First NameLast NameCityMy Comment to the Federal Environment MinisterProvince/StateEntry Date
DeirdreWhalenRichmond

We do not need a bridge at the Massey Crossing, from Delta to Richmond. We cannot build our way out of congestion. A 10 lane bridge will only move congestion up to the Oak Street Bridge from Richmond to Vancouver. A new high level bridge will totally industrialize the Fraser River and allow large panamax tankers to offload and pick up jet fuel and LNG. The Fraser River had the largest salmon run in the world. The river estuary is the biggest stop-over for waterbirds on the Pacific Flyway. Building a bridge and industrializing the Fraser River will destroy the salmon run, the Pacific salmon fishing industry and the estuary web of life that we all depend on. Do not allow the Port of Vancouver to push government into building a bridge!

British Columbia2016-05-01 09:50:09
GaryBlidookKelowna

Dear Minister
It is time that Canada actually had some democracy (please read a definition). A huge bridge to replace the George Massey tunnel will be a hug mistake. Please let the public have a say in this disaster.
Gary Blidook
citizenbaseddemocracy.com

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:09:00
allancrawshawvictoria

•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?
•There will be a negative impact on a new bridge regarding traffic and urban development.
•Impact on a new bridge regarding fossil fuel exports on the Fraser River is clearly too dangerous.
•This project warrants a Federal review and not an assessment by the proponent itself.

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:12:41
EdidePencierSurrey

No more projects must be undertaken without proper environmental studies. Past practice has been to write off the environment and wildlife impacts as a cost of doing business. This is no longer feasible. It has gone on too long and the cost to us in terms of dollars, health and safety are too high.

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:14:53
KellyMcConnellPender Island

I'm concerned that reason for replacing the Massey tunnel with a (very expensive) bridge is primarily to allow for a massive increase in fossil fuel exports, with the attendant increases in large ship traffic. There will be VERY little, if any benefit to the citizens of BC and yet we will doubtless be asked to pay for the majority of it.

I want CLEAN air and water. In order to achieve those goals we MUST dial back our fossil fuel use and this bridge commits us to exactly the opposite. It matters not that those fossil fuels, exported elsewhere will also be burned elsewhere, it contributes to the damage to our planet as a whole and greatly increases the risk of a catastrophic environmental disaster right here on the coast of BC.

We the people of British Columbia are intimately tied to and dependent upon our beloved Salish Sea, PLEASE protect and preserve OUR coast, our way of life. Don't sacrifice everything we hold dear to the greedy rich.

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:20:29
BruceBatchelorVictoria

We need to exit the fossil file burning infrastructure building era. There are wiser ways to reduce commute times and distances.

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:27:30
DianneMcPhersonSurrey

Dear Honourable Minister McKenna,
I am writing this letter today, to let you know that I oppose a new bridge being built to replace the existing George Massey tunnel. I believe that this tunnel could be upgraded which would be far less costly than building a new bridge. Most importantly, I do not wish to have a transportation corridor built for the transportation of fossil fuels! It is my understanding that the City of Richmond opposes the building of the bridge.

I respectfully request that our Federal Government appoint a Federal Environmental Review Panel to complete an Environmental Assessment for this unnecessary proposal.

As a taxpaying Canadian I am against this completely unnecessary expenditure.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and consider my request, and for your work on behalf of all Canadians.

Respectfully Yours,
Dianne McPherson

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:33:12
G. BarryStewartChilliwack

Mr. McKenna,

I wish to tell you that I am opposed to the BC Liberals' proposal of a 10-lane bridge, to replace the current 4-lane Massey Tunnel.

It is yet another over-priced, overbuilt, money-losing megaproject that is becoming a signature of the current government.

They overspent by at least $2 billion at Port Mann and now want to spend $3.5 billion at the Massey Tunnel, when the Patullo Bridge in New Westminster is in dire need of replacement.

More prudent decision-making is needed. Please send them back to the drawing board.

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:37:44
MarcBeaulieuSurrey

Please do not proceed with this!!! Look after the environment first,this will impact all surrounding areas. It will also just move the problem north on Hwy 99...

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:53:49
nadeanetrowerichmond

The Massey Bridge should not be built in my view because of its negative implications for the Fraser River itself, the surrounding farm land, and the whole ecosystem depending on the Fraser River. But my word is of course not enough. I therefore want to add my voice to those asking for a federal environmental review. Please review this wrong headed project! and only a couple of years ago the Massey Tunnel was refurbished. A refit of the tunnel would be great, not cost billions and be kind to the environment. thank you

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:56:34
DavidWaterhouseVictoria

Good day Minister McKenna,
We have an ongoing problem with our BC government. For a considerable length of time now they have taken a pass on any cost/benefit analysis pertaining to public works and infrastructure. When a light is shone on the decision the usual reason found is because corporate interests are manipulating their strings in the back round. Please insist on an environmental review. We need your oversight.

I'm sure you've heard of the Site C dam. It provides a case in point. In the past our democratic component, the BCUC always participated in hearings that had a direct impact on the BC taxpayer. They provided a fail safe linkage. In the case of the Site C dam they had studied its' merits in the past and rightfully turned it down. This time they were not allowed to participate in the hearings. I wonder why! Yes, please help BC make a democratic decision on the Massey Bridge.

Kind regards,

David Waterhouse

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:57:14
SusanGibsonWhite Rock

Too many unanswered questions, not enough info for public input, or discussion. This all should have been started years ago, with comprehensive studies & huge public input gathered & fairly considered, before another boondoggle proceeds. But because I don't smoke pot, maybe I just missed it all......

SPGibson

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:57:32
KateVincentVancouver

Please, we need to stop wasting our tax dollars on more car infrastructure. It's crazy what we are doing to our land! Soon we will need to sustain ourselves on this land. What we need is more and better transit. The times they are a'changin' and we need to get with them.

We definitely need a Federal environmental assessment on this new crossing of the Fraser River. Please step in.

British Columbia2016-05-01 15:59:50
DonBarthelVancouver

Vancouver needs transit not more cars. $3.5B would build a lot of transit.

British Columbia2016-05-01 16:00:20
AndrewLoveridgeGaliano

Building a new Fraser Bridge will cost a lot of money which is urgently needed for other things, and it will clog downtown streets with too many cars. The existing tunnel is a useful restriction whic srves basic needs well.

As Richmond becomes more residential, industrial uses will move to the lower mainland eg Langley, so large road connections will not be necessary.

Ultimately, skytrain connections to Tsawwassen will mean people can leave their cars when the get on the ferry, saving the expense of a car ticket and relieving ferry congestion.

British Columbia2016-05-01 16:02:26
DerekWilliamsRichmond

Dear Minister,
As a resident of Richmond I am very concerned about the new bridge that is being pushed forward without full environmental assessments being carried out.
As with many of Christy Clarks projects, big business are her main objectives to please. The almighty dollar rules over common sense, job creation looks good on her CV and to hell with the planet.
Enough already, we need to stop this massive push to give away our land, our rivers and our air, just to be able to deliver fossil fuels.
We have been told that the tunnel is unsafe and needs to be replaced......I don't think so, I believe it may need some upgrades, but not replacing.
I do not know of a city anywhere in the world that can solve the traffic congestion problems you building more roads.
Drivers will always take the easy route, the fact that the tunnel causes traffic jambs should be a wake up call to provide alternatives.
Public transit, should be the first thing to be built.
Driving should be made to be the last mode not the first.
Alternative and sustainable energy, not fossil fuel needs to be brought into main stream.
Leave the coal, gas, and oil in the ground as much as possible, do not spend billions of dollars to enable further exploitation .
I ride a bike for my main mode of transit and would love to just be able to ride over the river, but looking at the big picture and not being selfish as many people are, please put a stop to this very one sided act.
Please no new bridge.

British Columbia2016-05-01 16:05:26
GlendaBartoshVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna

I voted Liberal last election for thousands of reasons. One of the biggest was to get Canada back to science-based and environmentally considered decision-making.

Replacing the Massey Tunnel in Metro Vancouver with a multi-lane bridge is neither.

Please do a proper environmental assessment of this project and help stop it before it goes any further.

British Columbia2016-05-01 16:05:31
AlisonTherriaultVancouver

This project is major enough to warrant a full environmental assessment.

British Columbia2016-05-01 16:07:27
JamesFrenchSeattle

We are dealing with the same pressure by Big Oil and Big Coal to build similar terminals in Washington State. We are all in this together. As we say and urge you to do:
KEEP IT IN THE GROUND!

Washington2016-05-01 16:09:39
EricBillsHalfmoon Bay

Dear Ms. McKenna,

The B.C. government intends to replace the Massey Tunnel with a big, expensive bridge. I have serous doubts that this in the best interest of British Columbians and Canadians alike. It is not clear if this bridge is the best option to replacing the tunnel and what harm it will cause the environment. There should be a full environmental and economic assessment of the project before it is allowed to proceed. Your government ran on promises to make sure such projects are in the best interest of the environment and the people of Canada and I sure hope you back up all the election speech with action and make the B.C. government pause the project until a full environmental and economic assessment of the project can be done that looks at all of the impact the bridge will have on the river and all of the surroundings as Christy Clark and her crew want to open up dredge the Fraser River to allow more tanker traffic through it.

Please don't let the Canadian public down on this!

Thank you.

British Columbia2016-05-01 16:33:15
WilliamSchussSurrey

I was born on the land now known as Richmond.I have seen a beautiful farming community turned into a bedroom community of Vancouver totally destroying a farming delta which was a food producing asset. In my life I have never understood the wanten need to continuing to destroy further land by a massive bridge, which will further encroach on this land when just twinning the existing tunnel will suffice . The traffic passing over this bridge will then back up at the next crossing on the North Arm of the Fraser River. I also understand Coal is in the need to dredge the river and the present tunnel is in the way of deep draught ships. I believe this new bridge is being presented to assist foreign owned ships to transport American dirty coal at our expense.Also Light rapid rail in the old upgraded tunnel along with the new would suffice the volume population needs. Thank you

British Columbia2016-05-01 16:39:17
mei linyeoelllangley

Replacing instead of twinning the Massey Tunnel with the proposed bridge will have long term, inevitable, negative impacts on the Lower Mainland of BC , in particular on our ability to keep farmland out of the hands of Industrial, Commercial, and Housing Developers. It will commit this region and this Province to " more of the same" path, a path which has contributed to pollution of all the systems needed to keep this planet Earth, healthy and habitable. The drive to create a monster bridge is at least in part, an effort on the part of BC's Premier to force her ambitions for Fracking and LNG, ambitions shared by less than 50% of BC residents.

You were elected on a promise to protect both Canada and the World against increasing GHG emissions and the polluting of our land and waters. Please do it. And do it now. There is so little time left to keep Global Warming below 1.5 degrees.

British Columbia2016-05-01 16:43:17
GordonMillerVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,

Please heed the concerns of the local councils and hundreds of concerned citizens who are opposed to the building of this very expensive and unnecessary bridge. An environmental assessment
is an absolute necessity.

Sincerely,
Gordon Miller

British Columbia2016-05-01 16:52:25
harveyostroffsurrey

I don't support replacing the massey tunnel with a new crossing bridge which is only for fuel transportation. it doesn't help traffic as once you cross the bridge/tunnel you are once again in 2 lanes of traffic with incoming traffic from entrances and the oak st. bridge

British Columbia2016-05-01 16:59:39
PaulChristensenPrince George

Does the BC Liberal party have a long term plan eg 50+ yrs? Does this fit into that plan?Will this bridge help attain the goals set under the Paris agreement? Is this a well thought out project? My thoughts I doubt it

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:05:15
DianeManuelVancouver

I vote NO TO REPLACEMENT OF GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL as it is unnecessary and a waste of tax payers money. We're hearing there's no money for the homeless and then suddenly 3.5 billion pops out of no-where. I vote for using those funds to install charging stations for electric cars, we need alot more.
Sincerely,
Diane Manuel

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:05:28
TimMathesonVancouver

The motivation for the Massey Bridge may have started with replacing he aging tunnel, but the design and scale of the present proposal seems to more about capitalism than the needs of the citizens and the environment.
No rubber stamp on a project so damaging, stop and reasses the needs outside of the economic drivers and the short term goals.

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:14:50
Julie-AnneLe GrasNorth Vancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,
I, like many other Lower mainlander citizens and local governments, am in total opposition to the outrageous plan of building a new bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel.
The so-called Liberals here in BC, who act like Conservatives, are known for high-handed decisions without proper consultation. They are toadies to Big Business, and have little or no respect for environmental damage when this is not to their advantage. Farmland in the Fraser Delta is precious - to lose more is irresponsible. But Premier Christy Clark does what she wants, as long as it suits her agenda.
To my knowledge, no alternatives to a new bridge have been presented to those affected. I wonder if they even have been explored. I am of Dutch origin - I know that in The Netherlands, a huge tunnel is being upgraded for a fraction of the cost of a new bridge!
I also wonder if tax payers are supposed to pay for this bridge, especially when this bridge is not planned for our convenience but rather to facilitate transport of fossil fuels.
Our delta is vulnerable, beautiful, and important. To say the least, we need the federal government to implement a Federal Environmental Assessment. I have more trust in the feds than in the self-serving neo-Libs here, and their BC environmental assessment office.
Thank you,
Julie-Anne Le Gras

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:14:56
HilarieMcMurrayRichmond

I support the Metro Vancouver request for a Federal Environmental Assessment. The Fraser River is a priceless ecosystem. Please make sure it is protected.

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:20:23
ChavahAvrahamVancouver

Replacing the tunnel is completely unnecessary and far too expensive. It will be less expensive to repair the existing tunnel. The hidden agenda of those who desire a bridge is repugnant. We should do everything we can to thwart fossil fuel, not support it by easing the passage of tankers.

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:24:17
JackLitwinowichRichmond

I support the call for a Federal Environmental Assessment of the proposed Massey Bridge. I was born in Steveston and have been fishing for salmon in the Fraser and along our coast for over 50 years. Please protect our River and improve the environment with better public transit not mega bridges.

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:30:50
SusanJonesDelta

Please use your powers as Minister of Environment and Climate Change to require a Review Panel Environmental Assessment of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. You have the authority and responsibility under the Environmental Assessment Act.

As the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project includes the removal of the tunnel, federal permits will be required under the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Species at Risk Act. Under the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper, these permits were provided under Screening Assessments after Project approval. The new Liberal Government promised to change this inappropriate, destructive process. With restoration, this Project would also be subject to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

It is surprising that your bureaucrats have not advised you of the responsibility to call for a federal environmental assessment of this Project. Once it has been pronounced that there is a need for a federal environmental assessment, within 60 days you may refer the Project to a Review Panel Process. As the far-reaching environmental impacts of this massive bridge will alter the Fraser River Delta ecosystem forever, nothing less is acceptable

Please do not provide funding to support the Government of British Columbia's agenda for an over-sized, over-priced bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel. The BC Government has failed to provide the public with accurate information. The claim by the B.C. Government of strong public support is simply not true. To the contrary, the public input process has been vague and contrived. The B.C. Government and Gateway friends held meetings with vested interests and presented these meetings as support from the general public.

The original plan to twin the tunnel disappeared without due process. Alternate options have not been explored such as a more moderate bridge and better transit.

Meetings by the B.C. Government with the Port of Vancouver, federal government, Gateway proponents. and vested interests to plan the very high bridge were not documented. If they were, they were not released under Freedom of Information requests.

Information from Freedom of Information from the Port of Vancouver revealed meetings with the Port of Vancouver, the federal government, Gateway proponents, and other vested interests from 2012-2014. A reading of these document leaves no doubt that the Port of Vancouver and vested associates want the tunnel removed and a very tall bridge to facilitate supertankers and Aframax freighters carrying jet fuel and LNG in the Fraser River for the first time in history.

This agenda would require extensive dredging of the Fraser delta and estuary which would forever destroy internationally-significant habitat for salmon, eulachon, Canada’s Most Important Bird Area and endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales.

