Dear Editor,
On Monday night, city council had a lengthy discussion on the Massey Tunnel Replacement Project.
There are plenty of questions about the new bridge, but can we simply draw the conclusion that an improved or expanded tunnel is a better option based on that notion?
As a councillor, I believe when I make decisions on city matters it must be well-reasoned. In the debate on the new bridge I cannot honestly say that I have enough information to speak in favour of a tunnel.
Without knowing what we are actually talking about with an improved or expanded tunnel, the questions we raised against the new bridge (the bottle-neck at the Oak Street Bridge, environmental impact, getting in and out of the road system, etc.) can be equally applied to the tunnel.
Furthermore, what is the cost of the improved tunnel and its cost-effectiveness? How many lanes are we talking about? Will it address the long range traffic needs in Richmond? What is the impact on the habitat as the river bed will be disturbed when construction work is done?
Until we have more information, I consider the tunnel idea a nice concept with not much substance, yet. Therefore, it is premature for me to assert that an improved tunnel is a better option.
How could we complain about the lack of information on the new bridge when there are a thousand pages of reports and accept the tunnel as a preferred option when there is not even one full study?
On Monday night I moved a motion to ask staff to find out what information we had on the tunnel idea.
Unfortunately, my motion was defeated and the majority of council (6-3) voted in favour of the tunnel.
Coun. Chak Au
Richmond city council
