Dear Editor,
The old adage “robbing Peter to pay Paul” applies to the new 10-lane $3.5 billion (plus financing costs of an additional $8 billion) mega-bridge project proposed by the former BC Liberal government.
While public education and healthcare budgets were being slashed, Clark’s government had no difficulty finding enough money to take on the nearly $12 billion project.
We now must ask ourselves: Were we willing to rob Peter (i.e. sacrifice our family’s education, health and housing stability) to pay Paul (i.e. international fossil fuel interests that desire deep draft coal, LNG, and jet fuel ships)?
Ultimately, we were being asked to sacrifice these fundamental social services to build the mega-bridge.
Far from being the only option, there are other more efficient options.
An additional tube at the Massey Tunnel would allow for an extension of the Canada Line, or LRT that connects to the Canada Line.
Imagine rapid transit connecting the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal to YVR and Vancouver.
A branch line to South Surrey and White Rock could also be expanded in the future and would be an advantage for daily commuters.
These solutions would decrease congestion and increase economic activity in a way that the proposed mega-bridge could not.
There would be numerous environmental benefits to the twinning option, which include reducing our carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions.
Twinning would also eliminate the need to dredge the Fraser River some 34 km inland from the mouth to New Westminster, which would do irreparable damage to our fishing, tourism and film industries.
Furthermore, it would not require us to give up 2,600 acres of farmland for industrial expansion.
The answer lays in more and better public transit system, with all three levels of government (civic, provincial, and federal) working together to address these issues comprehensively.
We need representatives who are looking out for our best interests and not the interests of international fossil fuel companies.
Just take a moment to ponder this: If a better, less costly and less environmentally damaging option exists, why was Clark’s government so committed to the mega-bridge project?
Follow the money, my friends.
Jack Trovato
Richmond