To ignore this information and to govern without the promised restoration and reinforcement of environmental protection is betrayal of the public trust. It sends a signal of support for the policies and laws of the Conservative Government under Stephen Harper. It sends a signal that the lobbyists are swaying the new Liberal Government and the same bureaucrats are advising the new Members of Parliament to support industrialization of the South Arm of the Fraser River without due process, without credible environmental assessments and without valid business justification.

It is not difficult for the new Liberal Government to step up to the plate. Under the Omnibus Bills (2012-2104) the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper, with one action, effectively trashed laws, regulations and policies that had taken decades to establish. The new Liberal Government was elected on promises to:

• “…restore lost protections, and incorporate more modern safeguards…”
• “…ensure that decisions are based on science, facts and evidence, and serve the public interest”
• “…do more to protect Canada’s endangered species…”
• “…we will use scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, and take into account climate change when making decisions affecting fish stocks and ecosystem management.”

Due to the trashing of environmental protection under the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper, four Gateway Projects on the Fraser River Delta were completed without due process or credible environmental assessments resulting in significant loss of habitat in the Fraser River Delta. Now five more are in the works:

• Roberts Bank Terminal 2
• George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project
• WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project
• Direct Transfer Coal Facility at Fraser Surrey Docks
• Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project

Numerous documented concerns about the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project and the Coal Export are not being addressed as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) is allowing the Port of Vancouver (the Proponent) to claim the port is not accountable beyond the project footprint. Despite legal submissions advising that this contravenes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2012), CEAA supports a disclaimer in the Terms of Reference stating the effects of the Project on marine shipping are not environmental effects of the Project and will not be included in the Minister of Transport’s decision on the Project.

As a result, no one is responsible for ships on the Fraser and in the shipping lanes to the Pacific. The Port of Vancouver has all kinds of powers but is accountable only to Project footprints. How can this outrageous practice be allowed?

The new Liberal Government cannot afford to drag its heels on protection of the Lower Fraser Delta. The Canadian Government has the authority to terminate the federal projects, Roberts Bank Terminal 2; Airport Jet Fuel; and Coal export from Surrey Docks as Transport Canada is the proponent of these projects using public assets. The LNG export project on the Fraser needs to be terminated due to public safety and threats to the Fraser River ecosystem.

The George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project is to facilitate these projects with supertankers and Aframax freighters on the Fraser River for the first time in history

As shipping lanes on the Fraser and through the Gulf Islands are narrow, appropriate hazard zones are not possible to provide safety of the public, salmon, migratory birds and orcas. If it is made clear that these vessels will not be permitted on the Fraser River and estuary, then the over-priced, over-sized bridge will not be necessary, making way for practical alternatives to address traffic congestion.

The former Conservative Government, under Stephen Harper, dismantled Canada’s protective environmental legislation and inappropriately authorized federal authority to the Port of Vancouver. This contravenes the principle of nondelegation which directs that a branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself.

Please act now:
• restore and strengthen Canadian legislation
• terminate the mandate of the Port of Vancouver and ensure federal accountability
• declare a Review Panel Environmental Assessment of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement
• place a moratorium on the mega projects in the Fraser River delta/estuary
• initiate a cumulative environmental effects assessment of port, industrial and land developments in the Fraser River delta/estuary as required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
• develop a plan and legislation to protect the health of the Fraser River delta in perpetuity

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:39:55
SueLeylandLangley

I have many concerns about the Massey Tunnel replacement and ask you to order a Federal Environmental Assessment of this proposal.

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:47:41
GlenMcGarrigleDelta

The decision to replace the Massey Tunnel with a new "mega bridge" is the kind of thinking that made me vote against the transportation plebiscite last year. At that time I wasn't opposed to giving extra money to the government for transportation upgrades but I knew that if we voted for this new tax the money would not be spent wisely. This Massey Tunnel replacement is proof of that. Why would we destroy 4 perfectly good lanes across the river and then have to replace them with new ones? I know that we need more vehicle capacity across the river but the smart decision would be to leave the tunnel as is and put in a new bridge at a different location. The best location would be somewhere between the Alex Fraser Bridge and the Massey Tunnel. It would be very easy to make the new bridge from Tilbury Island on the South and join up to either No 8 Rd or Nelson Rd on the North. This would give very good access for trucks in and out of the Tilbury Industrial Park and good access for all traffic to connect Hwy 17 (east or west) to Hwy 91 (east or west). We all know that bridges cause congestion especially if there is any traffic problem (accident etc). Even traffic in the opposite direction is slowed when there is an accident on a bridge because of the people slowing down to "have a look". If the Massey Tunnel stayed as is and the new bridge went in elsewhere, then problems on the bridge wouldn't affect the tunnel and vise versa. It would also be a lot less expensive to build anew 6 lane bridge, with the tunnel and bridge together making ten lanes, than a new ten lane bridge. Please reconsider this insane waste of money and find a way to spend my tax dollars wisely.

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:47:49
AmyChuVancouver

The proposal for a new bridge to replace the tunnel is ludicrous! Our family is completely opposed to a new bridge!

There is no need, fix the old tunnel, get a skytrain out there. When you add light rail transit, you take polluting cars OFF the road! When you create an monstrisity of a bridge, you only create crippling debt and more pollution to our dying planet.

NO to the new Massey bridge, absolutely NO!

Amy Chu and family

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:51:44
SusannaKaljurCourtenay

Dear elected decision makers,
As a former resident of Vancouver and someone who frequently commutes to Vancouver from Vancouver Island I am very concerned about the proposed Massey Bridge.

A project of this size and cost in a sensitive habitat as the Fraser River delta MUST include an independent Federal Environmental Assessment. This project should include a Federal review and not just an assessment by the proponent.
There are other ways to improve/retrofit the tunnel such as the Netherlands Maastunnel, which is a far less expensive option than building a bridge. I am concerned that a bridge will lock us into expanding fossil fuel exports which is contrary to COP21 agreement which Canada recently signed.
We have limited funds for improving infrastructure and climate change implications and outcomes of any new projects must be part of the conversation. On this basis alone a federal environmental assessment is warranted.
The BC government says that the the bridge is being built to benefit commuters, but the Port and industrial users of the Fraser River are clearly going to benefit if this project goes ahead. They should have to pay for a big portion of the cost of this bridge. Here are some ideas on how that could happen:
At the very least every container that passes over the bridge going to or from DeltaPort should be charged a transportation improvement fee. Vancouver International Airport collects improvement fees for new infrastructure, and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority has done the same for Gateway Infrastructure. The Port should collect a fee for container traffic use of the new bridge and hand it over to the province.Every tonne of coal, LNG or jet fuel that passes under the proposed new bridge should be charged a similar transportation improvement fee — collected by the Port, and handed over to the province.
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, migratory birds 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.
Please reconsider the scope and merits of a proposed 10 lane bridge and its impact on climate change by conducting a comprehensive Federal Environmental Assessment.
Sincerely,
Susanna Kaljur

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:52:38
AshleyZarbatanyWhaletown

I am writing because I am in opposition to the BC government's plan to replace the Massey tunnel with a $3.5 billion bridge which is ultimately against the interests of taxpayers, citizens, and area residents. I call on you to order a federal environmental review panel of the proposal and listen to the local politicians who are voicing public opposition to the project.

Hundreds of people have already voiced their concerns about the project to the BC Environmental Assessment Office, yet our provincial government has failed to listen to our voices. Since then, local governments have stated their opposition to the building of the bridge, especially the city of Richmond and Metro Vancouver who will be directly impacted by it.

We the citizens would like to know whether the tunnel actually needs replacing and what other options are there? We find it difficult to believe that a $3.5 billion bridge is the best option when the Netherlands recently upgraded the Maastunnel, a tunnel similar in form to ours, for a mere 262 million euros.

We the citizens do not believe that taxpayers or residential commuters should pay for this project when the main forces to profit off of the bridge would be industrial users of the Fraser River. It is not fair to taxpayers to make us foot the bill for industry.

Furthermore, in light of climate change and the need to consider the impact of projects such as this on our environment, we do not believe that building a bridge to allow further industrial usage of the Fraser River is a wise decision. If we allow industrial expansion on the Fraser River, we will not increase fossil fuel exports but we will further endanger the sensitive ecosystems on the Fraser watershed: a watershed that is home to the largest pacific salmon run on the west coast.

This project warrants a Federal review and not an assessment by the project's proponent itself. It is absurdly expensive, unfair, and ecologically unsound. Listen to the citizens and our local representatives, and halt this project from going forth.

British Columbia2016-05-01 17:57:00
ColinBranderVancouver

The bridge is oversized and not needed and will only add to greenhouse gas emissions. A full environmental assessment should take place to look at the overall impact and taking into account any environmental costs of removing the existing tunnel and any proposed dredging on fish habitat.

British Columbia2016-05-01 18:18:20
FionaOldWhite Rock

Dear Minister McKenna,

The plan for the building of such an enormous, and expensive bridge, replacing the George Massey Tunnel, which will encourage more traffic and not decrease or contain traffic volume, is a idea to benefit financially a small number of people, e.g. LNG big tanker supporters, and not the vast majority of citizens south of the tunnel, in Richmond or in Vancouver.

The plan flies in the face of Canada's attempts to slow global warming. It will increase air pollution which is bad enough at this population level. We have yellow skies in Metro now. Are we trying to encourage more use of cars only to have to rotate car usage in families later to control air pollution such as in Caracas Venezuela?

A better plan is possible.

Sincerely,

Fiona Old
White Rock, BC V4B4X4

British Columbia2016-05-01 18:31:51
EvelynWedleyDelta

I attended the meeting in North Vancouver a few weeks ago and was impressed by your sincerity. You have a major task to accomplish. In my view, the Massey Tunnel replacement project has been cloaked in mystery from the beginning. It is becoming clearer as we go along that it is only part of a master plan, starting at the Site C dam, which will destroy some prime country in Northern BC. This dam is being built to provide electricity for the fracking wells, to produce LNG, which have their own environmental and safety issues. The LNG then has to be piped through BC to a proposed expansion of the plant at Tilbury, also highly opposed. Combine that with the proposed expansion of the Fraser Surrey docks to ship dirty coal to China and we see the plan.

The Provincial Government approved the replacement of the tunnel and posted signs along Highway 99 touting that the bridge construction would begin in 2017. Where was the due diligence at that time? My understanding is that the Metro Vancouver transit plan has never recognized the need, but recommended expansion of light rapid transit. It does not appear that the government of BC has any desire to protect the environment surrounding the Fraser River Estuary, parts of which are recognized internationally as important sites to be protected.

A full review of all the potentially damaging projects is needed by someone outside BC. The bridge is not meant to alleviate traffic congestion and will result in more pollution and damage to the surrounding area. The sole reason to remove the tunnel is so big ships can come up the river to the new plants, seriously affecting the Fraser River in the long term.

I sincerely hope you will approve a full Environmental Assessment of not only the bridge replacement but all the other projects being proposed that will affect the local environment in a detrimental way.

British Columbia2016-05-01 19:21:53
cgsan diego

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?
Shouldn’t this project warrant a Federal review and not an assessment by the proponent itself?

California2016-05-01 19:27:05
MichaelEnglishVancouver

I do not understand why the BC provincial government wants to build a new 10 lane bridge to replace the George Massey tunnel. There must be less expensive options and why do we need 10 lanes? I do not think we want to encourage more people to drive and if more did drive the current bridges from Richmond going north are not adequate to support any major increase. A second tunnel with two or three lanes to supplement the current tunnel would seem to be a better option.

I have a further concern that increasing traffic capacity would also encourage further conversion of farmland south of the Fraser River for housing. I believe we need to keep this land as farmland. With climate change, I believe this farmland is going to be increasingly important in supplying Canada's food needs and should not be lost to housing.

I urge you, as Environment Minister, to insist on a Federal Environmental Assessment of this BC government proposal.

Yours truly,
Michael English

British Columbia2016-05-01 19:51:34
ISaramaGibsons

There is no valid reason to destroy a perfectly good transportation link, like the Massey Tunnel. This is all about port expansion and exporting coal and LNG. This is about expanding harmful carbon emissions and destroying even more farmland that is vitally needed for the future.

Please don't allow this.

British Columbia2016-05-01 19:52:32
RosemaryCornellVancouver

I would like to see a federal assessment of a bridge replacement of the Massey Tunnel. This project is being pushed by the BC gov't without sufficient public input. The reasons for the bridge replacement are not being honestly presented. One fears that the reason for the bridge is to dredge the Fraser to make way for huge ships transporting coal and what else? It is a very expensive project and the economics of various should be vetted by experts in a public process. Obviously Climate impacts of this project or alternatives should be compared.

British Columbia2016-05-01 20:05:17
DOUGMCFEELANGLEY

Obviously a project of this magnitude requires an unbiased environmental assessment.

British Columbia2016-05-01 20:12:18
JudithMcphieVancouver

The proposed British Columbia bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel is a mistake and contrary to the promises on climate change your government has made and the environmental standards you say you will enforce.

Building a multillanes bridge connectitng a four lane highway is ridiculous. Obviously the next step would be to widen the highway, the whole concept in complete opposition to a reduction in single driver transportation.

The main reason for this bridge is also a violation of your governments pledge to reduce our carbon footprint. The bridge is needed to allow the transport of coal up the Fraser River. This is Neanderthal thinking and needs to be discouraged.

Please do not approve this retrograde project.

British Columbia2016-05-01 20:35:05
ROZIsaac North Vancouver

I would like to see this project undergo a Federal review and a full environmental assessment and not an assessment by the proponent itself.

Thank you for your consideration.

British Columbia2016-05-01 20:36:40
MichaelCoatesVancouver

The tunnels do not need to be replaced especially at such an exorbitant cost. I am sure it would be more cost effective to retrofit the existing tunnels to modern standards and add a tunnel. A much less expensive option. It appears that the real push to remove the tunnels is that they impede large ocean going cargo ships and tankers from going up the Fraser river. If that is the case than the tunnels should definitely stay and be added to as more lanes are required. It is more cost effective. Regardless this is the Fraser river, a very important river not just for salmon but sturgeon and many other species of fish as well. The Fraser estuary is also very important to migratory birds and other wildlife. Tanker and cargo ship traffic on the Fraser would be very disruptive to all of the ecosystem that the lower Fraser river supports. For this reason we need an environmental assessment to determine the effect on the surrounding ecology and the Fraser ecology itself.
Sincerely;
Michael Coates

British Columbia2016-05-01 20:49:47
RobertaOlenickVancouver

Please conduct a thorough federal environmental assessment of the proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel with a bridge in B.C.'s Lower Mainland.

Retrofitting of a similar bridge in the Netherlands indicates that not all options have been explored for the Massey Tunnel. A tunnel upgrade would be cheaper than a bridge, leaving funds available for important things like public transit.

Of huge concern to me is what the bridge would mean for increased fossil fuel exports. The tunnel has served as a control on industrialization of the Lower Fraser River. Such control is crucial for the Fraser ecosystem and its salmon runs. A bridge would allow large freighters carrying coal, LNG and other fossil fuels access to the Lower Fraser. Not only is that counter to the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it threatens salmon, endangered orcas, the many shorebirds that rely on the Fraser Delta during their migration and other wildlife of many types.

A bridge will also encourage industrial development of and residential expansion into critical farmland in Richmond and Delta. These lands are important for food security. Development of these lands will lead to increased traffic congestion so the bridge will merely relocate rather than solve than issue.

These are many other impacts of the bridge proposal on the Lower Mainland's human population, fragile ecosystems and agricultural production should all be examined as part of a federal review.

British Columbia2016-05-01 21:09:38
TonyValenteNorth Vancouver

The province's reluctance to fund public transit improvements, but readiness to fund road projects is troubling to me. I don't see why the Federal government has to increase its portion of spending for large public transit projects while the province says it cannot do the same, but then turns around and spends money on this massive bridge.

Its unacceptable and not representative of what the Lower Mainland and Canada needs in terms of offering transportation alternatives.

Tony Valente

British Columbia2016-05-01 21:19:03
GrahamTaylorRichmond

This bridge is huge, crossing 1 arm of the Fraser River and a large slough which will likely be degraded as will nearby farmland. The idea of a less environmentally obtrusive upgraded tunnel does not seem to have been considered. This project cries out for an environmental assessment.environmental assessment.

