000 Gigajoules of Liquefied Natural Gas per day to 450,000 Gigajoules which is 90 times the existing facility and 11 times the amount being told to the public.

• Surrey Docks Direct Transfer Coal Facility to export US thermal coal

• Vancouver International Airport Plans for 4th runway impacting Sturgeon Bank ecosystem

• Plans for a new turning basin area in the lower Fraser with associated dredging

• Plans for larger vessels to move containers, cars, LNG, and coal

• George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

• Ongoing and new dredging requirements for all these Projects

It is these large projects that are the motive for the massive new bridge, not the needs of commuters just trying to get to work and back home again.

Safety on the Bridge and the Fraser River

The new bridge and removal of the tunnel will accommodate more and larger shipping vessels carrying cars, containers, coal, LNG and fuel. The resulting potential for accidents with major impacts on local communities and globally-significant wildlife is missing from this document. Plans for LNG carriers in the river contravene the LNG Terminal Siting Standards as outlined by the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators and would be against the law in the United States. There is the potential for a very tragic accident.

Impacts on Navigation Protection Zones and turning areas are missing from the information. Also, smaller vessels will be at risk from the increase in large vessel on the river impacting fishing, recreation and small businesses that transport goods and services on the river.

Lack of Transparency
No information is provided on why the Project needs to be so massive. The document fails to consider alternatives such as retrofitting the existing tunnel; twinning the tunnel; a smaller bridge; or status quo with restrictions on truck hours and enhanced bus routes.

Early in the process, the public was presented with 5 options. Public feedback was ignored and no information was provided on how input from the public and municipalities affected decisions. To the contrary, collaboration took place amongst the Project Manager; Port Metro Vancouver; bureaucrats from provincial and federal agencies; consultants hired by the provincial government; Gateway; and vested interests which led to the decision to meet Port Metro Vancouver’s agenda for the largest bridge ever to be built in B.C. The public and municipalities were not included in negotiations and records of the meetings, reports and letters were not kept by the B.C. Government.

Waste of Tax Dollars
The so-called business case is unsubstantiated rhetoric and the break-down of costs is concealed. The B.C. Government wants to spend $3.5 billion to build an oversized Project with no credible cost/benefit analysis. Government and business interests want tax dollars to facilitate industrialization of the environmentally-sensitive south arm of the Fraser River with no accountability to tax dollars or environmental impacts.

Erroneous Information on Traffic Patterns and Predicted Changes from the Project

Contrary to the rhetoric of the Project, traffic through the Massey Tunnel has not increased over the last decade and could be pushed even lower with improved bus service. Traffic just appears to have increased as the B.C. Government has unnecessarily added lanes feeding into the tunnel making the movement of vehicles more difficult.

The section on traffic claims truck traffic will double by 2045. Paying $3.5 billion to add trucks to the Vancouver area is insane when cheaper alternatives are available such as transloading containers at Ashcroft. Regardless, the Canadian container business of Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) levelled off in 2007. Growth since that time is moving US containers through PMV. Do taxpayers seriously want to pay $3.5 billion to move US containers?

The numbers provided on traffic movements fail to include the fact that one container truck is not equal to one car. Every large truck can be considered to equal several cars. Also, cars want to travel a safe distance from trucks slowing down traffic.

This Project will push the traffic bottleneck up the highway to the Oak Street and Knight Street Bridges and onto Richmond streets. It is one of the reasons the City of Richmond voted to oppose the expansion. Research and experience confirms you can't build your way out of congestion.

Adverse Effects on Air Quality

The Project statement on air quality is an opinion. No credible support is given to the claim that the project will improve air quality. The claim lacks sincerity and is not substantiated with accurate science. Air quality is a valued component that needs more information than is provided here to the public. With all the studies and work over the past few years, the public deserves specific, credible, referenced information.

The massive bridge is expected to accommodate double the number of current truck movements. As it is clear to the public that the $3.5 billion project is being planned to accommodate increased shipping vessels and industrialization along the river, a more comprehensive, inclusive air quality assessment is required, including all the projects in the delta. Impacts of emissions on the adjacent farmland soils, waterways and wildlife in the area need to be included.

Project Document Pays Lip Service to Legislation, Plans, Regulations and Policies

The information is incomplete as it does not identify federal, provincial, regional and municipal land plans, codes, regulations, standards, cross-boundary Agreements, and initiatives such as Official Community Plans, Regional Growth and Sustainability Strategies, the Agricultural Land Reserve, the Fraser River Estuary Management Plan, Georgia Basin Initiatives, Climate Action Plans, archaeological information and numerous other initiatives. The document states it is reviewing some of these documents but no specifics are provided.

Lip Service to Social Impacts and Human Health

There needs to be consideration of the impacts on human health from the stress of ongoing bombardment of multiple projects with construction, congestion, light pollution and noise pollution.

The pressure for developments that destroy farmland and habitats are ongoing in the Fraser River delta without consideration of the long-term cumulative effects. This is stressful for individuals and communities who recognize the values in protection of the Fraser River delta and the abundant life forms it supports. Projects in the Fraser River and estuary are of ongoing concern to the general public and most local governments.

The document for this Project fails to identify impacts and effects on surrounding communities and the general public. Why should B.C. citizens be asked to fund such a massive Project with tax dollars? Why aren’t the public being asked whether or not they want to further industrialize the ecologically fragile ecosystems of the Fraser delta? Why aren’t better and cheaper options being presented to the general public? Why isn’t there complete disclosure of all the plans for the area? Why is the Regional Growth Strategy being ignored? Why aren’t impacts on First Nations interests explained in the Project Document?

The information provided to the public fails to meet the principles of transparency, participation, credibility, and purpose that have been established by the International Association for Impact Assessment.

The cumulative effects of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, in combination with all current, past and future projects, need to be assessed with clarity, transparency, and integrity. Otherwise, we will be responsible for destruction of unique ecosystems that blend interactively to form the magnificent Fraser River and estuary of global significance.

2016-02-14 13:25:17
JamesFairbanksVancouverBritish Columbia

Please retrofit the existing tunnel. 3$ billion could be spent much more effectively elsewhere!

No more tolls just to move around my home town!

2016-02-14 14:08:01
MichaelWolfe820 West 23rd AveBritish Columbia

After reviewing all the available details on this "project" I can conclude that the proposal needs to go back to the drawing board. This time the project staff need to acknowledge that they are not working with a blank slate. There are already features of the natural and human built environment that need consideration. The Fraser River is important, far more then to be dismissed as a source of land for industrialization. The estuary have more positive values then has been given.

I request that this project receives a FULL PANEL REVIEW, as this current public consultation and provincial review has been inadequate at addressing the current ecosystem services and potential benefits with different different project options.

The Port of Metro Vancouver wants land along East Richmond, North Delta, and the Surrey Fraser Docks to be accessible by larger tanker traffic. That fact in addition to a BC premier wanting to fast-track infrastructure projects is setting up a scenario where food security and ecosystem health are jeopardized for the current and future populations in our home region.

I've lived my 33 years in Richmond, currently I'm in Vancouver, with hopes to move back to the Fraser lowlands next year. I want to commute on highway 99 as-is. Tunnel traffic can be eased with other solutions to the existing transportation infrastructure. Expert advice has not been accessed for this project. Costly contracts are being put ahead of real solutions from real experts.

This project is a farce and its time the BC government had their reality show cancelled. I look forward to the FULL PANEL REVIEW so I can feel like I can get behind a project that makes this region a better place to live, work and start a family.

In short, my advice is to keep the tunnel, cancel the bridge, sink a new tunnel tube for rapid transit from the Canada Line to the BC Ferry's terminal.

Thank you for reading,

Michael Wolfe
Public School Science Teacher

2016-02-14 14:33:27
PawelSzarizVANCOUVERBritish Columbia

Taxpayers can imagine much better uses of their contributions to the public good.
With an provincial annual budget of ~45 Billion, the cost of this bridge is about 10% of that.
what about education, day care and all the stuff that ALL OF US need.

2016-02-14 14:40:54
CraigPenmanrichmondBritish Columbia

We are a family of 3. My wife and I are both self employed in different occupations. We have a young daughter. Our businesses and our daughters schooling are all in the Steveston area. We are fortunate in our skills and decision making that we can work close to home and not have to commute on a daily basis like so many others in the lower mainland. We are not oblivious to the congestion problems that occur on HWY 99. This congestion is just apart of commuting life, not just in the lower mainland but around the world in heavily populated areas. This project is centred around improving traffic flow at this intersection of the Fraser River and HWY 99 But at many costs other than the 3.5 BILLION DOLLARS estimated.

-Environmental damage to both land and water and all there inhabitants during all construction processes and the industry on land and water that will follow after the project is finished.
- The removal of the Massey tunnel would bring the possibility of dredging the Fraser River to a deeper depth to allow for more Ship traffic transporting potentially dangerous goods. I have and hope to in the future commercial fish for salmon on Fraser River which is part of the largest Salmon run in the world. I have worked on the Fraser river in many capacities mostly maintenance of log booms, removal of dead heads and other hazards to river traffic, cleaning up of fuel and oil spills, salvaged sinking vessels etc..... I see first hand what this river system is already struggling to deal with and I know it is already in a FRAGILE state.
- The traffic congestion would still happen a Kilometre or two down the HWY in either direction. You are merging many lanes into one or two either at the Oak street bridge to the North or in Delta to the South.
- A very large portion of the 3.5 BILLION DOLLAR price tag can be used in so many better ways in our community. Retrofit the Massey tunnel, Healthcare, Public school system, Creating more green space, Agriculture, Cleaning up waterways, etc....
My name is Craig Penman and I live at the mouth of the Mighty Fraser River with my Family and we are AGAINST this Bridge Project.

2016-02-14 14:42:22
HarukoOkanoVancouverBritish Columbia

I am against building a bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel.
I want an independent credited non biased eco assessment done on the Fraser River based on its current state and on the increased industrial traffic on the river and the environmental impact on the increased road traffick with the proposed bridge.

sincerely,
Ms. Haruko Okano

2016-02-14 15:10:43
FayeLogieBowen IslandBritish Columbia

I believe the Massey Tunnel project should have a full Federal environmental review. I am apposed to a bridge replacing the tunnel for environmental and logistical reasons.

The Fraser Delta is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

The Port of Vancouver is the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

Sincerely,
F Logie

2016-02-14 16:06:04
DebbieTurnerRichmondBritish Columbia

I think the bridge is a ridiculous waste of tax payers money.....putting a bridge in this location seems to be more about appeasing the port and giving in to their demands than worrying about what the people of delta and richmond truly need. Upgrade the tunnel we already have an build a secondary one beside it. We don't need bridge, especially one the size that has been proposed so that the traffic can bottle neck worse than it already is going in to Vancouver. It seems to me that there is no common sense being used to make these decisions, it's all about $$$$, who can get it, from where and how much....It's time our politicians started thinking about the poeple who live here instead of the businesses that want to take over our beauitful city and destroy it. The port should have absolutely no insput in to this and the impression here is that it's all about them wanting to expand and nothing else. I say let the people decide, put it to a vote!

2016-02-14 16:36:07
SyLeeTorontoOntario

To the Federal Government of Canada,

Canada's most valuable resource is water. Please ensure its safety. Save the Fraser River and conduct a full panel review to ensure the well being of it's inhabitants: humans, wildlife, and nature.

Ecological Impacts: Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems.

The Fraser Delta including Burns Bog is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

Port Messaging
Port Metro Vancouver has been working overtime to frame a public conservation about a desperate industrial land shortage. If it was not obvious before it is certainly clear now that there is a large overall plan for the industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary and it is unfortunate that an independent review has been avoided in favor of less rigorous environmental assessments.

It is important to provide a counter message that the Fraser River is not an appropriate location for deep water shipping activities in the first place. A bridge is presented as the only option and treated as a consensus concluded by project proponents.

The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

Broken Process
The National Energy Board reviews of new tar sands pipelines is a broken process. In reaction the federal government announced last month (January 27th) that direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects. The five principles are transitional measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place. Extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1029999

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1029989&crtr.tp1D=930

The assessment process for Lower Fraser River projects faces similar criticisms. A vacuum of science-based independent oversight has been created, the current Federal environmental review process is compromised by the dismantling of Canadian Fisheries and Environmental Assessment Acts. Cumulative impacts and climate change are essential components of any long term project assessment, upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project need to be assessed and the information made public. The Massey Tunnel project is based on weak information and needs to be held to higher standards. The full regional impacts of the project need to be fully considered and Federal funds should not be spent on making the climate crisis worse.

Climate Test
The Pembina Institute equates pipeline related greenhouse gas emissions to CO2 pollution produced by cars. Building the Energy East pipeline would be the equivalent of adding 7 million cars to Canada's roads. The Transmountain pipeline alone would contribute 150% more CO2 emission than BC's current provincial total.

http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/energy-east-pipeline-co2-output-equivalent-of-7-million-cars-report-1.2526303

2016-02-14 17:48:59
SandyMilatDeltaBritish Columbia

Please conduct federal review, Fraser river is a very sensitive area.

2016-02-14 18:33:59
Rob Janssen Coquitlam British Columbia

I have a couple comments with respect to this proposal. 1. Why build such an expensive bridge to improve traffic if it only moves congestion to the foot of the Oak St. Bridge? 2. If the bridge is not really intended to improve traffic could it be to allow larger ships up the Fraser River to load up on commodities such as coal to Asia? 3. If my last point is correct will taxpayers be footing the bill for this project and why?

2016-02-14 19:29:06
CynthiaLeeRichmondBritish Columbia

I am very concerned about the George Massey Tunnel project. I am a resident of Richmond and the impact of the project will be devastating for our farmland, wildlife and the residents of BC. I guess the farmland is the next thing to go. The Fraser river should not be used for large ships, it is not deep enough and dredging is not the answer. What about our salmon and sturgeon? This will be a disaster for their viability and for future salmon and sturgeon if the river is dredged. What about the birds? I just went to Deas Island park last weekend and there were many bald eagles perched in the mature trees. This area and others would be gone with this bridge. Our delta is crucial for their migration. We've already destroyed the Richmond Terra Nova area bird migratory area, the Richmond airport bird migratory area and now this. What about burns bog? What impact will the bridge have there. Keep the ships in the deep sea ports of Burrard inlet where they belong. Ships do not belong in our Fraser river. And a 10 lane bridge? For more CO2 into our atmosphere? To encourage more driving? What about building other modes of transportation like the LNT that are environmentally sound? That kind of money could built LNT for all areas it is needed. For such a sensitive area there needs to be a Full Panel Review. It's unbelievable this has not been done yet. Rushing this important decision will be an environmental disaster, and one the public will not easily forget.

2016-02-14 19:34:06
PantelisKaraplisRichmondBritish Columbia

I strongly feel that the Massey tunnel should be kept, upgraded and twinned. I strongly oppose replacing it with a bridge. I feel that a bridge serves only the interests of industrial users. Richmond will loose valuable agricultural land so that tankers can travel the Fraser River. The only bridgeI would support would be a light rapid transit bridge to the Tsawassen Ferry Terminal.
I found it offensive that this development was called "the Massey Replacement Project". This makes a mockery of public consultation.

2016-02-14 20:22:39
AndrewLoveridgeGalianoBritish Columbia

This route pours traffic aimed straight at Vancouver City, clogging downtown streets even worse than they are already. Also, deepening the Fraser will lead to more destructive dredging so very large ships can sail in (whereas Fraserport does plenty of business right now).

I suggest rerouting traffic via the Annacis Island Bridge and Boundary Road (already with 4 lanes) up to the Ironworkers Bridge and North Shore Freeway. This would constitute a usable bypass.

Additionally, the Canada line could be extended to BC Ferries Tsawwassen, relieving the pressure of road traffic towards downtown. This would still be cheaper than constructing a (much larger) road bridge.

2016-02-14 20:26:26
OttoLangerRichmondBritish Columbia

Submission by Otto Langer to the the BC EAO concerning the Massey Tunnel Replacement – February 14, 2016.
‘Valued Components’ comments to BC EAO concerning the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel with a new 10 lane bridge.

The rationale to have an expensive 10 lane bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel leaves much to be desired. The bridge is mainly rationalized as a way to address the traffic jams at the tunnel. However, the bridge has indeed been proposed and designed to also allow the Lower Fraser to become an industrial port such as in Rotterdam. The issues I have with this plan are as follows:

1). Impacts of the Removal of the George Massey Tunnel. It is very clear that PMV and others have pressed for a bridge so the shipping bottleneck i.e. Massey Tunnel can be removed and the river than made 2m deeper to accommodate super tankers (e.g. jet fuel to Richmond) and large ocean carriers such as that to take coal form Surrey Fraser Docks. The Massey Tunnel has been in part a savior for the Fraser Estuary and has kept large port development out of the Lower Fraser River and its estuarine reach.

The removal of the tunnel will cause significant erosion and additional dredging in the river to accommodate larger ships. This will affect the spawning habitat of endangered eulachons which are now near extirpated from the river.

The removal of the tunnel and promotion of the river as a deep sea shipping channel will cause the loss of the remnant but valuable Carex, Typha, Scirpus sp. etc. riparian marshlands along the river. A deeper river will likely cause greater slumping of bank habitat into the main channel. When federal DPW quit its channel rip rapping program a few decades ago, this loss of shoreline areas has been greatly increased. We cannot afford to lose more of the remnant habitat we have. In fact restoration is required to offset any direct and indirect losses.

Also it has been well observed that tug boats and large ships cause a near tidal wave impact on the beaches and marshes along the river and indeed undercut the marsh benches along the river. This results in a big loss for fish (especially young rearing salmon) and bird life that totally depends upon the estuary for their survival.

The direct and indirect impact of the removal of the Massey tunnel is a key component of this project that must be addressed. This includes the side issues such as the replacement of the Metro Vancouver waterline that is adjacent to the tunnel.

2. Impact on / loss of farmland. Valued component – continued loss of farmland as led by the South Perimeter Road and now exacerbated by the proposed bridge, approaches and widening of Highway 99. Farmland protection has been a key issue in BC since the 1970s and now with each new BC or PMV development in the delta area, we continue to lose farmland. When will this end?

3. Impact of jet fuel and LNG tankers on bridge operations. Some jurisdictions take extra ordinary precautions to shut down waterways and even adjacent land transportation when large ships full of hazardous cargoes such as LNG or jet fuel are transported on the river beneath them e.g. Boston. Boston is the only US city that has allowed LNG into the populated part of that region of the USA. All other US LNG facilities are generally offshore or in Mexico away from major population and infrastructure areas.

In Boston each tanker of LNG costs the government or industry $35,000 CDN for adjacent security concerns. This includes security at all docks, bridges etc. Will these precautions be taken for the new Richmond-Delta Bridge? Many will argue that such a hazardous event will not occur. Those same people would have said 911 would never have occurred. If we want to learn, we only need one Lac Magentic, Quebec event in Canada to draw up much better security plans. This may be an indirect and reverse valued component but it is worthy of study i.e. bridge operations and hazards.

4. Quality of life in the Ladner and Richmond areas. It is near impossible to believe that 60% of the traffic coming north through the existing tunnel is directed into Richmond. The traffic jams at the Oak Street Bridge has been an issue when I first began to commute from Richmond into Vancouver some 44 years ago. If 60% of the tunnel traffic is absorbed into Richmond (which I highly doubt) then Richmond and feeder streets into Richmond more than make up for that 60% ‘loss’ of traffic off Highway 99. Accordingly the area around the Oak Street Bridge will become as great if not greater mess than it now is and Highway 99 will just become a longer parking lot.

5. Increased truck / car traffic. Part of the rationale for new bridge is of course the continuous expansion of the Roberts Bank port complex by Port Metro Vancouver and the development on the Tsawwassen Indian bands new settlement properties such as the large new mall which has to attract customers (traffic) from all surrounding areas.

The number of large container trucks from Roberts Bank is now great. As PMV plans it, it will probably double in volume. How are the air pollution problems going to be addressed? It’s fine to pretend that it will be again for air quality and global warming by not having traffic jams at the tunnel but what is the balance between a massive increase of traffic and the status quo?

6. Noise. The issue of noise must be addressed. A bridge broadcasts all truck and traffic noise generated on it. It externalizes all deck and vehicle noise. A tunnel totally dampens all noise i.e. internalizes it.

7. Aesthetics is a concern. Many may object to a towering bridge over their adjacent properties and the open view they have had in place since time immemorial. How many citizens of Richmond and Delta want a bridge of this height towering over them?

8. Increased greenhouse gas production. It is extremely odd that at a time we are agreeing to international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, the BC Government is indeed building infrastructure to greatly increase the use of fossil fuel transport. This fossil fuel use will not only increase on Highway 99 but a key part of the logic for a new bridge is to allow bigger ships up the Fraser River. Most of these ships at this time will transport more jet fuel, more LNG and more coal. This bridge along will account for a massive increase in our exploitation and use of fossil fuels in Canada and elsewhere. This is a key consideration unless we want to continue to preach about greenhouse gas reduction while we live in denial and continue on as we would have many decades ago.

9. Adequacy of the proposed BC EAO Environmental Review Process. An open process and democracy is a very valued component. Many of us and local government has little faith in the BC EAO process. They have legitimate reasons that are obvious. BC EAO accepts any project for review even if that project or location defies common sense and undermines community wishes. Public values are ignored in any review and the EAO pretends that its recommendations are based on science. My experience with the process indicates that much of the science that EAO accepts or depends upon is close to being junk studies and junk science. This was obvious in the BC EAO review of the VAFDP EIA i.e. impacts on biofilm and alternatives for such a facility.

When the above jet fuel EAO matter was challenged in BC Supreme Court by Otto Langer and VAPOR the Judge ruled that despite many shortcomings by BC EAO and VAFFC they had made recommendations that would not change the decision of the Minister. Few of us know what will change the decision of a present BC Minister under almost any circumstance. To believe they are scientific in their approach is folly.

In another legal action related to this jet fuel case (i.e. court cost charges) Judge Dillon was very clear. She noted that BC EAO and VAFFC could have done much more to consult and relate to what the public was saying versus doing the absolute minimum to meet the requirements of a very low bar BC EOA test.

As with ALL BC EAO assessments, alternatives are never studied. The most ridiculous project can be proposed at the most ridiculous location (jet fuel terminal in the estuary and be approved by BC EAO.

Further to the jet fuel fiasco or this new bridge, BC EAO must acknowledge and address what the local community wants and needs. It makes little sense to not address what 80-90% of the community wants. The CEAA process before 2012 was much more democratic and thorough than any BC EAO assessment. For this bridge which again affects federal waterway and port, federal fish, federal migratory birds, federal habitat, federal shipping water, why is this bridge not assessed by a revamped CEAA process?

10. Wildlife issues. Many bird deaths have occurred from powerlines in Delta and on Roberts Bank causeway. How will bird life relate to the cables in such a cable stayed bridge? In that most wildlife populations have evolved in a day that includes darkness what will be done to design lights on the bridge that do not provide light to the river that can affect fish and wildlife populations and their behavior?

11. Regional and Cumulative Impacts. I have seen over 40 years of EISs and of more recent vintage BC EAO EIS’s. In none of them do I see a proper nor half complete review of regional and cumulative impacts. It is difficult for many individuals and groups to relate to the multiple EIAs that take place in an area like the Fraser or Skeena regions of the province.

In a CEAA type hearing / review process funding is offered to some groups that are resource and expertise starved. Here we have a project that will affect the entire lower Mainland Region and what is being done to include the concerns of countless groups that are more or less in the dark? A series of public meetings (hearings) would be a valuable part of this EA process. The information sessions offered by the proponent have been simply totally inadequate. Also past EAs such as that at Tilbury LNG and the VAFFC jet fuel port did in no way include regional concerns and above all the cumulative impacts on the entire Fraser River and its fish populations and those that depend upon them as far north as Prince George.

Respectfully submitted by;

Otto E. Langer MSc Fisheries Biologist
Resident of Richmond for 45 years.
ottolanger@telus.net
604 274 7655

2016-02-14 20:55:58
JackTrovatoRichmondBritish Columbia

The ‪MasseyTunnel‬ replacement project isn't solely about alleviating congested commuter traffic. The $3.5-billion replacement bridge for the Massey tunnel would accommodate liquefied natural gas and jet fuel supertankers on the South Arm of the Fraser River. What is, seemingly, at the heart of the matter is the industrialization of the Fraser River, which will, ultimately, lead to further urban sprawl, environmental degradation, and further encroachment on agricultural land for industrial purposes.

2016-02-14 21:01:12
JClementsVancoverBritish Columbia

My concern is who will ultimately benefit from this project and who will not. This endeavour sounds shady and suspect at best. Discontinue decision making based on the profit of the few. It would seem (unsurprisingly) that the environment, the communities affected and of course the taxpayer in general will suffer the burden of this unnecessary project. I am opposed.

2016-02-14 21:03:57
LisaDescaryRichmondBritish Columbia

I feel that putting in a bridge at this location is not a good idea for several reasons.

1.The interchange at 5 Road and Steveston Highway is ill-equipped for an increase in traffic such as the one that a bridge will bring. Experts have suggested that traffic could easily back up to Oak street if such a bridge is built.

2. Removing the tunnel will allow for dredging of the Fraser to accommodate large tankers such as those proposed for carrying LNG. This is not safe for residents in the area or for the environment; LNG releases methane emissions during fracking of the natural gas and its transport that are comparable in their global-warming effect to oil from the Alberta tar sands.

3. The tunnel could easily be upgraded, as was the similar one in the Netherlands, for a fraction of the cost of building a bridge.

4. Traffic volumes in the tunnel have remained steady over the last few years; there is no logical argument for building a high-capacity bridge. Unless the real reason for the bridge is to allow tanker traffic... ?

Please reconsider the decision to build this megaproject! This money would be far better spent on better public transit and a tunnel upgrade.

2016-02-14 21:11:27
kerrystarchukrichmondBritish Columbia

I do not support replacing the Massey tunnel so that tankers can go down the Fraser. This is all about greed and big business.

2016-02-14 21:13:04
HelenGlavinaBurnabyBritish Columbia

Retrofit the tunnel. The Dutch have shown us that it's possible. The ordinary citizens and taxpayers only stand to lose from the proposed replacement scheme.

2016-02-14 21:15:23
CarolTurnerDeltaBritish Columbia

I read with great interest many of the comments posted.
Firstly I would like to point out that many of these comment come from people who do not fight the bottle neck at the tunnel on a regular basis. If you live in Powell River, (or anywhere on the Island) Vancouver,North Delta, Richmond, New Westminster etc then maybe its not a problem for you for many it is.
Upgrading the Tunnel in what way? its outdated.
Impact on the environment? Any updating of roads and Bridges always has some impact but we should not be short sighted and wonder where will we be in another 10 or 20 years if this is not built now. It will be a costly mistake materials etc will cost double what they are now.
Yes it had a retrofit in 2006 with water drains, emergency pumping stations in case of an earth quake but how many people would like to be driving through that tunnel during an earthquake?. Which we keep getting told is overdue, this project should be completed the sooner the better.

2016-02-14 21:22:34
KatherineDunsterDenman IslandBritish Columbia

We do not need a bridge. We do not need more cars and trucks spewing carbon. We do not need to destroy habitat on the most important river in BC. We do not need to destroy more farmland. We do not need a bridge in such close proximity to Burns Bog or in the Fraser Delta Ramsar Wetland site. We cannot do any of this without MEANINGFUL consultation with the affected First Nations.

Mostly though we do not need to spend billions when a tunnel retrofit is so much more affordable with the least amount of disruption to the environment, society, AND the economy.

And even more so, we do not need a bridge that has had no serious consideration of potentially lower cost alternatives or cumulative impacts. And speaking of cumulative impacts, no project should be allowed to be considered without a full federal CEAA review and open and transparent public consultation on the alternatives we the people are willing to pay for.

2016-02-14 21:23:52
EmilieHenderson RichmondBritish Columbia

I am not in favour of replacing the Massey tunnel with a ten-lane bridge. The cost is prohibitive, and those dollars would be better spent on improving public transportation to reduce the volume of cars travelling on that route. Also, I feel that much of the motivation for this choice is based on increasing tanker traffic and potential fossil fuel transportation on the Fraser River, which is neither safe, economically far-sighted, or in line with environmentally-friendly policies recently agreed upon in Paris.

2016-02-14 21:53:54
chelseacarlsonNew WestminsterBritish Columbia

Rather than multi-billion dollar transportation projects that increase vehicular traffic, the government should be exploring and investing in transit

2016-02-14 21:54:33
cedricvanderbekenvancouverBritish Columbia

I don't see the value of this project without an answer on how to deal with the shift in traffic to Oak Street.

Also I don't see the value in spending billions of dollars to shave a few minutes of off some people's commute.

Lastly, I don't feel that the province is a good partner to our municipalities. The responsibility on how to grow the Metro Vancouver region is the mayor's decisions. Any decision must have the social licence of the citizens of the region.

Does the BC government see their cities as partners or customers?

2016-02-14 21:57:16
RebeccaGrahamVancouverBritish Columbia

My family has lived here for 3 generations, and now I have two children. I see how the population of this region has doubled in my lifetime, and the integrity of the environment has been degraded, and my family's quality of life has declined.
I don't believe that expanding the Fraser River as an industrial artery is going to serve my family, my children or their children, no matter matter what the economic indicators are. Food security, ecological security and community resilience are going to be what really count. A 10 lane bridge goes against all best practices for achieving those ends.

Here are my specific concerns:
Ecological Impacts
Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems.

The Fraser Delta including Burns Bog is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

Port Messaging

Port Metro Vancouver has been working overtime to frame a public conservation about a desperate industrial land shortage. If it was not obvious before it is certainly clear now that there is a large overall plan for the industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary and it is unfortunate that an independent review has been avoided in favor of less rigorous environmental assessments.

It is important to provide a counter message that the Fraser River is not an appropriate location for deep water shipping activities in the first place. A bridge is presented as the only option and treated as a consensus concluded by project proponents.

The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

Broken Process

The National Energy Board reviews of new tar sands pipelines is a broken process. In reaction the federal government announced last month (January 27th) that direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects. The five principles are transitional measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place. Extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1029999

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1029989&crtr.tp1D=930

The assessment process for Lower Fraser River projects faces similar criticisms. A vacuum of science-based independent oversight has been created, the current Federal environmental review process is compromised by the dismantling of Canadian Fisheries and Environmental Assessment Acts. Cumulative impacts and climate change are essential components of any long term project assessment, upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project need to be assessed and the information made public. The Massey Tunnel project is based on weak information and needs to be held to higher standards. The full regional impacts of the project need to be fully considered and Federal funds should not be spent on making the climate crisis worse.

Climate Test
The Pembina Institute equates pipeline related greenhouse gas emissions to CO2 pollution produced by cars. Building the Energy East pipeline would be the equivalent of adding 7 million cars to Canada's roads. The Transmountain pipeline alone would contribute 150% more CO2 emission than BC's current provincial total.
http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/energy-east-pipeline-co2-output-equivalent-of-7-million-cars-report-1.2526303

2016-02-14 22:02:36
shamdharirichmondBritish Columbia

Replacing of the Massey tunnel will be a needless expense put on the tax payer. There is no nned to replace the tunnel with a bridge. To increase the traffic handling capacity an additional tuunel could be added. This way you can have two lanes going each way and have two lanes that change direction based on the traffic conditions.

