Dear Editor,
Re: “War of words continues,” The Delta Optimist, Aug. 11, 2017.
It is not surprising to see a lot of letters with opinions about the bridge. It’s an issue that Delta Mayor Lois Jackson likes to keep at the forefront.
What is sad is that a lot of these opinions appear to be based on very little real information and positions, such as those taken by Jackson’s council.
The most recent article quotes Delta Coun. Robert Campbell as saying, “I find her (Richmond Coun. Carol Day) to be grossly uninformed and irresponsible... she seems to be willing to risk lives to not get the bridge built.”
If Campbell had actually read any of Day’s letters, he would see that she is, in fact, quite well informed. The fact that she is in disagreement with his stance does not make her irresponsible.
Let’s take a look at Jackson’s three major points of interest. The first is safety. The safety of the tunnel was never an issue until the bridge was proposed.
Campbell seems to think lives are at risk. If that is truly the case, why did the B.C. Liberal party refuse to undertake the additional work required to make it safe when it was planned and budgeted
If safety is truly an issue, what will Delta residents be up against while Highway 99 is in three to five years of turmoil during construction of the bridge?
Mayor Jackson’s second issue/concern is that the alternative to a bridge is not of regional benefit and puts money into other Metro projects for other mayors. The bridge only improves traffic across the Fraser and dumps the resulting problems onto the Metro region. For Jackson to suggest the bridge is not a self-serving project is extremely hypocritical.
The last issue is the bridge itself. A bridge was never in the offing until the Port of Vancouver decided it needed to remove the tunnel for shipping passage. It was only at that time that “concerns” about the tunnel came to light. It was at that time that a bridge was offered without the infrastructure planning needed to serve Metro Vancouver.
Since the port no longer needs to remove the tunnel, whatever planning was undertaken should be in question. That planning of infrastructure needs is no longer valid.
If that should mean additional planning and time to wisely move forward, it needs to be done. Some good ideas for temporary measures to ease congestion have been suggested. Use them.
Peter van der Velden
Tsawwassen