British Columbia2016-05-01 21:33:20
RobertMcCroskeySurrey

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.

British Columbia2016-05-01 21:48:36
LOTTEELIASFORT LANGLEY

i am opposed to this mega-project,as it serves only the port,and saddles our grandchildren with massive debt and mountains of cheap junk arriving on the ships it is meant to serve. solve the problem with people in mind,e.i. better transit.also ,it creates more damage to the fraser river and fishes.

British Columbia2016-05-01 21:50:37
CaraBauckDelta

For the future of our children every precaution is necessary. Please honour our right to a fair environmental assessment of any large changes to our community's infrastructure. The increase in carbon emissions alone is reason to reassess this project; if we are to honour our commitment as Canadians to keep the increase of the Earths temperature to 1.5 degrees, agreeing to an increase of this size is downright dishonest.
Please, I beg you to choose long term, sustainable environmental health over financial profit. Please, for our children's children, put industrialization aside and consider other options to mitigate traffic congestion.

British Columbia2016-05-01 21:59:24
Stacey HagertyVancouver

A bridge funded by taxpayers and tolled by drivers is the worst subsidy for the port and it's dirty energy. If they want to pay for it let them.

British Columbia2016-05-01 22:01:34
sheilaswiftwhite rock

No turning back once the tunnel is removed, it will be too late. It is very unnecessary and not sensible. Taking it down seriously effects the environment in many ways. Removing it to allow more big ships further up the FRazer creating massive assault on the land and increases shipping of coal etc. outside the country but still harming the planet. This is a terrible thing. The very least and most important
thing that we could do would be to review the effect on the environment.

Sheila Swift

British Columbia2016-05-01 22:16:05
KathyBoothSurrey

Dear Minister,

I am writing to oppose the building of the Massey Bridge over the Fraser River. I believe the bridge is far too costly and another option would be much less expensive. Several more lanes of traffic going towards the Oak Street bridge will only cause more congestion on the bridge.
Also I oppose the desire of the Port to build more big ships to use the river access to pick up thermal coal from the US to export it to China, thereby increasing climate change.

Thank you for listening to constituents affected by this proposal.

Kathy Booth

British Columbia2016-05-01 22:18:05
DeborahJonesDelta

Dear Minister McKenna,

It's 2016! Who in their right minds would build a 10-lane highway bridge with no rapid transit on it? And that feeds into 4 lane bottlenecks in both directions? And that costs $3.5 billion and doesn't solve traffic and transportation woes?

This bridge is not about helping commuters, it's about making the Fraser River more accessible to huge ocean-going vessels that would serve -- among other things -- Port Metro Vancouver's proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Coal Transfer Station (i.e. coal port).

It's obscene to be sacrificing sensitive salmon-rearing habitat and agricultural land in this manner, without even a full environmental review. Fully costed -- including externalities such as environmental damages, loss to fisheries, encouragement of single-occupancy vehicles, etc etc -- the money spent on this project could instead be used to hugely improve transit in Metro Vancouver. This would save tazpayers and the planet a lot of grief.

I urge you to order a Federal EA of the Massey Bridge project.

Yours sincerely,

Deborah Jones
Cougar Creek Streamkeepers (North Delta / Surrey BC)

British Columbia2016-05-01 22:33:18
RuthWalmsleyBurnaby

I am writing to urge you to conduct a federal environmental assessment of the proposal to replace the George Massey Tunnel with a bridge.

Replacement of the tunnel with a bridge does not make sense from a fiscal point of view. A new bridge over the Fraser River is expected to cost at least $3.5 Billion dollars. It would cost much less money to upgrade the tunnel, such as was done by the government of the Netherlands for approximately $420 million Canadian dollars.

The BC government says that the the bridge is being built to benefit commuters, but the Port and industrial users of the Fraser River are clearly going to benefit if this project goes ahead. Removal of the tunnel would allow deeper draft and heavily loaded vessels on the river. The Fraser is an important salmon bearing river, and an increase in industrialization of the river presents an unacceptable level of risk to the marine ecosystem which supports our wild salmon, and other species at risk.

Removing the tunnel will also encourage the industrialization of farmland in Richmond and Delta. We need to be protecting our food security by conserving our remaining prime agricultural lands in the Lower Mainland.

For the reasons above, I am opposed to the replacement of the Massey tunnel with a bridge.

British Columbia2016-05-01 22:35:10
Alison GillisCOURTENAY

Twin the tunnel...a "big dig" is cheaper and more environmentally friendly.

Yours truly,

Alison Gillis

British Columbia2016-05-01 22:57:57
ShamDhariRichmond

Dear Minister.

I believe that the Massey does not need to be replaced. All we need to do is add another tube with two or three lanes of traffic. This is most cheapest solution and it is environmental sound solution. We do need to be wasting billions of dollars on this crossing. A bridge is not necessary and it will be burden on the tax payers for many years. We do not need to further industrialize the south Fraser river. Money should be spent on developing better transit options.

Thank you

British Columbia2016-05-02 00:22:33
ElizaOlsonDelta

The Massey replacement bridge is not about improving traffic. It is about fracking and the destruction of farmland in Delta and the Peace River.

Better public transportation will go a long way to solve any problems. It is cheaper and more adaptable to changing traffic needs.

This adaptability is critical as climate change is taking place. We don't know what is going to happen in the future. A bridge at this time is too costly and reduces our ability to change quickly to adapt.

British Columbia2016-05-02 03:27:37
MalcolmDuckDelta

I am extremely concerned about the environmental impact this proposed bridge could have on the region of Delta and Richmond. I believe this matter deserves a full inquest.

British Columbia2016-05-02 03:33:42
NormanGoldsteinRichmond

Please do not build the proposed bridge. Instead, upgrade / add to the existing Massey Tunnel:
-- The tunnel is far more cost effective.
-- The Fraser is a major salmon river, with its own ecological and financial worth. This is the wrong place for increased shipping of hazardous materials.
-- The airport can be well-supplied with jet fuel by building new pipelines into the airport from existing refineries and port facilities.

British Columbia2016-05-02 06:31:19
HelenGlavinaBurnaby

We do not need this huge expensive bridge in the Lower Mainland. We should retrofit the tunnel, similar to what the Netherlands have done, for a fraction of the cost.
The people of this province should not have to pay for a bridge we don't want that will only benefit the purveyors of fossil fuels that are destroying our planet. Let's spend the money, instead, on the types of infrastructure that will carry us into a sustainable future, duch as better rapid transit, benefitting all our citizens and the environment.
I am sick of watching public funds being poured into private pockets. It stinks of corruption and cronyism.

British Columbia2016-05-02 06:32:19
GrahamMulliganSurrey

Dear Minister,
I am opposed to the building of a new bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel. The increase in traffic into Richmond and Vancouver will be enormous and overwhelm their streets needlessly. What we really need is better and more public transportation. I suggest more buses. Lets get people out of the habit of 1 person car rides.
Thank you,
Graham Mulligan

British Columbia2016-05-02 07:37:21
KeithPraterLangley

Enough of Clark's ramrodding things through. Let's have an objective look at this issue.

British Columbia2016-05-02 07:38:30
yvonraoulvancouver

This project will not serve the needs of the Lower Mainland or of the Province while increasing our taxes, pollution and tie our economy to the hydrocarbon industrial complex.
We need to rethink the way our economy is going to serve sustainable progress based on jobs, social justice and clean energy...in other words a Leap in Imagination.

British Columbia2016-05-02 07:52:15
Sharon MacGouganRichmond

Building a 10 lane bridge is bad for the environment and a bad idea. There doesn't seem to be any logic involved which makes the rationale circumspect.
I request a Federal Environmental Assessment of the proposal. After all, isn't the environment important?
There are other less expensive options to building a mega-project bridge that will (possibly) lessen congestion at one point but increase it (for sure) at another. 10 lanes of traffic have to go somewhere. Will the next proposal be another 10 lane bridge elsewhere to solve the newly created problem?
Sustainability is being talked about more frequently these days. How sustainable is a 10 lane bridge? Surely a better option is to increase transit: not make room for more cars and trucks.
Mega projects like this one are a throwback to the 50's – let's move forward in time, not backwards.

British Columbia2016-05-02 08:13:43
JaroslavWelzLangley

I don't understand why we would build a massive bridge to bring more cars into Vancouver. Why don't we build a train to transport people into town?
I am opposed to using the Fraser River to transport fossil fuels such as bitumen or liquefied natural gas to foreign markets. We need to invest in green energy to save this world for our children.
Please do not use taxpayer money to subsidize multi-national corporations. I do not want to pay for a new bridge just so international investors reap higher returns.
The priorities of this current Liberal Government in British Columbia are not with the people--they are with the corporations. Please help them change their focus.

British Columbia2016-05-02 08:16:22
jakefryVancouver

I am very concerned about he environmental impact of this project

The key component of the project is the open of the fraser river to more signifcant container, coal and various fossel fuel shipping. This project can only be characterized as regressive step toward any forward thinking to the long term need of the region and environment

the fund being spent here and the partnership have no genuine benefit tot he citizens of their regon

these funds would be much better spent on public transit iniciatives

British Columbia2016-05-02 08:36:14
PamelaPriceRichmond

I am with the Mayor and the City of Richmond in requesting a federal environment review.
Nothing about the Massey Bridge is environmentally sound, either for the citizens, the fishery or for farming.
No other City has had less input into what happens to their City
Please conduct this review.
Sincerely,
P Price.

British Columbia2016-05-02 08:41:56
MarionJolicoeurRoberts Creek

Massive infrastructure projects like this are not a creative solution to the issues - they serve to move the congestion from one place to another. In the interests of future generations, we should not be planning to build more infrastructure to move fossil fuels.

British Columbia2016-05-02 08:56:33
TeresaPhillipsComox

Dear Minister,
Here is yet another example of where money is being misdirected to encourage the fossil fuel industry at huge costs to the public when we should be leaving those fossils in the ground and investing in smarter cleaner energy. The Massey Tunnel needs an upgrade but it whould remain a tunnel to ensure the environmental stability of the Fraser River estuary and prevent future shipping lanes into that area.
I fear there is still far too much weight being thrown to the export of a dying industry that the people of BC and much of the planet do not want.
thank you for you consideration and we are counting on you to think of the greater good and future of our beautiful province.
Sincerely,
Teresa Phillips

British Columbia2016-05-02 09:00:25
JennyShawSechelt

Please safeguard our land for food production

British Columbia2016-05-02 09:03:10
JaneCamfieldVancouver

The rush to alter the existing traffic accommodations in the vicinity of the George Massey Tunnel is pushing ahead heedlessly, dangerously, unnecessarily: heedless of what the citizens think, risky in taking away so much potential farm land where a new bridge would go, and unnecessary because Vancouver's whole emphasis should be providing light rapid transit, not more roads. One can't help but feel there's a hidden agenda here: with an American coal port proposed, the need for a deeper channel in the Fraser river for coal barges to pass, the emphasis on alleviating traffic congestion looks like a screen for a hugely expensive project to accommodate a dying industry while ignoring the goal of a greener economy. The whole thing leaves taxpayers with yet another burden to pay for while locking the region into an outdated economic model. I hope the minister will at least provide a credible review, but even better, cancel the project.

British Columbia2016-05-02 09:09:17
TanyaZboyaVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,

As a resident born and raised in Richmond, Im deeply concerned about the Massey Bridge must be heard through a full federal review panel environmental assessment. Here are the points that deeply concern me:

• The proponent cannot be permitted to approve their own environmental review.
• Increased shipping risks and concerns about Salish Sea endangered species, salmon, and southern resident killer whales have been ignored.
• Public safety and international best practices for siting fuel handling terminals (coal, jet fuel, LNG,tar sands oil transport) are being ignored.
• Sensible regional transit planning is being ignored.
• Increased salt water impacts to intakes and agricultural water supplies have been ignored.
• Port Metro Vancouver is unelected and unaccountable to the region.
• The Port has a conflict of interest by regulating port operations, financing fossil fuel lobbyists, permitting industrial development proposals, and approving environmental assessments.

Also note,

In November, 2015 on the first day of global climate talks in Paris, Port Metro Vancouver issued a revised permit for Fraser Surrey Docks coal port – this time allowing giant Panamax ships to travel up the Fraser River to handle coal rejected by American ports.
1. In direct contradiction to the Federal governments vision of Canada as an international climate change leader.
2. In direct contradiction to Premier Christy Clark's vision of BC as a climate leader – and weaning China off of coal-fired power plants.
3. In direct contradiction to global efforts to turn away from coal as the single biggest contributor to GHG emissions.
4. In direct contradiction to assessment processes cabinet ministers have been mandated to create to restore public trust and science-based decision-making.

Best regards,

Tanya Zboya
P 604.992.7761
tanya@zboyadesign.com

British Columbia2016-05-02 09:09:37
NicolasRobertsonVancouver

The proposed bridge will do nothing for the public. The congestion will simply move North. The real benefits will flow to coal and gas exporters.

The BC Liberals have lied about the need for the Site C dam, the LNG plant proposed for Lelu Island on the Skeena, and numerous other resource projects and are proceeding with the Massey bridge bu using the same playbook. Lie, obfuscate and carry on regardless of public concerns and proper regard for process.

Since the BC government is incapable of keeping its own house in order I call on the powers invested in the Federal government to implement a full federal environmental review so that a more impartial and far seeing perspective be brought to bear on the truth before this government can alter the facts on the ground (as they are currently doing at Site C through their proxy BC Hydro).

I hope that the RCMP is also keeping an open mind with regard to investigating Premier Clark for taking cash or favors from those that stand to benefit the most from her vainglorious and economically disastrous decisions.

British Columbia2016-05-02 09:20:03
Ronvan der EerdenVancouver

There are those who think the past will look like the future only bigger.

The current BC provincial government seems determined to force this view upon us against all evidence. They've already built two absurdly over-sized bridges across the Fraser River and both are losing money. Lots of money. Now they want to keep their track record solid and replace a four lane tunnel with another ten lane monstrosity.

Vancouver and region are urbanizing, and as they do car dependence is decreasing. The likelihood that we'll need all this capacity seems remote.

Besides the reckless risk of tax dollars, the motivation for the replacement is to accommodate larger coal freighters in the river. In effect, the taxpayer is subsidizing industry - the worst of the worst of industry: coal.

If we are to meet our Paris commitments we have to look at every thing we do and evaluate the cumulative impacts. We are dropping a giant anchor on our road to a clean economy if we are still promoting ten lane bridges for mostly single occupant vehicles high and wide enough to accommodate the largest coal carriers.

Please show us you understand and require a federal environmental assessment that keeps Paris centred in the process.

British Columbia2016-05-02 09:21:59
LeanneJohnsonVancouver

I wish to inform you that -- and many other people living in British Columbia--am opposed to the Massey Bridge as currently proposed. I believe the bridge in unnecessary. The increase in traffic flow will ultimately result in gridlock further along the route into Vancouver. The expansion will mean losing more agricultural land. And the main goal of the bridge is to increase coal production and export. A outdated fuel that will hasten the consequences of global warming,

Shouldn’t this project warrant a Federal review and not an assessment by the proponent itself?

Sincerely,

Leanne Johnson

British Columbia2016-05-02 09:43:28
AndrewFallLasqueti

Honourable Minister McKenna,

I request that the federal government require a federal environmental review panel on the proposed bridge replacement for the Massey Tunnel.

The Fraser River is the most important salmon river in BC. A huge bridge project warrants careful consideration of the full risks involved. Especially as this project is not necessary - the tunnel functions adequately and can serve for many more years. The bridge proposal appears to be less about improving movement of highway traffic over the Fraser, and more about enabling larger commercial ships to go up-river for loading of commodities such as coal.

Sincerely,
Andrew Fall

British Columbia2016-05-02 09:49:21
Greg J.EdwardsDelta

Minister McKenna

Re: Proper EA of Massey Tunnel replacement bridge needed

Minister McKenna:

Please order a proper EA of the bridge that's proposed to replace the Massey Tunnel, under the Fraser. This proposal first made headlines during the last BC provincial election when Christie Clark promised it off the cuff as a vote getter. Previously, we'd been told many times that the Massey Tunnel would be "good for another 50 years."