The building of the bridge is a total waste of tax money.

2016-02-14 22:17:33
DuncanbrayvanBritish Columbia

if possible, obviously redoing it would be cheapest ... a bridge is tooooo expensive ... the Netherlands example needs to be examined in depth

2016-02-14 22:26:22
johndaviessalt spring islandBritish Columbia

As a lifelong Vancouver area resident, 68 years, I oppose the construction of a massive bridge to replace the tunnel. It is uneconomic, and perpetuates dependency upon outmoded form of transportation, and I believe does no reflect well upon the traffic situation in Vancouver. I believe full open public hearings must occur to allow for a full assessment of this proposal.

2016-02-14 22:42:24
StephanieFortuneKelownaBritish Columbia

This is not necessary at all and will only cost taxpayers extra money in the long run. The only reason this is being done is for other larger transportation to have access.

2016-02-14 22:54:19
DebbieWildeRichmondBritish Columbia

As a born and raised in Richmond resident, I don't feel that this project is necessary or being proposed for the right reasons. I think it's more to do with moving tankers down the river than with eliminating traffic problems. This will have a serious impact on farm and other land and I am opposed to the project as a result. There is serious risk involved with increased tanker traffic in the river and I spend a great deal of my quality time here. There is habitat that would be in jeopardy and this project is not "green", a direction we need to go in. I also believe that this is a huge cost to taxpayers and we should therefore have a say! The tunnel is not in immediate need of replacing and the process has not been extensive enough or taken consideration of those who live here. We do not want this! Deas Island Park, Richmond Country Farm Market and other surrounding areas would be eliminated. Our farmland needs protecting and a bridge is not part of that. There were just upgrades down to the Steveston Highway exits...what a waste of taxpayer money to tear it all out! I live very nearby the area and do not want this to happen. It's time the voices of the people are heard and our sensitive habitat and previous farmland and resources protected.

2016-02-14 23:09:52
VickiLingleRichmondBritish Columbia

I have two major concerns:
1. Protecting the Fraser River Estuary. The industrialization that is planned by The Port Authority should not begin without a great deal of environmental studies and consultation with the public. The process so far has not been open enough, nor has it involved the public enough at this point. It feels like it is being rammed down our collective throats. We live here because of the environment surrounding the Fraser River. It should not be altered or endangered in any way without more studies, consideration, and open public consultation.

2. The tunnel was built to be twinned. The cost is considerably less to twin the tunnel. The bridges that have been built recently have such high tolls on them that people go out of their way to avoid them. Would the toll on this bridge be high as well? Would traffic on the Alex Fraser increase so as to avoid paying the toll on the new bridge? If the bridge is not used by the public, it hasn't really answered the need for additional lanes to get traffic into Vancouver, which is one of the arguments the Port Authority is using to try to sell us on this bridge.

We who live in Richmond, Delta, and other areas along the Fraser River live here because it is as it is now. We do not want to see it turned into a major industrial area with everything that goes with that, thus changing our home area forever.

2016-02-14 23:41:19
EoinFinnVancouverBritish Columbia

This is a very shortsighted approach to solving a traffic bottleneck. As I see it, replacing the tunnel with a 10 lane bridge will merely move the traffic logjam to Oak Street and do little or nothing to unclog the roadways around Metro. It will also increase development pressure on Delta farmlands and add to urban sprawl.

How many times do we have to learn the lesson other cities have already learned ? Expanding highways through cities is a mug's game - short-term gain for long term pain.

Far better to put a toll on the tunnel (and the Alex Fraser), and spend the money on improving transit.

2016-02-15 00:05:36
Anita RomaniukVancouverBritish Columbia

The proposal for this bridge is for 10 lanes, yet none of them are for public rail transit? This just encourages more people to drive cars, and any mitigations of congestion is temporary, and ultimately results in more. As a taxpayer, I believe the money would be better spent on increased public transit, not a bridge for vehicles. At least part of the motivation for this proposed bridge seems to be the desire for the Port Authority to have a deeper channel to move in bigger ships. I suspect they also see it as a way to move more trucks to and from all of their docks on the riverfront and mouth. Why are taxpayers expected to pay for this and not the port? The 10-lane span and dredging potentially affect two other important industries, fisheries through the impact on the river bed and shoreline habitat used by migrating young fish. Other non-commercial species could potentially be affected by the loss of shoreline habitat. The other industry that would be affected is agriculture. There cannot be a 10-lane bridge without nibbling away at farmland. This project will threaten Canada's commitment to address climate change by increasing the use of fossil fuels in transportation, and undermines food security which is already under threat by development and climate change. Surely this project should undergo a Federal review and should definitely not be reviewed by the proponent?!

2016-02-15 02:34:12
Vivien Frost Delta British Columbia

I do not wish for the Massey tunnel to be replaced.
I would like it upgraded.
I definitely do not want to have a bridge put in.
I value agricultural land
I value the river levels not being tampered with
I value livability over movement of goods.
I would like to see better more direct to Vancouver transit implemented.
No to the bridge construction
Thank you

2016-02-15 02:46:34
ClaireJohnsonKamloopsBritish Columbia

Follow the Netherlands example of upgrading the tunnel. Do not remove it at risk to the ecology of the Fraser River. Those of us in the interior would still like to enjoy our salmon run - and so would the salmon!!!!

2016-02-15 03:04:04
LawrenceBoxallVancouverBritish Columbia

To the degree that planning is practiced within the broadest possible perspective that takes into account:
1. all the possible implications for the future human population of our region, our province, our country and our planet, and
2. all the possible implications for the integrity (the viability) of all the ecological systems that support all forms of life in our region, our province our country and our planet,
based on research based science, is the degree of responsibility that we can assign to our planning.

Given the progressive, compounding ecological damage from a massive range of pollutants since Rachel Carson published her book, “Silent Spring,” 54 years ago, one has to conclude that, so far, planning has been abysmally ineffective at ensuring sustainability for human society as we know it and for the life-support systems we depend on. All the efforts that we have made in trying to address what Rachel Carson brought to our attention has literally been futile. In spite of knowing that the damage we have done in the years since Carson's book appeared outstrips all the harm that humans had done before Carson's warning—We have damaged our nest more in the last half century than in all the 3 million years prior to Carson's book—we still seem to be forging ahead like lemmings heading for the cliff edge.

All of this without even taking into account the Climate Change threat we have unleashed.

Given the challenges we face as a result of what we have done to the natural world, it is clearly not unreasonable to demand radical changes in how we go about meeting all of our needs as a global human society. Important questions that need the fullest consideration include:

1. Can we afford to continue growing our industrial production and resource harnessing to meet our needs given the demonstrated damage these activities have already produced at current levels of activity?

2. Is the widespread use of private cars a luxury we can continue to expand or should we be putting the overwhelming majority of our energies into reliable and convenient public transit in order to render the private vehicle unnecessary in the overwhelming majority of cases?

3. Are there satisfying and desirable alternatives to the wasteful consumerism that would have to be expanded in order to provide the economic growth needs that fossil fuel exports are supposed to facilitate and thus are inextricably connected to?

While everyone agrees that critical thinking is essential to ensure viable planning solutions, all critical thinking is meaningless unless it takes into account all the physical, social and economic science that is currently available to us. What is of growing concern for me is the frequency with which ideology is confused with science. Political decisions of late, both at the provincial and federal level have come to treat ideology rather than science as the more important truth, and I fear that this is happening once more with the drive to build a bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel.

2016-02-15 03:57:14
myna lee johnstoneSSIBritish Columbia

I am a senior, a grandmother with a long history of work in promoting agriculture.
I serve on the Board of our Agricultural Alliance on SSI/BC
My comments and concerns are similar to others opposed to this project:

We do not support the loss of 3,000 acres of the best farmland in the world that will fall if the bridge is built.
We do not support the heavy industrialization of the Fraser River that the bridge is designed for.
We do not support dredging the river to 15.5 metres to provide for 300 metre long ships carrying dirty US thermal coal or Panamex Supertankers carrying Jet Fuel, LNG and even oil.
We do not support another bridge to Vancouver at Boundary Road that will be inevitable as capacity is increased from 4 lanes to 10 lanes. A bridge connecting Boundary Road to No 8 Rd in Richmond will go through the middle of Richmond's cranberry farms and destroy the viability of farming in East Richmond.

You cannot build your way out of traffic congestion. Soon you are back where you started from. With the bridge comes urban sprawl.

With climate adversely affecting food production world wide we cannot afford to gamble the ability to feed ourselves for short term gain

As a grandmother I find it difficult to believe that govts have for so long,far too long ,spent $$$Billions each year supporting the use of .the tremendous overuse of vehicles as a means of transportation
According to Stats Canada 2005, in the comprehensive study,
"The Social Costs of Driving", the estimate was $187.5 Billion /per yr.
We cannot afford more pollution, noise and the enormous spending that results from increased support for the auto industry.
Other countries show wise options in public transit for moving people and goods.
We need to adopt their models.

Sincerely,
m l johnstone

2016-02-15 05:49:58
TriciaSteensonKamloops British Columbia

This needs a rethink.
I am concerned about further industrialization of agricultural land,
increased urban sprawl, and tankers traveling further up the Fraser River.
Who is benefitting from the bridge? What are the likely downsides? Would a retrofit of the current tunnel be a more economical and less intrusive
to the land and communities alternative?

2016-02-15 06:38:56
ThomasBurkeSurrey British Columbia

DO NOT
build a bridge.
Just because you can do something does not mean you should. Think about alternatives.
Public transport & tunnel replacement

2016-02-15 06:50:46
JulieWilsonVancouverBritish Columbia

Ecological Impacts
Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. The cumulative impacts put fish habitat and riparian ecosystems at higher risk.

The Fraser Delta including Burns Bog is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

Port Messaging
Port Metro Vancouver has been working overtime to frame a public conservation about a desperate industrial land shortage. If it was not obvious before, it is certainly clear now that there is a large overall plan for the industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary and it is unfortunate that an independent review has been avoided in favor of less rigorous environmental assessments.

It is important to provide a counter message that the Fraser River is not an appropriate location for deep water shipping activities in the first place. A bridge is presented as the only option and treated as a consensus concluded by project proponents.

The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

Broken Process
The National Energy Board reviews of new tar sands pipelines is a broken process. In reaction, the federal government announced last month (January 27th) that direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects. The five principles are transitional measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place. Extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public.
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1029999
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1029989&crtr.tp1D=930

The assessment process for Lower Fraser River projects faces similar criticisms. A vacuum of science-based independent oversight has been created, the current Federal environmental review process is compromised by the dismantling of Canadian Fisheries and Environmental Assessment Acts. Cumulative impacts and climate change are essential components of any long term project assessment; upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project need to be assessed and the information made public. The Massey Tunnel project is based on weak information and needs to be held to higher standards. The full regional impacts of the project need to be fully considered and Federal funds should not be spent on making the climate crisis worse.

Climate Test
The Pembina Institute equates pipeline-related greenhouse gas emissions to CO2 pollution produced by cars. Building the Energy East pipeline would be the equivalent of adding 7 million cars to Canada's roads. The Transmountain pipeline alone would contribute 150% more CO2 emission than BC's current provincial total.
http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/energy-east-pipeline-co2-output-equivalent-of-7-million-cars-report-1.2526303

The proposed bridge is intended to facilitate coal, jet fuel, LNG or tar sands oil transport. These CO2 emission contributions should be added to the actual contributions from future vehicle pollution encouraged by a new 10 lane bridge (12 lane highway) expansion. The totals should be compared with transit alternatives (LRT) and extended for at least the life of new bridge (100 years). Imposing a freeway driven car culture on local communities for the next 100 years is not a regional plan.

The Massey Tunnel project is an important line in the sand. Port Metro Vancouver must have its authority checked. Our government must allow for a more open, transparent consultation process before this significant decision is made, which will surely impact the future of the Metro Vancouver region.

2016-02-15 08:04:35
Boundary BayConservation CommitteeDeltaBritish Columbia

BOUNDARY BAY CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
Box 1251, Delta, B.C. V4M 3T3
February 15, 2016

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project
Assessment Manager Michael Shepard,
B.C. Environmental Assessment Office

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project: Comments on Project Description and Key Areas of Study

Project Requires a full Canadian Environmental Assessment by a Review Panel Process

Why is the public being asked for comment on a provincial environmental assessment only? The document, Project Description and Key Areas of Study, claims engagement has taken place with federal regulatory agencies but there is no disclosure of federally- accountable scope and valued components.

This large-scale project must be subject to a federal Review Panel Environmental Assessment due to the far-reaching portential risks and cumulative environmental impacts. Public concerns, First Nations interests, species at risk, removal of the tunnel, plans for large vessels on the Fraser, use of valued farmland; moving a major B.C. Hydro power line, and disturbance to the Fraser delta ecosystems require compliance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Permits, regulations and legislation require application of the Environment Protection Act, Fisheries Act, Canada Health Act, Species at Risk Act, Migratory Bird Convention Act and Navigation Protection Act.

The Boundary Bay Conservation Committee (BBCC) was established in 1988 to enhance public awareness of the Fraser River Estuary Ecosystem. We have worked with other conservation groups to obtain protection and recognition for this world class ecosystem including:
• BirdLife International’s Important Bird Area (IBA) designation in 2001 for the Fraser River Estuary: Boundary Bay, Roberts Bank and Sturgeon Bank; the Estuary is the most significant IBA out of 597 sites in Canada.
• In 2004, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) gave the Estuary its highest designation as a Hemispheric WHSRN Site.
• In 2011, Roberts Bank, the vital central link in this chain of inter-connected and protected estuary habitats, was finally declared a Wildlife Management Area.
• In 2012, the whole lower Fraser River Delta was declared a Ramsar site by the International Convention on Wetlands.

These designations, and the fact that the Fraser is a Canadian Heritage River, require federal and provincial government integrity which is not being demonstrated by the current process of this Project.

The world reknown cooperative environmental management model, namely the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP), which brought together all three levels of government to conduct environmental reviews of development projects along the Fraser River, was closed in 2013. The main developer, Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), took over as Lead Agency from FREMP for a “transition period”. But PMV is still handling all developments along the Fraser River which is an outrageous conflict of interest and an international embarassment in terms of stewardship of the globally significant habitats in this ecosystem. The BBCC asks when will this farce be terminated? Similarly the Fraser Basin Council which used to promote the environmental health of the Fraser River has been comandeered by business interests.

A federal Review Panel Environmental Assessment is required to ensure a more thorough review of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. Credible information is required to consider alternative options such as upgrading the existing tunnel, twinning the tunnel, a smaller bridge or retaining the status quo with restrictions on truck hours. Federal and provincial species at risk should be included as well as impacted wildlife species using the interactive, interdependent habitats of the river, waterways, ditches, farmland and Burns Bog. Great Blue Herons, Sandhill Cranes, and night hunters such as the Barn Owl will be negatively and permanently impacted by this project as will the endangered Pacific Water Shrew, the red-listed White Sturgeon, and the blue listed Eulachon.

The real purpose of the massive new bridge for large, and many more, shipping vessels should be disclosed. Impacts of these vessels moving containers, coal, fuel, and LNG need to be included in a credible cumulative environmental impact assessment of past, current and planned projects on the south arm of the Fraser River. The collective impacts from all these projects point to devastating degradation of the internationally-significant habitats and wildlife that depend on the health of the Fraser River delta and estuary. Millions of migratory birds, salmon and endangered orcas will be negatively impacted by many more large shipping vessels moving on the Fraser, the estuary and through Orca Pass. As stated above, there are far-reaching potential risks and cumulative environmental impacts from the proposed longest bridge in B.C..

Project Information Fails to Credibly Disclose Complete and Accurate Information on Potential Impacts to Air Quality

The health of the public, the wildlife, the farmland and the river deserve more specific and accurate information on the potential impacts to air quality in the region. The massive bridge is expected to accommodate double the number of current truck movements. As it is clear to the public that the $3.5 billion project is being planned to accommodate increased shipping vessels and industrialization along the river, a more comprehensive, inclusive air quality assessment is required. Impacts of emissions on the adjacent farmland soils, waterways and wildlife in the area need to be included.

No credible support is given to the claim that the project will improve air quality. The claim lacks sincerity and is not substantiated with accurate science. To the contrary, increased traffic congestion and associated emissions will move from the tunnel area to the Oak Street and Knight Street Bridges.

Loss and Degradation of some of Canada’s best farmland and habitats

One tragic impact is yet another project cutting up the rich farmland in Delta and Richmond. Destroying a prime agricultural corridor to build this bridge places jobs and long-term food security at risk. Once a corridor like this is built, urban sprawl inevitably follows. This does not correlate with the Regional Growth Strategy.
The farmland also supports Canada’s largest number of wintering birds of prey. Some hunt at night so the tall bridge will result in bird strikes and light pollution will impede hunting on the farmland and along the river.

Health of the River

No credible, specific information is provided on the potential hydro technical impacts on the Fraser; changes to the salt wedge; impacts from decommissioning the tunnel; and ecological/social upstream/downstream effects. Alterations on the shoreline and adjacent lands will impact interactive, interdependent riparian habitats between the shoreline and the river which are critical to viable fish habitats. In turn, this will affect the health of fisheries and commerical fishing. Will the project affect water courses as well as endangered and threatened streams critical to viable fish habitats?
New government policies regarding climate change and effects on the Fraser River should be explained and applied to this Project.

Need for a risk analysis to address uncertain residual effect predictions

The purpose of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is to:
“protect the components of the environment that are within the legislative authority of Parliament from significant adverse environmental effects caused by a designated project; s. 4 (1) (a).

There is potential for irreparable significant adverse environmental effects from the massive George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project which is moving forward without due diligence to public input and concerns. More sensible, cheaper and more environmentally sensitive options have not been sincerely considered. Lip service has been paid to early consultations and there is no disclosure to the public of how the plans for the extremely expensive, over-sized bridge materialized. The ongoing health of the Fraser River delta is at risk of degradation on a large scale.

The process for this Project fails to meet core values of public participation

The International Association for Public Participation Core Values

1. The public should have a say in decisions about actions that affect their lives.
2. Public participation includes the promise that the public's contribution will influence the decision.
3. The public participation process communicates the interests and meets the process needs of all participants.
4. The public participation process seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected.
5. The public participation process involves participants in defining how they participate.
6. The public participation process provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
7. The public participation process communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

Sincerely,

Susan Jones
Director: Boundary Bay Conservation Committee

2016-02-15 08:36:13
SoniaNazarSurreyBritish Columbia

Why even ask for public and community input when the governments will do what they want anyway? I have seen this with the SFPR. Community input, road will flood, first week SFPR opened it was closed due to flooding. Need a pedestrian overpass, but told no, pedestrians can take a different route, two years into construction guess what they build a pedestrian overpass where they were told to build one.

The current BC government has no regard for your input or for the environment and food sustainability. We keep losing farmland and wetlands to roads and bridges, while other countries are clawing back roads to bring back green space and farmlands.

Keep the tunnel, retrofit it or twin it? Create better transit.

2016-02-15 08:42:34
KateEliotRichmondBritish Columbia

I'm very concerned that this proposed new bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel has not gone through any required regulatory process. The plan has serious flaws in it and requires sober debate and transparent proposals of alternate solutions. The huge traffic volume is a result of previous lack of serious long-term planning. The most serious issue of this is the ecologic/environmental impact -- deeper dredging of the Fraser River will seriously destroy salmon and other river species; worst of all it will create a backwash of salt water back up the river channel and destroy freshwater irrigation that they presently use from the river.
Please review other options and don't let Port Metro Vancouver drive this process. We are talking about public funds, public resources, and public input! thank you.

2016-02-15 09:03:30
LushaZhouSurreyBritish Columbia

I would like to ask the federal government to conduct a full panel review due to environmental concerns of how the construction of the bridge and the industrial development it facilitates on the river would affect habitat, safety, and quality of life.

In addition, I object to having user tolls to fund the proposed bridge, given that those that stand to profit most from a bridge are industrial river users.

2016-02-15 09:07:01
SusanTancoRichmondBritish Columbia

The replacement of the George Massey Tunnel with a $3.5 billion bridge will create more fundamental problems than it will solve. The destruction of farmland and natural habitats and expanding industrialization of the Fraser River are not in our best interests. This is a project to support corporate interests and expand fossil fuel exports. This project is not about what our community needs to be a healthy and sustainable community. People not profits should be the motivation for public projects.

2016-02-15 09:14:00
BarbaraMartinVancouverBritish Columbia

I am concerned about the costs and environmental implications of this new bridge. As a frequent user of the Massey Tunnel, I do not see the need for such a huge expansion. At a time when other jurisdictions are funding public transit and trying to decrease the number of cars/trucks in use, BC is going in the opposite direction with the current development strategy. There has been a lack of clarity and transparency about the government objective with this project....much a there was with the "new" highway built to the ferry terminal. This is speculative development based on the need for increased trucking/shipping of natural resources that are now proving to be unnecessary and cost prohibitive. We need to protect our food sources - the Fraser River is a delicate ecosystem that provides habitat for salmon, a true natural resource, and the land aquisiition required removes further arable land than is needed to grow
food.
At the very least, this project requires a full review by a thorough review by an unbiased committee, to ensure that the needs/benefits of all BC residents are heard. To date, the mega projects taken on by this government have not met the projected benefits and the cost overruns and lack of use of the bridges built far outweigh any benefit to BC citizens.

2016-02-15 09:18:20
DavidScougalSurrey British Columbia

I agree that because a bridge would benefit water based transportation, then there should be a toll for those vessels.
Also, can the goals of the project be achieved by a retrofit of the tunnel? If so and at less cost than the proposed bridge, then I support that retrofit.

2016-02-15 09:24:55
DianeCorbettGibsonsBritish Columbia

In making this proposal, has the proponent considered the vision of the future for the entire region?

Removing the George Massey Tunnel will let deeper draft coal freighters and LNG carriers up the Fraser River. This is bad for the climate and the marine environment. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems. The focus of shipping should remain Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deepwater port.

I am opposed to the removal of the Massey Tunnel and believe that a more cost effective action would be to retrofit the tunnel. Other cost effective options should be investigated.

If a bridge were built, who would bear the costs of construction?

Construction of a bridge would negatively impact existing farmland in light of the long runway needed for construction.

Removal of the tunnel would result in the increased industrialization and pressure for development of the region of south Vancouver into Richmond/Delta, adjacent to and impacting existing farmland.

In light of the huge potential impacts and costs of the construction of a bridge, the need for establishment of a vision of the future for the potentially impacted region is essential before any development. All local and regional governments and their constituents in Vancouver, Delta, Surrey, Richmond and New Westminster should provide input on the collective vision of the future for the region.

A regional transportation plan is ESSENTIAL.

2016-02-15 09:25:37
DavidDorringtonRichmondBritish Columbia

Below is a direct quote from Port Metros website claiming that they care about climate change. I think they are lying. Why do they want to export more coal and why is the existing Tswassen coal terminal insufficient ??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Healthy ecosystems
Takes a holistic approach to protecting and improving air, land and water quality to promote biodiversity and human health.
Champions coordinated management programs to protect habitats and species.
Climate action
Is a leader among ports in energy conservation and alternative energy to minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
Protects its assets against potential impacts of climate change."

2016-02-15 09:27:46
JimMorrisonDeltaBritish Columbia

I have many concerns about this proposed bridge:
(1) a full environmental impact assessment should be conducted by the Federal Government; note the conflict of interest here since the proponent, the BC government, is proposing the BCEAO carry out this work;
(2) the question of need for such infrastructure and the options that should be fully explored, given the range of costs (i.e.a bridge, another tunnel with light rail and/or bus transit options)
(3) a commitment to transit that reduces carbon emissions and impacts on climate change, as demonstrated at the Paris 2015 conference;
(4) recognize and consider the impacts on the treasure of the Fraser River estuary and its nature values, as recognized with the RAMSAR designation.
I demand a federal environmental impact assessment, the only route to transparency and social license for this project.

2016-02-15 09:39:46
SallyHicklingDeltaBritish Columbia

I have grave concerns about this. I think a ten lane bridge is ridiculous. Congestion will be moved elsewhere and create bottlenecks as soon as one is off the bridge. We need to be looking at better transit options not making it easier to use cars. I'm concerned about the impact on farmland, something we can not afford to lose more of. I am also gravely concerned about the impact on the Fraser river. A deep trench has formed down river from the Alex Fraser bridge so what would the impact be from a ten lane bridge? We have a very sensitive ecosystem that needs to be protected. I do not want larger ship traffic moving through this area, especially anything carrying fossil fuels etc. There are too many questions and concerns that need to be addressed and it feels like this is being rushed along, which makes me think it's more about corporate interests and the almighty dollar, than what is best for the region and most importantly the environment.

2016-02-15 09:50:13
SharonPriest-NagataVancouverBritish Columbia

I have a number of concerns about the plan to build this bridge: EXPENSE (retrofitting the tunnel is a much cheaper option apparently), TRANSPARENCY: the government says it is to ease commuter traffic but it looks more like they want to free up the river for larger fossil fuel transport vessels. The traffic headaches will just move elsewhere. The twinning of the Port Mann and widening of Highway One is another example of this: frees up congestion around the port but only defers the commuter traffic problems.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: getting rid of the tunnel means larger draft vessels can move up and down the Fraser: what is the impact on the river and the fish stocks likely to be?
LAND USE: with the area increasingly industrialized, what will the pressure on agriculture land be like? We are already over-dependent on the US and China for our food security and these sources are increasingly unreliable. We must protect what arable land remains in BC.

Increasingly, it looks like the Port Authority and the Government of BC have little or no interest in moving away from fossil fuels. Pressure to do needs to come from elsewhere.

2016-02-15 09:57:25
BenNuttall-SmithSurreyBritish Columbia

We need improved public transportation from South Surrey / WhiteRock.
The South Surrey Park and Ride (King George) has a large second lot that is underused (almost unused). Transit users still have to pay to use that lot although it involves a lengthy walk to buses, often in the rain. If the secondary lot were free to use, more drivers might be encouraged to park there and take the bus despite the inconvenience. That secondary lot needs to be reexamined.
A rapid rail service with shuttle buses throughout residential areas would be the best answer of all and less expensive in the long run than a new toll bridge.

2016-02-15 09:58:24
Geoff SnellRichmond British Columbia

This project should not be going ahead without a complete environmental assessment.
It also should be completely reviewed by the Public Utilities Commission to see if there really is any value in this for the citizenry of British Columbia.
If there was a real need for this project, then why was it that we just spent almost $20 million dollars for seismic upgrading to the Massey tunnel?
There is also great concern about the commercializing of the Fraser River and it's effects on the salmon runs and general aquaculture.
This whole bridge project is not so much something "for the people", to ease congestion, if it was why are we not seeing any concessions given to public transit or rapid train line even being considered for the bridge?
The only reason you are seeing this bridge being built is that the port authorities wanted to increase larger shipping vessels for transport up and down the Fraser River.
And if that's the case then why is it that the citizenry is being asked to pick up the tab for something that really only the port is going to profit from.
This project needs to be put on hold immediately until a complete and full of evaluation can be done by an independent, arms length, non governmental review board.
If it's such a good deal let's hear it from someone who's not a politically involved in the project!

2016-02-15 10:03:33
JackieChowMaple RidgeBritish Columbia

It's obvious that the main purpose of replacing the tunnel with a bridge is for industry. People in Metro Vancouver do not want more tanker traffic on the Fraser. We don't want the river to be dredged to 15.5 meters. We do not want to lose precious farmland to port expansion.
We also desperately need to move away from ever more road expansion and instead focus on alternatives: transit, cycling and walking. The majority of people in the region do not feel they have any viable alternative to the car. That needs to change in this rapidly changing world.

2016-02-15 10:08:29
ClayTangRichmondBritish Columbia

I am concerned that at a minimum $3.5 billion of taxpayer monies will be spent on a project that has not been properly determined. Other options needs to be fairly and adequately considered.

This BC Environmental Assessment Process fails to include the
need for a federal Review Panel Environmental Assessment due to the size of the Bridge Proposal, removal of the tunnel, the potential for significant adverse environmental effects,the Species at Risk Act, Aboriginal interests and concerns expressed by the public.

2016-02-15 10:16:15
AngelaMellorWhistlerBritish Columbia

I am 100% against further expansion of the LNG and coal industry in BC. In my opinion allowing more deep sea ships to go up river will mean disaster for a important salmon river , which unlike coal and gas is a sustainable renewable resource that we are very lucky to share. If we do not care for the Fraser and our environment generally it will no longer care for us. The Salmon and clean unpolluted land are much more important than whatever short term $ gain will be made by some corporations by expanding this damaging fracked gas LNG and dirty coal industries. In the end expanding Fracking and coal, which will require changing the landscape of BC by industrializing huge areas of land, must surely be a net loss for the people of BC.

2016-02-15 10:18:22
MargaretHewlettRichmondBritish Columbia

I question why our Provincial Government committed to this massive fossil-fuel-centred project without disclosing appropriate research on the long-term effects and viability of the deep-vessel port it is intended to service, on the certain harmful effects of removing the tunnel on our river and coastline, on the counter-productive effects of diverting traffic congestion to north of the South Arm or to the non-tolled Alex Fraser Bridge, on the bridge's effects on farmland and parkland, and without even the shadow of public consultation that was given to the matter of funding transportation and congestion alleviation with less costly and more ecologically and socially sustainable solutions.

I believe the project would fail in this type of analysis and those who would gain in the short term have the most influence on our current Provincial Government.

2016-02-15 10:24:28
ElaineConwayVancouverBritish Columbia

Ecological Impacts
Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems.

The Fraser Delta including Burns Bog is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

Port Messaging

Port Metro Vancouver has been working overtime to frame a public conservation about a desperate industrial land shortage. If it was not obvious before it is certainly clear now that there is a large overall plan for the industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary and it is unfortunate that an independent review has been avoided in favor of less rigorous environmental assessments.

It is important to provide a counter message that the Fraser River is not an appropriate location for deep water shipping activities in the first place. A bridge is presented as the only option and treated as a consensus concluded by project proponents.

The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

Broken Process

The National Energy Board reviews of new tar sands pipelines is a broken process. In reaction the federal government announced last month (January 27th) that direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects. The five principles are transitional measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place. Extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public.

2016-02-15 10:25:48
DanV.CourtenayBritish Columbia

$3.5 Billion? Right. And how much to upgrade the tunnel?

We do not support the loss of 3,000 acres of the best farmland in the world. A bridge connecting Boundary Road to No 8 Rd in Richmond will go through the middle of Richmond's cranberry farms and destroy the viability of farming in East Richmond. With climate adversely affecting food production worldwide we cannot afford to gamble with the ability to feed ourselves.

We do not support the heavy industrialization of the Fraser River that the bridge is designed for. We do not support dredging the river to 15.5 metres to provide for 300 metre long ships carrying dirty US thermal coal or Panamex Supertankers carrying Jet Fuel, LNG and even oil.

2016-02-15 10:26:52
Greg Reamsbottom Pemberton British Columbia

I strongly oppose this project.

2016-02-15 10:29:06
LisaButelVancouverBritish Columbia

THE LOSERS:
-Farmers, who use the Lower Fraser for irrigation and may see the water
increase in salt-content due to dredging a deeper channel
-Salmon who rely on the relatively clean and cold fresh waters of this gateway in their migration deep into/from BC's valleys will be unhappy
-First Nations, who rely on salmon for food fishery and income
-Commercial Fishermen, who rely on healthy salmon stocks for income
-Powerless Lifeforms, and Riparian Habitats which have existed for eons happily clinging to the shores and waters of the estuary
-Migratory Birds, who rely on healthy estuary and those habitats
-Taxpayers can imagine much better uses of their contributions to the public good, some of whom live very close to proposed LNG and airport fuel infrastructure upriver.
-Richmond Residents will see the Delta traffic jam move across the river, trading southbound afternoon gridlock for northbound morning gridlock.
-Humans of the Future, who will puzzle over why we went so wrong
-The Planet, who is suffocating under the stresses of Climate Change

2016-02-15 10:32:28
PaulineMaloneySURREYBritish Columbia

Not enough research into either need or projected usage of this enormous structure.

2016-02-15 10:41:46
KarenMcMahonRichmondBritish Columbia

Please give this a full review with all environmental and fiscal repercussions researched and reviewed. It is a vital waterway and needs our time and attention to make informed decisions for our future and futures to come!

2016-02-15 10:47:09
MelodyChanVancouverBritish Columbia

-I demand a Federal Environmental Review on this project.
-I love the Fraser River and its salmon runs-don't dredge the river.
-The Fraser River is an important part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds.
-Don't pave farmland to build on-ramps to a bridge!
-Don't ruin the Fraser for my grandchildren!
-We don't need a Bridge-improve the tunnel instead.
-We need more buses through the tunnel, not more cars.
-A Massey Bridge will only move congestion to the Oak Street Bridge.
-Why build a bridge for congestion then toll it so people don't use it?

2016-02-15 10:50:42
LeonaRothneyVancouverBritish Columbia

Save the tunnel
Save farmland
Save taxpayers money
Save public transit
Save air quality

A new bridge is just a waste of money and of course there will be a toll to pay. Why is it that the average working class people have to pay and pay and pay? The government is bleeding us dry. Enough is enough.
STOP THE BRIDGE and SAVE THE TUNNEL.

2016-02-15 10:54:11
JamesByrneLethbridge Alberta

PLEASE DROP LNG and coal export plans. Natural gas is a bad choice for energy. Hydraulic fracture (HF) and conventional natural gas have a larger greenhouse gas footprint than coal or oil due to gas leakage, according to a number of studies including work by Cornell Professor Robert Howarth published in the Journal Energy Science and Engineering in 2014. Many good science publications clearly show HF gas has a terrible water and air contamination history. Further, new NG facilities are bad investments that do not reduce GHG emissions long term; they simply delay the installation of renewable energy systems that truly reduce GHG emissions. The only way to really reduce GHG emissions is to switch to clean renewable energy sources. Excellent science papers in NATURE support this argument (see McJeon et al. Nature: 514, 23Oct2014 and Shearer et al. Environmental Research Letters, 2014). BC investments in NG will fail as the world is going to invest in renewable, clean energy systems to reduce GHG emissions; NOT natural gas. Renewable energy, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, wave energy, is the way the world will minimize climate change. Forget LNG, forget fossilfuels. Go renewable energy, BC.
--
James M. Byrne, Ph.D.
Professor, University of Lethbridge
Water and Environmental Science Centre
Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4
Telephone 403 329 2002

2016-02-15 11:02:06
CaseyHrynkowRichmondBritish Columbia

I don't want to see further industrialization of the south Fraser. The movement of petroleum fuels are a short-term gain with long term risks that I don't feel we can take. Improve the tunnel. Double the tunnel. But I believe the bridge option is the wrong choice.

2016-02-15 11:16:36
CharlesBarstowRichmondBritish Columbia

As a Steveston resident I look at the Fraser River as a precious waterway and I'm concerned that the tankers that are going to be traveling up the waterway could lead to a catastrophic incident.
Rapid transit is the answer to the traffic jam that now exists at the tunnel.
A ten lane bridge will succeed in eliminating the Tunnel Jam that now plagues us. BUT is advancing that dogpile of vehicles further along towards Vancouver's already overcrowded bridges the solution we all desire? MAYBE NOT!

The real solution is rapid transit.

In Europe a number of park and ride lots feed light rail lines and moves passengers along quite efficiently.

Could this work here?

2016-02-15 11:20:19
EmmaDavisGalianoBritish Columbia

The project should include rapid transit - a skytrain route. Investing in carbon fuel transportation only would be short-sited.

2016-02-15 11:26:04
BarbaraPurvesDuncanBritish Columbia

I am deeply concerned about the proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel with a bridge over the Fraser River. I do not believe that there has been sufficient attention to issues of: loss of farmland with consequences for sustainability of local food production; damage to the Fraser River and surrounding wetlands, with consequences for much-needed biological diversity and for salmon; and impact on climate change resulting from increased vehicle and traffic traffic. I am requesting more consideration of alternatives to replacing the Massey Tunnel, as well as a Federal review to further evaluate consequences of different options.

Respectfully,
Barbara Purves

2016-02-15 11:37:00
Jennifer ClineVancouverBritish Columbia

The future of food system in the lower mainland is dependant on stopping this specific expansion of the Massey Tunnel. Farmland is of utmost importance! As a new farmer in Richmond, this expansion scares me. It will mean destroying a prime agricultural corridor to build this bridge plus the land consumed by the resulting sprawl – places British Columbia’s long-term food supply at risk. The farmland also supports several species of wildlife that rely on the interdependent, interactive habitats of the river, ditches, waterways, farmland and Burns Bog.

2016-02-15 12:09:40
m sasakivancouverBritish Columbia

I oppose the construction of a bridge to replace George Massey Tunnel due to the environmental impacts and the gross misuse of public funds. It would adversely impact a prime agricultural corridor, and add more space for cars on the road thereby increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Public transit alternatives could ease congestion for a fraction of the price, and should be implemented instead.

2016-02-15 12:11:22
HilarieMcMurrayRichmondBritish Columbia

We live in Steveston. My partner has been fishing for salmon commercially for over 50 years - the Fraser River is the most important salmon river in Canada. Greater industrialization of the Lower Fraser threatens not just the salmon but the whole river ecosystem.

A $3.5 Billion toll bridge will not reduce traffic congestion just move it North - we can create greater capacity by retrofitting the tunnel and creating rapid transit links. And protect needed farmland and the River.

2016-02-15 12:13:35
WilliamSchussSurreyBritish Columbia

As for transportation ,I believe twinning the George Massey Tunnel.is the most efficient methood .
I am against deep sea ships entering the lower Fraser River. Also no to transportation of dirty coal and Fracked Natural gas.( to accomodate these ships the dredging of the river is required ) This is why our Christy Clark is hell bent on this dumb idea of a new 10 lane bridge. also the costs to be born by taxpayers . NO,NO, NO.

2016-02-15 12:19:39
CameronMackenzieCoquitlamBritish Columbia

Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems.

The Fraser Delta including Burns Bog is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

2016-02-15 12:24:50
DONNAMARTINSALT SPRING ISLANDBritish Columbia

IT APPEARS THIS PROPOSED BRIDGE IS FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS ...IF THIS IS THE CASE THEY SHOULD PAY.
WHAT ARE THE OTHER OPTIONS?
HOW WILL IT IMPACT DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS?
WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT?
WHAT IS THE COST OF UPGRADING THE EXISTING TUNNEL?

2016-02-15 12:32:02
LauraZadoroznyRichmondBritish Columbia

Hello,

I am a tax paying resident of Richmond and lived here my whole life, since 1962.
I am against this bridge, the impact to the environment and the visual pollution it will inflict on our will be negative.

I would rather see the tunnel widened than a bridge and the noise it will impose on residents. The technology for tunnel retrofitting has come a long way. We did it with our Canada Line and the only reason this ugly above ground section exists is because Richmond is below sea level.

The other considerations are cost. I, as a taxpayer am not willing to be responsible for 3.5 BILLION dollars when a less expensive, less environmentally impactful option is at hand.

We know through research that more lanes don't decrease congestion but actually increase it. Where will all this traffic go when it hits the 3 lanes or going up Oak Street? It will be similar or more congested in Vancouver.

If we could keep the low impact option of Retrofitting the tunnel and stop polluting our lands with these big visual eyesores, we would be seen by the world as a thoughtful and mindful Province. Let's set an example on how much we care about our surrounding farmlands and the Eagles and other wildlife who's habitats will be impacted by this huge expanse spilling over, into and around the Dease Island park lands and farmers fields. This bridge will have a tremendous impact on their habitats.

We are not stupid. We know what the Provincial Government wants to do with the South Arm of the Fraser River. Environmentalists are growing in numbers because we are learning how important it is to speak up and make change when it comes to protecting things that cannot be retrieved once they are lost.

Regards,

Laura Zadorozny

2016-02-15 12:40:33
ColinBranderVancouverBritish Columbia

Please reconsider the building of a ten lane bridge. I have no problem with replacing the tunnel with a bridge, especially given the seismic problems with the current tunnel. However, to build a ten lane bridge is excessive, especially given that young people are not buying cars as much and many people are driving less. Traffic projects for the last two bridges in the Lower Mainland were overly optimistic and is costing the province and TransLink millions of dollars annually that could better be used for other purposes, such as transit. I have not seen or read anything that has indicated that this bridge will be any different.

By reducing the capacity, will save the province and taxpayers hundres of millions that can be better invested in transit and other priorities. Transit needs to be the priority for the region. By investing in transit, the province will need save billions by not having to invest in as many multi-billion dollar projects.

2016-02-15 12:41:21
JuliHobarttSAWWASSENBritish Columbia

We should follow the Netherlands example and retrofit the tunnel.
There are many, many reasons not to have a new bridge!
What we really need is better rapid transit and get people out of their cars!

2016-02-15 13:05:46
ShanMacPhersonSalt SpringBritish Columbia

I'm particularly concerned about the health of the Fraser. It's already in a sorry state and allowing more and larger vessels may be terribly deleterious.

2016-02-15 13:15:30
philharrisonSurreyBritish Columbia

To whom it may concern:

First off, I take great exception to this development as it is being proposed without a referendum. The current government decided a referendum was necessary for transit improvements. This proposal should also go to referendum.

Secondarily, I believe with improvements to transit, road improvements would not be needed as volume would be greatly reduced. Peak hour volumes only need to be reduced by 10 or 20% (my estimate) for grid lock to be eliminated.

Lastly, Canada has made commitments to reduce green house gases. Climate change is the biggest environmental issue today. Our community planning needs to be exploring every possibility to find ways of reducing our contributions to green house gases. Building 10 lane bridges is not part of the solution.

thank you for hearing my concerns
Phil Harrison

2016-02-15 13:17:33
StevenFaraher-AmidonComoxBritish Columbia

As a long time resident of the lower mainland who has just recently moved but has years of ties and many friends and relatives in the lower mainland, I have serious concerns about the proposal to remove the Massey Tunnel.

With great respect to the work that has been done, it strikes me that the cart has been put before the horse. When, several years ago now, I first became aware and attended a development meeting at the hotel in Tsawwassen, I was surprised that it was worded as a done deal.

However, several concerns are still prominent. .
1)Critical information regarding scoping and valued components needs to be addressed re public concerns and input.

2) 45% potential increase in truck traffic is more than substantial and
needs to be considered as well as alternatives.(for example the Netherlands are retrofitting a similar tunnel to modern standards..at a fraction of the cost ..$420 million compared to the estimated $3.5 billion for a new bridge).

3) The huge (50% or more ??) cost overrun on the Port Mann bridge suggest this $3.5 billion estimate could easily run much higher.

4)Savings on retrofitting could be earmarked for public transit, which is a more environmentally positive approach. As we enter the age of CO2 levels well over 400 ppm, alternative approaches to consumption of more and more fossil fuels simply have to be considered.

5) If a bridge is built, the purveyors should have to pay a fee to use it,
the Port and other industrial exporters should have to pay for usage,
well.

6) Coal, Jet Fuel and LNG exports in huge Panamax vessels is a concern. Allowing such significant change to the use of the Fraser river should, at a minimum, to trigger a Federal Environmental Review and should not be assessed by the proponents themselves.

Having the proponent do the review themselves is inconsistent with appropriate ethical democratic standards...it is just not good enough.

I respectfully urge you to consider these concerns and take action
consistent with the substantial issues still remaining.. It is not too late and all our children and grandchildren's future and significant cost savings are hanging in the balance.

2016-02-15 13:25:44
DanielRemediosRIchmondBritish Columbia

I do not believe that the bridge will really help congestion. In fact studies have clearly shown that adding more roads/bridges will actually increase congestion, pollution etc. Also I believe that we are at a critical juncture in relation to our environment. And one that needs to be nurtured rather than built over.
I am entirely against the building of this bridge.

2016-02-15 13:26:00
BlairDykesVancouverBritish Columbia

The Massey Tunnel Replacement Project's Environmental Assessment document does not include Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a Key Area of Study (KAS). This omission is unacceptable in the evaluation of a project that will directly impact traffic flow and congestion. Section 2.3 of the KAS claims a 10 lane bridge and associated freeway expansion
would result in “lower idling-related greenhouse gas emissions,” however, according to the SightLine Institute, adding just one mile of new highway lane increases carbon emissions by 100,000 tonnes over 50 years. This bridge proposal feeds a continuing dependence on fossil fuels and is at odds with Canada’s international commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 °C.

The goal of starting construction on the Tunnel Replacement Project in 2017 is insufficient to allow for a thorough and credible environmental review for a project of this magnitude, according to the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA). The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change staff involved in this project should
recommend that the Minister refer the Massey Tunnel Replacement environmental assessment to a Review Panel and give that review panel direction to examine the larger policy implications of alternatives to this project.
.

2016-02-15 13:29:35
AndrewLarigakisVancouverBritish Columbia

This is the wrong place to spend precious infrastructure dollars.

Funding for public transit is urgently needed. The development of public transit is consistent with smart growth strategies that will improve livability in the region while reducing environmental impact.

As well, claims that the bridge is being built to enable large LNG tankers and coal ships to pass are highly plausible given the provincial governments focus on expanding fossil fuel extraction in the province. This bridge represents a massive public subsidy to the fossil fuel industry through the increase of vehicle traffic and aid for expanding fossil fuel shipping.

2016-02-15 13:34:41
RobertDierkerVancouverBritish Columbia

Transit infrastructure is my only priority. Real transit that gets commuters to the Vancouver city core is my preference. We just don't need more SOV traffic crossing the Fraser.

We need public structure for the future, not private structure for the present.

2016-02-15 13:37:47
RichardO'NeillRoberts CreekBritish Columbia

There is no need for this bridge to be built.

The only purpose for building this bridge is so the tunnel can be removed to permit dredging of the channel for larger ships to go up the Fraser river, these larger ships will cause horrendous environmental damage in the form of habitat destruction, water pollution, and air pollution.
This is the 21st century, and we should be putting an end to ecological destruction. We must not continue to destroy the air, water, and habitat which is required in order for life on earth to continue.

It is time to put ethical and ecological values ahead of short term economic gain for a few. This type of unrestrained destructive growth cannot be allowed to continue.

Yours truly,

Richard H. O'Neill

2016-02-15 13:41:21
RonaldHeberRichmondBritish Columbia

The science is unequivocal; we must begin to rapidly draw down our emissions to try our best to avert catastrophic climate change. Over the past two and a half decades, we have failed to do so in any meaningful way, thus exacerbating the problem. Part of the problem is a failure to recognize the role that large infrastructure projects have on increased emissions, because of the decades-long lifespan of the completed projects. It is a no-brainer that adding extra lane capacity-something the proposed Massey Tunnel replacement project will do in spades-increases vehicle use, thereby CO2 emissions. Over a 50 year period, it's estimated that every new mile of road adds an extra 100,000 tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Given that both the latest provincial and federal CO2 emissions projections are showing an increased gap between projected emissions and our targets for decreasing them, it is all the more imperative that large infrastructure projects fully take into account the emissions that will result from the project. This means not only taking into account emissions from increased road traffic, but also the upstream and downstream emissions that will arise from the proposed bridge enabling an expanded Delta Port, with increased container traffic, and an increased ability to export thermal coal and LNG from the Fraser river.

The proposed bridge with its ensuing increase in CO2 emissions is also incompatible with Metro Vancouver's aim to reduce driving distances and for half of all trips by 2030 to be made by either walking, cycling, or transit. As well, the proposed 3.5 billion price tag is several times more expensive than simply maintaining/repairing
the existing tunnel, which was recently done with a very similar tunnel (of which our tunnel was actually based) in the Netherlands.

For all these reasons and more, I am not in favour of the proposed solution to the Massey Tunnel replacement project. Commuters south of the Fraser do, of course, need solutions to ease congestion and ameliorate commuting time, however an expensive bridge is not the only solution. Public investment in the expansion of rapid transit
South of the Fraser, as well as other transit options, can go a long way to meeting the needs of these commuters.

In spite of my disagreement with the proposed solution, as this particular public consultation pertains to seeking input from the public as to the specific environmental aspects that should be taken into account in the environmental assessment of the proposed solution, I am itemizing below the factors I strongly believe should be part of such an assessment:

* A full assessment of projected increase in carbon emissions as a result of the project, both from direct vehicular traffic, as well as upstream and downstream emissions resulting from the increased capacity at Delta Port and the ensuing ability to export thermal coal and LNG along the Fraser river

* A coordinated assessment of other regional, provincial and national goals with respect to carbon reduction efforts such that the project does not render those goals harder to attain. In particular:
- Metro Vancouver's goal of reducing driving distances and for half of all trips by 2030 to be made by either walking, cycling, or transit;
- the province's CO2 emissions reduction targets
- national CO2 emissions reduction targets

* Should the emissions assessment demonstrate that the project is incompatible with regional, provincial and federal carbon reduction goals, then the proposed project should be terminated. It would be disingenuous to sugarcoat the increased emissions by offering a concession of carbon offsets, or making assumptions that vehicles will be predominantly electric in the future, or appealing to a 'balance' of growth versus the environment.

* The assessment process should be completely open, transparent and accountable. It should be undertaken by impartial environmental and scientific experts, and not those employed by or under the auspices of groups that stand to benefit from the proposed bridge, e.g. Delta Port.

Thank you,
Ronald Heber

2016-02-15 13:45:47
MaggieZieglerSalt Spring IslandBritish Columbia

I have a great many questions about this project. As a former Vancouver resident and now a Salt Spring resident I have traveled through the Massey Tunnel for decades. Sure, there have been sometimes frustrating delays but is a ten lane bridge the right solution? How would that affect regional development and transportation systems? Why is a bridge being considered so soon after a very expensive seismic upgrade of the tunnel? Who wants this tunnel and who would pay for it? I have heard that Port Metro Vancouver and the Surrey Docks are bringing this forward and I would like to know that for sure. Is the bridge and decommissioning of the tunnel a doorway to further industrial exploitation of the Fraser River? What are the environmental implications of this? There are just a few of many questions that make me think that such a project should not be pushed forward without complete transparency and also with meaningful consultation with affected citizenry and at all levels of government.

2016-02-15 13:47:47
SharonMooneyVictoriaBritish Columbia

I urge you to listen to the concerned citizens of BC, consider the negative environmental impact of this bridge and do the right thing. Stop the Massey Bridge project.
We do not support the loss of 3,000 acres of the best farmland in the world. A bridge connecting Boundary Road to No 8 Rd in Richmond will go through the middle of Richmond's cranberry farms and destroy the viability of farming in East Richmond. With climate adversely affecting food production worldwide we cannot afford to gamble with the ability to feed ourselves.
We do not support the heavy industrialization of the Fraser River that the bridge is designed for. We do not support dredging the river to 15.5 metres to provide for 300 metre long ships carrying dirty US thermal coal or Panamex Supertankers carrying Jet Fuel, LNG and even oil.

2016-02-15 13:51:22
PamelaPriceRichmondBritish Columbia

I am far from convinced that the true reason for replacing the Massey Tunnel with a bridge is to lessen the bottle neck in that location.
The Provincial Government should be open and honest with the electorate.
Vancouver is trying to cut back on the number of cars in that City. This bridge will not help.
More cars will be coming into Richmond to catch the Canada Line.
Why not extend the Canada Line out to the unused, large car park in Delta?
This extension could be built above the Massey tunnel or another tunnel could be build along side the existing one.
Some maintenance of the existing tunnel could prevent some accidents.
Better lighting (especially during the day) and perhaps whitewashing the curbs which are hard to see even in the best conditions.
No brainer! Unless the Prov. Govt Has an ulterior motive for removing the tunnel.?
The Federal Government is talking big about cutting down on fossil fuel, so lets see what Justin Trudeau can do with this.
PLEASE DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU ARE DOING THIS FOR THE COMMUTER!
Lets start getting the full truth and some meaningful discussion before you start dong this and spending millions of tax payers money.
Thank you.
Pam Price

2016-02-15 13:51:49
AdrianMuirNorth VancouverBritish Columbia

I would like to support calls for a thorough review of the costs, economic benefits and environmental impact of the bridge option to replace the Massey Tunnel. I don't feel the current plan has been made with the proper consultation with stakeholders, taxpayers and local residents.

2016-02-15 13:53:01
MiaRibackLadnerBritish Columbia

The bridge makes no sense for those of us who drive, it appears the bridge is only for bigger boats wanting to get through, we have little to no transit to get us anywhere. The tunnel really isn't that bad. Without doing anything about the other bridges into Vancouver, this is a total waste of time and money. I would love to take a bus to work alas there isn't one, and they keep cutting back routes. We can't afford to pay for it either, such a small community who uses it really, we are already taxed up the ying yang here in BC.

2016-02-15 13:55:51
michaelJarmanRichmondBritish Columbia

Why do we not refit the existing tunnel like the Netherlands Government is doing with the Maastunnel? My thought is that the Surrey Fraser docks want to have larger container ships come up the river to use their docks. At the present time this is not possible because the tunnel sits too high off the river floor. So are we going to jeopardize the Fraser River delta and all it represents for short term profits that are not even government agencies. Please consider a federal environmental study and review.

2016-02-15 14:16:18
SarahAlbertsonVancouverBritish Columbia

I'm writing, because I believe that not all options for alleviating gridlock have been considered. I am especially suspicious of the government's intentions after much needed transit improvements were put to a referendum. I believe gridlock could be alleviated with an expansion of the tunnel and the addition of light rail to the area.

My biggest concern is that the real intention is further industrialization of the Fraser River. This bridge is being built high enough to accomodate deep sea vessels transporting coal and LNG. I am also aware that the airport wants to built a port facility for highly toxic jet fuel that will then be transported via pipeline to the airport. I do not believe further industrialization of the Fraser should be allowed. The Fraser River delta holds more biodiversity than any of the mountain forests do. Protecting the Fraser River is essential to the health and well-being of our farmlands and our ecosystem.

This government has not done enough to diversify the economy. Relying on the exploitation of resources in an unstable world economy is not working. Back to the drawing board BC!

2016-02-15 14:31:25
ChristineJohnsonVancouverBritish Columbia

A bridge of this size is not needed. All that will be accomplished is moving the gridlock to the Oak Street Bridge.

Really, this is a bridge built for coal. The size will allow deep sea vessels access to the river above the existing tunnel. Currently, the tunnel does not allow LNG and coal bulkers access to the industrial areas planned upriver.

The BC Government wants taxpayers to spend to invest in moving gridlock and ship dirty fuel.

Good leadership.

2016-02-15 14:32:14
SuryaGovenderVancouverBritish Columbia

I am deeply concerned about this project. I don't believe there was adequate consultation with the affected communities (and they are many), and I don't believe that a bridge is the correct choice.

An expanded highway through this congested area will serve only to move the congestion further down the line, affecting more folks. From what I've read, the cost is indefensible, and the impact on the local environment, unacceptable.

I am very suspicious that the motivation to remove the tunnel has far more to do with the money behind fossil fuel importers than it has to do with long term sustainability for our communities.

Please take more time to hear people's concerns, learn from others around the world, and plan for the kind of future we can all live in.

Thank you,

Surya Govender

2016-02-15 14:39:55
timmathesonvancouverBritish Columbia

What are our choices? This is for us and our future, lets get it right! The decision makers should not be economically motivated, they should be community oriented and environmentally oriented. No short term thinking please!

2016-02-15 14:40:05
LisaBrideauVancouverBritish Columbia

The proposal for a 10 lane bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel should not proceed. The use of $3.5 billion dollars to move congestion some another part of the road network is not a good use of public funds.

Some specific issues I have are below.

The Port and industrial users of the Fraser River are clearly going to benefit if this project goes ahead, but I see no mention of their contributions to this enormous infrastructure project.

Your report indicates 'lower idling-related greenhouse gas emissions' as an environmental benefit but fails to include the GHG impact of induced traffic caused by a dramatic increase in capacity. Which impact do you suppose is larger? We are facing catastrophic climate change and you want your contribution to that fight to be that you enabled hundreds of thousands of additional single occupant vehicle trips to be made?

A $3.5 billion price tag and the best support for transit the project can provide is a dedicated/HOV lane? Your report says "Since the Tunnel is already over capacity at rush hour, some people will switch to transit, but not enough to offset the forecast growth in new traffic." Have we explored an option where we spend $1 or 2 billion on a transit solution to free up capacity? That would have significantly higher environmental benefits than a 10 lane bridge and could be cheaper. It also wouldn't require us to trust provincial traffic projections which have been embarrassingly wrong in the past (see the Port Mann Bridge projections).

If this bridge goes ahead there should be dedicated lanes for goods movement/commercial and minimal space (or higher tolls) for single-occupancy vehicles. If you are serious about environmental benefits and goods movement and transit - you would configure the bridge to reflect the priorities you hold.

The Province is committing a disproportionate share of its resources to expanding highway capacity. This has well-established land-use and mode-share implications that will undermine the long-standing Metro Vancouver transportation and land-use priorities of building a compact urban region and preserving the green zones. Until more resources are devoted to actual implementation of public transit projects (paying for futile referendum doesn't count), I cannot support proposals that expand car use and encourage sprawl.

I am deeply ashamed to have a Provincial government that in 2016, with the incredible climate change challenge facing us, has the gall to propose a 10 lane highway crossing on top of all the other highway expansions that have happened. I sincerely hope you will reconsider your plans.

Regards,
Lisa

2016-02-15 14:41:40
BarbWayteDeltaBritish Columbia

Retrofit the Tunnel. Look to build a new bridge at either Fraser St or Boundary Rd. Extend the Canada line to South of the Fraser. Hughway 99
is a great corridor for Rapid Transet.

2016-02-15 14:45:28
GlenAndersenRIchmondBritish Columbia

Its challenging not to make this an angry rant, but here goes:

The government is choosing the most expensive, and potentially most environmentally-destructive option, favouring Big Shipping, and Big Oil over the interests of farmers, fishers, First Nations, public safety, taxpayers, salmon, sturgeon, beavers and natural systems in general. That’s a large group of stakeholders, much more numerous an significant than shipping magnates and purveyors of fossils fuel and climate change, who have proven themselves as reckless custodians of the public and natural good. The latter group’s control over this domain is a recent and passing phenomenon and does not entitle them or any (temporary) government to play with fire on behalf of local people and other diverse and complex lifeforms.

Commuters in this virtually transit-less hinterland of single occupancy vehicles do need a break (with an additional tunnel), but are being used as pawns in a scheme for industrial expansion in the estuary. There is no dedicated LRT lane in this bridge design, which betrays the government’s lack of genuine interest in working with Translink and local governments on more viable alternatives.
I spoke with a project engineering lead at a public open house and he indicated that a sensitivity over damaging/losing farmland was perceived. In his “expert” view the bridge option allayed those concerns, since a second tunnel would need to be east of the proposed crossing (spanning over the current tunnel, followed by its removal). The people I know who care deeply about saving farmland are all on the side of a new tunnel. Tunnels can even go under farmland, with minimal loss of acreage. The land adjacent to the south end of the Massey Tunnel is vacant and not farmed presently. How can the construction phase of a bridge possibly be less invasive than that of a tunnel? I Iooked up the original Massey tunnel cost -$28Million, albeit in 1959 dollars. Internet calculators for infrastructure spending bring the modern dollar equivalent to about 10 times that. Being generous, I doubled it to 20X ($560 Million) for a double wide tunnel, which would put us roughly at the cost of the the revamped Netherlands tunnel , which was itself the inspiration for the current Massey Tunnel in the 1950’s. (See Doug Massey’s post).

Economic arguments aside (and there are a justified many), the ecological threats stemming from building a bridge designed to allow for deeper draught and taller fossil fuel-carrying ships upriver past the current tunnel jeopardizes a sensitive natural system in too many ways to make this bridge a project even worth considering. And it is an ecosystem which has already been deeply compromised by previous industrial expansion including dredging for streamlining freighter traffic. This is an irresponsible tactic with multiple unpredictable results/threats, all of which need to be part of the equation in any environmental review. Computer modeling of statistical risk is a fools game when the survival of an entire interdependent ecosystem is at stake, an ecosystem that may not survive intact under the multiple threats of deeper dredging, faster flows, increased salinization, fuel spill/leakage. These effects could weaken agricultural and riparian systems in the webs of life that make the Lower Fraser such a rich place for humans, plants and other animals.

BC prides itself on its great natural beauty, and let alone these looming developments, many citizens would be shocked to discover the degree to which the already existing industrial installations have colonized the surrounding farmlands and the Fraser River itself, literally the province's lifeblood. I was when I moved to Richmond. It’s simply off the radar of most MetroVancouverites, let alone BC-ers at large, all of whom will be paying for this. Following are a few examples of potential losers, should environmental collapse ensue as a "downstream" by-product of the mega-bridge.

SALMON: Big industry and shipping simply don't have any natural right to claim river flow from hundreds of million salmon that come and go from the mouth of the Fraser annually, just to name one species at risk. There is actually salmon DNA in the roots of trees in BC's interior forests. How can the single-goal aims of human "progress" (jobs? capital? international trade?) hold a candle to that kind of primeval technology, where every living cell is accounted for? No wonder we humans are a troubled race. We don't respect, let alone understand the deeper science our own origins and inter-relationships.

AGRICULTURE: Given farmers' reliance on the estuary's water for irrigation, the threats to present and future agriculture cannot be understated either, as messing with soil salinity by allowing more ocean in could result in crop failures down the road. This is not a risk I would feel comfortable calculating, when our contemporary food sources to the south are themselves already under serious climatological threat and our reliance on them could easily bring us, within a few weeks or even days, to the brink of serious food shortage. Messing with the soil is messing with our ability to feed ourselves. When the petroleum-laden ships really hit the fan of the delta, we could be up that slough without the proverbial paddle.
The provincial government and their white collar welfare bums at Port Metro Vancouver may want us to eat only pen-farmed salmon and California broccoli, but I would feel more confident knowing the contents of my dinner come from a few miles away and will continue to do so.
Some simple math by REAL economists (who take everything into account) would reveal that the alluvial lands of the Fraser delta could, if really optimized, employ more farmers and supply more kitchens for many more decades than a few short years of bridge construction and an eventual handful of port jobs in the boom/bust cycle of global trade in industrial products.