Yours truly,

Greg J. Edwards
5078 Walker Avenue
Delta BC V4M1A7
604-948-5149

British Columbia2016-05-02 10:06:31
Burke Mountain NaturalistsBurke Mountain NaturalistsCoquitlam

The Burke Mountain Naturalists are a group of approximately 300 people who reside mainly in the community of Coquitlam and surrounding municipalities of Metro Vancouver. We are writing to you to request the federal government to conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed Massey Bridge.

Metro Vancouver has also called for a federal EA and the city of Richmond opposes the construction of this bridge. We also believe the proposed construction of this bridge is not in keeping with the federal government's commitment to take effective action against global warming.

This bridge, if built, will support more urban sprawl in Metro Vancouver, facilitate the increased use of private vehicles for transportation rather than public transit and, thus, will increase GHG emissions in the lower mainland. Moreover, it will lead to loss of more agricultural land at a time when we should be making every effort to protect these vital food-producing areas as other agricultural areas around the world are increasingly threatened by devastating droughts due to global warming. Its estimated cost of $3.5 billion is extremely high; if built, it will divert much-needed public funds away from other more urgent purposes such as supporting public transit and investing in renewable energy. Construction of this bridge will impede our ability to take effective actions against climate change.

This bridge will also increase demands to dredge and deepen the Fraser River which will negatively impact the vitally important salmon populations of the Fraser River watershed which are a traditional source of local food most especially for many First Nations of BC.

We are alarmed Port Metro Vancouver appears unable to conduct a balanced assessment of this project and is ignoring many environmental threats including those posed to endangered species in the Salish Sea. Clearly, improved regulatory oversight is urgently needed for many of the decisions taken by Port Metro Vancouver.

We urge you to restore meaningful public consultation to this process and work to achieve a decision which will help to protect future Canadians from the devastating consequences of runaway global warming. We can no longer take an approach which is "business as usual" regardless of environmental costs and consequences to future generations.

Elaine Golds, Ph.D.
President
Burke Mountain Naturalists

British Columbia2016-05-02 10:13:28
RosemaryHaddletonRichmond

The mistakes of the past can not be corrected by continuing in the same way.
This province needs a decent rapid transit system, NOT another billion dollar bridge for more vehicles to get from point A to point B with only ONE driver in them.
This is 2016 not 1956 learn from the mistakes of the past. Put the. Money, time and effort into correcting the small minded idea of "build more roads". Help get the cars off the roads. A rapid transit system that includes stations that can accommodate more than just 2 coaches, a rapid transit system that comes with turnstiles from the start, a rapid transit system that can accomadate and provide a quick, efficient way to travel from the outlying districts to down town Vancouver.
Sincerely
R. Haddleton

British Columbia2016-05-02 10:17:07
PennyOyamaBurnaby

Are you listening?
Now that the truth about how Port Metro Vancouver, and surely the other sea ports in Canada, have been operating above the law and good governance, it's perfectly clear that all efforts to destroy the natural beauty of the west coast in favour of non-sustainable polluting fossil fuel resource corporations are being carried out!
We don't need any more studies, and, if necessary, a federal assessment will surely show that replacing the Massey tunnel under the Fraser river in Richmond with a bridge is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY!!!
Please STOP this foolishness!

British Columbia2016-05-02 10:28:52
ElsieElsieBurnaby

The Metro Vancouver is being destroyed by overdevelopment of roads and bridges ravaging the environment, especially the Fraser River. . We need a proper environmental assessment before the proposal for a new bridge to replaced the Massy tunnel is built.

British Columbia2016-05-02 10:46:52
Eleanor and Mike GirardRichmond

To all concerned:

Don't put our River and Community at risk, do your independent research, get the right answers and communicate with the public.

Threats from proposed developments in the Fraser River are magnified by dismantled Canadian federal environmental assessments and the handicapping of legislation: the loss of the protection of fish habitat in the Fisheries Act, downgrading the Navigational Water Protection Act so not to trigger environmental reviews, downgrading of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to eliminate 95% of federal reviews, inadequate meaningful public consultation, laying off of habitat protection staff and until recently the muzzling of scientists.

• 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?
• Shouldn’t this project warrant a Federal review and not an assessment by the proponent itself?

Citizen's concerns about the Massey Bridge must be heard through a full federal review panel environmental assessment.
-The proponent cannot be permitted to approve their own environmental review.
-Increased shipping risks and concerns about Salish Sea endangered species, salmon, and southern resident killer whales have been ignored.
-Public safety and international best practices for siting fuel handling terminals (coal, jet fuel, LNG,tar sands oil transport) are being ignored.
-Sensible regional transit planning is being ignored.
-Increased salt water impacts to intakes and agricultural water supplies have been ignored.
-Port Metro Vancouver is unelected and unaccountable to the region.
-The Port has a conflict of interest by regulating port operations, financing fossil fuel lobbyists, permitting industrial development proposals, and approving environmental assessments.

Also note,

In November, 2015 on the first day of global climate talks in Paris, Port Metro Vancouver issued a revised permit for Fraser Surrey Docks coal port – this time allowing giant Panamax ships to travel up the Fraser River to handle coal rejected by American ports.
1. In direct contradiction to the Federal governments vision of Canada as an international climate change leader.
2. In direct contradiction to Premier Christy Clark's vision of BC as a climate leader – and weaning China off of coal-fired power plants.
3. In direct contradiction to global efforts to turn away from coal as the single biggest contributor to GHG emissions.
4. In direct contradiction to assessment processes cabinet ministers have been mandated to create to restore public trust and science-based decision-making.

Why is this being allowed? In direct contradiction? This should not be allowed to happen. Follow the rules, think about the people who live here.

Sincerely,
Eleanor and Mike Girard

British Columbia2016-05-02 10:48:02
sandraleckieSalt Spring Island

Dear Minister McKenna,
I am writing you with regards to the proposed bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel as I have no other opportunity to express my views to what I hope is an unbiased governing body.

As Minister of the Environment and Climate Change you should be aware that the Massey Tunnel has been a check on increased fossil fuel exports by keeping deeper draft vessels off the lower Fraser River.

Removing the tunnel will allow fully loaded coal freighters to travel to and from Fraser Surrey Docks. It would allow bigger LNG carriers loading at the proposed Wespac-Fortis LNG terminal in Delta. In addition to driving additional climate change, a bridge will cause massive, immediate and direct damage to salmon, killer whales and other sensitive marine life.

We need a comprehensive management plan for the Lower Fraser that guides development in order to protect this important ecological system. British Columbians want to be part of that process.

Meanwhile, in order to fulfill your mandate as Environment Minister I ask that the federal government conduct a federal environmental review on the Massey Bridge.

Sincerely, Sandra Leckie

British Columbia2016-05-02 11:46:42
AnneO'ShaughnessyNew Westminster

Please conduct a Federal Assessment of this new bridge.

As far as I can see, a new bridge simply plays into the hands of the coal export company who wants to bring larger freighters into the river. Exporting fossil fuels should be a thing of the past and definitely not be encouraged.

British Columbia2016-05-02 11:48:49
LouiseTaylorKaslo

To the Honorable Minister McKenna,

I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed Massey Bridge. I urge you to ensure this project is reviewed by a federal environmental review panel.

New infrastructure often attract more vehicles which need to be drastically reduced in the face of climate change. The billions of dollars that the proposed bridge would cost should instead be used to improve public transportation, removing cars from our roads.

Too many unanswered questions remain regarding this project including: who will fit the bill?; how will it impact urban development in the area; have upgrading options been seriously considered?

Upgrading the tunnel would make more environmental and financial sense.

Thank you for listening to the concerns of myself and the many other British Columbians. We are sick of being ignored by our elected officials.

British Columbia2016-05-02 11:50:51
Barbara HuismanRichmond

Most local people in Richmond know why this bridge is being put in place by the provincial government. It is to allow larger vessels (tankers) to navigate the river, as the removal of the tunnel and subsequent dredging will provide the depth they need.

An alternate proposal to twin the existing tunnel would work, or so they told us five years ago. But now the provincial government is insisting on a bridge instead.

The Richmond City council is dead set against this as they know it will NOT alleviate traffic but rather move the bottleneck to Richmond.

With the tanker traffic comes a great threat to the Fraser River, home to the world's largest salmon run.

There are many proposed industries for the river (LNG terminal, jet fuel terminal and others) but there has not been a composite evaluation done of their combined impact on the Fraser and its wildlife.
Our local MLA Joe Peschisolido is also VERY concerned about this and I believe he has tried to talk to various federal representatives about it .
Basically, those who appreciate the looming threats to the Fraser River request that a full Federal comprehensive risk assessment be done on the combined impact of these proposed projects, including the GM trunnel replacement bridge. We need to all fully understand the risks posed to the Fraser River before deciding if projects like this may proceed.

Barbara Huisman
Sustainability Consultant

British Columbia2016-05-02 12:16:11
ChelseaCarlsonNew Westminster

Hello,

I am not in support of the building of a brand new Massey Bridge.

There are better choice, and the massive bridge project as planned is unnecessary.

Thank you,

Chelsea Carlson

British Columbia2016-05-02 12:42:07
SusanHodgesDelta

This massive proposed bridge is on an ecologically vital area to the Fraser river estuary. This estuary provides habitat for birds on our signed agreement for the Intl Pacific Flyway, who migrate through 20 countries. It is biofilm, s food for birds and sandpipers. The only other areas similar are San Frwncisco and Alaska. It is like taking out the single refuelling stop on a weeks long migration. All the dredging and permanent disruption to this already heavily industrialised area will pemanently affect salmon migration. The Frwser Rivr is famous for big one of the largest salmon spawning rivers in the World..
I would like it known that I stand with Richmond in complete opposition to this bridge. A freedom of information request revealed that Deltaport and the Surrey Fraser docks requested it be built. Since then all alternatives have been dismissed.
It has been falsely presented to the public as a solution to commuter woes. Indeed it is not, it will only simply move the traffic delays 2 Kms or so into Richmond.
Past projects have proven the government's projections on costs and deadlines to be an utter fail. Such as the Golden Eagles Bridge and Port Mann bridge. Cost being a moving target upwards. With recovery costs far lower than projected. I have no faith that our BC Government has done any credible study or consultation or financial projections.
As the Port has requested this mega bridge, which will entail a triple level exit to Steveston Hwy, Richmond, it is only going to move commuter woes into Richmond, they should pay for it, it will serve their needs.
We need an independent Federal EA. We should not have a bridge of this enormity affecting our estuary, increasing urban sprawl and industrialization. Most of the growth will occur on the Deltw side, gobbling farmland and benefitting Delta with revenue from growth and taxes.
We need to protect our farmland, of which the port wants 2500 more acres.
Further, 3.5 Billion is just to start. With delays, costs over runs, it has been estimated by Gordon Price, a Simon Fraser University transportation expert, to be at 8 billion it will take from our region. A hugely formidable cost with only one proposed lane for public transit without any actual money for more buses and transit. A Cost that citizens of metro Vancouver, which has the highest housing cost.of N. America, simply cannot bear. Please ensure this gets the required diligence from every possible study possible.

British Columbia2016-05-02 12:48:32
lornewiserichmond

I was at a luncheon where Todd Stone Minister of Transport for BC spole. It was to be a question and answer session but they allowed only 3 handwritten questions for a crowd of over 100. The BC govn't claims they have done extensive consultation but their consultation is a sham as was their questions and answers as will be their environmental assessment. Canadians need to be able to trust their govn't. That trust was severely damaged by the Harper years. Please help rebuild that trust

British Columbia2016-05-02 12:50:35
TorSvanoeDelta

Dear Minister McKenna,

I am strongly opposed to this bridge and all the secrecy of the entire planning process. The idea to build a bridge and remove the tunnel and then force people to pay daily tolls makes my blood boil!
As I see it, it makes much more sense to build an adjacent second tunnel and keep the original tunnel committed to one direction travel if they want to increase vehicle capacity.
I also believe they should look at ways to extend the Canada line on Number 3 Road to the south with possible access points from Steveston, Ladner, TFN, Tsawwassen and the ferry terminal before they try to force to public to pay for more Port expansion infrastructure.
I also believe it adds addition pressure on the small amount of lands in that remain in the ALR, Burns Bog and the Fraser River and it's estuaries.

I hate the way this is being forced on people and sincerely hope this bridge will never be built.

Sincerely,

Tor Svanoe

British Columbia2016-05-02 13:00:30
AnneMurrayDelta

Dear Ms McKenna
Please ensure that the proposed George Massey tunnel replacement bridge over the south arm of the Fraser River between Delta and Richmond undergoes a full federal environmental assessment process. This assessment should include cumulative effects on the surrounding agricultural land, park land and Wildlife Management Areas as well as on the famous salmon-bearing Fraser River.
The Fraser delta is under assault from mega-developments driven by the Gateway Program, port and industrial interests that are disregarding the worldclass, globally important environment of this area. Thank you.

British Columbia2016-05-02 13:03:59
KateElliotRichmond

This proposed bridge is not the best solution to traffic congestion. Neither is it a sustainable option, nor has the bridge proposal been detailed in terms of cost/construction.
What worries me is that certain politicians have already decided this is what is needed.
A cost-benefit analysis needs to be done and presented to the public - after all, it's public money going to fund this.
The Massey Tunnel should be twinned instead.
Any potential damage or disruption to the Fraser River salmon, other fish and wildlife, needs to be avoided at all costs.
The use of river water for farmers all along the Fraser up past Abbotsford as irrigation cannot be sacrificed by the dredging the proposed new bridge would do - deeper channels mean more sea/salt water going up the Fraser to these farms. We already experience water restrictions and scarcity in the summer, we cannot take any chance with our food sources.
Thank you for insisting that the Minister of Highways follow the Environmental Assessment process, and respect the provincial Agricultural Land Use areas.
Sincerely,
Kate

British Columbia2016-05-02 13:06:13
TedHuismanRichmond

Dear Minister,

I am absolutely opposed to replacing the Massey Tunnel with a hugely expensive, and counterproductive bridge. My comments are:

-Citizen's concerns about the Massey Bridge must be heard through a full federal review panel environmental assessment.
-The proponent cannot be permitted to approve their own environmental review.
-Increased shipping risks and concerns about Salish Sea endangered species, salmon, and southern resident killer whales have been ignored, as well as risk to recreational boating and local fisheries..
-Public safety and international best practices for siting fuel handling terminals (coal, jet fuel, LNG, tar sands oil transport) are being ignored.
-Sensible regional transit planning is being ignored.
-Increased salt water impacts to intakes and agricultural water supplies have been ignored.
-Port Metro Vancouver is unelected and unaccountable to the region.
-The Port has a conflict of interest by regulating port operations, financing fossil fuel lobbyists, permitting industrial development proposals, and approving environmental assessments.
- Huge costs will only increase, and our children, and grandchildren will be paying for years.
- Traffic congestion will only be transferred elsewhere; for example to the next bridge: the Oak Street Bridge.
- Need to focus on some form of rapid transit; a more efficient way to move people, and more environmentally friendly than car exhaust.

British Columbia2016-05-02 13:17:43
MonikaMcCormackRichmond

It is inconceivable that this project can move forward without a full FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT!
Building costs and environmental concerns aside;
City of Richmond Councilor Carol Day has brought forward a major concern which has not been addressed:
The reason a tunnel was built in the first place is because the land on the Richmond side is at extreme risk of liquefaction in the event of an earthquake or dredging. A bridge is a very unwise alternative because it would be built on the only unstable area north of the Fraser. The silt deposited in Richmond and Delta is suitable for a tunnel that can flex as needed, not suitable for a huge bridge.
Please listen to our mayor and councilors to create a transit corridor that will move us forward in a modern and effective way. Thank you.

British Columbia2016-05-02 13:22:20
raymondwallNew Westminster

Dear Sir please consider the economics of this proposal as well as the harm that will be caused between the provincial,local and federal jurisdictions. We desperately need infrastructure upgrading and even new construction but to destroy a tunnel with a half-century life left just to borrow many billions more to facilitate the large ships port Vancouver wishes to employ would be to confirm that this Government is in most if not all matters exactly the same as the previous government that at least had the decency to totally ignore our wishes and desires and not give false pandering to us.
This will be an issue that is as divisive and as hard fought as the pipeline that will NEVER be built and hopefully Mr Trudeau will honor his commitment that the west coast is not going to be exploited and quite likely destroyed in the name of economics.