Environmental concerns used to be marginalized. Now, thankfully, they are front and centre. The BC Liberals evidently missed that memo. In an era where innovation and sharing design solutions across the world is common practice, the Liberal dinosaurs are busy reinventing the square wheel, revealing their blockheaded ignorance, and incompetence at managing public money and the environment. But is it ignorance? Or is it a crime of convenience, based on their brown-nosing obeisance to the overlords of big business which sustain them in power, whilst they threaten the public with loss of jobs, or conversely tempt us with a new jobs-carrot (genetically-modified of course) on a oily stick? These latter day bridge-to-nowhere builders have already made 2 massive mistakes. They ignored all the local regional governmental bodies, community and academic experts for the Port Mann Bridge and South Fraser Perimeter Road debacles last time. We can’t let them do this again. Let us force them to serve the electorate this time. Or we simply kick them out next year before the shovels hit the silt. Whatever the provincial Liberal’s fate, let us be innovative, prudent and wise. Tunnels are tidy. Bridges are messy.

2016-02-15 14:50:40
WendyBarronRichmondBritish Columbia

What good is a ten-lane bridge when there's a two-lane highway at each end?

I grant that the current tunnel is insufficient to the demand, and that demand is likely only to grow. But this kind of investment seems to merit investigation, analysis, planning, and oversight by a higher authority and a disinterested party.

2016-02-15 14:55:07
ArleneSkeltonRichmondBritish Columbia

Paying to go across a bridge is as bad as paying to park your car at a city recreation centre, sports field, library or playground. It hurts families and disabled people the most.

Putting our river and estuary at risk to major spills is just plain wrong. There are few jobs created when we export raw materials and minerals to foreign countries for processing there.

Calling something obsolete simply because you choose not to maintain it or upgrade it is false economy.

A secondary bridge may be an option that should be considered before we tear out perfectly good infrastructure.

Any upgrade to the current crossing should include a direct link to rapid public transit for residents north and south of the Fraser River.

We have become a tear down society. We throw things away to the detriment of our ecology, economy and history.

Playing the game of corporate/public sharing allows corporations giant profits on the backs of citizens. We pay taxes for maintenance AND infrastructure.

2016-02-15 15:39:54
BC Great Blue Heron SocietyGillian AndersonMervilleBritish Columbia

BC GREAT BLUE HERON SOCIETY
PO Box 307
Merville, B.C. V0R 2M0
778-428-5560
bcheronsociety@shaw.ca

February 15, 2016

Re: Valued Components, Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

The Fraser River estuary is the most important habitat in Canada for migratory birds. It is the most important habitat in Canada for overwintering birds of prey, shore and water birds. It hosts the mightiest salmon run in the world, and it provides feeding areas for the endangered Orca pods of Canada’s west coast. Yet despite international recognition, the federal and British Columbian governments have not moved in any comprehensive way to PERMANENTLY protect adequate areas of habitat:

• UN RAMSAR designation as internationally critical wetland – UNPROTECTED
• Named Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve – UNPROTECTED
• Named Most Important Migratory Bird Site in Canada – UNPROTECTED
• Only habitat in Canada for up to 5 million migratory birds – UNPROTECTED
• Only habitat in Canada for world population of Western Sandpipers – UNPROTECTED
• Canada’s most important wintering habitat for water birds – UNPROTECTED
• Canada’s most important wintering habitat for shorebirds – UNPROTECTED
• Canada’s most important wintering habitat for birds of prey – UNPROTECTED
• Habitat for last Canadian breeding population of barn owls – UNPROTECTED
• Habitat for 310 bird species (46% of Canadian land bird species) – UNPROTECTED
• Home of the world’s greatest salmon run – UNPROTECTED
• Largest eelgrass beds on Canada’s west coast – UNPROTECTED
• Habitat for over 90 species of fish in key life stages – UNPROTECTED
• Feeding ground of Canada’s Endangered Orca – UNPROTECTED
• Feeding ground of Threatened transient west coast Orca population – UNPROTECTED
• Home of endangered Fraser White Sturgeon – UNPROTECTED

For a half century, scientists and conservationists have been calling for a comprehensive plan for habitat protection in the estuary. Many years ago Environment Canada warned of the potential ‘collapse’ of the Pacific Flyway due to industrialization and a lack of habitat protection, in which as many as 5 million migratory birds, unable to find sufficient habitat in the Fraser delta to rest and feed, may die from exhaustion or be unable to breed, ‘crashing’ already declining world bird populations. In 2005, Environment Canada warned:

“…We are concerned that the ‘chain’ of the Pacific Flyway could be broken … given the ongoing economic development in the Delta. This constitutes a major risk for Canada`s environmental reputation and the economic and social benefits derived from wildlife` (Technical comments, Third Berth application).

In the other two North American ‘stopovers’ on this Flyway, the U.S. government has PERMANENTLY protected over 400 000 acres: in the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (30 000 acres) and Alaska’s Copper River Delta Shorebird Reserve (373 602 acres).

In the Fraser estuary, we have virtually no permanently protected habitat area. This would be despite a plethora of government agencies, regulations and conventions which over many years have recognized the planetary importance of the estuary, but have generally offered no cohesive and PERMANENT protection for our wildlife and ocean creatures:
· Canadians Fisheries Act
· Canadian Migratory Birds Convention Act
· Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
· Canadian Species at Risk Act
· Canadian Department of the Environment Act
· Convention on Biological Diversity
· Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation
· North American Waterfowl Management Plan
· GVRD Livable Strategic Plan and Green Zone
· Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative
· Georgia Basin Action Plan
· The RAMSAR Convention
· National Recovery Strategy for Southern Resident Orcas.

Instead of requiring a comprehensive plan for the protection of the estuary before development is considered, the Canadian Environmental Agency and the BC Environmental Assessment Office have consistently allowed projects to be considered as ‘site specific’ instead of in the context of the entire estuary and the cumulative effects of other developments.

How can a project that further disrupts and destroys habitat, and has long-term implications for land use in the estuary, be considered before we have a complete understanding of how much of this critically important habitat remains, and whether we can lose any more? We need an understanding of the cumulative effects of years of habitat loss. Our years of indifference to the habitat destruction in the Fraser River estuary places Canada in contravention of the international conventions it has signed. Having the prestige of being a signatory to an international convention such as RAMSAR, we then also bear the implicit commitment to protect the recognized habitat. This requires an understanding of what habitat remains and putting into place sufficient protected areas in the estuary, encompassing all the planning work that has been done for decades by municipal and regional planners and scientists. Such an holistic plan will advise on sustainable development in the Fraser delta, considering the economic value of non-industrial and residential development, such as the value of eco-tourism and farming.

Our Society believes that no more development projects with federal, provincial or municipal taxpayers’ money can take place in the Fraser delta until the issue of Canada’s international responsibility to migratory birds and other wildlife has been dealt with, and a Fraser River Delta National Wildlife Area has been established; we detail this proposal at our website fraserwildlifearea.com. Moreover, considering the world-famous salmon runs of the Fraser, and the endangered sturgeon and oolichans, no further habitat loss on the Fraser can take place until the recommendations of the Cohen Report on the collapse of the BC Salmon industry have been implemented.

When development is finally considered, because of the internationally important nature of the Fraser estuary and our international responsibility to safeguard this habitat, any project such as this involving significant taxpayers’ fund must automatically trigger a federal Review Panel Environmental Assessment. It is not sufficient to allow the proponent to conduct their own review.

A Federal Review Panel must be automatic for any project in the Fraser estuary given:
• Requirements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Species at Risk Act, Fisheries Act, and Migratory Bird Convention.
• Impact on the planet’s greatest salmon run in one of the mightiest rivers in the world, including impact on riparian habitat, commercial fishing, fish stocks and fish habitat. To date there is very little permanently protected riparian habitat in the Fraser estuary. Canada submitted this note regarding the Fraser River estuary RAMSAR site in its National Report on the Implementation of the RAMSAR CONVENTION ON WETLANDS, 12th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, Uruguay, 2015:
o “A number of Provincially- and Federally-listed fish species of concern can be found within the [Fraser River] estuarine habitats, including Acipenser transmontanus, Acipenser medirostris, and Thaleichthys pacificus. The complexity of ecosystems found in the site, such as estuarine marsh, mudflats, floodplains, sloughs and river channels are all critical feeding and rearing areas for anadromous salmon during their transition between river and marine stages of their life cycle….”
• Species at risk – Federally-listed Species at risk will be affected by this construction project, including Sturgeon and Orca. These and many other species will be affected by lights, underwater noise and vibrations, pre-loading, sediment drift, hydraulics, pile driving, highway construction, spills, water quality, disruption and destruction of estuarine habitat both upstream and downstream from construction, etc. Critical habitat such as adjoining streams, wet areas, ditches, etc. will be affected, impacting species who depend on them such Pacific Water Shrew
• The removal of the present tunnel will allow larger vessels to travel up the Fraser, and this could have major effects, both directly on these Species at risk and other wildlife in the area, and indirectly, through greenhouse gas emissions generated by this continued industrialization of the Fraser. If a new bridge will double truck traffic, what will be the implications for the habitat of the Fraser estuary?
• What about the impact on birds of a new bridge, including Canada’s largest population of wintering raptors, migratory birds, night hunters and Sandhill Cranes?
• How does this project mesh with Federal Climate Change Action plans? Burn Bog Society estimates that every mile of new highway will add 100,000 tonnes of carbon emissions to the atmosphere over 50 years.

The Process

If this Process wants informed public comment, then the Scope and Valued Components of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project (GMTR) must present the full disclosure of environmental commentary from federal and provincial biologists, as well as identify federal, provincial, regional and municipal land plans and regulations and recommendations, produced with much labour by both public and administrative input, such as Official Community Plans and, Regional Growth and Sustainability documents. In the absence of this knowledge, any statement by the Proponent that this area has low habitat value cannot be considered accurate.

The Federal Review must also consider the economic value of the environment that will be lost to this project, as well as the full cost of the project.

Once public comment on valued components have been collected, it should be summarized and released to the public again for final comment before the application proceeds to its next step.

Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
Yours very truly,
BC GREAT BLUE HERON SOCIETY

Gillian Anderson
Chair

2016-02-15 15:41:46
LeslieKempVancouverBritish Columbia

Translink expansion proposals require a referendum. Why is a referendum not required for projects such as these, which are a significant amount of money.

Why can't we retrofit the existing tunnel rather than building a $3.5 billion bridge?

If this bridge is intended for commuters, why not invest in public transit, which is badly needed, rather than building another bridge for car traffic? The numbers and percentage of transit users is going down. Why? The service is not there. We need to invest in public transit and other non-car alternatives (e.g., cycling) rather than costly alternatives such as these.

Thank you.

2016-02-15 15:42:44
figgnvancouverBritish Columbia

just say no to this project!

2016-02-15 15:46:18
JordanBoschmanVancouverBritish Columbia

You have to stop the further industrialization of the Fraser River. Removing the tunnel will only allow more tanker traffic and further encroachment of industry on agricultural lands. That is a terrible idea for the environment, the economy, and sustainability in general. Replacing it with a bridge will not alleviate traffic. We need to incentivize less cars and driving, more transit. Expand and further subsidize public transit.

2016-02-15 15:57:41
ErikaKoenig-WorkmanRichmondBritish Columbia

I don't think this MEGA bridge is the solution to traffic congestion for a few reasons. 1. It encourages people to drive more cars and not use TRANSIT. It will not solve the bottle neck situations going into Vancouver, on Granville and Oak Streets at 70th Avenue 2. Its ridiculously MEGA. It adds further industrialization to the Fraser River. PMV wants to industrialize the South Fraser Shores, which will affect the HEALTH OF THE FRASER RIVER and SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, especially if there is a LNG plant, Coal Transfer Station or Jet Fuel pipeline in your front yard. 3. It will require more and more land to be taken out of the ALR, which I believe needs to be used for farming and not highways.

2016-02-15 15:58:33
SkeltonMarvinRichmondBritish Columbia

1. The tunnel does not need to be replaced for the following reasons
a. Cost of demolition
b. Cost of constructing a new bridge.
The tunnel does need to be added on to or expanded by 4 lanes .

2. As this is part of the Highway system in BC it should be funded only by the taxpayers. There should be no partners! This leaves the accountability to the Provincial Government Department of Highways. It should be toll free.

3. The impact of a new bridge will increase, industrialization in a primarily agricultural land area. It will also negatively impact the ecology of the Fraser River estuary.

4. Fossil fuel exports should have no bearing on the requirements for a new bridge or new tunnel. These are different issues.

5. Why would you need a Federal review of the requirements for additional crossing of the South Fraser River? This should not be an economic issue.

6. I would personally prefer the Canada Line extended to South Delta and the Ferry Terminal.

7. The mention of "Fossil Fuel " exports irks me. We should be working on an alternate source of fuel which is environmentally neutral. Building a new bridge for the express purpose of increasing the shipping traffic up the Fraser river is nonsensical. It is like expanding the telephone land lines.

2016-02-15 16:01:54
MJBrooksLadner, DeltaBritish Columbia

I can't determine what will be best, what I do see is the tunnel is jammed up with traffic from the Port no matter what time of the day. This issue needs to be addressed.

I think equally important to the tunnel or the bridge is that we have a better transit system. The skytrain needs to go from Richmond to Ladner to the the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. This would essentially connect people from the Island to Vancouver and the airport.

2016-02-15 16:02:58
SabraWoodworthNorth VancouverBritish Columbia

BACKGROUND
Given that The George Massey Tunnel was modeled on the Maastunnel in the Netherlands which was built 20 years earlier, and that the government of the Netherlands is currently upgrading their tunnel at a cost of $262 million Euros – about $420 million Canadian dollars (instead of replacing their tunnel with a bridge), it can only be surmised WHY the BC Government along with Port Metro Vancouver and Fraser Surrey Docks are so keen to spend at least $3.5 Billion dollars on a new bridge over the Fraser River.

EXTREME INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRASER RIVER
The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and Fraser Surrey Docks were very supportive of tunnel removal because it would allow deeper draft ocean going vessels to have access up river of the tunnel. Removing the tunnel would also allow existing vessels to be more heavily loaded when travelling down stream.

In short, replacing the tunnel with a bridge would allow for EXTREME development of the Lower Fraser River with:

• INCREASED LNG TANKER TRAFFIC: The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority states its “requirement” that the new bridge replacing the tunnel be tall enough to allow “the larger part of the world’s LNG fleet under 300 to 320m” in length to have access to the river.

• EXPANSION of the TILBERY LNG PLANT to supply many more LNG tankers exporting LNG

• EXPANSION of FRASER SURREY DOCKS to allow shipping of up to eight million metric tonnes of U.S. thermal coal to Asian power plants every year. Between 160 and 320 trains per year would travel from U.S. mines in Montana and Wyoming – passing through the B.C. communities of White Rock, Ocean Park, Crescent Beach, Panorama Ridge and North Delta.

• BUILDING the proposed JET FUEL TERMINAL in Richmond to receive water borne jet fuel by tankers for delivery to YVR, which are NOT the safest for the public or the environment: they are one of the worst options, and there are much safer options to transport jet fuel.

BUILDING THIS BRIDGE IS THE EQUIVALENT OF GREEN LIGHTING THESE MEGA-INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS: the bridge is NOT required to deal with current traffic problems.

While traffic congestion is the reason for change most apparent in the public’s mind, alternatives for expanding the tunnel have not been put forward to the public. Nor have the prospects of comprehensive future impacts of development (cumulative effects of all projects) been publicly considered by the Lower Mainland population.

Ironically, while addressing the need for changing the tunnel crossing to remedy traffic congestion, the building of the proposed $3.5 billion ten-lane bridge would have exponential effects for our region as a whole, shifting congestion, urban sprawl, and paving over farmland. Why this one-option-only choice? How is it we have not considered so many other alternatives: upgrading the tunnel in conjunction with rapid transit to reduce single-occupancy vehicle traffic?

NO ONE HAS LOOKED AT THE BIG PICTURE FOR ALL OF THESE CHANGES: not the big picture for land development, not the big picture for environmental impacts, not ONE WORD about the Fraser River as the essential MIGRATORY WATERS for BC's 5 species of wild pacific salmon -- it's as though they DON'T EXIST.

Moreover, building LNG plants for extensive LNG tanker traffic is so new in Canada that we haven't developed REGULATIONS to cope with the proposed industry. For example, we do not have a process similar to what is required in the United States: A Waterway Suitability Assessment required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; nor do we subscribe to the International Terminal siting guidelines produced by the Society of International Gas Tanker And Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) .

The most important questions about the Wespac Tilbury LNG proposal are the ones that have yet to be asked:
• Is this a good place to build an LNG terminal?
• Is it a smart idea to run LNG tankers up and down the Fraser River?
Terminal siting guidelines produced by the Society of International Gas Tanker And Terminal Operators (SIGTTO), suggest the answer to these questions is “No.”
Among the SIGTTO guidelines:
• “Short approach channels are preferable to long inshore routes which carry more numerous hazards.” (pg. 26)
• “Essential design for a safe jetty: find a location suitably distant from centres of population.” (pg. 12)
• “Traffic separation schemes should be established in approach routes covering many miles.” (pg. 26)
Wespac’s proposed terminal location at Tilbury Island in the Fraser River appears to violate all of these siting guidelines:
• The Fraser River approach is long, winding and narrow.
• A riverside condominium development lies less than 2 km from the terminal site at Riverport Way in Richmond and within 200m of the tanker route. Other residential developments are also located downstream along the LNG tanker route.
• The Fraser River deep sea navigation channel allows for two way vessel traffic and is only 500 m wide. LNG tanker exclusion zones adopted by the USCG call for 500 m clearance around LNG tankers in all directions. The Fraser river is used by a wide variety of vessels, including working fishing boats, tugs, barges, ocean going freighters and pleasure craft.
• Wespac is asking the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to allow LNG tankers 38m wide to service the terminal — much wider than the existing 32.25m vessel beam allowed on the river.

IN SHORT, TO DREAM of BUILDING THIS MEGA-BRIDGE is to put MANY CARTS BEFORE THE HORSE

The driving motivation for replacing the tunnel with a mega-bridge is complex and industry-focused, NOT based on the needs of Lower Mainland municipalities, their populations, nor the wildlife or habitat of the Fraser River itself or its estuary.

Industry-driven decisions by the federal un-elected Port Metro Vancouver (which trumps ALL LOCAL MUNICIPAL DECISIONS) is the central un-democratic reality the BC public is confronted with.

WHERE IS THE COMPREHENSIVE VISION FOR THE FRASER RIVER and its livelihood?

Right now, development plans for the river are proposed and approved in a piecemeal fashion. It’s time to develop a comprehensive vision for the future of the Lower Fraser — a vision that incorporates the values of the whole region and that protects farmland, habitat, salmon and community amenities — not just the interests of industrial users.

2016-02-15 16:04:24
LindaPeters Maple Ridge British Columbia

How will this bridge be paid for and what cost will our evironment pay with increased vessels?

2016-02-15 16:07:51
AnitaDEN DIKKENDELTABritish Columbia

I have many concerns regarding the proposed Bridge and decommissioning of the Massey Tunnel. These include:
.the need for more public transit such as rapid transit from South Surrey/White Rock and South Delta to Vancouver and to other locales within Metro Vancouver. Currently, the volume of traffic - mostly single car occupants is shocking. There is a popular saying: "Build it and they will come". Will this be true of an expanded bridge? More cars = more pollution. Why not instead, invest money in a new rapid transit system from White Rock/South Surrey/South Delta; one which may be more attractive to many of the lone occupant drivers on the south side of the Fraser?

This bridge "solution" is based on an old school of thinking. This is 2016; we are in the 21st century and yet a 1950's solution is being proposed here. This puts me in mind of the South Fraser Perimeter Road - another 50's solution. I occasionally use this road (the engineering of which, by the way, permits for an excellent sports car driving experience). Very few cars and even fewer trucks use this road. Then there is the Golden Ears Bridge; it is virtually deserted during daytime hours. Why is that? Was it worth the cost of building? Oh, wait a minute! This is a user pay initiative, is it not? It replaced the Albion to Fort Langley ferry which was used extensively. Too late now to consider that it would have been far less expensive and disruptive to provide a bigger ferry or even a second one.

But back to the question of the proposed bridge. Estimates are that it will cost $3.5 BILLION. Is it just me or is this a whole whack of money? And who will pay for it? Perhaps some of the current tunnel users WILL try out public transit or find other less expensive ways to transit this river.

Aside from my comments (will anyone actually read them?), let's consider that a bigger bridge/more traffic will result in even longer bottlenecks on Highway 99, both north and south. Will the Oak Street Bridge and Knight Street Bridge be somehow modified with a possible/expected increase? And, if so, at what expense?

I submit that it is more than time to consider new options and forward thinking which might improve the expected problems and expenses associated with the "bridge solution". Get with it, BC government, and demonstrate that you are capable of bigger and better thinking. Look to better solutions and to new ideas. Make use of expertise from our engineering/transportation and other education facilities and of ideas from elsewhere on this blue planet which we inhabit.

(I will refer you to some excellent comments submitted by my colleague for a better environment, Susan Jones).

2016-02-15 16:24:31
Johnter BorgRichmondBritish Columbia

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project
BC Environmental Assessment Office – Comments

By John ter Borg
B.Eng. Master of Land and Water Systems, LEED AP
Richmond

Federal Review Panel Environmental Assessment Required
Please refer this environmental assessment to a Federal Review Panel. The Federal Panel Review is necessary because of the size and scope of the project, the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, the Species at Risk Act, consideration of greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative effects, Aboriginal interests and concerns expressed by the public.

The project proponent has not provided a business case to the public although one has been asked for repeatedly. This is unfortunate because it is impossible to weigh the environmental costs without one. It is assumed that in order to analyze alternatives to the project, the project proponent would have described the relative costs (including environmental costs) of this project and alternatives. And through this analysis a preferred option would be selected.

Question: Will there be another environmental assessment in the future so that the public can provide comment once the complete project information has been made available?

This project does not have the appearance of a rigorous thorough scientific assessment. It appears that use of the environmental assessment as a planning tool is not seriously reflected by the project that is proposed. It is irresponsible on the part of the project proponent to publicize construction dates when important environmental assessments have yet to be completed and the business case for the project is yet to exist.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution – ‘Climate Test’
Our climate is in crisis and this project proposal is lacking a scientifically-rigorous “climate test” during the environmental assessment process. And that is unacceptable. This is necessary for all large infrastructure projects to ensure that B.C. can achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and not contribute to increasing global emissions levels. Consideration of upstream and downstream impacts, consideration of rapid transit, clean energy alternatives, and withholding approval for projects that would significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions is a priority.

This was obvious before the Paris Climate Change Agreement .And as of December 12, 2015 Canada’s support for a long term temperature goal of no more than a 1.5 degree Celsius increase in average global temperature means that we have accepted that most known reserves of fossil fuels must stay in the ground. And to do so BC will need to keep up with leading jurisdictions that are committed to a 40% emissions reduction by 2030 compared to 1990. This project is not happening in a vacuum and the BC Government needs to answer the basic question: How will constructing this project contribute to reductions in Canada’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions? Is it really wise to develop expensive fossil fuel infrastructure that will be obsolete in the near future?

A Federal priority for infrastructure spending is public transit. Reducing dependence on vehicles and tying transportation with land use planning is essential. Federal funds should be spent on carbon mitigation and not on making the climate crisis worse.

The Pembina Institute equates pipeline related greenhouse gas emissions to CO2 pollution produced by cars. Building the Energy East pipeline would be the equivalent of adding 7 million cars to Canada's roads. The Transmountain pipeline alone would contribute 150% more CO2 emission than BC's current provincial total.
http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/energy-east-pipeline-co2-output-equivalent-of-7-million-cars-report-1.2526303

The proposed bridge is intended to facilitate coal, jet fuel, LNG or tar sands oil transport. These CO2 emission contributions should be added to the actual contributions from future vehicle pollution encouraged by a new 10 lane bridge (12 lane highway) expansion. The totals should be compared with transit alternatives (Light Rail Transit) and extended for at least the life of new bridge (100 years).

A serious consideration and study is required, and is especially important for the evaluation of alternatives when it comes to large transportation infrastructure projects. Working towards a zero-emission transportation system for BC is possible, imposing a freeway driven car culture on local communities for the next 100 years is not a regional plan.

Broken Process
The National Energy Board reviews of new tar sands pipelines is a broken process. In reaction the federal government announced last month (January 27th) that direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects. The five principles are transitional measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place. Extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public.
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1029999
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1029989&crtr.tp1D=930

The assessment process for Lower Fraser River projects faces similar criticisms. A vacuum of science-based independent oversight has been created, the current Federal environmental review process is compromised by the dismantling of Canadian Fisheries and Environmental Assessment Acts. Cumulative impacts and climate change are essential components of any long term project assessment, upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project need to be assessed and the information made public. The Massey Tunnel project is based on weak information and needs to be held to higher standards. The full regional impacts of the project need to be fully considered and Federal funds should not be spent on making the climate crisis worse.

Ecological Impacts
The Fraser Delta including Burns Bog is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The Fraser River is designated a Canadian Heritage River, and the Fraser Delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway.

If it was not obvious before it is certainly clear now that there is a large overall plan for the industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary and it is unfortunate that an independent review has been avoided in favor of less rigorous environmental assessments.

Cumulative Effects Assessment
The BC and the Federal Environmental Assessment processes must be harmonized in favour of the most robust environmental protection for Fraser River ecosystems. Cumulative impacts to fish and fish habitat, other species, as well as risks and hazards to human and environmental health and safety must be described and accounted for.

The proposed removal of the George Massey tunnel is necessitated by and directly connected to the siting of a proposed LNG terminal in Delta, jet fuel terminal in Richmond, and coal terminal at Fraser Surrey Docks. A complete picture linking all of these coordinated projects (jetty, dock, terminal, shipping activities, storage facility, pipelines, etc.) with increased barge traffic, tanker shipping, and other activities facilitated by deeper draft vessels must be included within a cumulative affects assessment for the Fraser River.

Dredging Deeper
It is obvious that the decision to build a new bridge is driven by Port Metro Vancouver and other vested interests for the industrialization of the Fraser River and adjacent farmland. The George Massey Tunnel functional life can be easily extended with relatively minor upgrades. It is common knowledge that concrete strengthens with time. The Maastunnnel in the Netherlands which is 20 years older than the Massey Tunnel, similarly situated upon river sediments and designed by the same original consultant is recently undergoing repairs that will extend that tunnel’s life expectancy for at least another 75 years. The 2007 seismic upgrades for the Massey Tunnel have been delayed and should not be used as an excuse for tunnel removal.

Port Metro Vancouver has indeed lobbied for removal of the George Massey Tunnel in favour of deeper dredging of the navigational channel. 15.5 m below Geodetic datum for 50 year life expectancy and 18.5 m below for 100 year life expectancy.

The July 2014 "The Economic Importance of the Lower Fraser River" report prepared by the Richmond Chamber of Commerce stated "An important constraint affecting the maximum draft of vessels using the Lower Fraser River is the George Massey Tunnel... " The draft limit for ships passing over the top of the tunnel currently is less than 12 metres. With the increasing draft of ships that would use the river for navigation and in particular the deepening of the Panama Canal now projected to be completed in 2015, ships with drafts of over 18 metres could potentially need to serve terminals upstream of the tunnel." (The Richmond Chamber of Commerce attributed these statements to a Vancouver Board of Trade letter to Minister Mary Polak dated Jan. 25, 2013).

It is incorrect to omit this information when it is clear that Port Metro Vancouver has indicated that the tunnel removal is required in order to dredge a deeper navigational channel.
Increased infrastructure costs for stabilizing municipal dikes and embankments, flood proofing, as well as additional capital and operational dredging costs need to be accounted for such that shipping users of the river can be properly tolled for project costs over and above what is necessary to maintain the existing Massey Tunnel crossing.

Regardless of the product that is processed, stored, and shipped through Port Metro Vancouver terminals, the focus of deep sea shipping should remain Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet. A natural deep water port.

Fraser River Fisheries
The entire Fraser River Estuary supports important fish populations (salmon, white sturgeon, eulachon, herring, and more) that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems.

White Sturgeon are endangered in Canada and the Fraser River White Sturgeon is a culturally and historically important species. The Lower Fraser River White Sturgeon population is considered threatened. The endangered status was changed to threatened when the population was split into four sub-populations in November 2012. However, this largest of four sub-populations along the length of the Fraser River is also experiencing recruitment failure. The populations are not replacing themselves, either due to unsuccessful spawning or poor survival of the young.

The Fraser River Eulachon is an endangered and culturally important species that is not well understood. This population’s spawning biomass reached a historic low of only 10 t in 2008. The long term average spawning biomass on the Fraser River may have been about 1000 t. Based on the available spawning stock biomass time series, the 10-year decline rate was estimated to be 98%. Any impacts to habitat must be addressed.

The Fraser River supports one of the largest salmon runs in the world, and includes all six species of pacific salmon (Chinook, Coho, Chum, Pink, Steelhead and Sockeye). The Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year. Chinook salmon is the main food source for the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale population. An environmental assessment should demonstrate how the project responds to the recommendations made in the Cohen Commission - State of Salmon Stock in BC report.

Impacts to Fraser River Salinity
At present, the understanding of salinity influences on the Lower Fraser River – particularly taking into account the effects of climate change – is incomplete. Previous studies have focused primarily on the main and south arms of the lower Fraser River with limited sampling coverage on the north and middle arms. These studies have collected data from the river surface but have not measured salinity levels at the deepest portion of river channels. In addition, most studies have been short in duration, with sampling occurring only over a few days each season at each location sampled.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, is mandated to manage fish habitat. Applied ecological science is needed to determine the functional relationships between physical structures, estuarine and fluvial processes, and fish production. These relationships are needed to measure the importance of various habitat types. Management schemes are established on the basis of such ecological knowledge and continue to rely on new scientific information to set policy for the conservation and sustainable use of fish resources.
The presence and distribution of plant species within tidal marshes is also governed by salinity and tidal inundation. These parameters are in turn related to the location of the salt wedge within the estuary. The creation of tidal marsh habitat has often been used as compensation to achieve environmentally sustainable development within the estuary.

A better understanding of the agriculture water supply needs and assist with the management of fishery and wildlife resources in the estuary. The Delta Farmers’ Institute is currently undertaking a salinity modelling study to simulate future scenarios. This study will initiate a more comprehensive and longer-term approach to understanding the dynamics of the Lower Fraser River including both the potential impacts of climate change, as well as shifts that may accompany the removal of the George Massey Tunnel. While removal of the tunnel itself may not have a major impact, additional dredging (to allow ships with a deeper draft to travel up the river) may affect the river and salinity levels.

Connection to Farmland - Agriculture
Existing adjacent farmland is inextricably linked to the continued biological productivity of the Fraser River delta. Large tracts of mixed farming, old fields, and wooded areas are necessary to maintain a diversity of land-water interactions. Delta farmers participate in wildlife stewardship programs (3,000 acres) contributing to maintaining wildlife habitat, including over 600 acres in the Alaksen National Wildlife Refuge. Responsible farming practices can increase biodiversity, increase bioproductivity, and allow soils to cleanse and recharge fresh water, enhancing wildlife values. It is therefore imperative that conservation strategies recognize the importance of sustainable viable agriculture.

A real time salinity monitoring program is needed to collect quantitative data that will allow a baseline understanding of Lower Fraser River salinity dynamics, and calibrate a salinity model that will allow for projections of future river scenarios.

The ALR corridor along the 99 Highway in Richmond is important not only because of high quality agricultural soils, but because it may be needed as an important irrigation connection in the future. The expansion of freeways, the footprints for highway off-ramps and service roads for the proposed project need to take this into account.

The East Richmond Agricultural Water Supply Plan anticipates that future climate change related impacts to salinity impacts levels at irrigation intakes along the South Arm of the Fraser River will require that agricultural water supplies be sourced entirely from the North Arm of the Fraser River. The City of Richmond does not currently have a long term agricultural water supply plan for West Richmond farms. South Arm farms that are located further west and are more susceptible to salinity intrusion than the farms in East Richmond.

Redirecting urban storm sewer runoff from streets and highways into agricultural irrigation ditches is less acceptable today than it has ever been in the past.

Port Metro Vancouver is out of control
A bridge is presented as the only option and treated as a consensus concluded by project proponents. The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America. The Fraser River is not an appropriate location for deep water shipping activities in the first place, and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

Port Metro Vancouver is an unaccountable, unelected body that is deciding the future of the Fraser River. Port Metro Vancouver has lobbied the Federal Government for deeper dredging (to 15m and to 18 m depths). This fact has not been reflected in the scope of any of the Fraser River industrialization projects that are described above.

The current Federal environmental review process is compromised by the dismantling of Canadian Fisheries and Environmental Assessment Acts, and the disbanding of the Fraser River Estuary Management program (FREMP). The authority to conduct environmental reviews puts Port Metro in a clear conflict of interest in any proposed development project within the Fraser River Estuary.

A vacuum of science-based independent oversight has been created and its restoration is needed to coordinate activities in the Fraser River Estuary. Using the Fraser River Estuary for fossil fuel handling and transport is a non-starter. Almost any other location would be an improvement. Existing industrial land in Burrard Inlet is much more appropriate. SIGTTO standards were not responsibly applied in siting terminals within populated areas.

Port Metro Vancouver refuses to engage through democratic channels and the Port’s attitudes and actions make a regional planning conversation impossible.

Traffic Study
There is no way that a 10 lane bridge and a 12 lane highway expansion once competed and fully occupied by vehicles will contribute to improved air quality when compared with other crossing alternatives.

Yes, there are currently backups at the George Massey Tunnel during morning and evening rush hour periods. And this is important to correct. But people are already adjusting their behaviour. There is no data to suggest that transit vehicles are being delayed to a serious extent merging into traffic and travelling through the existing tunnel.

Quoting the BC Minister of Transportation (Feb. 18, 2006)... “twinning the tunnel is not an immediate priority of government since tunnel bottlenecks occur only during the morning and afternoon commutes”...”twining the tunnel would also require improvements to other crossings over the North Arm of the Fraser...”

Alternatives include carpooling, staggered workdays, telecommuting, carsharing, ridesharing, and home-based businesses enabled by the internet that have allowed us to change our driving behaviours and dependence on vehicles in ways that were not imaginable in previous decades.

Peak rush hour traffic is entirely predictable and begs for a transit solution. From the project information provided, the past decade has shown fewer commuter vehicles utilizing the George Massey Tunnel in favour of the Alex Fraser Bridge. This is important because this behaviour change can be further encouraged with improved transit options.

Traffic studies can prove almost anything you want them to depending on how large a circle you draw. The focus of the traffic study presented is Richmond centric and this project pushes the traffic bottleneck up the highway to the Oak Street Bridge and onto Richmond streets. The study provided also assumes a future that is automobile centric. Mass transit needs to be given serious consideration as a possible alternative to a 10 lane bridge. Enhancements to Skytrain’s Canada Line service and new transit links across the Fraser River, including extension of the Canada Line, or Light Rail Transit to Tsawwassen, Langley, or South Surrey. Commuters will adapt to whatever transit option is provided to them. Building wider freeways is not a long-term solution to congestion.

Open House
It is unfortunate that the proposed project has not been thought through enough. Meaningful and transparent communication has been avoided. It is clear that this project is being imposed by a top down approach. A lack of true consultation ignores a real conversation about alternatives and will not lead to a satisfactory result. If a solution to congestion at the George Massey Tunnel must be imposed it should be the progressive forward reaching vision that encourages people to get out of their cars and to gets cars off the roads.

The project team should have chosen to hold open houses at centrally located transit oriented locations. This would have provided a better opportunity to capture meaningful input from current transit users. Unfortunately the chosen locations are biased towards the interests of vehicle commuters. Lower income and younger residents who are the future of this region will have to live with the legacy of this proposed project and are not well represented.

This proposed project does not fit with Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy
Being mostly mountain and rock the province of BC does not have the extent of agricultural lands found in other parts of Canada; only 5% of BC’s total land area is capable for agriculture. It is for this reason that the ALR has played an important growth management role in the Lower Mainland. There is little debate that without the ALR, the development trends that were in place in the early 1970’s would have continued and that the region today would be characterized by urban sprawl. Instead, the Lower Mainland with almost 2/3rds of the province’s population is characterized by increasingly dense urban cores surrounded by active, highly productive and economically important agricultural lands. The Agricultural Land Commission Act (ALC Act) requires that every Official Community Plan or Regional Growth Strategy must be consistent with the ALC Act.

For examples of what not to do we only have to look further south. The City of Los Angeles is an order of magnitude larger than the Fraser Valley, but still a similar west coast North American city bounded by the Pacific Ocean and mountain ranges to the east. Los Angeles’ growth and development is defined by the automobile. Freeways and car ownership are the experience across the sprawling Los Angeles Basin. If we are really smart we don’t have to make the same mistakes that have contributed to sprawl, smog, and a vehicle focused landscape. We have the choice.

A ten lane bridge and a twelve lane highway will only accelerate urban sprawl and intensify speculative pressure on local farmland. This does not fit with the regional growth strategy.

Electrified Mass Transit is Preferred
The BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure needs to shift priorities towards electrified mass transit in the Lower Mainland. There are lessons to be learned from other’s examples. The Netherlands are a low lying and agriculturally focused country that is considered very densely populated for its size. Yet the population density in the Lower Mainland is almost 2/3rds higher. The Netherlands are roughly 10x’s the area of the Fraser Valley with 6x’s the population. Yet they have been able to preserve a larger percentage of their land base for agriculture.

Dutch Light Rail Network – A Netherlands Comparison
Netherlands Lower Fraser Valley, BC
Land area 41,543 km2 3,900 km2
Population 17,000,000 (2015) 2,600,000 (2011)
Agricultural land area 22,800 km2 (55%) 1,320 km2 (34%)
Pop. density (pop./km2) 400/km2 670/km2
Light rail system length 3,223 km -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_the_Netherlands

The Dutch rail network connects virtually all major towns and cities. Speed is generally limited to 130–140 km/hr; the maximum speed is much higher at 300 km/h. The Netherlands example shows us what is indeed possible. If we aimed for a system at just 10% of that scale, 300km of track, it should easily service the entire Lower Fraser River Valley which is roughly 100km in length.

A Sustainable History - British Columbia Electric Railway Company
The Interurban was a passenger rail line that operated more than 100 years ago. A completely electrified system of transportation that connected the entire length of the Lower Fraser Valley. From Steveston in the west, to downtown Vancouver, all the way to Chilliwack in the east. We had this figured out a century ago.

Map (attached)
BC Electric Railway Line (existence 1897-1958)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Electric_Railway
http://buzzer.translink.ca/2009/03/a-short-history-of-interurbans-in-the-lower-mainland/

2016-02-15 16:25:25
JoyceRostronBurnabyBritish Columbia

I truly do not agree with the building of the proposed new bridge to replace the Massey tunnel for the reasons below.

!. I don't agree with allowing huge fully-loaded 'panamax' tankers and coal ships into the lower Fraser. This alone would be a huge environmental disaster and impact human life should there ever be an oil spill or explosion.

2. It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money! Over $3.5 billion dollars? Surely this amount of money could be put to better use. Why not invest in a green economy? The green revolution is already here and BC needs to get on board tout suite!

3. In terms of other impacts, the land sits on a delta at sea level and could possibly be damaged or ruined by sinking (earthquake) or flooding from sea level rise (thanks to global warming) Why would people even want to develop on such unstable land in the first place? We would also lose precious agricultural land in exchange for development. More than ever, again because of global warming, is our ability and need to grow our food locally to sustain us rather than industrial food supplied and grown elsewhere in the world.

If the current Massey tunnel is to upgraded, then it should be upgraded similar to the Netherlands to modern standards (at a cost of about $420 million Canadian dollars.

We all know that climate change chaos is here and unpredictable and the only way to help slow it down somewhat is for all of us to lesson our ecological footprint and for governments to take swift action by making decisions to keep fossil fuels in the ground. This is why I oppose off-shore sales of energy from our province...it just doesn't make any sense.

J. Rostron

2016-02-15 16:26:40
PeterFrintonBowen IslandBritish Columbia

This is an ill-advised costly project, that at the least should be deferred until all alternatives are explored. It is an affront that this proceed at a time when public transit infrastructure funding is scarce and any new means of raising capital funding require a plebiscite.

There is already an oversupply of vehicle bridge lanes over the Fraser- with Golden Ears and Port Mann greatly underutilized.

Yes, a couple of extra lanes, maybe even four, would help with Deas congestion, but removal of the tunnels which still have service life left in them, suggests that the motivation/driver for this project is to create deep draft on the Fraser for future shipping. We all know that is about LNG, but Port Metro itself has become a monster- overriding local and provincial agricultural regulations in its massive expansion plans.

I would like to see a full cost/benefit analysis made public for all options, including the building of an additional tunnel, a smaller bridge to supplement extant tunnels or even a new route across to Ladner and Tsawassen.

2016-02-15 16:40:03
MarionSmithRichmondBritish Columbia

Metro Vancouver does not need another big-bridge vanity project in lieu of proper funding for TransLink. What we need is transit: $3.8 billion would build at-grade LRT from Vancouver/Richmond to south Delta, White Rock, South Surrey and the Langleys. LRT would remove thousands of vehicle trips from the highways, and make space for truck transport and tourist vehicles. Proper transit would make a 10-lane Massey Tunnel replacement unnecessary.

There was a reason, decades ago, why the Massey Tunnel was built instead of a bridge. It is a waste of money to build a huge bridge, both from engineering and environmental points of view. This region needs to get traffic off of the highways, not encourage more vehicles.

This project should be carefully studied by a federal review panel. The lower Fraser River environment and Richmond farmland are in danger of permanent damage if this project goes through.

2016-02-15 16:43:26
JJardeyRichmondBritish Columbia

The mantra of this confused world is materialism it is fueled by greed and governed by a lot of incompetency.

The bridge will be built it will increase the traffic flow to the Night Street and Oak Street bridges. The rush hour back will increase.

People are to complacent about bridge useage tolls. If government where less wasteful with tax payers money there would be no need for bridge tolls.

As for tanker traffic on the Fraser River it is an accident waiting to happen.
Only a fool would argue otherwise.

2016-02-15 17:00:10
doloresbaswickTofinoBritish Columbia

•save money and retrofit and put that money back into other infrastructure needs
•do not open the Fraser for any more industrial traffic by building a bridge that would allow freighters to travel the river
•the Fraser Valley, some of the best farmland in BC, will be further pressed with increased residential and commercial development. Would you rather have a tomatoe from the Valley or Mexico?
•if cars have to pay a toll to travel then commercial trucks should have to pay way more as they cause more pollution from diesel.

2016-02-15 17:00:43
lindajonesRichmond British Columbia

Using the river for transporting hazard goods will destroy the environment make us sick and kill us.
There are big costs of living issues in building 10 lane bridges, tolling our highway/bridge crossings. The Port Mann / highway #1 is tolled it is very expensive for citizens.Take time to search TI Corp and TReO and count your toll trips to come and see how many trips are in your life and how much it will cost if they are all tolled. The Alex Fraser / highway #91 officials think they can eliminate traffic with tolls. The Massey Tunnel / highway#99 replacement by a 3.1 billion dollar bridge will be tolled. These 3 highway crossings are essential to life access with no other access alternatives.Cost will be compounded and added to the 3rd most unaffordable place in the world to live.The only 3 highway connections BC coastal communities cities to mainland communities and cities and to the rest of Canada. Toll Cost on all BC residents movement and goods and support services. The nature of the terrain of our Province with the Fraser river, islands, and ferries the ocean, coasts, lakes, farms, mountains there should be no tolling. Living in Richmond we would be tolled to see our families childcare eldercare healthcare and healthcare providers, on the mainland and our children to be in sports and meet other children in BC. example swimming meets so many communities involved.There would be no movement without tolls to the mainland and coast. This is BC way of life. No other alternative citizens being held hostage by tolling on the only 3 access highways. Tolling by a crowned corporation with signed agreement with the Province of British Columbia to collect toll for 40 years or more present for Port Mann. Paid for by our tax $ . We are losing our young skilled and professions.workers. They are unable to own property or business out bid by wealth foreign owners.Property taxes to high no affordable housing and high rents, Residents will next be tolled to travel BC highways and will be tolled to work and for goods and services . Free travel on these 3 highways is necessary to live and travel so many miles. We should not build Bridges we cannot afford, paying a tolling corporation is added debit . No to mega bridges and no to tolling.

2016-02-15 17:06:43
LouiseTaylorKasloBritish Columbia

I am deeply concerned that this proposed project is another massive white elephant like Site C.

Why can the tunnel not be upgraded as the Dutch are doing with the Maastunnel? This would be much more cost effective and environmentally friendly.

Rather than building a new bridge over the Fraser River, could the traffic flow not be better improved by an investment in public transport? There are so many studies that the more roads and related infrastructure are built the more traffic congestion will increase.

If a new bridge will increase fossil fuel transportation on the Fraser then this project should be nixed from the onset. I know our dear leaders like to shill LNG as clean and boost coal exports but those activities must stop given climate change.

Thanks for not wasting tax dollars on projects that are likely to only benefit big fat greedy corporations and their government cronies.

2016-02-15 17:17:36
SusanneSzaboDeltaBritish Columbia

I am against replacing the tunnel with a 10 lane bridge. I would much rather see the tunnel twinned, and possibly the addition of a light-rail bridge up the Fraser, which would tie in to existing transit lines in Richmond and into Vancouver. We are greatly under serviced with regards to transit options in Delta.
My primary concern is how the proposed bridge/increase in traffic will negatively affect air quality in the neighbourhoods surrounding the area. My child has a compromised immune system and respiratory issues. We frequently walk the trails around Neilsen Grove, and over to Deas Island. In the summer, we participate in paddle sports at the Deas Island Rowing Club. With all the traffic proposed to travel over a bridge, the dust and exhaust created is going to rain down on this area, making what is a beautiful nature area something inaccessible to people with respiratory conditions.
We chose to live in Delta for it's heritage, for the community feel, and it's abundance of farmland and nature. In my opinion, the replacement of the tunnel with a bridge would be to the detriment of our community.

2016-02-15 17:20:48
KayTeschkeVancouverBritish Columbia

I have two main thoughts about this project. The first is sadness for Delta (where I used to work) and Richmond. Delta used to be so lovely, with so many ways to reach the river and farms, but now so much of it is simply large limited access freeways. It is a place to pass through non-stop. Some would call it a traffic sewer. Such a shame. The east side of Richmond is similar, and the new bridge will make both cities less appealing, and make all of us want to get through them even faster.

The second thought is why we would spend this much money on such a wide bridge without first having a true test of what is needed without the current distortion in traffic flows caused by different tolls at different river crossings. Surely a prudent government should at least do a trial with equal tolling (or even non-tolling) to determine how the traffic would logically flow if the situation were more equitable. Surely the Golden Ears and Port Mann are cautionary tales of addressing needs, but overbuilding and costing taxpayers far beyond what was needed.

2016-02-15 17:45:22
SallyStewartSurreyBritish Columbia

My concern is while we need more access for traffic S N.
Number One , we don't need to tear down and destroy a perfectly well functioning tunnel. . That would be irresponsible
Number Two It has been well known that the government wants barges going up the Fraser to help take coal from the Surrey Fraser docks . Increasing the portage of fossil fuels to the already air polluted Asian world --That would be irresponsible
Number Three . Larger barges on that part of the river will destroy the habitat for salmon and I think BC is one of the few parts of the country where wild salmon is available/ Why would you want to ruin the salmon habitat ? for coal? That would be irresponsible.
While I understand the embarrassment of the traffic we endure - especially during events like the Winter Olympics- and while I am sure it will go on, I have a question.
Will you keep the Massey in action until the bridge is completed? Or will the Massey fall first?
What a bloomin' mess. On top of it we pay , We should all pay. even if we don't use it.

2016-02-15 17:50:59
FrancesCruiseSurreyBritish Columbia

Retro fit the tunnel.
Improve public transit.

2016-02-15 18:42:47
BlakeMacLeodVancouverBritish Columbia

My concern is not with the choice between bridge or tunnel, although many have spoken to that aspect.

My concern is that a decision to build a bridge designed to allow deep sea shipping to ply the upstream waters will put the region at immediate risk of environmental degradation from an increase in industrial activity in a sensitive ecosystem, and then ultimately of environmental catastrophe.

As we so often say, it's not a matter of 'if' it will happen; it is a question of 'when it happens'.

According to UBC's Rees & Wackernagel, we are now living at 120% of the Earth's capacity to sustain life as we know it. Continued industrial growth of this type is unsustainable, and we are at ecological overshoot because of the type of political expediency that this proposal represents.

This government is selling our future at embarrassingly low returns to British Columbians. If we keep this up the planet will become uninhabitable for human life, and we need leadership now that addresses that challenge today.

2016-02-15 18:42:53
Lyndater BorgRichmondBritish Columbia

I am a realtor and a former fisheries biologist and have a comment from both perspectives.
As a realto,r my client bought a house in Ladner and was prepared for tunnel traffic to his manufacturing plant in north Richmond. What he is not happy about is the dreadful inconvenience of two major traffic jams for morning commutes for he and his employees. Once thru the tunnel and a very annoying and time consuming second traffic jam trying to get to his office location on Bridgeport Road. He and his employees hit a second gridlock trying to reach the exit off Hwy 99 BEFORE the Oak Street bridge and also hit Knight Street bridge gridlock if they attempt that as an alternate route to Bridgeport Road in their morning commute. This bridge replacement will only add more to the traffic jams for he and his employees trying to get to work in north Richmond. The Greater Vancouver transportation system needs to reveal the master plan for reducing congestion not adding to it. Why are the dollars being spent to add to congestion rather than minimize and support rapid transit alternatives.

Our road infrastructure is too expensive to leave relatively idle 10 hours a day. We need congestion pricing on existing routes to spread out the usage for all. Large trucks should be facilitated with opening hours at port facilities to access highways, bridges, and tunnels off hours with incentive pricing. Bigger truck tolls during office/retail hours and smaller or no tolls for off hours. Perhaps even giving gas tax rebates to truckers willing to drive off hours would go a long way to reducing congestion at peak hours. But the port has to co-operate in this incentive pricing to allow truckers choice and opportunity rather than working in the restricted Port hours we see today.

From a perspective of a former fisheries biologist it is unprecedented to be making these major building and dredging decisions without funding and providing the scientific evidence to make these decisions. Where are the base line studies to support the potential impact on our salmon resource, the habitat, the farming community and countless dependent bio-systems relying on a healthy river ecosystem?

The south ARM of the Fraser River is just that, a tributary, NOT a deep draft channel. The continuous requirement for massive dredging is unsupportable for the long term... accidental groundings are to be expected. The large wash of these deep ocean vessels will create havoc on the foreshore.

The Delta Port has reportedly lost the coal deliveries for the next three years. Why are we proposing a thermal coal export port for American coal that is banned from the states of Washington and Oregon as unsafe for health reasons. My clients in Tsawwassen Village proper, miles away from their coal export facility, report their picnic tables dirty with coal dust.

Please release your business plan, master transit plan and scientific studies. Where is the transparency for these proposals?

2016-02-15 18:48:35
Alastair MaxwellLadnerBritish Columbia

There was no referendum on this. There was no real meaningful public debate. This is not for commuters but LNG and Coal.

2016-02-15 18:50:09
Edwin M.HopkinsDeltaBritish Columbia

A ten lane bridge may relieve current Massey Tunnel congestion, but:
•It will only drive that congestion north to the already congested Oak Street and Knight Street Bridges for which no plan has been offered, so what will be point if the intention is to take care of congestion?
•It will open development pressure southward deeper into the precious farm land around Ladner and Tsawwassen, changing the character of both communities and placing the ALR at risk.

2016-02-15 19:22:31
BMNBurke Mountain NaturalistsCoquitlamBritish Columbia

Burke Mountain Naturalists
PO Box 52540, RPO Coquitlam Centre
Coquitlam, BC V3B 7J4
February 15, 2016

Comments to the BC Environmental Assessment Office, related Agencies and Ministries

Re: Replacement of Massey Tunnel with a Bridge

To whom it may concern:

We are a group of approximately 250 members who reside mainly in the municipalities of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody in the lower mainland. We support a greater appreciation and protection of nature as well as commitments to more sustainable practices which will reduce the impact of the human footprint on the environment. We have a number of concerns about the proposed Massey Bridge:

1. Greenhouse gas emissions:

Claims made by the provincial government that this bridge will reduce GHG emissions because it will reduce congestion and idling are unsubstantiated and should not be accepted. To the contrary, this bridge is likely to increase urban sprawl, result in an increase of vehicular traffic to areas south of the bridge, increase GHG emissions and support a continuing dependence on private vehicles for transportation.

Furthermore, the bridge is believed to be supported by the provincial government because of their intention to promote large vessel traffic moving up the Fraser River. This will facilitate a huge increase in marine traffic as well as expanded exports of fossil fuels - both of which will also lead to unacceptable increases in GHG emissions. Such impacts would be contrary to promises the Canadian government made at the recent climate talks in Paris. Calculations of the increased GHG emissions due to this potential bridge must also include the impacts from increased marine vessel traffic and future potential export of fossil fuels.

An increase in marine traffic further upstream in the Fraser River will also have deleterious impacts on fish and wildlife habitat. The Fraser River is naturally shallow but increased dredging will be required to facilitate the movement of large marine vessels. Dredging of this river will eliminate important shallow habitat required for spawning and foraging. For example, the almost complete loss of the Fraser River eulachon population is thought to be due, in part, to the loss of their shallow spawning habitat in the lower Fraser. Impacts on fish and wildlife must also be considered because this proposed project is likely to diminish vital aquatic and riparian habitat. Legislation to protect fish habitat should be restored.

2. Cost of bridge:

The suggested cost of this bridge ($3.5 billion or more) is truly enormous and will undermine efforts and lessen sources of funding available to create new public transit. Taxpayers should not be funding a bridge which will is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions and increase urban sprawl. Rather, our tax dollars should be used to support public transit initiatives instead so that we can finally fulfill our international promises to take effective action against climate change.

Should construction of this bridge go ahead, it would be only equitable to apply transit tolls to the ships that pass underneath as well as the vehicles using the bridge deck. Since marine transport could be greatly facilitated by this bridge, it only makes sense this industry pays its fair share of the costs.

3. Improve transit service first:

The provincial government has promised to improve bus service for areas south of the Massey Tunnel (i.e., Rapid Bus BC) but has failed to follow through with such improvements. In addition, there has been a failure to provide adequate park and ride services to support less densely-developed areas where limited bus service is available. For families in which parents pick up children from day care and run errands on the way home from work, relying solely on public transit for door-to-door service may not be realistic.

4. Consider improvements to the Massey Tunnel first:

It is our understanding the Massey Tunnel has been modeled after the Netherlands’s Maastunnel. This tunnel is now being upgraded at a cost of $420 million. Has consideration been given to undertaking similar upgrades to the Massey Tunnel to facilitate traffic flow and improve access by public transit? Has traffic flow through the Massey Tunnel become more impeded in recent years? It is our understanding some data suggest traffic volumes through the Massey Tunnel have actually declined somewhat in recent years. If this is the case, what studies have been undertaken to justify a decision to build a new bridge?

5. Loss of agricultural areas is a concern:

Construction of a new 10 lane bridge would also have impacts on agricultural land in the lower mainland with inevitable losses of excellent agricultural soils and increasing challenges for farmers to have easy access to their fields. In recent years, with the construction of the South Fraser Perimeter Road and all the associated access and exit roads, there has already been considerable permanent loss of agricultural soils. Every effort must be made to stop these losses. With global warming now apparently bringing more extreme periods of drought to California, it will be increasingly important for BC to produce more food in the coming years.

If there remains any doubt about the full impacts of this bridge, the EA process should require comprehensive studies to be undertaken to accurately assess impacts on urban sprawl, potential loss of public transit opportunities, increases in marine vessel traffic, increased GHG emissions from all sources, loss of agricultural land and impacts on fish and wildlife habitat.

In closing, on the basis of the information to date we are opposed to the construction of the new Massey Bridge. We are of the view that a compelling case for its construction has never been presented to the public. At the very least, such studies as described above should be undertaken prior to any decision being reached. We are opposed to federal funds for infrastructure being used to support initiatives which would lead to increased urban sprawl and increased GHG emissions. Rather, we think it is very important that these new federal funds should be directed to infrastructure projects that will bring about significant reductions in GHG emissions and provided other proven benefits to all members of society over the next 20 years.

We truly appreciate this opportunity to comment. When this project was first announced by the provincial government, it appeared there would be no such opportunity.

Elaine Golds, Ph.D.
President, Burke Mountain Naturalists
www.bmn.bc.ca BurkeMtnNats@gmail.com

2016-02-15 19:46:56
DeneanneQuammeRichmond British Columbia

I feel very strongly that the bridge should not be built. My sister has just received a diagnosis of Emphasema and I am to go for a lung test on Feb. 26th due to an earlier test which showed it was worth testing further. I definitely do not want to have more cars going through Richmond or even to Richmond spewing out pollution. I expect there are many others in Richmond that feel the same for similar reasons.
Can we not pay for a lot more transit instead of always thinking of cars and more cars.
I believe since there is no reason that a retrofit or similar couldn't be done instead that there is profit being made by many people who want to get out fossil fuels out by dredging under a bridge. This will only harm BC citizens in the long run.

2016-02-15 19:52:48
HeidiPriestleyRichmondBritish Columbia

Why in the world would the BC government spend at least $3,500,000,000
when the forward-thinking Dutch government can upgrade their Maastunnel for significantly less, and to FAR less an impact on:
• the Fraser River and its salmon runs
• the Fraser River and its important part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds
• farmland obliterated to build on-ramps to a bridge
Not to mention that we need more busses through the tunnel, not more cars.

Consider that a Massey Bridge will only move congestion to the Oak Street Bridge.

And, as has already happened with the Port Mann and Golden Ears toll bridges, why build a bridge for congestion, and then toll it so you know (as mentioned above) that people won't use it? Think of how critical it is that we humans reduce our burning of polluting fossil fuels.

2016-02-15 19:55:29
AlisonTherriaultVancouverBritish Columbia

I think the Massey Tunnel should be upgraded instead of building a new bridge. Spend the money saved on public transit! We know we need to move away from individual auto transportation, so let's do it.

2016-02-15 19:57:55
GillianDarling KovanicBowenBritish Columbia

before any replacement to the Massey Tunnel is commenced rapid transit must be expanded to serve more of Richmond and beyond. This will remove significant amount of traffic from the commuting stream. Then the Tunnel can be retrofitted and should last for another 20 or more years. Only by expanding rapid transit throughout the Lower Mainland can we meet our COP21 emissions reduction targets. the future of our planet depends on enlightened thinking, not a fossil fuel driven paradigm that has so sadly fuelled our Provincial Government for the past 6 years. Retrofit for the sake of our future!!!

2016-02-15 19:58:45
berylkirksurreyBritish Columbia

I am opposed to a 10 lane bridge with a life span of 100 years as it is on the wrong side of history..We know that the use of fossil fuel cars will have to be curtailed in order to reduce emissions. It seems over built
. Further, it makes no sense at all to promote traffic into Richmond and then Vancouver without increasing the Oak Street capacity. More money which is needed for public transport. Rather we need to transport people in the area by superb public transport.

I find the Premiers support for a billion dollar bridge breathtakingly misplaced especially in light of her refusal to put the support of the Provincial government behind transit in the lower mainland. Instead without a referendum she wants to use finite infrastructure monies from the Federal Government to build an anachronism. I am very opposed to the Federal Government using its money for this purpose as it fails on the environment test.

Rather than a huge over built bridge, figure out how to add another tunnel.

And i am not opposed to tolls on bridges - users should pay.

2016-02-15 20:01:54
KarenoHawboltRichmondBritish Columbia

I am extremely concerned about the bridge proposal for many many reasons.

I include these in a list below, and would like to emphasize the ecological impacts on the river and on the salmon. These impacts are relevant to this bridge project, given that we know (through Freedom of Information emails) that Port Metro Vancouver and Fraser Surrey Docks have lobbied the government to build this bridge and remove the tunnel so they can dredge deeper and bring more ships into the Fraser River.

This will have far-reaching consequences on the sensitive Fraser Estuary and on all the communities that rely on the salmon runs along the Fraser, throughout BC. The impact on the salmon and all wildlife, and the marshlands of the estuary, must be examined in assessing this bridge.

The industrialization that will occur due to the bridge is unacceptable - the Assessment of this project MUST be broad in scope to include the future development plans now revealed, which rely on the removal of the tunnel. The Fraser is such an important river and it's our duty to protect it. Any assessment that does not consider the "downstream" impacts would be a facade.

I am a farmer in Richmond and think this assessment needs to include study and assessment of the salinity level if the river is dredged deeper, since that is a very real consequence of choosing such a high bridge. Also the impact of traffic flow changes on farm roads, the impact of the bridge and its lights on natural predators and biological diversity on surrounding farmland, and the loss of land along the proposed highway corridor - the back of the No.5 Rd farms. The City has worked for many years with those landowners to get that land into farming production and losing this will further degrade farming on these No.5 Rd Agricultural Land Reserve properties. ALR land is an extremely important, diminishing resource in Richmond. There has been no information given about other farmland to replace this corridor, so how can we properly comment on such an important value?

In addition to this EA process, I would like a federal environmental assessment Review Panel due to the many implications of this project, and due to the lack of information that has so far been available to the public.

With so much at stake, I do not understand why we are building a bridge so huge, simply to address the problem of congestion at the tunnel. Sure there is congestion, but this massive bridge & highway expansion are way out of proportion to the problem they pretend to solve. They create so many more problems than they possibly solve - surely there are better solutions to the problem of waiting 20 minutes in traffic to get through the tunnel (and that's on a bad day..usually it takes 5 minutes!)

Below are further concerns I have about the bridge. I am copying this from a fact sheet but they are exactly in line with my beliefs and I submit each one of these points as additional valued components:

1. Public Resources – Wasting $3.5 billion of taxpayer money to build an unnecessary, over-sized bridge is a gross misuse of public funds. This project has a potential for high cost overruns, as it is built over deep unstable sediments.