British Columbia2016-05-02 13:42:31
JoelBaziukWhite Rock

There are so many things wrong with this project that it's hard to know where to begin. PMV having the authority to grant permission for projects along the Fraser River estuary is absolutely baffling. Why should the primary driving force for further industrializing the Fraser River be giving out permission for these projects? The disbanding of the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) was a colossal mistake - there is now no firm check to PMV's ambitions to turn the Fraser into Rotterdam.

As to PMV and the Province's claims that they have engaged stakeholders about the project, I've been to a luncheon that they considered to be stakeholder engagement, and I can say it was akin to a smoke and mirror filled stage performance by David Copperfield. Simply stating something over and over again without giving any supporting evidence whatsoever does NOT make it true (or sensible).

Be careful though, I'm quite certain that the Provincial EA (if it's ever even done) will consider the construction of the bridge only and not the numerous trickle down effects of the increased industrialization of the Fraser (which is the only reason this bridge "needs" to be 57m high above the high water level while the channel is dredged to 18m). How will this affect the salmon run in the world's second or third largest salmon spawning river? What about other species? What about the agricultural land reserve?

How is this possible in the 21st Century? If a bridge truly is the best option from all perspectives, then let's see some evidence, REAL evidence, mind you, about why that's the case. Catch words and phrases don't tell the story. Let's see some facts. And if the environmental concerns are not real, then why resist the study being done? Wouldn't it be better to be transparent and put people's minds at ease?

Let's see the results of an independent and objective environmental study first before we go any further into a 3.5 billion dollar project. Is that really too much to ask? Isn't that just good business sense anyway?

British Columbia2016-05-02 13:58:16
UrsulaEasterbrookDelta

Replacing the tunnel with a humongous bridge is NOT the best option! There are so many reasons not to build it - I don't even know where to start!
The whole Lower Mainland is going to Translink (the dogs) - there is no rhyme or reason to just moving the blockage from the Tunnel to the Oak St bridge!. Argh!
I wonder who is thinking these crazy thoughts! certainly no-one with a logical mind set - only people with $$$$'s in their minds.
The Ottawa people should mover here for a few months to get a feel for the issues!

British Columbia2016-05-02 14:00:13
HeidiBoehmRichmond

DO THE RIGHT THING!!!!

British Columbia2016-05-02 14:12:08
HaleyMilkoVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,

In short form, here are a list of the issues with the George Massey Tunnel Replacement:

-Citizen's concerns about the Massey Bridge must be heard through a full federal review panel environmental assessment.
-The proponent (PMV) cannot be permitted to approve their own environmental review.
-Increased shipping risks and concerns about Salish Sea endangered species, salmon, and southern resident killer whales have been ignored.
-Public safety and international best practices for siting fuel handling terminals (coal, jet fuel, LNG,tar sands oil transport) are being ignored.
-Sensible regional transit planning is being ignored.
-Increased salt water impacts to intakes and agricultural water supplies have been ignored.
-Port Metro Vancouver is unelected and unaccountable to the region.
-The Port has a conflict of interest by regulating port operations, financing fossil fuel lobbyists, permitting industrial development proposals, and approving environmental assessments

In addition, the EA process to date has been rushed and the Crown has not adequately consulted with the Musqueam Indian Band, whose core traditional territory will be impacted by the projects. Musqueam have fishing rights in the Fraser River that have been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sparrow decision.

Sincerely,
Haley

British Columbia2016-05-02 14:22:05
JenniferLarsenRichmond

Please Minister, order a Federal Environmental Review as soon as you possibly can. The Fraser River and Estuary and all the flora and fauna inhabitants....along with our farms on all its sides.. are at extreme risk from the monstrous bridge and planned approaches to it that our Provincial government wants to build, replacing the do-little-collateral-damage Massey Tunnel. None of us can afford to let it happen.

Thank you for hearing and heeding our cry for higher authority intervention.

British Columbia2016-05-02 14:39:49
Johnter BorgRichmond

The proposed George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project:

1) Must be referred to Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel for review.

The Federal EA is required as permits from Fisheries, Environment Canada, Species at Risk, Navigation, and Disposal permits are needed.

The proposed bridge is intended to facilitate coal, jet fuel, LNG or tar sands oil transport. Local health, safety, and environmental concerns about the Fraser River Estuary are simply ignored.

The public being denied this Federal EA is precedent setting. Four previous completed transportation Projects in this same Greater Vancouver area required no less than 15 federal EA’s by CEAA.

The shipping impacts of upstream shipping terminals have not been considered by EA reviews. This contravenes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The federal government is accountable for navigation and can easily put a stop to this legally flawed process.

Please note that:
• Estuaries are among the most biologically productive ecosystems on Earth.
• Comparable to rain forests and coral reefs.
• More productive than both the rivers and the ocean that influence them.

Increased Port Metro Vancouver dredging threatens the Fraser River wetlands that are:
• Recognized for global significance (Ramsar Convention)
• A nursery to one billion Pacific salmon
• A critical migratory stopover along Pacific Flyway
• A natural buffer against climate change

The threats to the Fraser River are magnified by dismantled Canadian federal environmental assessments and the handicapping of legislation: the loss of the protection of fish habitat in the Fisheries Act, downgrading the Navigational Water Protection Act so not to trigger environmental reviews, downgrading of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to eliminate 95% of federal reviews, inadequate meaningful public consultation, laying off of habitat protection staff and until recently the muzzling of scientists.

How we got here
Brief chronology of Harper Government’s campaign to undermine evidence-based scientific, environmental and technical decision-making.

Reference
(1) The Canadian War on Science: A long, unexaggerated, devastating chronological indictment. Blog: John Dupuis, May 20, 2013
http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2013/05/20/the-canadian-war-on-science-a-long-unexaggerated-devastating-chronological-indictment/

Omnibus Bill C-38 (June 14, 2012)
Omnibus Bill C-38 is denounced as a “Trojan horse” and an affront to the principles of democracy. All 871 proposed amendments were defeated, rendering weeks of committee hearings, parliamentary debate and expert witnesses as useless exercises in faux democratic policy making.

Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) Poll (May10, 2012) - Key Findings
• The vast majority of CARP members (85%) disagree, and as many as three quarters express their opinion in the strongest terms (disagree strongly - 74%) with bundling so many controversial pieces of legislation in one Omnibus Budget Bill.
• Fully one half do not expect the government to survive the next election.
• The clear majority (70%), or five times as many, say they will vote against the government if it proceeds with Bill C-38 as say they will vote for the government in the next election, and the government stands to lose a significant tranche of its core support because of this issue.

Reference
(2) After 22-hour voting marathon, MPs finally pass Tories’ omnibus budget bill. The Canadian Press, June 14, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/after-24-hour-voting-marathon-mps-finally-pass-tories-omnibus-budget-bill

(3) The damage of the Harper years. The Coast, Halifax's Weekly, October 08, 2015
http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/the-damage-of-the-harper-years/Content?oid=4980418

(4) Environmental crisis? We have a democratic crisis. The Toronto Star, Jun 24 2012
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2012/06/24/environmental_crisis_we_have_a_democratic_crisis.html

(5) Bill C-38: What you need to know. David Suzuki Foundation, May 2012
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2012/C-38%20factsheet.pdf

(6) Is this the end of federal environmental assessments? David Suzuki Foundation, June 12, 2012
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/panther-lounge/2012/06/is-this-the-end-of-federal-environmental-assessments/

(7) CARP Bill C-38 Poll Report, May 10 2012
http://www.carp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/CARP-Bill-C-38.pdf

2) Must not be funded according to Federal Infrastructure priority areas: (1) public transit, (2) green infrastructure, (3) social infrastructure.

Agricultural Legacy
Climate change will raise sea levels and bring salt water further up Fraser River. Removal of George Massey Tunnel will increase salt impacts on fresh water irrigation intakes and agricultural water supply. This is not well understood.

Hidden Agenda
The industry developed (BC Progress Board, Pacific Gateway Council) Gateway Agenda (2001-2011) explains why there hasn’t been sensible transportation planning in the Metro Vancouver region for decades. The development of transportation and urbanization has been planned without municipal and public input and sensible transit investment in connection with land use planning. http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs/373151/transportation_final.pdf
Regional Economic, Social, and Environmental Health
Metro Vancouver Mayors call for a Federal Environmental Assessment of the proposal. They request more information and transit alternatives to Massey Tunnel Replacement. Richmond City council was not consulted on the decision and does not support the $3.5 Billion Bridge.
The bridge proposal imposes a freeway driven car culture on future generations, contrary to decades of Vancouver regional planning.

3) An audit and full review of Port Metro Vancouver’s governance model must be initiated, and include the organizational structure of the board, executive, and staff. The redrafting of Transport Canada Letters Patent for regional accountability is needed.

Port Metro Vancouver environmental approvals are the classic fox in the henhouse, conflict of Interest. This is becoming an international embarrassment for the Salish Sea ecosystem.
Liberal Government Promises for Real Change, 2015
• ...“We will make environmental assessments credible again.”
• “…Stephen Harper’s changes to the Fisheries Act, and his elimination of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, have weakened environmental protections. We will review these changes, restore lost protections, and incorporate more modern safeguards…
• …We will immediately review Canada’s environmental assessment processes and introduce new, fair processes that will… ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public’s interest;…
• …We will also do more to protect Canada’s endangered species. We will respond more quickly to the advice and requests of scientists, and will complete robust species-at-risk recovery plans…
• …To protect these valuable natural resources, we will deliver more robust and credible environmental assessments for all projects that could impact our freshwater and oceans…
• …We will use scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, and take into account climate change, when making decisions affecting fish stocks and ecosystem management.”

(8) Liberal Party 2015 Campaign Commitment
https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/environmental-assessments/

Prime Minister’s Mandate Letters
Top priorities identified by Prime Minister’s Mandate Letters to Fisheries, Environment, Transport, Natural Resource Ministers includes:
• Canada’s Environmental Assessment Process -
To immediately review and introduce new fair processes.
• Fisheries and Navigational Waters Protections Acts -
To restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards.

Reference
(9) Ministerial Mandate Letters
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-fisheries-oceans-and-canadian-coast-guard-mandate-letter
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-transport-mandate-letter
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-environment-and-climate-change-mandate-letter

The current Fisheries Act, Environmental Assessment Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, and Species at Risk Acts have been gutted, and the existing Environmental Assessment process is legally flawed.

When can we expect that oversight and lost protections for the Fraser River will be returned?

John ter Borg
B.Eng. MLWS LEED AP

British Columbia2016-05-02 14:49:35
AdriennePeacockBelcarra

Dear Minister McKenna,

Please make sure that your government conducts a thorough, transparent environmental assessment of the Massey Bridge.

Previous bridges, the Golden Ears and Port Mann, continue to be a drain on the resources of Translink because they are not achieving the traffic that the private partner was promised. Desmond Travis of Integrity BC warns that of 18 projects announced by the B.C. government since 2003, seven transportation projects have been 59.2 per cent over budget. Therefore this bridge is unlikely to come in at $3.5 billion and all taxpayers will be required to contribute more.

This is another example of a politically motivated project which does not have an adequate business plant.

Some crucial issues which have not been addressed include:

Does the tunnel really need to be replaced? What are the other options?
What impact will this bridge have on local agriculture and wildlife? 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?
Shouldn’t this project warrant a Federal review and not an assessment by the proponent itself?

Please make sure the Federal government does not rubber stamp this project until a Federal assessment is properly done.

Thank you.
(Dr.) Adrienne Peacock

British Columbia2016-05-02 15:42:28
MarvinSkeltonRichmond

I attended an open house session with my MP Mr. J. Peschisolido. At that meeting many concerns, environmental and ethical about the dealings of Port Metro Vancouver. At that meeting Mr. Peschisolido indicated the federal government could do nothing about it as Port Metro Vancouver is a private enterprise company.

I strongly disagree.

Port Metro Vancouver is an arms length quasi government organization that you should disband. It's function is to bring business no matter how harmful to Canada. It has put the Fraser Delta in extreme danger of environmental hazards if their policy continues.

The Massey tunnel does not need to be replaced. Twining the tunnel would solve much of the traffic issues that the Provincial govt. and Port Metro Vancouver site as their main concern for building the bridge.
I personally would prefer to see a transit system hooking up to the Canada Line tunnelling under the Fraser River, similar to the tunnel in Vancouver.
This would reduce the carbon footprint and reliance on fossil fuel.
A bridge of this magnitude would have severe impact on myself and the city of Richmond , not only as an eyesore, increased noise, but harm the land it cover.

In November, 2015 on the first day of global climate talks in Paris, Port Metro Vancouver issued a revised permit for Fraser Surrey Docks coal port – this time allowing giant Panamax ships to travel up the Fraser River to handle coal rejected by American ports.
1. In direct contradiction to the Federal governments vision of Canada as an international climate change leader.
2. In direct contradiction to Premier Christy Clark's vision of BC as a climate leader – and weaning China off of coal-fired power plants.
3. In direct contradiction to global efforts to turn away from coal as the single biggest contributor to GHG emissions.
4. In direct contradiction to assessment processes cabinet ministers have been mandated to create to restore public trust and science-based decision-making.

In closing I would like to remind you that you are responsible for this disaster if it should occur. The Federal Government gave away their power and abrogated their responsibility to groups like Port Metro Vancouver. You are not alone. The same can be said about all forms of Government. It is time to take it back.

British Columbia2016-05-02 16:00:04
A. KatherineDuperronCumberland

1. There seems to be something fishy about this decision from the first I heard about it.
2. $3.5 billion will inevitably grow to a huge amount. Surely upgrading the tunnel would cost much less, and still employ people.
3. It is very important to not undertake projects which encourage us to stay tightly linked to fossil usage.

British Columbia2016-05-02 17:15:09
LindaKempQuesnel

The provincial government of BC is acting like there is no climate change. They are hell bent on several projects that will work against the future for BCers.There is planning to turn 2500 acres of fertile delta farmland into a COAL PORT. This land is right next to the city of Vancouver and supplies the city with a great deal of their food. The site C dam is meant to supply power to fracking and Alberta tar sands and LNG which will also fall from favour sooner rather than later. The plans for LNG on the coast will put the provinces largest wild salmon run at risk. There is NO First Nations approval of these plans and the majority of the population does not want more fossil fuel development. Please consider infrastructure spending that moves us along the path of clean energy. That is where we need to go. Alberta is also stuck in the past, we need big ideas for how to move into the future not more of the same .

British Columbia2016-05-02 17:26:54
DarnellJohnsonKelowna

This project needs to have the foresight of the next 50 years. Renewable energy is the direction that society will evolve towards and this site should take sustainability into account.
Much love!

British Columbia2016-05-02 17:32:07
LouiseBjorknasWhite Rock

Please initiate a Federal Environmental Assessment of the replacement of the Massey Tunnel.

Building a $3.5 billion Massey Bridge seems to be geared for the industrial users of the DeltaPort not we drivers south of the Fraser.

Why did the Netherlands decide that a $420 million upgrade was a better option than a bridge? They are not beholden to the fossil fuel industries in the same manner as our Premier Christy Clark, so they are able to take a logical approach. that is more efficient and less costly.

Please order that this project be thoroughly assessed so that the surrounding City Councils, MPs and citizens have a voice in this arbitrary decision made by the Provincial Government.

British Columbia2016-05-02 17:39:07
DenisAgarVancouver

I'm a transportation planner and I've looked at the Business Case for this infrastructure project. They are using very very outdated ways of estimating the impact of this bridge. Here are the two critical ways:
1) Overestimating traffic without a bridge: Their estimates for increases in congestion ignore what we know about induced demand and mode choice. They also ignore how land use is changing.
2) Underestimating the impact of implementing a toll: If the current tunnel were tolled, the existing congestion would be eliminated almost immediately, and the funds could be used to seismically retrofit the existing tunnel. Tolls have a big impact on traffic demand and I daresay that the proposed 10-lane bridge would be as underutilized as the Port Mann, which has seen traffic levels drop since it was tolled, despite the new capacity.