2. Legally Flawed Process – This BC Environmental Assessment Process fails to include the need for a federal Review Panel Environmental Assessment due to the size of the Bridge Proposal, removal of the tunnel, the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, the Species at Risk Act, Aboriginal interests and concerns expressed by the public.

3. Failure to Consider Alternatives – Lip service is paid to public meetings. No credible rationale is provided for the option of a massive Bridge. Only one group benefits: Port Metro Vancouver. Options of upgrading the existing tunnel, twinning the tunnel, a smaller bridge, or status quo with restrictions on truck hours have not been fairly considered.

4. Lack of Transparency – Complete information of scoping and valued components with applicable laws and regulations have not been provided to the public.

5. Failure to Recognize the Ecological Significance of the Fraser River delta - Several designations recognize the ecological importance of this Canadian Heritage River which supports the most productive salmon fishery in the world. A declared RAMSAR site as wetlands of international significance, the delta supports Canada’s highest density of wintering waterfowl and migrating shorebirds of the Pacific Flyway. It is also Canada’s top site for wintering birds of prey.

6. Importance of Farmland – Destroying a prime agricultural corridor to build this bridge – plus the land consumed by the resulting sprawl – places British Columbia’s long-term food supply at risk. The farmland also supports several species of wildlife that rely on the interdependent, interactive habitats of the river, ditches, waterways, farmland and Burns Bog.

7. Climate Change – Building new freeways when droughts, floods and extreme weather already wreak havoc on BC communities is highly irresponsible. Adding just one mile of new highway lane increases carbon emissions by 100,000 tonnes over 50 years.1 The bridge proposal feeds a continuing dependence on fossil fuels and is at odds with Canada’s international commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 °C.

8. No Traffic Rationale – Commuter traffic volumes through the current Massey Tunnel have not increased over the last decade, and could be pushed even lower with improved transit.
This Project will just push the traffic bottleneck up the highway to the Oak Street Bridge and onto Richmond streets. It is one of the reasons the City of Richmond voted to oppose the expansion. Research and experience confirms you can't build your way out of congestion.

9. Industrialization of the Fraser River – Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser up to deeper dredging for larger ships like tankers carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG), coal and tarsands bitumen. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems.

10. Better Transit Alternatives – In 2008 the provincial government promised a ‘RapidBus BC’ service to White Rock which would have eliminated any need for a new bridge. Unfortunately, despite new bus lanes being built we are still waiting for the buses to show and transit service through the Massey Tunnel has actually been cut. A ten lane highway expands vehicle usage and hinders the switch to electrified mass transit.

2016-02-15 20:09:14
AndySinatsVictoriaBritish Columbia

The lower mainland of BC must not be made to endure a make-over to become more suitable for automobile traffic and industrial expansion for LNG and coal trains.
The Massey Tunnel can be Retrofitted for less investment that offers a better service to people and their needs.
The last thing on earth we need to do is to expand opportunities for more cars, and dredge beneath an unneeded bridge to accommodate LNG tankers.
We need to preserve the estuary of the Fraser and add to ALR not remove more farmland.

Sincerely,
Andy Sinats

2016-02-15 20:09:33
karleengillrichmondWashington

I am dismayed that the City of Richmond has not been adequately involved in the planning for any Massey Tunnel replacement.

I am concerned that the proposed bridge will turn viable agricultural land into roadways, and increase the already embarrassing amount of land speculation in Richmond.

I question how feeding more lanes of traffic into an already congested highway corridor could possibly reduce that congestion.

I doubt that the true motivation for building this bridge is to improve road transportation for residents of the lower mainland.

2016-02-15 20:16:59
Ying WangRichmond British Columbia

Ecological Impacts
Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems.

The Fraser Delta including Burns Bog is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

Port Messaging
Port Metro Vancouver has been working overtime to frame a public conservation about a desperate industrial land shortage. If it was not obvious before it is certainly clear now that there is a large overall plan for the industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary and it is unfortunate that an independent review has been avoided in favor of less rigorous environmental assessments.

It is important to provide a counter message that the Fraser River is not an appropriate location for deep water shipping activities in the first place. A bridge is presented as the only option and treated as a consensus concluded by project proponents.

The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

Broken Process
The National Energy Board reviews of new tar sands pipelines is a broken process. In reaction the federal government announced last month (January 27th) that direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects. The five principles are transitional measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place. Extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public.
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1029999
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1029989&crtr.tp1D=930

The assessment process for Lower Fraser River projects faces similar criticisms. A vacuum of science-based independent oversight has been created, the current Federal environmental review process is compromised by the dismantling of Canadian Fisheries and Environmental Assessment Acts. Cumulative impacts and climate change are essential components of any long term project assessment, upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project need to be assessed and the information made public. The Massey Tunnel project is based on weak information and needs to be held to higher standards. The full regional impacts of the project need to be fully considered and Federal funds should not be spent on making the climate crisis worse.

Climate Test
The Pembina Institute equates pipeline related greenhouse gas emissions to CO2 pollution produced by cars. Building the Energy East pipeline would be the equivalent of adding 7 million cars to Canada's roads. The Transmountain pipeline alone would contribute 150% more CO2 emission than BC's current provincial total.
http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/energy-east-pipeline-co2-output-equivalent-of-7-million-cars-report-1.2526303

The proposed bridge is intended to facilitate coal, jet fuel, LNG or tar sands oil transport. These CO2 emission contributions should be added to the actual contributions from future vehicle pollution encouraged by a new 10 lane bridge (12 lane highway) expansion. The totals should be compared with transit alternatives (LRT) and extended for at least the life of new bridge (100 years). Imposing a freeway driven car culture on local communities for the next 100 years is not a regional plan.

The Massey Tunnel project is an important line in the sand. Port Metro Vancouver is out of control and dismantling its unchecked authority is an important next step.

2016-02-15 20:21:05
shengooRichmondBritish Columbia

Ecological Impacts
Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems.

The Fraser Delta including Burns Bog is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

Port Messaging
Port Metro Vancouver has been working overtime to frame a public conservation about a desperate industrial land shortage. If it was not obvious before it is certainly clear now that there is a large overall plan for the industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary and it is unfortunate that an independent review has been avoided in favor of less rigorous environmental assessments.

It is important to provide a counter message that the Fraser River is not an appropriate location for deep water shipping activities in the first place. A bridge is presented as the only option and treated as a consensus concluded by project proponents.

The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

Broken Process
The National Energy Board reviews of new tar sands pipelines is a broken process. In reaction the federal government announced last month (January 27th) that direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects. The five principles are transitional measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place. Extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public.
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1029999
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1029989&crtr.tp1D=930

The assessment process for Lower Fraser River projects faces similar criticisms. A vacuum of science-based independent oversight has been created, the current Federal environmental review process is compromised by the dismantling of Canadian Fisheries and Environmental Assessment Acts. Cumulative impacts and climate change are essential components of any long term project assessment, upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project need to be assessed and the information made public. The Massey Tunnel project is based on weak information and needs to be held to higher standards. The full regional impacts of the project need to be fully considered and Federal funds should not be spent on making the climate crisis worse.

Climate Test
The Pembina Institute equates pipeline related greenhouse gas emissions to CO2 pollution produced by cars. Building the Energy East pipeline would be the equivalent of adding 7 million cars to Canada's roads. The Transmountain pipeline alone would contribute 150% more CO2 emission than BC's current provincial total.
http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/energy-east-pipeline-co2-output-equivalent-of-7-million-cars-report-1.2526303

The proposed bridge is intended to facilitate coal, jet fuel, LNG or tar sands oil transport. These CO2 emission contributions should be added to the actual contributions from future vehicle pollution encouraged by a new 10 lane bridge (12 lane highway) expansion. The totals should be compared with transit alternatives (LRT) and extended for at least the life of new bridge (100 years). Imposing a freeway driven car culture on local communities for the next 100 years is not a regional plan.

The Massey Tunnel project is an important line in the sand. Port Metro Vancouver is out of control and dismantling its unchecked authority is an important next step.

2016-02-15 20:23:25
DanZhangRichmondBritish Columbia

Ecological Impacts
Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser River up to deeper dredging for larger ships. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems.

The Fraser Delta including Burns Bog is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Ramsar Convention). The delta is an internationally critical migratory stopover for birds along the Pacific Flyway. Designated a Canadian Heritage River, the Fraser supports important fish populations that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries (salmon, eulachon, white sturgeon). Sustaining one of the largest salmon runs in the world, the Fraser River acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

Port Messaging
Port Metro Vancouver has been working overtime to frame a public conservation about a desperate industrial land shortage. If it was not obvious before it is certainly clear now that there is a large overall plan for the industrialization of the Fraser River Estuary and it is unfortunate that an independent review has been avoided in favor of less rigorous environmental assessments.

It is important to provide a counter message that the Fraser River is not an appropriate location for deep water shipping activities in the first place. A bridge is presented as the only option and treated as a consensus concluded by project proponents.

The Port of Vancouver is already large, the 5th largest port in North America and the focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port. Prince Rupert has also been the fastest growing port in North America benefiting from the deepest natural shipping berths on the continent. Dredging the Fraser River to accommodate increased industrial activity is costly, and is particularly destructive to the river’s natural resource values.

Broken Process
The National Energy Board reviews of new tar sands pipelines is a broken process. In reaction the federal government announced last month (January 27th) that direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects. The five principles are transitional measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place. Extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public.
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1029999
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1029989&crtr.tp1D=930

The assessment process for Lower Fraser River projects faces similar criticisms. A vacuum of science-based independent oversight has been created, the current Federal environmental review process is compromised by the dismantling of Canadian Fisheries and Environmental Assessment Acts. Cumulative impacts and climate change are essential components of any long term project assessment, upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project need to be assessed and the information made public. The Massey Tunnel project is based on weak information and needs to be held to higher standards. The full regional impacts of the project need to be fully considered and Federal funds should not be spent on making the climate crisis worse.

Climate Test
The Pembina Institute equates pipeline related greenhouse gas emissions to CO2 pollution produced by cars. Building the Energy East pipeline would be the equivalent of adding 7 million cars to Canada's roads. The Transmountain pipeline alone would contribute 150% more CO2 emission than BC's current provincial total.
http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/energy-east-pipeline-co2-output-equivalent-of-7-million-cars-report-1.2526303

The proposed bridge is intended to facilitate coal, jet fuel, LNG or tar sands oil transport. These CO2 emission contributions should be added to the actual contributions from future vehicle pollution encouraged by a new 10 lane bridge (12 lane highway) expansion. The totals should be compared with transit alternatives (LRT) and extended for at least the life of new bridge (100 years). Imposing a freeway driven car culture on local communities for the next 100 years is not a regional plan.

The Massey Tunnel project is an important line in the sand. Port Metro Vancouver is out of control and dismantling its unchecked authority is an important next step.

2016-02-15 20:29:22
KatherineWoodPembertonBritish Columbia

Cost does not reflect the benefit to the people of the region. It very unbalanced spending on one peice of infrastructure, clearly not being built for the befit of people of Bc. Smell of corruption

2016-02-15 20:44:26
StaceyHagertyVancouverBritish Columbia

I would be extremely disappointed if the cost of this project was put on taxpayers. There are so many problems with this project including the cost and the benefits to the fossil fuel industry. Lose- lose for the public. Please don't let Clark tout this as a win for commuters, she wants the taxpayers to subsidize the Port and LNG.

2016-02-15 20:45:09
SteveMullinsRichmondBritish Columbia

You know something is wrong with a project when the BC Government is doing its best to ignore the city of Richmond's concerns about the new bridge, which seems crazy when you consider that Richmond is the one place that will be most affected by the construction of the new bridge.

Then you need to consider how completely, stunningly unwise it is to build a major bridge with both ends anchored on unstable river delta land in an area that is prone to earthquakes. Almost no bridges have been built in similar conditions ANYWHERE in the world because the bridge will be inherently unstable, no matter how deep the engineers try to drive the foundation pilings.

Oh, and let's not forget that this entire, hugely expensive project is designed to replace a tunnel that still has many years of service left in it, not to mention that tunnels are in fact much more resilient to earth tremor damage than bridges, certainly a plus in an earthquake zone.

I could go on and on about how ill-considered this bridge is, but I can't write an essay here. I urge people to research the project online and they'll see how quickly the case for the bridge falls apart.

But of course, there is one reason behind the BC Government's aggressive efforts to build this build this bridge,regardless of the approval of the local residents wishes, the stupendous cost, or the problematic safety concerns, and that's that you cannot have a tunnel if you wish to sail LNG tankers up the Fraser River.

The BC Government is willing to override every other concern in their desire to develop the LNG industry. Enough. Let's spend this money on projects that will encourage real, sustainable economic projects in this province, instead of locking us to the LNG industry, which is the last gasp of the unsustainable fossil fuel industry that is killing the planet.

2016-02-15 21:05:22
KarenTsangVancouverBritish Columbia

I do NOT think we should be replacing the Massey Tunnel with a bridge that will then allow for tanker traffic. This is not something that is good for the people, the communities, the environment, the salmon or indeed anyone but a few well-connected people and those who work for them. It will NOT ease traffic the Oak Street Bridge won't allow anything to move any faster after cars zip over the industry-required new build and pay a toll to do so.

I expect that we can retrofit the Massey Tunnel to serve the communities just fine.

2016-02-15 21:06:50
ErikaSimmsRichmondBritish Columbia

To Whom it may concern,

I am a commuter from Richmond to Delta five days a week which is against the flow which faces many challenges. However, I have many concerns that I feel should be addressed when it comes to replacing the tunnel with a 10 lane bridge. I do agree that there is a need to improve the traffic flow from Delta to Richmond but am concerned that this project will only create more traffic further north at the Oak Street Bridge.

With climate change, our concerns should lie with the environment and the impact that this bridge will have. With such a large structure there is a guarantee that there will be loss of farm land which we will need as future food sources. As well, the Fraser River is used to irrigate farmers fields and more dredging will create a greater saline concentration which cannot be used on farmers fields.

I also have concerns with the transport of fossil fuels on the river. As a resident of Richmond who lives close to the river and enjoys the bird habitats, the West dyke and Garry Point Park. Should there be some type of environmental disaster it would be very devastating to the community.

While I would like to see changes made, I think that further options should be looked at before this project is considered. I believe that there are other options that could work and may not cost so much for building. As well, paying a toll on a bridge will have an impact on my daily commute.

Thank you for considering my points.

2016-02-15 21:17:49
DeannaLeeVancouver British Columbia

Environmental impact of the bridge getting replaced. How is it being protected.

2016-02-15 21:28:40
ChrisBodnarAbbotsfordBritish Columbia

I am very concerned that the Massey Tunnel is being replaced by a massive highway that will increase traffic, yet no additional public transportation is being built. This project will destroy farmland and sensitive ecological areas while increasing vehicle emissions. Overall, this project signals a lack of initiative and imagination to tackle transportation and environmental issues at a provincial level. Plus, it's another multi-billion dollars highway project being built without a referendum - while our public transit is stuck in a dysfunctional cycle created by the provincial government.

2016-02-15 21:48:16
MiekeBrayRoberts CreekBritish Columbia

Hello,

As someone who grew up in the South Surrey area, which is where the majority of my family still lives, I would very much like to see the tunnel replaced. The cost of replacement, as opposed to a new bridge will make it more accessible for me to visit my family, as tolls would negatively affect my travel plans.

I also believe that maintaining the nature and substance of the adjoining communities is dependant on a tunnel replacement as opposed to a huge shift to a large bridge.

Thank you for considering my views,

Mieke Bray,
Roberts Creek, B.C.

2016-02-15 21:51:26
CarmelaClareRichmondBritish Columbia

A new bridge is too expensive. The Fraser River is already too cluttered with bridges. We should be trying to preserve the health of the Fraser River and its shorelines. The time has come for our society to slow down and take better care of the earth.

2016-02-15 21:51:28
HollyArntzenSurreyBritish Columbia

Why does the BC government go ahead with a multi-billion dollar bridge and does not support mass transit and insists on a referendum? Putting in a 10-lane bridge will only increase traffic congestion. And making it easier for huge ships to go up the Fraser is not a sustainable future. My vision for BC is to invest is a green future, a peaceful future. Invest in mass transit. Why is there no paper trail of the planning, the business case, the finances? It's wrong. Stop it. Do the business of our government, which is funded by MY citizen taxpayer dollars, in a responsible, respectful manner.

Thank you
Holly Arntzen

2016-02-15 21:51:35
dylan drolkar wangRichmondBritish Columbia

Top Ten Reasons to STOP THE MASSEY BRIDGE!

1. Public Resources – Wasting $3.5 billion of taxpayer money to build an unnecessary, oversized bridge is a gross misuse of public funds. This project has a potential for high cost overruns, as it is built over deep unstable sediments.
2. Legally Flawed Process – This BC Environmental Assessment Process fails to include the need for a federal Review Panel Environmental Assessment due to the size of the Bridge
Proposal, removal of the tunnel, the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, the Species at Risk Act, Aboriginal interests and concerns expressed by the public.
3. Failure to Consider Alternatives – Lip service is paid to public meetings. No credible rationale is provided for the option of a massive Bridge. Only one group benefits: Port Metro Vancouver. Options of upgrading the existing tunnel, twinning the tunnel, a smaller
bridge, or status quo with restrictions on truck hours have not been fairly considered.
4. Lack of Transparency – Complete information of scoping and valued components with applicable laws and regulations have not been provided to the public.
5. Failure to Recognize the Ecological Significance of the Fraser River delta - Several designations recognize the ecological importance of this Canadian Heritage River which supports the most productive salmon fishery in the world. A declared RAMSAR site as wetlands of international significance, the delta supports Canada’s highest density of wintering waterfowl and migrating shorebirds of the Pacific Flyway. It is also Canada’s top site for wintering birds of prey.
6. Importance of Farmland – Destroying a prime agricultural corridor to build this bridge – plus the land consumed by the resulting sprawl – places British Columbia’s long-term food supply at risk. The farmland also supports several species of wildlife that rely on the interdependent, interactive habitats of the river, ditches, waterways, farmland and Burns
Bog.
7. Climate Change – Building new freeways when droughts, floods and extreme weather already wreak havoc on BC communities is highly irresponsible. Adding just one mile of new highway lane increases carbon emissions by 100,000 tonnes over 50 years.1 The bridge
proposal feeds a continuing dependence on fossil fuels and is at odds with Canada’s international commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 °C.2
8. No Traffic Rationale – Commuter traffic volumes through the current Massey Tunnel have not increased over the last decade, and could be pushed even lower with improved transit.3 This Project will just push the traffic bottleneck up the highway to the Oak Street Bridge and
onto Richmond streets. It is one of the reasons the City of Richmond voted to oppose the expansion. Research and experience confirms you can't build your way out of congestion.
9. Industrialization of the Fraser River – Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser up to deeper dredging for larger ships like tankers carrying liquefied natural gas, coal and tarsands bitumen. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural
systems. The focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port.4
10. Better Transit Alternatives – In 2008 the provincial government promised a ‘RapidBus BC’ service to White Rock which would have eliminated any need for a new bridge. Unfortunately, despite new bus lanes being built we are still waiting for the buses to show
and transit service through the Massey Tunnel has actually been cut.5 A ten lane highway expands vehicle usage and hinders the switch to electrified mass transit.

1http://www.toolkit.bc.ca/solution/actions-transportation#sourceshttp://www.sightline.org/research_item/climate-analysis-gge-new-lanes-10-
07/

2http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/12/12/statement-prime-minister-canada-successful-conclusion-paris-climate-conference

3http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2015/12/Traffic-Data-Overview-2015.pdf

4http://www.richmond-news.com/news/richmond-s-sturgeon-banks-eroding-at-an-alarming-rate-1.1271973

5http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008TRAN0087-001671.htm

6http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2016/01/will-trudeau%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-plan-worsen-climate-crisis

2016-02-15 22:06:47
G. BarryStewartChilliwackBritish Columbia

Replacing the perfectly good tunnels with a 10-lane bridge is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars, when the Patullo bridge also needs replacing.

Why not another 4-lane tunnel? They need far less maintenance than a bridge and take up less real estate.

If a bridge MUST be built, a 6-laner, with counterflow on the indside 2 lanes would be far more prudent use of our tax dollars. The BC Liberals have already far-overbuilt at Port Mann and Golden Ears. They need to learn from those financial blunders.

2016-02-15 22:10:01
VFisher-SitarasSurreyBritish Columbia

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed destruction of the George Massey tunnel in favour of a ten lane bridge over the Fraser River.

This project is being touted, in part, as a solution to the issue of high traffic volume: Where will these ten lanes of traffic lead to? Eventually they will need to funnel into existing roadways and bridges, so this is not a solution – for billions of dollars, and ongoing tolls to be paid by commuters, what drivers will actually be getting for their money is a traffic bottle neck ten minutes further up the highway.

The various toll proposals for this new project are, in part, supposed to encourage commuters to find alternatives: There are so many areas of the Lower Mainland without practical public transit into Vancouver. There are many communities with no other reasonable option but to drive themselves into the city – and then they will have to pay a toll as punishment for their lack of alternatives. A new ten lane bridge will not remove cars from our highways because there is no other reasonable alternative. A better way to solve the problem of high volumes of traffic, and the corresponding greenhouse gas emissions, is to create a reasonable alternative to single occupancy vehicles.

This project is touted, in part, as being a solution for the improvements needed on the tunnel to bring it up to code: The Massey tunnel could follow the example of the very similar Maastunnel in the Netherlands, and be retrofitted, in the same way, for somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500 million dollars, instead of the 3.5 BILLION dollars British Columbians will be doling out for a bridge. The 3 BILLION dollars saved could be so much better spent on upgrades to existing infrastructure, and improvements to the transit systems to many outlying areas of the Lower Mainland.

This proposed project would pave over more valuable agricultural land in favour of Port Metro Vancouver and the fossil fuel industry by way of the initial bridge development and the follow-up infrastructure that will then be required to facilitate the further movement of coal, oil and jet fuel. The industrialization of agricultural land in favour of the fossil fuel industry cannot possibly be considered the best use of this prime farmland in Delta and Richmond. One needs only to look at what industrialization of agricultural land has done to China to recognize that we need to preserve what we have here before it’s too late.

The heavy increase of tanker traffic, would put enormous stressors on the Fraser River and coastal waters, including damage to the habitat of the salmon and killer whales of the region, and the many plants and animals that thrive in and along the river and along British Columbia’s west coast. The increased tanker traffic and frequent dredging of the river to accommodate it, will cause irreparable damage to flora and fauna. And obviously, the possibility of a catastrophic incident would be raised exponentially with the increase of coal and oil being moved through this seismic zone.

The only angle that this proposal makes any sense from is that of the fossil fuel industry and their insatiable appetite for land and water access from our beautiful coast, making export faster and easier for them before the planet turns to more ecologically sound renewable power sources. Even from that angle, British Columbians footing the bill for this project STILL doesn’t make any sense – building infrastructure to support an industry that the entire planet is trying to phase out is simply senseless. Is British Columbia’s goal really to be the final champion of fossil fuels? Do we really want to forsake the many needs of this province in order to support dirty fossil fuel into the future?

Please put British Columbians, valuable prime agricultural land, the Fraser River and the flora and fauna of our coastal waters ahead of industrial interests.

Thank you for your attention to this matter
V Fisher-Sitaras

2016-02-15 22:14:08
RaymondAlavaVancouverBritish Columbia

I have serious concerns about the plans to replace the Massey Tunnel with a bridge over the Fraser River. This plan should be put to a public referendum, similar to the recent proposal for increased funding to Translink. The current plan is significantly lacking in addressing key issues surrounding this project including:
Does the tunnel need to be replaced with a bridge? Why shouldn't we consider a potentially less costly retrofit or tunnel upgrade?
What are the environmental impacts of increased ocean vessels onto the lower Fraser River and the increase in container traffic to and from DeltaPort?
How will dredging to allow deeper draft vessels affect the river delta and will the dykes need additional reinforcement?
If the Port and other industrial users stand to benefit from increased tanker and container traffic, then they should pay a significant cost.
Tolling of the bridge should be applied in a consistent manner to all bridges as part of a of a comprehensive regional plan.
To address climate change we should be focusing on improved public transit and not facilitating commuter trafic which will only result in increased congestion and shift the traffic bottleneck elsewhere.

2016-02-15 22:16:46
MarioSzijartoGaliano IslandBritish Columbia

The proposed Massey Bridge is not just a Vancouver/Richmond/Delta issue. As an gulf Island resident I strongly disagree with the use of $3.5 Billion for this un-needed Bridge. The loss of lower mainland natural habitat and other ecological problems need a full review.
As a Gulf Island resident I know the issues around food security, local clean water and other environmental resources, and how they effect communities. Relying on 'imports' is a dangerous game that Port Metro for one needs to rethink.
The use of $10 tolls on the bridge will have an impact on me as a senior.
I also question the poll taken that states that the public supports the bridge - of the only 503 people polled by phone, how many were actually given the correct information? Where they presented with ideas or other options?
Have a full environment full review panel done. The bridge and its dangerous legacy wont affect me ultimately in the long term, but it will my grandchildren and their grandchildren. My generation has done enough damage on this planet already - we have to change how we use precious local resources for the future generations.
No Bridge!

2016-02-15 22:18:54
JulieAlavaVancouverBritish Columbia

The Fraser River estuary is vital to the Pacific Salmon. Plans to remove the tunnel and build a bridge do not remotely respect the survival of this keystone species.

There needs to be a comprehensive plan for regional transportation. The BC government called a referendum on funding for transit, yet committed to a multi-billion bridge project. How is that responsible leadership?

Has the BC government heard of climate change? Replacing the tunnel with a bridge does nothing to mitigate nor prepare for the realities of climate change. A ten lane bridge will increase vehicle traffic and emissions, pave the way for fossil fuel-carrying river traffic, and further reduce our food security through industrialization of agricultural land. Will the federal Liberals remain mindful of our international climate commitments when allocating regional stimulus funding? If so, then the Massey bridge project will be seen for what it is - a woefully misguided investment into archaic systems and visions for society.

2016-02-15 22:20:35
HansChangRichmondBritish Columbia

I don't agree to build a bridge. I agree to build another tunnel. Tunnel is simple & easier because the river is not so wild. I agree to keep the old tunnel to be a one way tunnel just build another tunnel to be a opposite way. It will save a lot of money & we wouldn't have to increase too much tax in the future to us .

2016-02-15 22:24:05
ImogenWhyteBowen IslandBritish Columbia

Clearly, there are vastly more critical concerns that require our tax dollars. Human beings are living and dying on the streets of the Lower Mainland. And since Gordon Campbell's days with the Liberals, our record on child poverty is shocking and shameful.

Get a grip, for God's sake. Retro-fit the tunnel, and leave well enough alone. Thank you very much.

2016-02-15 22:27:58
MikeGildersleeveMissionBritish Columbia

I believe a project of this mammoth scale is actually going to create more problems for us than we had before proceeding.
First of all we cannot afford 3.5 billion for this bridge, which I believe is a much bigger scale than we need.This kind of project will lead to much more urban sprawl and will result in many more cars and trucks in the area. We must put limits on our industrial expansion including setting limits on the growth of Port Metro.
We could save significant dollars by retrofitting the Massey tunnel and putting those dollars directly into improved public transit in the area. We simply must take more cars off the road especially in the Fraser Delta, which is a significantly fragile ecosystem.
I have concerns about the limited opportunity for public engagement on this proposal and the debate on what would work best in the area and be affordable.The timeline for public comment is too short especially for a project of this scale and cost.There has definitely not been adequate time for us to absorb this great amouint of information regarding this proposal.
I am concerned that there is actually an agenda here by government that this bridge will also involve significant dredging in the Fraser River channel which will lead to the likelihood for much more industrial activity up and down the Fraser by supertankers carrying LNG, oil, coal or even jet fuel. Why would we consider endangering any further the greatest Salmon River in the world. Protecting the environment must be paramount in any decisions that might impact the Fraser.
I believe that we also need to invoke the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency(CEAA) to ensure that adequate reviews are undertaken using reliable and credible scientific data and information.
This assessment fails to recognize the national and international significance of the Fraser River Estuary for salmon, sturgeon, eulachons, endangered whales and migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.
I am very concerned about the significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions that this project represents especially with a projected 45% increase in truck traffic.
I am ,very concerned about the direct impacts on prime agricultural lands in this area. I cannot support the loss of a projected 3,000 acres of our best farmland.
I have serious concerns about a bridge connecting Boundary Rd. to No.8 Road in Richmond will go throuh the middle of Richmonds cranberry farms and destroy viability of farming in East Richmond.
In this age of climate change and global warming we simply cannot afford to lose anymore of our prime agricultural lands. We are currently only producing 50 percent of our own food and we have a responsibility to future generations to ensure that we are living in a sustainable fashion and that definitely includes the ability to grow and provide food for our population.
I do appreciate the opportunity to communicate my concerns about this project and I thank you for your serious consideration of these concerns. I trust that ;you will review these concerns and those of the many others. This bridge is too costly and has far too many negative impacts for this region and again I emphasize that improved public transit is so necessary and opting for a retrofit of tunnel will provide those badly needed dollars. There is an example currently in Holland where they are choosing to retrofit rather than build a bridge. No bridge better transit.

Respectfully,
Mike Gildersleeve
Mission, BC

2016-02-15 22:43:50
NusheenDhamaniRichmondBritish Columbia

I believe a review of all options here is required, considering the cost, and comparing difference in monetary cost indicated with the comparison to a similar tunnel in the Netherlands.

Rapid transit would likely reduce the congestion through the tunnel, and I think that should be the first activity. If that doesn't improve the congestion, then a secondary review at that time would make sense.

As it is, the Oak street bridge presents a congestion zone for morning and evening traffic in both directions. Relieving this congestion point will do nothing but magnify the shortcomings of the Oak street bridge.

Our entire Fraser farmland areas have been overdeveloped, the remaining space should be saved and new spaces cultivated.

No matter what the outcome for this bridge, a full environmental review should be required for any Fossil Fuel export facilities intended to be developed along the Fraser. Fossil fuels are a dying resource, and we should be looking to get with the more environmental friendly energy/fuel sources.

2016-02-15 22:45:43
Liane VarnamRichmondBritish Columbia

Cost of new bridge??? Is not twining the tunnel cheaper, more cost effective, less disruption to environment over all. Less impact on farm land, congestion, visual polution, safer for fish, marshes ecological systems. Is not also more effective in keeping huge ships from traveling on the River? A bridge this scale it to accommodate future port and industrial interests in New Westminster. Protect the salmon for the future. Do not put money interests before the future saftey of our environment. Find a cheaper more reasonable answer to address traffic congestion.

2016-02-15 22:47:49
JimWrightRichmondBritish Columbia

One of the most valued components in the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project should be the cumulative effects. At the open house last month, the proponent had a cumulative effects board of “Reasonably foreseeable projects” affected by the project. It appeared with the display boards of valued components (“Key areas of study”), but I discovered it was not actually listed as a valued component on the “Key areas of study” display board. That shifty approach will have fooled most people, and it suggests to me that the proponent wanted cumulative effects to seem included as a valued component (or key area of study) because the topic should have been included.

Furthermore, the cumulative effects list should have been far more extensive. Even the list of foreseeable future projects (just one aspect of the cumulative effects) left out the most obvious ones. Since Port Metro Vancouver and Fraser Surrey Docks have been promoting the project for years to facilitate deep dredging for much larger ships, that obvious area of cumulative effect should have been featured, not left out.