This is the wrong priority for the region, and it will not improve our ability to get around. The analysis that has been done is akin to suggesting leeches to cure cancer. It is absolutely outdated and needs senior government to step in.

British Columbia2016-05-02 17:42:01
KathrynCumingBeaverdell

There is NO NEED for an expensive bridge to be built, the tunnel was recently seismically upgraded. If more traffic needs to use this crossing just TWIN the tunnel - you are half way there already!

British Columbia2016-05-02 17:46:46
CatherineHillDenman Island

As we move into the Post-Paris Agreement era and watch countries around this earth move to renewable energy and innovative transport, B.C. seems to be stuck in the past century. We should be moving forward. If this were REALLY about transportation, it would make the most sense to put light rapid transit out along/beside existing highway to White Rock to get people out of their cars!!!

By having this bridge, it's just turning the Fraser into an industrial river (again -- sound like the 20th or even 19th or 18th century thinking?). We have all the knowhow and should be investing in green technologies - other countries are weaning themselves off of LNG, coal, and we will be the ones stuck in outdated technologies with outdated infrastructure.

Enough of the nonsense that is driving this in B.C. -- it's certainly not good business sense, or investment sense, or Paris Agreement sense.

Enough pipelines, enough huge bridges to nowhere (and if it goes in will just move the boondoggle of cars up to the Oak Street Bridge into Vancouver -- insanity!). Time to transition is now!

Thanks kindly for reading my letter.

Catherine Hill (who works on climate change and agriculture, food security issue for a living)

British Columbia2016-05-02 18:08:55
CatherineHillDenman Island

As we move into the Post-Paris Agreement era and watch countries around this earth move to renewable energy and innovative transport, B.C. seems to be stuck in the past century. We should be moving forward. If this were REALLY about transportation, it would make the most sense to put light rapid transit out along/beside existing highway to White Rock to get people out of their cars!!!

By having this bridge, it's just turning the Fraser into an industrial river (again -- sound like the 20th or even 19th or 18th century thinking?). We have all the knowhow and should be investing in green technologies - other countries are weaning themselves off of LNG, coal, and we will be the ones stuck in outdated technologies with outdated infrastructure.

Enough of the nonsense that is driving this in B.C. -- it's certainly not good business sense, or investment sense, or Paris Agreement sense.

Enough pipelines, enough huge bridges to nowhere (and if it goes in will just move the boondoggle of cars up to the Oak Street Bridge into Vancouver -- insanity!). Time to transition is now!

Thanks kindly for reading my letter.

Catherine Hill (who works on climate change and agriculture, food security issue for a living)

British Columbia2016-05-02 18:09:01
RobieLiscombVictoria

I urge you to order a full environmental review of the Massey Tunnel Replacement project. The proposed bridge will just encourage the increased use of passenger vehicles and also facilitate the expansion of fossil fuel export projects that threaten the environmental values and salmon run of the Fraser River and will lead to increased GHG emissions at all stages of the process.

British Columbia2016-05-02 18:28:13
SteveBridgerRichmond

I strongly endorse the need for a proper environmental assessment to be conducted for this project.

There has been scant study of the impact and very little consultation on this. It's a project that has been pushed solely by the provincial government without much evident thought and certainly without proper consultation.

Moreover I want this project changed substantially or stopped. It is a 1950s solution looking for a problem which no longer exists, and creating bigger problems. It simply encourages and facilitates single passenger vehicle commuting. A much more considered solution would be to increase or actually create means of rapid transit for getting the same people through Richmond. This is barely a footnote in the scheme as presently laid out. I fully agree with the analysis by councilor Patrick Johnstone of New Westminster in the following article: https://patrickjohnstone.ca/2016/04/myths-and-lies.html

But please, a full environmental assessment, and proper reconsideration of this mistake!

British Columbia2016-05-02 18:30:02
DawneThompsonGreenwood

Dear Sirs and Madams,

Please don't allow the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel. What we need to do is protect our coastal waters and the vital ecosystems they support, rather than expose them to more toxic traffic and all the devastation that will occur when one of the tankers spills.

The ridiculously high cost of such a terrible idea is absolutely prohibitive, as well. Why not use a bit of that money to explore green energy alternatives?

Sincerely,

Dawne Thompson

British Columbia2016-05-02 18:44:20
WynneLe RouxBurnaby

Fossil fuels will soon be a thing of the past... but we will always need clean water and land to grow food. Say No to this proposition while we still can.

British Columbia2016-05-02 18:50:30
ShelleyMadsenNew Westminster

Please order a Federal Environmental Review on the proposed Massey Bridge Plan.

British Columbia2016-05-02 18:58:44
Holly Pender-LoveTrail

We do not want a coal port on the Fraser to ship USA coal anywhere. Coal is now an obsolete fossil fuel, and we do not want to be shipping it anywhere. We think the the Port Authority and the provincial government must tell the truth. Hence, we need a proper assessment of this proposal. We do not trust a word they say, and want the Federal Government to step up to the plate and protect the environment. This is why we got rid of Harper, and will be getting rid of Christy Clark in 2017.

British Columbia2016-05-02 19:24:24
Holly Pender-LoveTrail

We do not want a coal port on the Fraser to ship USA coal anywhere. Coal is now an obsolete fossil fuel, and we do not want to be shipping it anywhere. We think the the Port Authority and the provincial government must tell the truth. Hence, we need a proper assessment of this proposal. We do not trust a word they say, and want the Federal Government to step up to the plate and protect the environment. This is why we got rid of Harper, and will be getting rid of Christy Clark in 2017.

British Columbia2016-05-02 19:24:34
JohnHillVancouver

Please conduct a Federal Environmental Assessment of this unneeded and destructive project. Just 10 years ago, the BC Government determined that a twinning of the existing tunnel would be sufficient for future transportation needs. This massive bridge on the other hand, would cause major prime farmland loss, is way more expensive, would encourage sprawl south of the river while just pushing traffic congestion to the Oak St Bridge to the north, and is very likely being pursued primarily to allow much bigger fossil fuel carrying ships to travel upriver to very environmentally destructive fracked LNG and coal export terminals.

British Columbia2016-05-02 19:44:55
JohnHillVancouver

Please conduct a Federal Environmental Assessment of this unneeded and destructive project. Just 10 years ago, the BC Government determined that a twinning of the existing tunnel would be sufficient for future transportation needs. This massive bridge on the other hand, would cause major prime farmland loss, is way more expensive, would encourage sprawl south of the river while just pushing traffic congestion to the Oak St Bridge to the north, and is very likely being pursued primarily to allow much bigger fossil fuel carrying ships to travel upriver to very environmentally destructive fracked LNG and coal export terminals.

British Columbia2016-05-02 19:45:02
JohnHillVancouver

Please conduct a Federal Environmental Assessment of this unneeded and destructive project. Just 10 years ago, the BC Government determined that a twinning of the existing tunnel would be sufficient for future transportation needs. This massive bridge on the other hand, would cause major prime farmland loss, is way more expensive, would encourage sprawl south of the river while just pushing traffic congestion to the Oak St Bridge to the north, and is very likely being pursued primarily to allow much bigger fossil fuel carrying ships to travel upriver to very environmentally destructive fracked LNG and coal export terminals.

British Columbia2016-05-02 19:45:03
AgnesWattsVancouver

This very large, very expensive project should be reviewed by more than just the proponents. It has major implications for the region, including the huge costs, both financial and environmental. It seems to be only going to benefit the fossil fuel industry, by deepening the usable channel of the Fraser River, thus allowing even more large ocean-going vessels to create a further incursion into the surrounding territory , increasing the risks to the large population living there. There are too many unanswered questions to allow this project to proceed without further close scrutiny.

British Columbia2016-05-02 19:47:55
MaggieBernetWhite Rock

Environment Minister, please do your job justice,
this project is wrong on every level, especially on Nature, this is our Planet our Land our Province our Tunnel and lets not waste anymore money on Bullshit that politicians are trying to cash in on, corrupt to the core.

British Columbia2016-05-02 20:00:20
GordSavardSurrey

Replacing the Massey Tunnel with a new crossing of the Fraser River should trigger a Federal Environmental Assessment
Ask the Minister McKenna to order a Federal Environmental Review Panel of the proposal

Our local politicians will be meeting with ministers in Ottawa next week. We want the ministers to know that it is imperative that the federal government conduct a federal environmental review panel on the Massey Bridge. Please use the form on this website to amplify your concerns about these important issues. Your comments will be shared to key decision-makers and will be published on this website here.
Deadline to comment is Monday May 1st!
Massey Bridge Opposition Background

Public opposition to the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel with a $3.5 billion bridge has been building steadily since the project was first unveiled.

Hundreds of people voiced their concerns about plans to replace the Massey Tunnel with a bridge over the Fraser River during the 30 day commenting period conducted by the BC Environmental Assessment Office which ended on February 15.

Since then, Metro Vancouver has called for a Federal Environmental Assessment of the proposal and the city of Richmond opposes the building of the bridge.

Use the form at right to continue to ask the Environment Minister to order a Federal EA of this proposal. We’ll add your comments to the public record and send copies to key elected representatives and the project proponent.

This is an important opportunity to raise key issues about this project, including:

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?
Shouldn’t this project warrant a Federal review and not an assessment by the proponent itself?

Remove, Replace or Retrofit the Massey Tunnel?
The Netherlands are retrofitting a similar tunnel to modern standards.

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?
Who Should Pay For A New Bridge?
Building a new bridge benefits the Port and fossil fuel exporters.

The pressure to allow bigger ocean going vessels onto the Lower Fraser River has been growing for years, and container truck traffic to and from Deltaport will only increase in the future if Roberts Bank Terminal Two is built. Right now the Massey Tunnel keeps deeper draft (and heavily loaded) vessels off the river and limits how many trucks can travel to and from the Port through our communities.

The BC government says that the the bridge is being built to benefit commuters, but the Port and industrial users of the Fraser River are clearly going to benefit if this project goes ahead. They should have to pay for a big portion of the cost of this bridge. Here are some ideas on how that could happen:

If cars have to pay a toll to go over the bridge, deep draft ocean going vessels should have to pay a significant toll each time they go under it. After all, they will benefit from the deeper draft in the river once the tunnel is removed.
Every container that passes over the bridge going to or from DeltaPort should be charged a transportation improvement fee. Vancouver International Airport collects improvement fees for new infrastructure, and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority has done the same for Gateway Infrastructure. The Port should collect a fee for container traffic use of the new bridge and hand it over to the province.

British Columbia2016-05-02 20:03:52
SharonPriest-NagataVancouver

I am concerned that there has not been enough consultation, and no environmental assessment of this proposed project. It is not clear who the bridge will serve, but it seems that the project would include dredging the river once the tunnel was removed. This activity in the river worries me because it seems that bigger and bigger vessels would be accommodated. For whose benefit, I wonder? And the footprint of the bridge will claim yet more of our scarce local farmland. BC has very little arable land as it is, and food security is not served by paving over what is left. Thank you

British Columbia2016-05-02 20:42:04
DonCloggSalt Spring Island

DO THE RIGHT THING! EXAMINE THE PROPOSAL CLOSELY AND DO NOT FALTER IN THE NEED FOR CORRECT ACTION!!!

THANKS ... Don Clogg

British Columbia2016-05-02 21:27:04
VFisher-SitarasSurrey

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 and more cost effective 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?

At the very least, I would request that a Federal Environmental Assessment be done, rather than accepting an assessment done by the proponent itself.

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

British Columbia2016-05-02 21:29:37
AlVarty Vancouver

Save our environment Stop this project
This is being proposed to ship low grade American coal to China
All west coast states have already rejected these coal ports.
Listen to the people.

British Columbia2016-05-02 21:33:48
GrahamRobertsonDelta

The Massey Bridge project is unnecessary, unwanted and will require our governments to borrow billions of
dollars.

British Columbia2016-05-02 21:54:52
MaryTaittLadner

BOUNDARY BAY CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
Box 1251, Delta, B.C. V4M 3T3
Contact: marytaitt@gmail.com

The Honourable Catherine McKenna
Minister of Environment and Climate Change
2 May 2016

RE: George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Needs CEAA Panel Review

Thank you for the opportunity to give comments from the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee (BBCC) on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and the need for a federal environmental Review of this far reaching project.

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 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 this project in January 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.
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 was presented on how public input contributed to this vision that was put up on public billboards as a fact just before the last 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 a completely inadequate farce.
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 by an expert, independent panel.
Canada must become a leader in conducting rigorous environmental reviews of projects by independent, expert, scientists in the related fields. The Fraser River Estuary is an exemplary area to establish this standard of review. It is a globally significant site with international designations that the federal government must uphold.
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. Canada must do 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 completed on all options. 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 throughout Delta and Richmond? Have the scenarios been modelled for each option?

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 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 in particular a second tunnel that could protect the Fraser River from large coal and LNG carriers.

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 and compensated for?
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 (estimates around $262 M vers. $3.5B), 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 to evaluate and assess the threats to farmland from each of the options? For example, port industrial expansion onto some of the most productive soils in Canada? For example, pressure to develop farmland for housing? What are the threats to food security of the different options? What are the consequences of alterations of Fraser River water flow, by removal of the tunnel, and the resulting changes to ingression of the “salt wedge” up the Fraser River with its impact on the availability of fresh water for farmland 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 an extra tunnel?
Yours sincerely,

Mary Taitt
Director, BBCC

British Columbia2016-05-02 23:05:27
BlairDykesVancouver

The proposed Massey bridge project MUST be submitted to a full environmental review. Despite claims that this is a 'green' project intended to reduce congestion, implicit in it's construction are an increase in coal and LNG freighter traffic on the Fraser river, loss of surrounding Agricultural Reserve land, and a mere shift in location of traffic congestion to elsewhere along the 99 highway. These factors, along with high attendant costs, risky engineering requirements, and strong local opposition make the Massey Bridge a project worthy of intense review and scrutiny. Let that process begin with an unbiased Federal environment review, not merely an assessment from the proponents themselves!

British Columbia2016-05-02 23:26:42
JonathamWilkinslangley

Not just the bridge, but the huge hinterland works for a bridge is appalling. Give us another tunnel, then a fourth. No extra roads wil be needed.

British Columbia2016-05-03 02:53:21
DavidChesneyWhite Roc k BC

Replacing the tunnel with a massive bridge is not the answer to easing congestion. You will simply move it north of the Fraser where drivers will sit in line for hours waiting to merge into the two lane oak street bridge.

British Columbia2016-05-03 06:38:25
DavidChesneyWhite Roc k BC

Replacing the tunnel with a massive bridge is not the answer to easing congestion. You will simply move it north of the Fraser where drivers will sit in line for hours waiting to merge into the two lane oak street bridge.

British Columbia2016-05-03 06:38:26
MaiClarkWhite Rock

I am concerned that the real reason for the bridge is to deepen the channel to allow tankers to ply the waters. I am very much opposed to this.

British Columbia2016-05-03 07:50:33
AnnetteHortonVancouver

The George Massey tunnel does not need to be replaced by a $3.5 million bridge over the Fraser river. At the very least the project needs to have a Federal Environmental Review.
The bridge would merely create a huge bottleneck of traffic where the highway enters Vancouver and would allow massive increases in the transportation of fossil fuel through our region at a time when our federal Government has pronounced the need to switch to renewable energy.