A less certain but definitely foreseeable cumulative effect would result from the resurrection of the Number 8 Road (Richmond) to Boundary Road (Vancouver) bridge, a proposal that pops up every few years and does not get very far because it would decimate the ALR farmland in East Richmond. The proponents must know that all the extra traffic from South Surrey to Vancouver would require another bridge (taking some of the current Laing/Oak/Knight traffic, enabling traffic from the new bridge to get to Vancouver by one or other of the bridges).

A really good environmental assessment would also consider the harm from choosing the bridge instead of an environmentally sound option, starting with an independent expert assessment of the bridge and the real alternatives, including the refurbishing and overdue ground strengthening of the existing tunnel and the addition of a two-lane tube upstream within the existing corridor. I have discussed that alternative in my Richmond News column and on my blog at http://wp.me/p97QM-34X. It is the considered choice of the Garden City Conservation Society, which I lead as president, and it is within the fairly narrow range of proposals from most of the informed opponents of the proponent’s bridge.

Please be aware that the proponent has ignored the real alternative proposals and compared its proposal to straw men such as a replacement tunnel (obviously not doable) and twinning with an extra tunnel that’s as large as the existing one (ten times as difficult as the option I have mentioned).

One reason an independent assessment is needed is that it has not been possible for the public to get hold of any useful reports. I’ve tried to get them from the project director and project executive director, and I gather that the project people were overruled by vague figures in Victoria. If they exist, please obtain them and get them released so that the public can respond in the light of the additional information next time there is a consultation. If they do not exist, then please call a halt to the environmental assessment until proper studies are done in a thorough and transparent way that is open to the public.

The George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project has lacked credibility from the time it was first announced with a biased name. The credibility with informed observers is now at a nadir as it becomes increasingly likely that the key project decision to choose a mega-bridge had been made from the start, with no thorough study that would stand up to public scrutiny. Please find a way to send the project back to the proponent and its political puppet string pullers so that the option selection process can be actually done, not pretended.

2016-02-15 22:49:03
MargaretBrautigamRichmondBritish Columbia

First of all it seems this has all been approved and a start date decided without public input. It will be a bridge to a major traffic jam/gridlock in Richmond. Why are the Provincial Government so concerned to put in a massive bridge when people are supposed to get out of their cars and use transit.

The B C Government should make their legacy an efficient transportation system. It would make more sense to put in public transport, without referendums, an extension to the Canada Line further out South to Surrey, Delta and White Rock. I am sure there are many people who would know the best way to do this. We are supposed to be reducing our carbon footprint.

I was told at the Massey Tunnel/Bridge office in Ironwood that the Tunnel can not be enlarged or brought up to current safety standards because of rock underneath. There was a study done some time ago that said it could be enlarged. Surely this could be an option and that study looked at again.

If the rock underneath the Tunnel is so thick and in the way of improving the efficiency of the tunnel imagine what will have to be done for Port Metro to constantly dredge and clear the River for its massive ships to pass through. It will be a constant very costly process forever not just a one time. Local habitat will be ruined. Port Metro should use Prince Rupert for their port and leave the Fraser alone.

Getting back more farmland is a joke. From what I was told it would be little bits of land covered now by roadway near the Richmond Country Farms in other words the highway cut offs. Not exactly good farmland to be growing food on once covered by highway and pollution.

I am not in favour of a ten lane bridge I am sure our government can do better than this if they tried.

MB.

2016-02-15 22:52:58
Antonvan WalravenBowen IslandBritish Columbia

BC Environmental Assessment Office

Re: Retrofitting Massey Tunnel or demolishing the tunnel replace it with a new bridge.

Dear Mr. Shepard,

Since your foremost responsibility under the BC Environmental Assessment Act is, to assess what the most environmentally and financially sound option for the proposed demolishment and replacement of the Massey Tunnel with a new to build bridge would be, I would like to point out the following issues:

-The BC Government has nothing to back up neither its business plan nor a justification for a replacement of the Massey Tunnel. All emails were deleted as became clear through recent FOI requests. How can the people of BC take this proposal at all serious? Therefor I would suggest to identified if there is a clear need to increase capacity of the crossing.

-If yes, it should be first considered how this can be accommodated with flow improvements to the tunnel or combined improvements and public transportation. Or a doubling of the tunnel.
As is done in any proper Environmental Assessment, a serious comparison between seriously worked out options to be priority number one.

Good examples of environmentally and financially sane way of doing things is the Retrofitting the Maas Tunnel in the Netherlands, being retrofitted for considerably less amount and with substantially less environmental impact than the cost the building of a new tunnel or bridge would require.

Secondly, it is no secret that the BC Government has a track record of poorly thought trough, environmentally and financially disastrous infrastructure projects. The Port Mann is one of them.

Again we have an example from the Netherlands how things can be done differently and fiscally prudent. Here a proper and professional assessment, not lead by misguided politics, resulted in recommendations for the best option.

Just east of Rotterdam the Van Brienenoord bridge over the Maas river opened in 1965. During the early and mid 1980ties the bridge became a bottle neck for the increasing amounts of commuter and freight traffic. It was then decided to double the bridge and add an identical only slight wider section right next to it.

In the case of the Port Mann bridge this option of doubling the original bridge was considered too, but for reasons unclear, well not totally, this option was not followed through. Probably emails and correspondence were deleted.
Not only was this decision far from financially prudent, it also led to the destruction of a piece of Canadian heritage which was in good condition and had been earthquake proved.

I seriously doubt that anything out of your office will not follow the parameters the Premier and the Minister of Transport have set for this project. I have seen how you have given the proponent of Woodfibre LNG what it wanted, public comments submitted disappeared and welcoming research for the project simply didn’t make into the assessment.

By now, you are probably aware I am originally from the Netherlands and I find the level of unprofessional conduct of organizations you represent and the colonial corruption embedded in BC's provincial and corporate political culture hard to stomach.

Then again one can always hope we might be surprised and that might be the case with this project.

I know you have the skill-set to undertake a fair assessment that will include the obvious option mentioned above. Let’s hope it will not be another assessment embarrassment.

Hoping for things to get better, I remain.

Kind regards,

Anton van Walraven
Bowen Island in Howe Sound

2016-02-15 23:00:42
EricAndersenSquamishBritish Columbia

I am concerned that this project as proposed needs more thorough review regarding its regional planning context and implications. Replacing the tunnel with this scale of bridge will surely encourage further residential development south of the Fraser River and additional big box retail development near the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal, bringing pressures on our scarce prime agricultural land.

2016-02-15 23:00:45
HildeTonkensMissionBritish Columbia

To whom it may concern

I have significant concerns about the scale and cost of this project.
I am suggesting that in order to find our solution that we can choose to retrofit the Massey Tunnel for far less public funds and that we could immediately turn around and invest these fund into badly needed public transit. This would also provide the added bonus of taking many cars off the road.
In this age of climate change and global warming we must provide opportunities to get cars off the road and reduce our dependency on fossil fuel.
I also have serious concerns about the proposed significant dredging in the Fraser River which would lead to a significant increase for industrial activity on the Fraser including supertankers carrying LNG, coal, oil or even jet fuel. This I would say is too big a risk to take on the greatest salmon River in the world.
I also want to express a concern about the impact this project will have on some of the best farmland we have in the province.
Thanks in advance for your consideration of my concerns.

Respectfully
Hilde Tonkens
Mission

2016-02-15 23:02:58
LauraMorrisonLauralaine.65@gmail.comBritish Columbia

I do NOT support the proposed new bridge which entails the loss of 3,000 acres of the best farmland in the world. A bridge connecting Boundary Road to No 8 Rd in Richmond will go through the middle of Richmond's cranberry farms and destroy the viability of farming in East Richmond. With climate adversely affecting food production worldwide we cannot afford to gamble with the ability to feed ourselves.

I do not support the heavy industrialization of the Fraser River that the proposed bridge is designed for. I do not support dredging the river to 15.5 metres to provide for 300 metre long ships carrying dirty coal or Panamex Supertankers carrying Jet Fuel, LNG and even oil.

This is not acceptable. Please consider an alternative plan for the sake of future generations.

2016-02-15 23:05:39
RobertBakerNew Westminster British Columbia

A bridge is not the best solution . A bigger tunnel is much smarter and cost effective . Even if the old tunnel needs to be lowered , it could be done after the new tunnel is built . The opportunity to make the lanes wider and higher , and at a greater depth to allow deeper draft shipping . The old tunnel could be lowered section by section , in a manner not unlike the Lions Gate Bridge deck replacement . All that done for less money than a new bridge will cost . The only smart decision is a tunnel. Thank you, sincerely R. Baker

2016-02-15 23:12:15
DylanRobertsTofinoBritish Columbia

Replacing the Massey Tunnel with a $3-4B bridge is a waste of money needed to renovate tunnels, improve interchanges, widen highways and improve bridges to cope with the brutal traffic Vancouver now suffers from.

2016-02-15 23:23:13
Liz WalkerSurreyBritish Columbia

15 February 2016

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project
Assessment Manager Michael Shepard
BC Environmental Assessment Office

RE: George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project: Comments of Project Description and Key Areas of Study

Given such designations such as Bird Life International’s most significant Important Bird Area out of 597 sites in Canada; the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network’s highest designation as an Hemispheric WHSRN site and the declaration of the Fraser River Delta as a Ramsar site by the International Convention on Wetlands all serve to remind us of the very high ecological values of our region, particularly the Fraser River Estuary and Delta.

The inter-tidal estuarine areas of the Fraser River delta are increasingly recognized for their importance to migratory birds, especially shorebirds. Bird Life International reports “Shorebirds need urgent action. As a group, shorebird species have declined by almost half. Most shorebirds migrate very long distances and are being affected by lost and alteration of wetlands, estuaries, deltas and mudflats at all stages of their journey, from their breeding grounds in Canada to stopover sites and wintering grounds throughout the Western Hemisphere.” Habitat loss, by whatever process, is a leading contributor to species decline. A project such as this has every inclination to alter habitat and obstruct the movement of wildlife e.g. bird strikes with towers.

At a time when our environmental assets are under such constant threat many consider it incredulous that we find a multi- billion dollar project, built to encourage carbon based transport by road and sea to move more commodities and thereby continue to contribute to climate change, suddenly at hand.

Agricultural lands in our region are under increasing pressures for redevelopment at a time when our future holds many uncertainties and encouraging increasing levels of transportation and sprawl will only exacerbate the situation. Our agricultural lands support many wildlife species, including migratory birds, put at further risk as farmland is degraded with increasing levels of air, light and noise pollution.

Due to the cumulative environmental impacts of this multi-tiered project one must question why the public is only asked to comment on a provincial environmental assessment when it is so obvious that compliance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, with a purpose to “protect the components of the environment that are within the legislative authority of Parliament from significant adverse environmental effects caused by a designated project..” would be the appropriate measure. New government policies regarding climate change and effects on the Fraser River need to be recognized and applied to this project.

In summary, this project will impact the Fraser River, the estuary, agricultural and surrounding lands while altering the liveability of the region. The intended outcomes from this project, i.e. increased use of fossil fuels and commodity transport by ship, transport trucks and rail will further impact the waterway, existing roadways and surrounding lands.

We ask that this project undergo a rigorous Federal Environmental Assessment, without involvement of Port Metro Vancouver, and involve further public consultation allowing for an exchange of information with visible integrity.

Yours truly,
Liz Walker
President
White Rock and Surrey Naturalists

2016-02-15 23:24:09
MaryTaittLadnerBritish Columbia

BOUNDARY BAY CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
Box 1251, Delta, B.C. V4M 3T3
Contact: marytaitt@gmail.com

Michael Shepard
Project Assessment Manager
Environmental Assessment Office
PO Box 9426 Stn. Prov. Govt.
Victoria BC V8W 9V1
Sent to: Michael.Shepard@gov.bc.ca
15 February 2016

RE: George Massey Tunnel Project Description and Key Areas of Study

Thank you for the opportunity to give comments from the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee (BBCC) on the George Massey Tunnel Project Description and Key Areas of Study.

The Boundary Bay Conservation Committee (BBCC) was established in 1988 to enhance public awareness of the Fraser River Estuary Ecosystem. We have worked with other conservation groups to obtain protection and recognition for this world class ecosystem including:
• BirdLife International’s Important Bird Area (IBA) designation in 2001 for the Fraser River Estuary: Boundary Bay, Roberts Bank and Sturgeon Bank; the Estuary is the most significant IBA out of 597 sites in Canada.
• In 2004, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) gave the Estuary its highest designation as a Hemispheric WHSRN Site.
• In 2011, Roberts Bank, the vital central link in this chain of inter-connected and protected estuary habitats, was finally declared a Wildlife Management Area.
• In 2012, the whole lower Fraser River Delta was declared a Ramsar site by the International Convention on Wetlands.
Process
Many BBCC members attended the Open House in Delta on January 27, 2016. Unfortunately, there were no hard copies of the Project Description and Key Areas of Study available for the public; making them available only on line reduces public input. In fact, it very hard to find and then I was unable to view it because it would not download: “Error reading from remote server”.
By contrast there were many hard copies of the government’s propaganda document Project Definition Report that “presents the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s vision, rationale and plans for … replacing the Tunnel with a new bridge”. No data is presented on how public input contributed to this vision that was put up on public billboards as a fact just before the BC election in May 2013. The billboards are still up declaring that the project will begin construction in 2017, the year of the next BC election. Where is the rationale for the bridge option adopted by 2013?
The timing is significant because how can a serious environmental review be conducted when all the options for “improving a key section of the highway 99 corridor” have been removed except for one, a bridge? After environmental studies and review the most environmentally sound option after considering provincial, federal and global legal designations and responsibilities may not be a 10-lane bridge.
Why wasn’t an Environmental Review Process done as part of the Planning Stage? Further, how can a meaningful environmental study be conducted, analyzed and reviewed in less than one year? This process makes a farce of the globally significant environmental values of the Fraser River and its Estuary. These values have been recognized by international designations that members of the public through organizations such as the BBCC (22 groups) have worked for over the last 30 years. This process by the province of BC is inadequate.
Canadian Environmental Reviews
The scope of an environmental review of such a large project in this location, across federal as well as provincial environmental jurisdictions and with global implications requires a Canadian Environmental Review Process.
Canada must become a leader in conducting rigorous environmental reviews of projects by independent, expert, scientists in the related fields. This country’s environmental values are globally significant and priceless on planet earth.
The implications of this particular project are beyond the footprint of the bridge supports. In particular a detailed study must be done of cumulative air pollution from transport (more cars, trucks and ships) to the Fraser Valley Air Shed. The global warming outcomes of increased shipping on the Fraser River of carbon fuels (coal and LNG) must be modeled and accounted for. Project Proponent-paid consultants cannot rigorously and independently review such wide ranging and serious issues. We can do this better.
For example, we did attempt to do this in the past. In 1985, Canada launched the world renowned, cooperative, environmental management model, namely the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) which brought together all three levels of government to conduct environmental reviews of development projects along the Fraser River but it was closed three years ago. The main developer, Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), took over as Lead Agency from FREMP for a “transition period”. But PMV is still handling all developments along the Fraser River which is an outrageous conflict of interest and an international embarassment in terms of stewardship of the globally significant habitats in this ecosystem. The BBCC asks when will this farce be terminated? This is vital in the case of the planned bridge because PMV and its corporate Gateway colleauges are using Delta, the Fraser River and the Fraser River Estuary as their doormat.

If Canada is serious about being a respected gate keeper for its environment, BBCC suggests that a moratorium on development in the world reknown and designated Fraser River, its vital Estuary Ecosystem and deltaic, food producing farmlands be declared. This should be in effect until a rigorous, independent, scientific environmental review process is established. This process, unlike FREMP, must have legislative backing and be mandated to seek experts from university and government scientists.

Other Issues and Questions

1. Earthquake Hazard Risk at in Delta: How can supports for such a large bridge be made secure on the alluvial deposites of the Fraser River delta which will be at risk of massive liquifaction in the forecasted largest earthquake ever?

(This Map on the internet is from a study in 2007 of a much smaller earthquake of 7.3 by the University of BC. The dark category (Vlll) will experience liquefaction. The forecasted “big one” will be more than 9.)

2. What will be the impact of the cumulative increase in ships through the already busy shipping lanes of the Fraser River, Salish Sea and Juan de Fuca Strait? Current ship traffic through Orca Pass between the protected American San Juan and Canadian Gulf Islands National Park is already having an impact on the endangered Southern Resident Orcas.

3. Will there be an evaluation of the contribution to global warming of the different options? There must be a thorough review of Canada’s accountability to global warming by evaluating the cummulative increase in the shipping of fossil carbon fuels up and down the Fraser River for export compared to little to no increase in such exports under other options.

4. How will environmental degredation of the Fraser River banks and wetland habitats by the wakes from larger vessels be measured and the long term effects evaluated?
5. Weren’t upgrades to The George Massey Tunnel just done in 2007-09? Were these upgrades unsound or incomplete? If the latter, how much will it cost to complete this job? Can we use some of the money saved to build another tunnel beside the Massey Tunnel that has an HOV lane for public transit? It appears that all tunnel options would cost much less, do much less environmental damage, protect the Fraser River from large vessel traffic and be completed much sooner than a bridge?
6. Are models going to be developed on the threats to farmland from each of the options? For example, port industrial expansion onto some of the most productive soils in Canada? What are the threats to food security of the different options, especially conversion of farmland? What ate the consequences of alterations of Fraser River water flow and consequent impact on irrigation? Etc.
7. Is a study being conducted on the cumulative air pollution of the restricted air shed of the Fraser Valley from increased ships, truck traffic and private cars across the options, especially the building of a good rapid transit system through a tunnel?
Yours sincerely,

Mary Taitt
Director, BBCC

PS. I was unable to access the Project Definition documents online even on the BC EAO website. Why? Is this a credible process when the public cannot get the information?
None of the links from the masseytunnel website to the EAO site worked either but all the Project Definition links worked. Is this a legal process?

2016-02-15 23:25:16
KarenMiltonDeltaBritish Columbia

Is a new bridge over the Fraser River the best place to spend our limited money? Can we upgrade the Massey Tunnel instead? The tunnel is important and we don't need to remove or replace it, retrofit would be better.

2016-02-15 23:32:10
CharlesBuettnerSurreyBritish Columbia

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project
Assessment Manager Michael Shepard
BC Environmental Assessment Office
Dear Sir,
From reading the material provided I am not convinced that the bridge option is necessarily the correct option but we have not seen enough information to make an informed choice. What are the potential advantages of expanding the tunnel by adding new tubes? Building the proposed mega bridge over the Fraser River will only serve to increase sprawl and traffic congestion since the new bridge will be tolled (moving traffic over to the un-tolled option) and it caters to increasing numbers of transports (that should be using the SFPR) and personal vehicles. If we were truly interested in increasing public participation with public transit then monies would be spent in acquiring more buses and increasing the frequency of established routes from the south of the Fraser to the north. Easing of tolls over the other crossings may also alleviate traffic on the Alex Fraser and Pattullo, and hence through the tunnel as well.
Misleading projections as related to transit and connectivity between communities only fuel distrust. Anyone who attended the open houses for the new Port Mann bridge will distinctively remember the glossy brochure illustrating a light rail transit option over the bridge and references to improved transit. Has anything close to that come to fruition? No, therefore such claims must not be part of the environmental assessment as it appears to be proven that such claims do not hold water in the Province of BC.
It’s interesting to read how a 3rd tube was a viable solution in the past, before we had such roads as the South Fraser Perimeter Road with the intent to ease the burden of truck traffic on our municipal roadways. Why now a bridge with 10 lanes…did the SFPR not meet expectations? Is the new Port Mann bridge unable to handle more traffic? Perhaps the assessments made on the SFPR and the business case for that project should be reviewed and errors corrected before proceeding with another mega-project.
I did not see any reference to the final disposition of tunnel discards and would appreciate information outlining the disposal of such.
Your business case makes note that this project will support projected growth in population and employment but at what expense to our current quality of life? The uptake of agricultural lands to suit industry and housing? The loss of agricultural lands will impact the environment, its’ ecology and the sustainability of our region; especially with the loss of farmland in the North due to construction of the Site C hydroelectric dam. I believe that this project must undergo a Federal Environmental Assessment rather than simply a provincial assessment as its’ impacts could prove substantial and from what I understand, Federal funding is involved.
Yours truly,
Charles Buettner
Surrey BC

2016-02-15 23:33:47
TonyFernandoVancouverBritish Columbia

A bridge of this scale is completely unnecessary. There are too many options which are far more feasible, economical, and better for the environment. Many great points and options to consider at ..
http://masseytunnel.realhearings.org/public-comments/
Thank You for your consideration,
Tony Fernando

2016-02-15 23:35:33
yulandapvancouverBritish Columbia

The transit referendum was a smoke screen for the 500 million the the BC gov is spending on road expansion which has gotten virtually zero media. The roads and this bridge are all to expand fracking and coal transport though out the province. Not moving into a clean energy is a great example of the archaic mindset that is currently spending tax payers money to invest in substances that will hurt them and their surrounding environment. I love BC and I am born and raised in Vancouver. It's painful to see our home get abused.

2016-02-15 23:39:35
DavidJonesDeltaBritish Columbia

1. Choice of Bridge in line with Existing GMT is wrong

The Project Definition Report from MOT shows 5 Options that were supposedly considered, and presented to ‘the public’ in two consultation Phased, between November 2012 and April 2013. Consultation supposedly took place with small group meeting, open houses, and through online forms
This was a sham. It is clear that most of the input that was asked for and received, was not from the public at all, from special interest groups, particularly Port Metro Vancouver and its business allies that dominated the “small group meetings”
The ‘scorecard’ that emerged from this supposed consultation, scored the 2nd Option (new huge bridge) higher on all categories, even including financial. The obvious choice, “twinning the tunnel” with a new 2nd tunnel right besides the existing one, miraculously came in at a Higher Cost than this monstrous bridge, which will require removal of existing tunnel. Such a fabrication takes my breath away.

2. Traffic Projections are totally wrong

The traffic through GMT peaked in 2004 at 80,000 vehicles per day, and hasn’t really grown at all since 1987, when the MOT figures begin. This is astonishing considering population growth in the last 29 years. So there is no reason to suspect that it would grow any more in the next 29 years.
So we certainly don’t need the new bridge to get more cars across the river

3. Truck traffic is the problem with congestion

However, what has changed is the number of trucks, especially the huge container trucks, carrying 40 foot containers. According to MOT own figures trucks now make up 12% of the total vehicles, mostly large trucks. A truck makes a huge difference to congestion, so it can’t be equated with cars in terms of amount of room or lane it needs:
They need more room because they are bigger, up 5 X longer than a car, move slower overall, and are slower to accelerate in congested lanes; trucks also require more space between them and cars, because of danger of injury in case of collision between two very different sized objects. Taking all these factors together I estimate a single truck is equivalent to 10 cars on the highway. MOT own figures, 13% trucks and buses, 87 % cars should therefore be translated into 130 % ‘equivalent cars’ and 87 % (actual) cars …. So reducing this to 100%, we get a 60/40 split; in other words 60 % of the roadway in the tunnel is now taken up trucks (including the buses, although they are very few), and only 40% is taken up by cars. So no wonder we have congestion almost all day long, and not just at rush hours.
Trucks should be banned from the tunnel except late evening (after 9 PM), and early morning, say until 6 AM. This is what most cities do. It is crazy to build a whole new bridge at colossal cost just for these trucks, many of which are headed off to USA or other distant points.

4. Business Case is cooked

Wasting $3.5 billion of taxpayer money to build an unnecessary, over-sized bridge is a gross misuse of public funds. This project has a potential for high cost overruns, as it is built over deep unstable sediments.

The basic business case used to justify the huge capital cost is simply wrong. It projects a “net project” cost of $2.0 Billion in 2014 dollars, even though the total capital cost (“as spent’), is $3.5 Billion (with completion in 2022). How they manage to subtract 43 % of the cost is a mystery known only to those on the inside. Considering that there must be considerable money already spent (sunk costs) before construction begins, and interest paid during construction as well, it is a mystery how they manage this. Presumably the cost of the removal of GMT in included? We have seen how much work was required to remove the old PMB, which took years to complete after the new PMB was finished.

Even worse, the Project business case purports to show $4.1 Billion of ‘savings’ due to the new bridge, in travel time savings, economic development benefits, etc. This is simply unbelievable. Considering that there are about 40,000 regular users of the tunnel (80,000 vehicles per day, both directions, according to MOT), this works out to about $100,000 per user. Who is going to believe that?

The whole business case is almost all ‘blacked out’ in the October 2015 MOT document with the same name. None of the required figures are visible. One of the key parameters quoted for choosing this (huge) new bridge instead of a much modest 2nd tunnel (the Twinning approach) was lower operating cost ….. The evidence for this is supposedly in this MOT document, but all , (not just some) of the Operating Costs which would support the decision to go with the bridge are missing, i.e. blacked out. One suspects that a bridge has a much higher operating cost, due to exposure to the elements, rain, sun, wind, snow, etc. with concomitant effects on steel structures…. Painting, corrosion, snow clearing, the list is a long one. But we are given zero evidence to support this. On really large bridge structures there is a permanent maintenance crew painting it continuously; by the time they get to one end they have to start at the other. It’s a big job. None or this or almost none is needed in a tunnel, protected as it is very nicely by the river and it’s ‘blanket’ of gravel over top.

5. Failure to Recognize the Ecological Significance of the Fraser River delta

Several designations recognize the ecological importance of this Canadian Heritage River which supports the most productive salmon fishery in the world. A declared RAMSAR site as wetlands of international significance, the delta supports Canada’s highest density of wintering waterfowl and migrating shorebirds of the Pacific Flyway. It is also Canada’s top site for wintering birds of prey.

6. Industrialization of the Fraser River

Removing the Massey Tunnel opens the Fraser up to deeper dredging for larger ships like tankers carrying liquefied natural gas, coal and tarsands bitumen. The cumulative impacts are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems. The focus of shipping should remain in Vancouver`s Burrard Inlet, a natural deep water port.

6. Climate Change

This is a massive bridge built almost entirely of concrete and steel. Quantities not provided by MOT, but certainly many thousands of tonnes each. Concrete production process generates 0.4 tonnes CO2 per M3 concrete. The Port Mann Bridge (PMB) contains 157,000 M3 concrete, and this proposed ‘Massey Bridge’ is about 1.5X -2X bigger, so will be produce about 100,000 tonnes CO2 from concrete alone. Steel is even worse, producing 2 tonnes CO2 per tonne steel. Port Mann bridge contains 41,000 tonnes steel, so this bridge will require say 65,000 tonnes steel, and thus produce another 130,000 tonnes CO2, for CO2 total production of about 230,000 tonnes. Of course this figure will be greatly increased by all the construction activity including vehicles needed, people related activities, to say nothing of the emissions during actual operation of the new bridge.

7. Risk of Damaging existing George Massey tunnel during Construction of bridge by Pile Driving

The new bridge will be built inline with the existing tunnel, with four huge piers or towers holding up the bridge deck, cables, etc. These Towers must be anchored firmly into the ground or river bed, so piles must be driven about 85 meters down, (MOT number). I estimate these piles will be at least 5 meters diameter. Pile driving on this scale is a mammoth exercise requiring months if not years of work, using huge machines, hammering the piles into the ground. The energy generated during the pile driving is dissipated into the ground, but if there any existing structures nearby, they will be severely affected. Literature on this subject suggests that a minimum of one pile depth (85m) separate each pile from any existing structure. Existing GMT is 24 m wide, so this means the piles should be about (85 + 24 +85) = 195 m apart, at very minimum. Unfortunately the piles must be driven close to the existing tunnel if they are to support the bridge as it spans the tunnel, in an H-shape. The bridge will be roughly the same width as the PMB, (each is 10 lanes), and PMB is 65 meters wide. So Towers would normally be fairly close to side of bridge, thus separated by say 75 m apart? This won’t work. There is a real danger of cracking the tunnel (irreversibly) by the pile driving, just like a big earthquake …. Part of the reason given for replacing the GMT in the first place!

8. Importance of Farmland

Destroying a prime agricultural corridor to build this bridge – plus the land consumed by the resulting sprawl – places British Columbia’s long-term food supply at risk. The farmland also supports several species of wildlife that rely on the interdependent, interactive habitats of the river, ditches, waterways, farmland and Burns Bog

9. No Traffic Rationale

Commuter traffic volumes through the current Massey Tunnel have not increased over the last decade, and could be pushed even lower with improved transit. This Project will push the traffic bottleneck up the highway to the Oak Street and Knight Street Bridges and onto Richmond streets. It is one of the reasons the City of Richmond voted to oppose the expansion. Research and experience confirms you can't build your way out of congestion. The figures presented in the Project Definition Report are ridiculously wrong in suggesting Queue Lengths (Figures 7, 8), will grow longer in future (2045 is shown) if no new crossing is provided. In actual fact, queues don’t keep growing indefinitely as people/ businesses find other ways to get to work, or places to live. Years ago, a 2nd Crossing at Lions Gate was proposed (late 60’s), as congestion was really bad even then. No 2nd crossing was ever built, (and never will be) but strangely enough the traffic queues didn’t get any worse. People just changed their lifestyles/places to live/work, etc. Traffic can only get so bad and people adapt for better or worse. I have been going through GMT for about 30 years now, and the traffic is no worse now than it was years ago, (although the truck traffic has changed dramatically …..See below for separate comment.

10. Legally Flawed Process

This BC Environmental Assessment Process fails to include the need for a federal Review Panel Environmental Assessment due to the size of the Bridge Proposal, removal of the tunnel, the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, the Species at Risk Act, Aboriginal interests and concerns expressed by the public

2016-02-15 23:40:26
KimiHendessRichmondBritish Columbia

Valued Components of Proposed Massey Bridge project
for Environmental Assessment Pre-Scoping stage

1. Insufficient information provided to the public - The Project Description and Key Areas of Study document does not contain enough information to comment properly on the project or scope and valued components. The information in the document is extremely poor quality - often simply repeating the "need" for a solution of some sort to the "problem" of traffic congestion and projected growth, but questionable and insufficient data is given to back the needs assessment or the chosen option. Project Staff at the Open Houses kept saying "it's all on the website" but despite the volume of information on the website, none of it addresses rationale of the project, business case for the chosen bridge option, assessment of alternative options (allowing a cost-benefit comparative analysis) nor detail about any of the impacts or studies which we are told are underway but about which we have zero information.

Photos available at the Open Houses (and on the website) only depicted a plan view of the highway - none show elevation views, which would give a sense of the scale of the bridge - a 3 level interchange at Steveston Highway and a massive "vertical footprint" that would change the landscape dramatically. A simple line drawn in plan view does not convey much needed information.

2. Insufficient Scoping information provided
The implications of this project are far-reaching and it worries me greatly that very little information is available to the public about how to comment in the pre-scoping phase, or what "valued components" means. With no scoping document to review, how is the public supposed to properly comment on the scope of the project? Another opportunity to comment on scope should be provided once more information about scope is available from various levels of government involved.

3. Need for Broad Cumulative Impacts Scoping
The cumulative impacts of development of any kind on the Fraser River are not addressed if we evaluate each project independently of the others, and of future implications. The Massey Tunnel is a physical barrier to deep ships traveling up-river. If it is removed and a high bridge built in its place, suddenly we will be faced with increased possibilities of industrial expansion, new terminals, and shipment of dangerous fuels (LNG, thermal coal, jet fuel, and possibly other forms of bulk oil). The Massey Tunnel Replacement Project must be assessed in the context of this dramatic shift in how the Fraser River can be used, and the change of policy regarding sensitive ecological habitat conservation that would result. This project greatly impacts marine transportation on the river, so must be assessed for this.

4. Need for a Federal Review Panel Assessment
A federal review panel pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act should be required due to implications related to federal jurisdiction under the Fisheries Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Navigation Protection Act, Species at Risk Act, Migratory Bird Environment Protection Act, and undoubtedly other Acts. Specifically, a federal review panel should be required due the importance of the Fraser River's designations as an internationally, nationally, and provincially significant site (Ramsar, Canadian Heritage River, Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network, top three Most Important Bird Areas in Canada, and former management as Fraser River Estuary Management Plan area), and the potential implications for the Burns Bog, a globally significant peatland.

The Ramsar designation is particularly significant - it is an international agreement outlining the guidelines and principles for conservation and management of wetlands and their resources, and commits Canada to "work towards the wise use of all the wetlands and water resources in [our] territory, through national plans, policies and legislation, management actions and public education."

Additional factors that should trigger a federal review panel include: assessment of climate change impact of the bridge and of the marine traffic (cargo and emissions) that it will enable; endangered and threatened waterways and riparian areas supporting birds, fish, and other wildlife including species at risk; impact of Fraser River ecology on the health of endangered whales in the Strait of Georgia; impact on salmon along the entire Fraser River; impact on the Fishery and fishing boat navigation; and cumulative impacts on all social, ecological, heritage, cultural, economic, geological, archeological, historical, and climate change-related interests (which should be listed in a comprehensive public review).

Furthermore, a federal process should be undertaken to provide a complete listing of permits and approvals required for the project, and a listing of all First Nations interests, use, and rights affected, as well as public transparency regarding consultation with all affected First Nations.

5. Transparency of Rationale
Emails obtained by Douglas Massey via Freedom of Information Request have revealed that PMV and Fraser Surrey Docks have lobbied the federal and provincial governments asking for a bridge to replace the tunnel, to enable deep ships to travel up-river. This information has never been revealed to the public by the Provincial Government, and in fact, a GMTRP representative speaking to Richmond City Council on January 11 2016 stated that there were no plans to dredge deeper on the Fraser. The FOI emails reveal that he was in fact lying to Council (or if he was not lying due to not being aware of any dredging plans, then he was egregiously negligent in giving information about which he could not be certain).

6. Insufficient quality consultation with City of Richmond - Project staff insist there have been many meetings with City of Richmond staff. Yes, after the bridge had been chosen, the project team met with city staff to inform them of various aspects of the proposal. Prior to selection of the bridge as the preferred option, the City was not consulted in any meaningful way. Why would municipalities affected by the new crossing not be involved in the assessment of options, or even invited to submit comment on the various options in the selection process? If the City had been consulted, why would the Premier and the GMTRP not invite the City of Richmond Councillors & Mayor to the public announcement event when the bridge was announced?

7. Democratic process & need for City input in selection of preferred options - There are many, many reasons the City should be consulted prior to choosing a bridge, including: matters concerning the river, its waters, and use thereof; traffic pattern changes; implications for the City's Official Community Plan, transportation plan, and budget (see note below re: concerns about routing of southbound traffic heading west onto Steveston Hwy); vehicle use changes including passage of dangerous goods over the bridge and into the City (currently not allowed through the tunnel); impact on farmland, including removal of land along the highway corridor (the No.5 Rd land is the subject of much negotiation and planning between the City and landowners which is almost complete and will enhance the farming activity on that land) and changes in salinity of irrigation water due to increased dredging (which we know from Freedom of Information request emails will without doubt be undertaken by Port Metro Vancouver in order to allow passage of deeper ships upriver of the crossing).

8. Insufficient information about various levels of government planning impacted.
There is no information about various agreements, plans, codes, regulations, standards, and initiatives affected by this project, including the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21), BC Agricultural Land Reserve, Official Community Plans, Regional Growth Strategies, Regional Transportation Plans, Sensitive Areas Strategies, cross-boundary agreements, etc. This information must be assembled and presented as a context for assessment and determining valued components.

9. Consideration of Alternatives
Alternatives have not been fairly or publically considered, regardless of the GMTRP's "lip service" consultations. There are several viable alternatives that are much more cost-effective. Public consultation without cost-benefit analyses and the ability to review opportunity costs does not constitute proper consultation.

10. Value of existing infrastructure
In a meeting with GMTRP Agricultural Project Manager Ed Sanders on Tuesday January 19 at the Project Office, Mr.Sanders informed me that plans are to remove the middle sections of the tunnel because it's old and "you don't typically leave your junk lying around" (direct quote, witnessed by 4 others attending the meeting). GMTRP staff at the Open House later that day also referred to the tunnel as "old junk" to me and to three other members of the public that I spoke with. It is a valued component that infrastructure not be assessed as "junk", and in fact be assessed truthfully.

How is it possible that the Massey tunnel , which recently underwent seismic retrofitting (plates completed in 2006; shake alarm installed & operational in 2009) could suddenly be considered junk? This is very misleading terminology used by GMTRP staff to the public.

The EA should include an assessment of the tunnel and its projected lifespan, given the upgrades already performed on it. For comparison, the Maas tunnel in the Netherlands is 17 years older than the Massey tunnel and 441 meters longer, and will be undergoing renovation beginning this year. These renovations will be Cdn $399 million and illustrate that upkeep and seismic upgrades of decades-old infrastructure is possible and economically viable. BC should be proud of the Massey Tunnel and treat it as a valuable part of our transportation infrastructure.

Furthermore, the EA should evaluate the impact on infrastructure affected by marine traffic changes enabled by the bridge, such as hydro lines crossing the river.

11. Misuse of public resources
The use of public resources and the fair assessment of all viable alternatives is a valued component. Full disclosure of the business case for the bridge, assessment of all the alternatives, and a detailed budget that breaks down the $3.5billion cost should be disclosed to the public before we are asked to comment.

12. Risk Analysis
There must be a risk analysis available for public review, prior to approval of the project. There were reasons a tunnel was preferred over a bridge when the tunnel was first built - surely a risk assessment should be made available to the public, and should include all possible scenarios of risk, including impact on wildlife and ecology and safety during and after construction. Risks should include factors relating to bridge height (such as safety, ice, affect on migratory birds in the Pacific Flyway and overwintering raptors), affect of light pollution at night (e.g. on bats & other night hunters), affect of pilings into deep silt, hydraulic and sedimentation changes, etc.

13. Risk to Agricultural Corridor and Agricultural Land Reserve
The GMTRP claims that a main reason for choosing the bridge is that it has the least impact on farmland. There is no information to back up this claim, and no information available to the public about what the impact to farmland will be. Project CEO has said there will be a "net gain" in farmland due to this project but have been given no details about that claim. When I inquired at the Project Office about the "net gain", I was given the chance to meet with project staff to learn more; in fact no information was available to describe where the gained farmland would be, and only vague statements were made.
Any degradation of farmland in this area of Richmond and Delta has a huge impact and increases the risk to local food production and food security. Farmland not only produces food, supports the agricultural economy, it also provides valuable habitat for wildlife.

14. Threats to Ecological Habitat and Wildlife, including Endangered & At Risk Species
A detailed report should be available to the public to assess the broad impacts on this sensitive estuary and its surrounding areas. Information about habitat and species of wildlife affected must be assessed and publically available - for example: impacts on fish and fish habitat including species at risk (e.g. white sturgeon, coho salmon); impacts on birds and waterfowl including species at risk (e.g. pacific water shrew, barn owl); coded red riparian habitats, ditches, and sloughs; impact of noise on whales; impact of noise and light pollution on night hunters; loss of habitat; change in salinity and water-levels in marshlands; impact on Burns Bog; and a listing of all wildlife depending on the area and the risks posed by the project and by increased road and marine traffic.

15. Proper Transportation Planning and Traffic projection
The transportation planning and traffic rationale of the Project are severely problematic. The plan does not address the congestion that will simply be shifted north a few kilometers and into Richmond streets, nor does it address the Richmond-to-Vancouver commuters who would now be negatively impacted, nor does it address "spill-over" effects such as short-cutting and diversion to non-tolled routes.

Building more lanes does not reduce congestion; it has been proven that building lanes (even HOV lanes) actually increases the number of vehicles. There is insufficient information about projected truck traffic projections and alternatives for the movement of goods.

This project pays lip service to rapid transit but does not include putting rails on the bridge for light rail transit. This bridge does not make sense in the context of regional transit planning and more information is needed to explain the choice of 10 lanes, the rationale for the height of the bridge (affecting the height of the Steveston Hwy interchange), the impact on the road network, and the impact on available budget for rapid transit improvements. The project states that 60% of tunnel commuters currently travel to Richmond, but this must be more detailed - how many of these commuters are heading for the Skytrain Park & Ride en route to Vancouver? How many are heading north of Westminster Hwy and are just as likely to choose Hwy 91 instead of the new bridge?

The Metro Vancouver Mayors' Council does not identify the tunnel as one of the top priority transportation areas in the region. Alternate routes are available for emergencies. Lower cost transportation demand management options are available. Alternatives must be assessed to give the public a true picture of the alternatives, and the best use of public funds.

16. Air Quality
The Project's claim that the bridge will result in improved air quality is unsubstantiated and unlikely, especially due to the incline of the steep bridge and the facilitation of increased traffic due to increased roadway. Pollution due to congestion that has shifted to other areas (e.g. Oak St & Knight St bridges, Richmond streets) must be assessed against this claim. Furthermore, independent traffic assessment and projections should be used to substantiate the project's claims.

Note re: #7 Concerns about routing of southbound traffic heading west onto Steveston Hwy
In a meeting with the GMTRP Agricultural Advisor Paul Christie and GMTRP Project Manager Ed Sanders on Tuesday January 19 at the Project Office, I was shown a map of the new highway routing (plan view) and told that plans for southbound traffic heading west onto Steveston Hwy are: choose the right lane early on, exit at Rice Mill Rd, turn right onto No.5 Rd, double back several blocks to make a left turn onto Steveston Hwy.

This is a shocking route to take and is only necessary because of the unreasonable height of the bridge. This route will cause the City to spend a great deal of money on roadwork to deal with the implications. This route will cause more delays as drivers will need to make a left turn at a busy intersection which is also an entry for Ironwood Mall (rather than the current route which is a simple exit westbound onto Steveston Hwy, continuing through the intersection).

The City's Animal Shelter is on No.5 Rd, and I'm very concerned that the increased traffic would cause problems for the dog walkers that exercise the dogs every day. Trucks using the truck weigh scale at the south end of No.5 Rd would face increased delays due to the increased traffic.

Furthermore, there is a very real possibility that drivers seeking to "shortcut" and avoid the left turn onto Steveston Hwy will turn south on No.5 Rd to Dyke Rd. This would be very problematic and unsafe spill-over: Dyke Rd is a narrow, winding road and leads through active farmland. It is a popular pedestrian, cycling, dog-walking, and horse-riding route and an important part of the City's cycling network.

From Dyke Rd, drivers would head either along Finn Rd (an active farm area with tractor traffic and a heavily used cycling route), or up No.4 Rd to Steveston Hwy, which is also an actively farmed area (frequent tractor traffic), and is the route taken by trucks heading to the Reagle Terminals freight traffic terminal on Garden City Rd. No. 4 Rd has several sharp curves including one that was the site of a fatal crash in 2012, killing 2 people and injuring 1. Increased traffic from the Rice Mill Rd highway exit on these "farming area back roads" would be potentially very dangerous, given the volume and nature of the diverse users of these roads. This level of impact must be assessed, including the impact on farm vehicles and farm traffic, adjacent working farmland, and safety.

2016-02-15 23:52:52
JohannAckermannDeltaBritish Columbia

My concern is that the Massey Tunnel removal is not really necessary and if it is replaced by a bridge the outcome will be that the traffic jam will only be moved into Richmond. So the impact to the environment is not really going to get better and commuter traffic problems will not really be solved. Let me put it in picture language: You can only move so much water through a hose and connecting a pipe full of water will not make the water run through the (smaller) hose more efficiently.
What needs to really be reviewed is whether bringing rapid transit into the picture will actually be more efficient. We already have the shell road rail corridor and highway 99 where a rapid rail option could be run and a rapid transit bridge could be brought into the picture with parking and better bus connections on the south side of the Fraser River.
Ask yourselves why there are more people living in Europe and they don't have they same traffic problems we have?
Is the bridge really being built as a traffic solution or is it to provide an avenue for the shipment of coal and LNG? If it's coal/LNG why doesn't the industry chip in for the cost of the bridge as they would prosper from it as much as supposedly the residents would?
Anothe rquestion to ask is what would the removal of the tunnel do to the wildlife now established there.

2016-02-15 23:54:23
AstridAndersenSquamishBritish Columbia

I live outside the Fraser region (Squamish) but I have a vested interest as a taxpayer to know that my contributions are well-spent. If the BC Environmental Assessment Office is the only one looking at this proposal from an environment risk perspective that is not enough. I come from Denmark, where extensive multi-level public and independent reviews always need to take place before large infrastructure projects with potential environmental impact occur. There the public's interest is highly valued. Independent professional analysts from many disciplines are consultants on these projects. The Danes are very critical of government meddling with big corporate lobbies and so should we be. If the Metro Port Vancouver, as a federal government corporation is to gain benefit from this bridge, as has been suggested by others, there absolutely must be a federal review. This is still not enough. The federal government, if it is involved in direct funding and through its crown corporation's involvement, must in turn sponsor an independent review. This level of scrutiny would be standard procedure in most European countries. Please consider these sensible solutions to the public uproar that will inevitably occur once your office has passed on its findings to the ministry.

2016-02-15 23:58:23
MargeryDudaVancouverBritish Columbia

One more sure way to bankrupt our economy is to invest this enormous amount of money in infrastructure supporting a mode of transportation that is becoming obsolete.
Money should be spent on healthcare, recreation infrastructure, mass transportation (not mass transportation infrastructure like sky trains that are more costly than necessary and only serve the architects and builders of the systems )and education, not more roads.
Our environment is key right now and life on this planet needs more thoughtful protection. We need to protect the water and life of the Fraser.
Do not build a bridge over the Fraser. If necessary, repair or replace the existing one.

2016-02-15 23:58:56
DonDeMillDeltaBritish Columbia

Though described as a "proposal" in the Executive Summary of Project Description and Key Areas of Study; and though the "Ministry proposes to submit the Application" to you, it is so that the EAO will conduct a "thorough and timely review so that construction can" (firmly, absolutely, and without question, it would appear) "begin in 2017 and the new bridge be ready for use in 2022." You are not asked to do an assessment (as your name states), nor evaluation, nor critique, nor alteration. No possibility exists, it would seem obvious, for refusal. And you must complete this seeming rubber-stamping all within a very, very narrow time frame that will not allow sampling over the four seasons. Of course MOT is not "proposing" to submit the Application to you. This is a weasel word. It is doing so absolutely. And it is not "proposing" a bridge, it is intending to build it. It is similarly not intending to "decommission" the tunnel (p.14): "It is assumed that the in-stream sections of the Tunnel will be removed as part of the decommissioning" (p.19). And this will be done not to 'maintain navigation" (p. 19), as it claims, but to improve it. The Project Definition Report implies that is not the reason for tunnel removal and not the reason for building a bridge rather than adding a much cheaper additional tunnel tube or two, as the tunnel is "not the shallowest point …Steveston Cut…shallower…water pipeline." (p.32 Project Definition Report) But if it is honest, why remove the tunnel and why only the parts that are "in-stream?"
Propose that the Ministry leave the tunnel in place, as a requirement for your approval, as one of the "heritage structures" it claims to be so concerned about preserving, and watch the fur fly,' watch the Vancouver Port Authority turn purple and read the riot act (the main force behind the 1988 plan to develop all of Burns Bog into a deep sea duty free port, housing for 125,000, and a shopping centre to rival the one in Edmonton; behind the Delcan report plan to send SFPR deep into Burns Bog; behind SFPR AKA Hwy 17 as built; behind the continued industrialization of the finest salmon river in the world; and almost certainly the real driving force behind having a bridge rather than an expanded tunnel.
Fraser Surrey Docks, the port down the hill from where I live on the Fraser, is underused and redundant, built on a riverine wetland buried in dredgeate. It should be decommissioned rather than the Tunnel and the site returned to fish habitat. It replaces the once active port across the Fraser at New Westminster, which was sensibly, at the time, built upriver on a steep slope to defend against Spanish galleons and their cannonballs, which we are no longer in any danger from. We have several deep-sea docks on the ocean and zero need for one in the Fraser. It's dredged deeply and its flow has been channelled and in places accelerated by training walls, to the detriment, I'm told, of weaker fish such as eulachons ("ooligans") which may not be able to make their way up the river to spawn any more. The bottom, which is routinely scoured, for ship traffic and also for saleable fill, is where sturgeon once foraged. The sloughs sturgeon once fed in and chum salmon likely spawned in are barred to them by grates. Many of Richmond's ditches were made inaccessible to fish when the flap valves were replaced with pumps.
This bridge project can only fairly be assessed environmentally by considering the impact on the entire lower Fraser after the Vancouver Port Authority, freed of the impediment caused by the tunnel has the water pipe lowered, dredges the Steveston cut deeper, dredges the river from the mouth to Surrey Fraser Docks and perhaps beyond, and then massively industrializes the finest salmon river in the world.
Similar disingenuousness marred the process -- led by the same executive project director, Geoff Freer -- that resulted in the building of SFPR: for example them claiming that the road would not go through Burns Bog. The savage sale of the finest section of Sherwood Forest, which they owned, by MOT, after they were dissuaded from paving it for SFPR by Canadian Wildlife Service, as an experimental cranberry farm c/w a federal grant was bloody-minded intentional revenge: a gorgeous piece of prime parkland identified as vital in the EAO's own report on Burns Bog, which should have been rolled into the Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area as compensation for their massive complete destruction under fill and asphalt of very many hectares of fine bog along the north side of Burns Bog.
Under Environmental Assessments and Key Areas of Study, marine mammals are listed, but not aquatic ones, such as river otters, muskrats, beaver, water shrews, The choice of fish species is mercenary, perhaps reflecting Steve Harper's clawing back of DFO concerns about projects' impacts. The non-commercial species are an exceedingly important part of the whole environmentally: sculpins, northern pike minnows, stickleback, catfish, etc, etc. Molluscs are omitted, as are aquatic insects. The benthic organisms on the Fraser bottom, which should include, wherever the salt wedge reaches, marine species of likely a great diversity, are not proposed for study, though they will be sorely affected if the tunnel is removed and especially when the river is massively dredged in consequence.
I will attach my comments to MOT sent earlier, in response to their questionnaire in the Project Definition Report, below.
A key point I make is that the bridge is meant to solve a traffic problem by making it possible for much more traffic than that which confounds us now to flow. Previous massive new bridges and freeway widenings have already fueled an increase in both traffic and suburban sprawl. Each one of these projects has likely caused the percentage of ridership vs. driving cars to decrease. This is why I voted against the transit referendum. Its foundation was entirely insincere. As I understand, the parting Translink director believes the organization should deal with public transit. He is right. All society's efforts should be in this direction: towards making travel on buses and Skytrain ever easier and more desirable, and driving ever less desirable. ICBC should be tied in with this effort. It has the power to affect our driving habits and it's under the control of the same level of government proposing to build this bridge. Any number of schemes could be devised to lure or coerce us onto buses. Plainly, when I leave my vehicle in the driveway and commute by bus ICBC cannot possibly lose money. This is a savings to them, worth a great deal of money to them. And there must be a way to translate this into policy. ICBC won't do it willing, as its empire will diminish. We need to do whatever it takes to succeed. Right now, especially with this inappropriate bridge project, we set out to lose: to render public transit ever less well used. Translink's policies need to change too. Long distance commuters need to be encouraged as much as possible. Instead we penalize them by charging them more for each zone they go through. And the Compass Card system similarly charges you more the further you travel.
The following is my earlier submission to MOT, with very slight changes:

This is a device to spur economic and population growth (p.28 "a stimulus to long-term economic growth") (the forces which have caused the problem), to encourage land development and urban sprawl, to put likely fatal pressure on Delta farmland to succumb a bit at a time; to wipe out the last privately-owned still-forested lots under your mandate to "move people and goods...and grow our provincial economy," to make our part of the world far less liveable and affordable to the detriment of all of us who are already here. Your bridge is designed to exacerbate and accelerate the forces causing the traffic problem. Therefore not building your bridge will lessen those forces. It's welfare for the well-off, especially for the Port, but also developers and land speculators (the highly-touted multiplier effect) who will not put up a cent towards it. You're picking our pockets for them. You claim that this is not about enabling the Port to further industrialize the Fraser with bigger ships is contradicted by your intention to remove part of the tunnel (I'm betting the part ships pass over). If you're honest you won't do it ever (as there is no point by your own arguments (p.32 "not the shallowest point...Steveston Cut...shallower...water pipeline"); and you'll greatly benefit the salmon, eulachon and sturgeon if you do not. It's a plan to fail: to ensure that the declining percentage of ridership on public transit vs. driving will continue to fall lower. It's throwing gasoline on a fire. The solution to the bear problem can never be more honey. Do what you know will actually work, will actually lessen it instead of predicting how much worse this "inevitable" problem of your creation will become, and claiming "I never did nothin'". Plan to succeed instead of fail. Your data belies your case for this bridge (in figure 2 you show that the annual average daily traffic through the tunnel has not changed since its inception). It's not increasing as you disingenuously insinuate! But you've never pointed this out, choosing instead to use combined figures for the Alex Fraser and tunnel. An honest interpretation of this data and your admission that congestion is causing drivers to use the tunnel at off peak hours (surely, objectively, a wonderful thing!), must lead to the conclusion that this alone is a sufficient solution. One of the great advantages / selling points, it seems, in your minds, of this bridge (p27) "commercial vehicles able to schedule their operations more efficiently without needing to avoid congested times of the day," (p.9) "counterflow [is] causing people to shift their travel time" (p.32) "they may change their preferred travel time") is that it will restore massive traffic volumes back to the rush hour where they belong. You're proud of making the problem bigger than it's ever been. And your fib that "there won't be additional cars crossing the Oak Street Bridge because of the new bridge" amid the massive volume increase you will proudly conjure is not remotely credible. This huge and hugely expensive project is foolishly designed and absurdly intended to fix a problem that only occurs for two short periods during 5 of each 7 days. Simply tinker with the pressures that cause rush hours; simply do what is necessary in any number of ways. Get people out of cars. Make commuting seem, through advertizing and incentives, as disgusting as smoking cigarettes is now. License cars so that insurance is cheaper if you're not allowed on the road, or just on bridges or just on bridges with cameras and tolls, during rush hours. Allow us to log on and pay for insurance only for the time we'll be on the road, giving us enormous incentive to not drive except when we must, and especially rendering those 2nd, 3rd, and 4th cars per family mainly just idle, instead of sitting there obligatorily insured if they're on the street or they'll be towed as a very great incentive for everyone in the family to drive mindlessly and needlessly anywhere and everywhere for a pack of cigarettes, a lottery ticket, a quart of milk instead of a gallon. Ban car ads everywhere, but especially on buses, as they cause everything from cancer to horrific manglings. They're pit bulls. They're mass murderers. Portray them as this; as they are. Make public transit fun, and desirable, really efficient and very frequent. And make it run 24 hours a day!! Get freight back on the water; this is a port; back on rails, and get it on the road -- if it must be on the road -- before and after rush hour. We are capable and we are rich. We can fix anything. We did ourselves proud during war. We can focus and succeed. Instead we numbly allow "market forces," in other words uncontrolled chaos, to dictate our actions as if they were God. As with the SFPR project I take great exception to your certainty that the project (figure 1) and (p.31) "will begin in 2017." It's highly disrespectful of the EAO (their conclusions would seem, in your minds, to be written before their process begins) and of all of us whom you are supposedly consulting. You're not consulting, you're instructing and misleading us. You're spinning. You're saying to us and them, very nicely of course (it was an exceedingly pleasant process), effectively "You are completely powerless, democracy-be-damned. We'll do what we please and there is nothing you can do about it." It's entirely undemocratic and driven largely by the equally entirely undemocratic powerful and influential force that needs to be put back under public control, Port Metro Vancouver. It is inappropriate to claim environmental (green) benefits from such a brown project. Your extra transit and HOV lanes will likely morph into regular ones as volume increases. Growth is a cancer that should end worldwide, especially population growth, which we can easily curb here, by controlling immigration to keep our population constant. If by any of a number of means, such as radically reducing the rate of immigration, property values here were made by sensible and deliberate policy (so that we could afford to live here if nothing else) to stagnate or decline, this bridge would never, ever be necessary, and we could start restoring poorly developed land to park and nature to undo the great harm caused by the chaotic forces that drive us; instead of us more properly, again in a democracy, driving them; ideally into oblivion. The mandate to promote economic and population growth should be stripped from you, Port Metro Vancouver, and Metro Vancouver.

2016-02-16 00:25:26
AlexanderCameronRichmondBritish Columbia

This bridge seems like a unnecessarily expensive replacement that will keeps more cars on the road and encourage traffic build up over the next few years, negating it's improvement, when our transit system would benefit from this money so much more and the economic impact for the region would be hugely beneficial for years to come. More so than improving the import ability of the Fraser river.

I believe retrofitting the bridge would be more than enough to keep it in shape and leave our public infrastructure funding to go towards more impactful in terms of not only the environment but economy and quality of life too.

2016-02-16 00:26:25
beatedenzsalt spring islandBritish Columbia

Dear Sirs:

It appears that industry trumps the environmental issues
of the Fraser river.....we should be minimizing traffic and perhaps
build a 'floating' bridge....something less permanent.

The predicted cost for a new bridge is too much and could be
used to do the same as the Netherlands...rebuild the tunnel.

While the river needs to be crossed and roads need to be build, shouldn't we look to more public transit and spend money in this areas?

Sincerely, Beate Denz

2016-02-16 01:03:33
beatedenzsalt spring islandBritish Columbia

Dear Sirs:

It appears that industry trumps the environmental issues
of the Fraser river.....we should be minimizing traffic and perhaps
build a 'floating' bridge....something less permanent.

The predicted cost for a new bridge is too much and could be
used to do the same as the Netherlands...rebuild the tunnel.

While the river needs to be crossed and roads need to be build, shouldn't we look to more public transit and spend money in this areas?

Sincerely, Beate Denz

2016-02-16 01:03:38
RosalindSadowskiNew WestminsterBritish Columbia

Do we really need a bridge? We could retrofit the tunnel for a much lower cost and use the cost savings to finance other essential projects, like public transit in the region. Building bridges has not been shown to stem congestion and this bridge seems like a poor choice to foster smart growth in the region. It could also encourage the industrialization of farmland, which poses a real risk to one of the region's most important natural assets. Even if this bridge is built, it will benefit the Port and coal exporters, not Metro residents. Taking out the tunnel will allow for a substantial increase in coal tanker traffic; how will the region mitigate the associated risks? I do not feel comfortable with the prospect of increased fossil fuel exports through this region, both for the climate and ecosystem impacts. Finally, if it is the Port and coal companies that stand to profit from this decision, they should finance the majority of this bridge. In sum, this bridge does not serve the general public interest.

2016-02-16 05:24:12
NicoleMastLangleyBritish Columbia

I think this planned 10 lane bridge will be terrible for the region. A 10 lane bridge is completely unnecessary. Our region should be focused on improving transit options and getting people out of their cars. Twin the tunnel and improve transit out to South Surrey!

2016-02-16 09:04:19
AnthonyFawcettNew WestminsterBritish Columbia

We do not want further development on the Fraser River that will cause pollution and allow transportation of ecologically dangerous natural gas and other fuels. We urgently need to find ways to preserve our environment, NOT to engage in a race to the bottom.

2016-02-16 10:20:01
LynnChenVancouverBritish Columbia

I love the Fraser River. Don't want to see it get destroy. Why can we upgrade the tunnel instead of building the new one?
This environment has already be damage by bad decision-making. Can we please just make it right for once??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

2016-02-16 20:48:33
LynnChenVancouverBritish Columbia

I love the Fraser River. Don't want to see it get destroy. Why can we upgrade the tunnel instead of building the new one?
This environment has already be damage by bad decision-making. Can we please just make it right for once??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

2016-02-16 20:48:40
LynnChenVancouverBritish Columbia

I love the Fraser River. Don't want to see it get destroy. Why can we upgrade the tunnel instead of building the new one?
This environment has already be damage by bad decision-making. Can we please just make it right for once??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

2016-02-16 20:48:44
D LynnChapmanRoberts CreekBritish Columbia

This project should be subject to a Federal review and be subject to a full environmental assessment by both Federal and provincial bodies. Any review and assessment process must include biodiversity loss, cumulative impacts of all uses of the Fraser River, a fisheries impact assessment, a full climate impact assessment, a thorough and independent financial and economic analysis including an assessment of need for and justification.
In my view the case has not been made for a tunnel replacement by a bridge and it is clear the intention is to allow for further industrialization of the Fraser River. The risks and costs are not justified.

2016-02-16 21:19:29
chelseamcdonaldvancouverBritish Columbia

This seems like a needless project that is expensive and will have repercussions on the surrounding environment as well as add yet another toll bridge between vancouver and the surrounding areas making an already expensive commute all that much more expensive.

2016-02-16 22:39:26
judithhartmanvancouverBritish Columbia

Too expensive, for the benefit of too few!

2016-02-17 14:19:27
judithhartmanvancouverBritish Columbia

Too expensive, for the benefit of too few!

2016-02-17 14:19:36
BrianWilmsRichmondBritish Columbia

What alternatives are being placed before the public to determine if a new bridge is the best option or if there are other, better options?

2016-03-10 14:02:11
BrianPowellLadnerBritish Columbia

A ten-lane bridge is only a temporary solution. It will encourage growth south of the river (as did the original tunnel) until one day the new bridge will be just as congested as the tunnel is now. The solution is to get commuters out of the their cars with better rapid transit, which is currently pretty sad in South Delta. It takes two, maybe three times longer on a bus than in a car to get to parts of Richmond or Vancouver. Instead of a $3.5 billion bridge, spend that money on extending the Canada Line to South Delta and extending the Expo line to South Surrey. Put in Skytrain/pedestrian/bicycle bridges that have a much smaller environmental footprint than the proposed behemoth.

2016-03-10 15:49:18
GeorgePopeRichmondBritish Columbia

The Fraser River estuary is far too important to risk with such an undertaking.

2016-03-16 18:46:04
ReuspusuarkReuspusuarkIAAqtobeConnecticut

http://misconjecture.xyz norsk kasino http://misconjecture.xyz - norsk kasino

2017-04-23 15:44:53
RonaldMefRonaldMefJFKralupy Nad VltavouWyoming

viagrasansordonnancefr.com viagrasansordonnancefr

2017-05-13 11:07:09