British Columbia2016-05-03 08:29:44
DeborahAyersRichmond

This bridge has both Environmental (ALR & Fisheries) implications.
We have been trying to stop this bridge from being built and the Liberal
Government here in BC has not been listening. There priority is to get
LNG tankers up the Fraser River which is already very busy with container ships etc. LNG would be a devastating development on our river. The major salmon runs, bird (eagles, ducks, snowy owls, snow geese etc ) use this for migraine purposes and the fisheries feeds Canadians! Our river is very important to the environment. They will have to dredge the river even more than they are now which affects salmon runs, sturgeon and other species. This will also affect our farming community. This bridge is not needed, as study was done approximately 20 years ago to twin the existing tune, this would have less of an impact on the area, (use of farmland for on/off ramps etc. Would cost less to implement and would cost less to the public. This would also cause less problems with the back-up of commuter at the Oak Street Bridge. The construction of this project even started prior to public being notified that it was a done deal.
This needs to be stopped, we do not need another bridge!!
Thank you

British Columbia2016-05-03 08:45:05
ThomasMoodyVancouver

I am concerned about the proposal to replace the George Massey Tunnel with a high bridge across the lower Fraser River. I believe that the impact of the proposed bridge on the environment should be reviewed at the federal level. Such a review should include a consideration of the project's likely impact on wildlife in general and salmon in particular, as well as its likely impact on traffic, urban development and fossil fuel exports on the Fraser River. The review should also explore whether the George Massey Tunnel even needs to be replaced. (The tunnel was modelled 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.) In a similar vein, the review ought to determine whether replacement of the Massey Tunnel with a high bridge is motivated by an urge to excessively industrialise the Lower Fraser for the purpose of 1) allowing fully loaded coal freighters to travel to and from Fraser Surrey Docks; and 2) permitting bigger LNG carriers to be loaded at the proposed Wespac-Fortis LNG terminal in Delta. In addition to the direct impacts on salmon, killer whales and other sensitive marine life, such traffic would extend the life of a fossil fuel industry that must be wound down if, as Canada and 194 other countries committed to ensure in the legally binding Paris Agreement on climate change, the world is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

British Columbia2016-05-03 09:27:40
laurencegillsurrey

I think the proposers of the new bridge are not being honest and I don't like it when people are trying to get one past me. They say it is because of traffic congestion but this is a blatant lie. The current tunnel handles the traffic quite well when it is in the counter flow direction. It is the opposite direction where the problem is. So if we had 2 more tunnel lanes the traffic problem would be solved. If you are building 2 more might as well build 4 and have the solution for the next 50 yrs. During that time the infrastructure to accommodate these 2 extra lanes could be built. If we build a 10 lane bridge now at an enormous cost where is all that traffic going to go? We still have the same bridge going into Vancouver and the same 2 lanes going south into Delta and S Surrey.
If you do build it forcing the public to pay for it while the obvious beneficiaries are Port Metro Vancouver and all their coal ship customers is a crime. Make those who benefit pay the cost. Commuters are a small portion of the beneficiaries. While large in numbers they are small in economic values.
thank you
Yours sincerely
Laurence Gill

British Columbia2016-05-03 09:37:40
MOIRASILCOXRICHMOND

HONOURABLE MINISTER

The Richmond community is strongly opposed to the process and intent of the Province's mega-bridge project. Their plans to replace the Massey Tunnel with a "10-lane bridge" is ill-conceived. (Why would anyone think to build a mega-bridge when Canada's goal is to reduce vehicular emissions in the coming decades?)

The Province has been obstructive. Our Richmond City Council has been thwarted (by the Province and the Port Authority) in all attempts to obtain the true facts of this mega-project.

And, a 30 day period to obtain stakeholder feedback is inadequate, given the magnitude of impacts this project will generate. It is obvious that this project has been "rushed" through by the BC government.

We need an unbiased look at realistic options (e.g. a replacement tunnel). As tax-payers we want transparency with respect to the motivations of the Province and the Port Authority for this multi-billion dollar project.

Please intervene now and order a Federal Environmental Assessment of the proposal.

We appreciate any effort you can apply to put this process back on the right track.

British Columbia2016-05-03 10:36:39
KathleenBakerVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,

Please ensure there is a Federal Environmental Assessment of the proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel with a huge - (ten lane!) bridge. The BC Liberal government are known propoments of the bridge and as such a BC Environmental Assessment is biased. I am greatly concerned with the impact of a new bridge on traffic and the urban enviroment; the loss of prime farmland not to mention the impact on fossil fuel exports on the Fraser River. I don't support ocean-going tankers transporting fossil fuels on the vital Fraser River.
Does the tunnel really need to be replaced, and with something on the scale of the proposed bridge? What are the options? I understand the Netherlands are retrofitting a similar tunnel to modern standards at a much lower proposed cost. Let's focus on improving public transit with taxpayer dollars to get more cars off the roads and helping to protect the environment.
Also of concern is who should pay for this bridge? Industrial users of the Fraser River? The Port Authority? BC taxpayers?
I definitely do not support the proposed bridge. Please ensure the public's many concerns are heard and replied to.
Sincerely,
KM Baker

British Columbia2016-05-03 11:18:15
KathleenBakerVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,

Please ensure there is a Federal Environmental Assessment of the proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel with a huge - (ten lane!) bridge. The BC Liberal government are known propoments of the bridge and as such a BC Environmental Assessment is biased. I am greatly concerned with the impact of a new bridge on traffic and the urban enviroment; the loss of prime farmland not to mention the impact on fossil fuel exports on the Fraser River. I don't support ocean-going tankers transporting fossil fuels on the vital Fraser River.
Does the tunnel really need to be replaced, and with something on the scale of the proposed bridge? What are the options? I understand the Netherlands are retrofitting a similar tunnel to modern standards at a much lower proposed cost. Let's focus on improving public transit with taxpayer dollars to get more cars off the roads and helping to protect the environment.
Also of concern is who should pay for this bridge? Industrial users of the Fraser River? The Port Authority? BC taxpayers?
I definitely do not support the proposed bridge. Please ensure the public's many concerns are heard and replied to.
Sincerely,
KM Baker

British Columbia2016-05-03 11:18:15
KathleenBakerVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,

Please ensure there is a Federal Environmental Assessment of the proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel with a huge - (ten lane!) bridge. The BC Liberal government are known propoments of the bridge and as such a BC Environmental Assessment is biased. I am greatly concerned with the impact of a new bridge on traffic and the urban enviroment; the loss of prime farmland not to mention the impact on fossil fuel exports on the Fraser River. I don't support ocean-going tankers transporting fossil fuels on the vital Fraser River.
Does the tunnel really need to be replaced, and with something on the scale of the proposed bridge? What are the options? I understand the Netherlands are retrofitting a similar tunnel to modern standards at a much lower proposed cost. Let's focus on improving public transit with taxpayer dollars to get more cars off the roads and helping to protect the environment.
Also of concern is who should pay for this bridge? Industrial users of the Fraser River? The Port Authority? BC taxpayers?
I definitely do not support the proposed bridge. Please ensure the public's many concerns are heard and replied to.
Sincerely,
KM Baker

British Columbia2016-05-03 11:18:17
KathleenBakerVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,

Please ensure there is a Federal Environmental Assessment of the proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel with a huge - (ten lane!) bridge. The BC Liberal government are known propoments of the bridge and as such a BC Environmental Assessment is biased. I am greatly concerned with the impact of a new bridge on traffic and the urban enviroment; the loss of prime farmland not to mention the impact on fossil fuel exports on the Fraser River. I don't support ocean-going tankers transporting fossil fuels on the vital Fraser River.
Does the tunnel really need to be replaced, and with something on the scale of the proposed bridge? What are the options? I understand the Netherlands are retrofitting a similar tunnel to modern standards at a much lower proposed cost. Let's focus on improving public transit with taxpayer dollars to get more cars off the roads and helping to protect the environment.
Also of concern is who should pay for this bridge? Industrial users of the Fraser River? The Port Authority? BC taxpayers?
I definitely do not support the proposed bridge. Please ensure the public's many concerns are heard and replied to.
Sincerely,
KM Baker

British Columbia2016-05-03 11:18:19
KathleenBakerVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,

Please ensure there is a Federal Environmental Assessment of the proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel with a huge - (ten lane!) bridge. The BC Liberal government are known propoments of the bridge and as such a BC Environmental Assessment is biased. I am greatly concerned with the impact of a new bridge on traffic and the urban enviroment; the loss of prime farmland not to mention the impact on fossil fuel exports on the Fraser River. I don't support ocean-going tankers transporting fossil fuels on the vital Fraser River.
Does the tunnel really need to be replaced, and with something on the scale of the proposed bridge? What are the options? I understand the Netherlands are retrofitting a similar tunnel to modern standards at a much lower proposed cost. Let's focus on improving public transit with taxpayer dollars to get more cars off the roads and helping to protect the environment.
Also of concern is who should pay for this bridge? Industrial users of the Fraser River? The Port Authority? BC taxpayers?
I definitely do not support the proposed bridge. Please ensure the public's many concerns are heard and replied to.
Sincerely,
KM Baker

British Columbia2016-05-03 11:18:30
Maceyter BorgRichmond

No Bridge. Twin the tunnel

British Columbia2016-05-03 11:22:51
JaneMaxwellDelta

This bridge will be hugely detrimental to the environment of the Fraser River and Delta. Instead, investment should be made to improve and increase public transit.

British Columbia2016-05-03 11:43:13
LynnAskeyInvermere

I am in favour of keeping the Massey Tunnel and perhaps doing a retrofit on it. Governments should not be wasting taxpayers' money on unnecessary structures. Please see that due diligence is brought to this matter.

British Columbia2016-05-03 12:36:35
WilliamDavisVancouver

At first I thought the ten lane bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel, while a little extravagant, was not a bad idea. On further reflection and with more information, it seems to be quite a bad idea. For starters, it may not solve the problem it is reported to be concerned with, traffic congestion. It seems likely that the increased traffic will simply find other bottlenecks, Oak Street Bridge being the most likely. But now it seems that the real purpose of the bridge is to allow larger ships up the river in order to transport greater quantities of fossil fuels. This would be a disaster. The net effect of the new bridge could be serious climate damage. Please review this project before proceeding.

British Columbia2016-05-03 12:47:34
VickiPauzeWhite Rock

Minister McKenna

I am in support of a federal environmental assessment for the proposed Massey Tunnel replacement. My job requires that I drive all over the lower mainland and Vancouver. This particular infrastructure improvement is far less important then other areas of the city that desperately need better roads and access. But our Provincial Govt chooses to ignore this fact. The area in Richmond needs to take a stand as it is a rich and fertile area for farmland still. We are slowly piece by piece destroying our water ways and farmland with industrial development. And I am sure you are aware that BC has made its opinion known on the fact that we should not be paying our hard earned tax dollars to build a shipping lane for oil tankers, coal ships and other unwanted commodities. There are other options such as twinning the tunnel, there will be huge problems with roads not being able to accommodate the increased traffic and why should the Port of Vancouver be allowed to assess itself on regulations and compliance?
Vicki Pauze

British Columbia2016-05-03 13:28:56
MaureenMayCourtenay

I think it is vital that an environmental assessment be made on this project.
I do not think that the tunnel needs to be replaced.
Ms. Clarke has her own governments agenda for the removal of this tunnel and that is to ship more fossil fuels down the Fraser River.
I am completely against the increase in fossil fuel exports. Does she not understand the meaning of Climate Change and that the future is in our hands?
Please do what is necessary to stop this madness.

Yours sincerely,
Maureen May.

British Columbia2016-05-03 14:19:12
MaureenMayCourtenay

I think it is vital that an environmental assessment be made on this project.
I do not think that the tunnel needs to be replaced.
Ms. Clarke has her own governments agenda for the removal of this tunnel and that is to ship more fossil fuels down the Fraser River.
I am completely against the increase in fossil fuel exports. Does she not understand the meaning of Climate Change and that the future is in our hands?
Please do what is necessary to stop this madness.

Yours sincerely,
Maureen May.

British Columbia2016-05-03 14:19:15
MarilynMcClellandFanny Bay

The Massey Tunnel has worked fine for many many years and should continue to do so. The only reason an unwanted expensive $3.5 billion bridge is proposed is to allow huge unwanted LNG tankers to ply the river. These are NOT wanted either. That money should be spent on more important things than further pollution of the river and our environment from LNG. The impact of building the bridge and human inconvenience will be long lasting and unnecessary.

This should NOT be a taxpayer cost but should be paid by the proponent, the port authority or users of the Fraser River.

At the very least this project MUST have a Federal review and environmental assessment and NOT by the proponent.

If Vancouver and BC want to lay claim to be a Green city or Province then they MUST live and act Green and NOT allow LNG, Coal, or any destructive polluting fossil fuels to be imported or exported from the area!!!!

Thank you.

British Columbia2016-05-03 14:49:40
AlexandreVigneaultVancouver

I am review concerned about the environmental impact of the removal of the massey tunnel.

I have serious concerns that it could negatively impact regional farmland fresh water access. Impacts on food security should be studied before making a decision.

I urge you to trigger an environmental assessment for this large project.

British Columbia2016-05-03 15:15:34
HelenWilliamsSurrey

There are conflicting reports as to whether this tunnel really need to be replaced. We heard it has the lifespan of another 50 years.

A new bridge would be beyond what BC taxpayers should pay and then incur a toll to continue paying for the bridge over the years.

The BC government is in bed with the Port Authority and all land developers at the expense of the citizens of BC who would rather the valuable farm land that a new bridge would consume be used to produce local food.

We have some of the best farmland in the country yet development of houses and industrial uses is getting precedence. What about future generations?

This project warrants a Federal review and not an assessment by the proponent itself?

Thank you for reviewing this proposal.

Sincerely
Helen Williams

British Columbia2016-05-03 15:47:05
PatMartinCreston

This is a federal matter being taken to a level where a decision is being made by a few. We need careful evaluation of the current and future outcomes likely to occur from this project .

British Columbia2016-05-03 16:29:08
MargaretMoreauRichmond

We need to rethink the bridge, before it's too late.

British Columbia2016-05-03 18:39:33
markdaltonSurrey

Dear Minister McKenna,

We need your help. Our provincial government led by Christy Clark and the agency that has control of commercial shipping development along our coastline and the Fraser River (Vancouver Fraser Port Authority) are not listening to us. Their focus is on development, development, development, no matter what the impact on the environment, climate change, marine life, public safety, agriculture, and quality of life on our coast. They are using the issue of traffic congestion to justify the building of a $3.5 Billion bridge over the Fraser River to replace an existing tunnel that runs underneath it. The "traffic thing" is just a smokescreen. Their real intent is to construct a bridge high enough to allow ocean going ships to come up the Fraser River far enough to reach an LNG terminal and a dock where coal from Wyoming could be shipped to Asia. Christy Clark has a single-minded focus on promoting LNG in our province. The increased shipment of coal makes it look like more "goods" are being shipped from our ports, to the benefit of Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. That is what, and all, they each care about. Meanwhile other options and the environmental impacts are simply being ignored. We need a credible, objective, unbiased agency to conduct a proper environmental review of this project. Please step in and stop this charade. Please declare that a federal environmental assessment is required. A key element of the Liberal platform which we all embraced was increased environmental consideration for major infrastructural projects. Please help. Yours truly, Mark Dalton

British Columbia2016-05-03 19:14:35
JohnStockdale Vancouver

The bridge will not even help traffic congestion. It is just a rouse to get large vessels up the Fraser River. The environmental impacts on the salmon fisheries alone should send off alarm bells.

British Columbia2016-05-03 23:03:19
JohnStockdale Vancouver

The bridge will not even help traffic congestion. It is just a rouse to get large vessels up the Fraser River. The environmental impacts on the salmon fisheries alone should send off alarm bells.

British Columbia2016-05-03 23:03:24
JohnStockdale Vancouver

The bridge will not even help traffic congestion. It is just a rouse to get large vessels up the Fraser River. The environmental impacts on the salmon fisheries alone should send off alarm bells.

British Columbia2016-05-03 23:03:29
JohnStockdale Vancouver

The bridge will not even help traffic congestion. It is just a rouse to get large vessels up the Fraser River. The environmental impacts on the salmon fisheries alone should send off alarm bells.

British Columbia2016-05-03 23:03:29
JohnStockdale Vancouver

The bridge will not even help traffic congestion. It is just a rouse to get large vessels up the Fraser River. The environmental impacts on the salmon fisheries alone should send off alarm bells.

British Columbia2016-05-03 23:03:29
KenDolphinNew Westminster

In New Westminster, we are already in a fight against those who would put a coal port right across the river from us. This proposed bridge would make our fight even harder. I'm my opinion, the only reason for this bridge is to allow larger ships access to the Fraser River. If the bridge were to go ahead, and I don't think that it should, no taxpayer money should be used and any tolls should be levied on the marine traffic that would go under the bridge. Let the port authority and the industrial users pay for it.

If the bridge does go ahead, it should also provide a Skytrain extension that serves Ladner, Tsawwassen, and the ferry terminal. The BC governments current top priority seems to be fossil fuel, both coal and oil, at a time when the people are wanting to go more green.

I'll end with this. This bridge should not even get consideration until a comprehensive plan, including all expansions to infrastructure, both north and south of the Fraser, are included in the calculations.

British Columbia2016-05-03 23:10:41
KenDolphinNew Westminster

In New Westminster, we are already in a fight against those who would put a coal port right across the river from us. This proposed bridge would make our fight even harder. I'm my opinion, the only reason for this bridge is to allow larger ships access to the Fraser River. If the bridge were to go ahead, and I don't think that it should, no taxpayer money should be used and any tolls should be levied on the marine traffic that would go under the bridge. Let the port authority and the industrial users pay for it.

If the bridge does go ahead, it should also provide a Skytrain extension that serves Ladner, Tsawwassen, and the ferry terminal. The BC governments current top priority seems to be fossil fuel, both coal and oil, at a time when the people are wanting to go more green.

I'll end with this. This bridge should not even get consideration until a comprehensive plan, including all expansions to infrastructure, both north and south of the Fraser, are included in the calculations.

British Columbia2016-05-03 23:10:41
MikeGildersleeveMission

I am writing you because I feel it's essential that the new crossing being proposed across the Fraser River should trigger a Federal Environmental Assessment.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Gildersleeve
Mission BC

British Columbia2016-05-03 23:20:37
Kim PatrickO'LearyCoquitlam

The idea of a Massey Bridge is an expensive make-work project to make the government appear to be doing something useful, when in fact they are proposing something outrageously stupid ... now that we are more cognizant of the issues surrounding such a project.

The project will only exacerbate problems that already exist - it won't solve them... and at tremendous cost in money, time, resources, and the attendant environmental costs.

There are so many other ideas and options. Has anyone considered these?
Build another tunnel so there are 2, one in each direction.

Until the issues of tolling bridges, roads, ferries, but not other bridges and roads is dealt with, then this project should be on hold.

Why has there been no environmental review? Who is pushing for this bridge? Concrete producers and steel producers is my guess.

We need better and more transit before we need more roads and bridges.

Building a bridge will only create more gridlock unless all the other problems are dealt with at the same time... are you planning on destroying hundreds of acres of land in Richmond, and removing people from their homes to do this??? This is stupid.

Pouring more concrete on more farmland in the lower mainland is an unacceptable solution to transportation problems. One person per car does not warrant a new bridge that will likely cost $5 billion. The issue is to stop one person per car! Get people out of their cars, or force them to share. You do this by imposing tolls everywhere, improving transit so there are options, and by reducing the amount of available land for people to desecrate with their stupid cars.

I don't really see any worthwhile projects coming from the present liberal government in Victoria. None. This is another ludicrous idea, that does not even warrant any further discussion. We don't have the money, and people need to stop polluting with their vehicles.

If people have to sit in traffic ... I have no sympathy.

British Columbia2016-05-04 11:48:43
KathleenBakerVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,
I am very concerned that the Federal Government complete an Environmental Assessment for plans toreplace the Massey Tunnel with a bridge over the Fraser River. The Provincial Liberal government are for replacing the tunnel with a massive 10 lane bridge which I do not support. I am concerned for the environmental implact on surrounding urban and farm land as well as the increased traffic and growth such a crossing would undoubtedly spawn. Additionally, I fear the Fraser River would be compromised by the ocean-going tankers proposed to transport fossil fuels to the Port Authority.
I would also like to know who is expected to pay for this bridge: Industrial users of the Fraser River, The Port Authority, Bc Taxpayers?
I understand The Netherlands is upgrading a similar tunnel to the Massey at a significantly reduced proposed cost than that of this bridge. Surely public monies could be used more effectively to improve public transport and get more cars off our highways rather than encouraging more.
Please listen to the public's concerns and act accordingly.

Sincerely,
KM Baker

British Columbia2016-05-04 15:06:37
KathleenBakerVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,
I am very concerned that the Federal Government complete an Environmental Assessment for plans toreplace the Massey Tunnel with a bridge over the Fraser River. The Provincial Liberal government are for replacing the tunnel with a massive 10 lane bridge which I do not support. I am concerned for the environmental implact on surrounding urban and farm land as well as the increased traffic and growth such a crossing would undoubtedly spawn. Additionally, I fear the Fraser River would be compromised by the ocean-going tankers proposed to transport fossil fuels to the Port Authority.
I would also like to know who is expected to pay for this bridge: Industrial users of the Fraser River, The Port Authority, Bc Taxpayers?
I understand The Netherlands is upgrading a similar tunnel to the Massey at a significantly reduced proposed cost than that of this bridge. Surely public monies could be used more effectively to improve public transport and get more cars off our highways rather than encouraging more.
Please listen to the public's concerns and act accordingly.

Sincerely,
KM Baker

British Columbia2016-05-04 15:06:50
KathleenBakerVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,
I am very concerned that the Federal Government complete an Environmental Assessment for plans toreplace the Massey Tunnel with a bridge over the Fraser River. The Provincial Liberal government are for replacing the tunnel with a massive 10 lane bridge which I do not support. I am concerned for the environmental implact on surrounding urban and farm land as well as the increased traffic and growth such a crossing would undoubtedly spawn. Additionally, I fear the Fraser River would be compromised by the ocean-going tankers proposed to transport fossil fuels to the Port Authority.
I would also like to know who is expected to pay for this bridge: Industrial users of the Fraser River, The Port Authority, Bc Taxpayers?
I understand The Netherlands is upgrading a similar tunnel to the Massey at a significantly reduced proposed cost than that of this bridge. Surely public monies could be used more effectively to improve public transport and get more cars off our highways rather than encouraging more.
Please listen to the public's concerns and act accordingly.

Sincerely,
KM Baker

British Columbia2016-05-04 15:06:54
KathleenBakerVancouver

Dear Minister McKenna,
I am very concerned that the Federal Government complete an Environmental Assessment for plans toreplace the Massey Tunnel with a bridge over the Fraser River. The Provincial Liberal government are for replacing the tunnel with a massive 10 lane bridge which I do not support. I am concerned for the environmental implact on surrounding urban and farm land as well as the increased traffic and growth such a crossing would undoubtedly spawn. Additionally, I fear the Fraser River would be compromised by the ocean-going tankers proposed to transport fossil fuels to the Port Authority.
I would also like to know who is expected to pay for this bridge: Industrial users of the Fraser River, The Port Authority, Bc Taxpayers?
I understand The Netherlands is upgrading a similar tunnel to the Massey at a significantly reduced proposed cost than that of this bridge. Surely public monies could be used more effectively to improve public transport and get more cars off our highways rather than encouraging more.
Please listen to the public's concerns and act accordingly.

Sincerely,
KM Baker

British Columbia2016-05-04 15:07:05
jennifer ISullivanBurnaby

Dear Sir,

Regarding the BC Government's George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, I have the following questions:

1) Does the tunnel really need to be replaced? What are the other options?
2) Who should pay for this new bridge? Industrial users of the Fraser River? The Port Authority? BC taxpayers?
3) What impact will a new bridge have on traffic and urban development?
4) What impact will a new bridge have on fossil fuel exports on the Fraser River?
5) Shouldn’t this project warrant a Federal review and not an assessment by the proponent itself?

To answer these questions properly, it is imperative that you order a federal environmental review panel of the Massey proposal.

Thank you,

Jennifer I Sullivan

British Columbia2016-05-04 18:34:23
RobertDierkerVancouver

Please order a Federal Environmental Review Panel on the BC Government's George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

British Columbia2016-05-04 23:23:09
VerityRolfeVancouver

To Whom it May Concern,

This letter is to state my concerns regarding the building of a bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel. I am particularly concerned that the Frazer River corridor will be adversely affected by fossil fuel exports, and ever larger ships plying its waters. It also concerns me that the corporate beneficiaries of the new bridge will not pay for it but rather tax payers will carry the burden of industrial infrastructure. I believe that for environmental reasons alone this project should have a federal review before moving forward.
Regards,
Verity Rolfe

British Columbia2016-05-05 12:02:52
JamesPawleySecelt

The bridge is too expensive and a worse choice than expanding the tunnel.

The hidden reason that it was approved is that the Premier wants to be able to dredge the Fraser to allow Asian Panamax freighters to get to the coal loading docks. The coal trade will stop because of Climate Change. i.e., The ostensible reason for not just building additional tunnels is false.

The bridge is a boondoggle to push up the jobs numbers by creating an unnecessary expense. An expense that will continue as bridge maintenance is much more expensive that tunnel maintenance.

British Columbia2016-05-09 08:18:31
JamesPawleySecelt

The bridge is too expensive and a worse choice than expanding the tunnel.

The hidden reason that it was approved is that the Premier wants to be able to dredge the Fraser to allow Asian Panamax freighters to get to the coal loading docks. The coal trade will stop because of Climate Change. i.e., The ostensible reason for not just building additional tunnels is false.

The bridge is a boondoggle to push up the jobs numbers by creating an unnecessary expense. An expense that will continue as bridge maintenance is much more expensive that tunnel maintenance.

British Columbia2016-05-09 08:18:39
Frances DietzVancouver

I just want to add my voice of concern for this proposal to replace the George Massey Tunnel with a bridge that is highly controversial.

British Columbia2016-05-14 01:08:23
Susan Paynter Salt Spring island

This bridge is to allow big ships up the Fraser to transport coal from the USA which,until this president, they were trying to reduce and will not allow coal to be transported from Washington state. Hey bring it through the BC mainland, we have no rules! Christy Clark is touting this very expensive bridge as a way to move people, another tunnel or some first class transit would be a better way but she wants to secretly allow the expansion of coal export. Another part of Clark's plan is the LNG industry which is hugely flawed but she wants to use the Fraser for transport of these tankers. Huge mistake. This project would distroy the salmon run, NOT a good plan! We need environmental assessment BUT not the current NEB that is totally flawed! Bad, Bad idea, needs to be stopped! Susan Paynter

British Columbia2017-02-05 14:17:50
BruceBatchelorLangley

The bridge project is expensive, destructive and in essence stupid

British Columbia2017-02-06 07:18:28
AnnKujundzicVictoria

Building a bridge is a huge and terrible mistake. We should be spending money on improving public transit instead of doing this.
Upgrading should of course be done, when necessary.
A bridge will mean that more valuable agricultural land will be lost, and we cannot afford to lose this.

British Columbia2017-02-24 21:37:20
laurencegillsurrey

This bridge is not needed and too expensive. Twin the tunnel and there will be sufficient capacity for the commuters. Once over the the south arm most commuters still have to get over the North arm so what is the point of only doing half the job unless there is a hidden agenda like get bigger ships up the Fraser river. Do a proper EA with all the stakeholders present or represented so we know what the effects will be in the future

British Columbia2017-03-07 13:23:16
MargoElfertRichmond

This bridge is a travesty. A second tunnel is all we need, and much more affordable. The fact that this bridge has come along with no input from anyone makes it totally questionable in my eyes, and doesn't fit the transportation plan for the region.
Only one mayor in the region is in favor of it. If we truely care about our CO2 emmissions, this is not the way to go. We need to think of our future generations, not the Vancouver Port Authority.
How they have come to have more power than our Minister of Transport scares me. And your department, while accepting the Cohen Commission report, omits Section 41 which protects the birthpace of the Sockeye. How can you do that with a good concience?
I had faith in this government when you came to power with all your promises. I was once again hopeful that Canada would once again be a country I was proud of. At this time, I am not.
Margo Elfert
Biologist

British Columbia2017-04-19 11:27:21
MargoElfertRichmond

This bridge is a travesty. A second tunnel is all we need, and much more affordable. The fact that this bridge has come along with no input from anyone makes it totally questionable in my eyes, and doesn't fit the transportation plan for the region.
Only one mayor in the region is in favor of it. If we truely care about our CO2 emmissions, this is not the way to go. We need to think of our future generations, not the Vancouver Port Authority.
How they have come to have more power than our Minister of Transport scares me. And your department, while accepting the Cohen Commission report, omits Section 41 which protects the birthpace of the Sockeye. How can you do that with a good concience?
I had faith in this government when you came to power with all your promises. I was once again hopeful that Canada would once again be a country I was proud of. At this time, I am not.
Margo Elfert
Biologist

British Columbia2017-04-19 11:28:21
ChasCliereChasCliereIVArcatao

Cegaba O Propecia Cialis Principio Attivo Propecia Generic Finasteride Clinically Proven Long Term Side Effects Trazodone Kamagra Oral Jelly New Zealand Can Keflex Cure Syphyllis viagra Cheap Amoxil Buy Periactine Acheter En Ligne Buying Secure Fedex Shipping Provera Tablet In Germany Achat En Ligne Viagra Cialis Da 5 Mg Fluoxetine Can I Purchase

Rhode Island2017-05-08 13:55:14
AmyHuestisDelta

Dear government officials of British Columbia and Canada,

Do not build a mega bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel in Delta, BC. There are much better alternatives than this bridge, which will disturb our already impacted delta environment.

Instead, retro-fit the Massey tunnel and think of ways to improve public transportation to the area to reduce cars and the impacts of climate change.

Best,
Amy Huestis

British Columbia2017-05-27 17:09:53
AmyHuestisDelta

Dear government officials of British Columbia and Canada,

Do not build a mega bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel in Delta, BC. There are much better alternatives than this bridge, which will disturb our already impacted delta environment.

Instead, retro-fit the Massey tunnel and think of ways to improve public transportation to the area to reduce cars and the impacts of climate change.

Best,
Amy Huestis

British Columbia2017-05-27 17:09:59
AmyHuestisDelta

Dear government officials of British Columbia and Canada,

Do not build a mega bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel in Delta, BC. There are much better alternatives than this bridge, which will disturb our already impacted delta environment.

Instead, retro-fit the Massey tunnel and think of ways to improve public transportation to the area to reduce cars and the impacts of climate change.

Best,
Amy Huestis

British Columbia2017-05-27 17:10:12
AmyHuestisDelta

Dear government officials of British Columbia and Canada,

Do not build a mega bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel in Delta, BC. There are much better alternatives than this bridge, which will disturb our already impacted delta environment.

Instead, retro-fit the Massey tunnel and think of ways to improve public transportation to the area to reduce cars and the impacts of climate change.

Best,
Amy Huestis

British Columbia2017-05-27 17:10:27
AmyHuestisDelta

Dear government officials of British Columbia and Canada,

Do not build a mega bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel in Delta, BC. There are much better alternatives than this bridge, which will disturb our already impacted delta environment.

Instead, retro-fit the Massey tunnel and think of ways to improve public transportation to the area to reduce cars and the impacts of climate change.

Best,
Amy Huestis

British Columbia2017-05-27 17:11:42
AmyHuestisDelta

Dear government officials of British Columbia and Canada,

Do not build a mega bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel in Delta, BC. There are much better alternatives than this bridge, which will disturb our already impacted delta environment.

Instead, retro-fit the Massey tunnel and think of ways to improve public transportation to the area to reduce cars and the impacts of climate change.

Best,
Amy Huestis

British Columbia2017-05-27 17:12:20
KennflactdahKennflactdahTSBoden

Buy Cialis Online Canada Paypal Kamagra Jellies Generique Kamagra 100mg Viagra Et Bebe online pharmacy Precio De Propecia Commander Generique Cialis Super Active Cheap Viagra On Line Acheter Misoprostol En Ligne Propecia De 10 Buy Generic Cialis Propecia Doctor Spfld Ma Buy Azithromycin Tablets Usp Buying Levitra Online Amoxicillin Clavulanate 200 28.5 Priligy Precio En Colombia Cialis Tadalafil Dapoxetine Et Cialis Marca Propecia Finasteride Dapoxetina Priligy Order Celebrex

 2017-06-14 14:25:16