A submission from a reader:
No one could quite understand how the Province decided a ten lane bridge was more effective than a reboot and twinning of the Massey Tunnel. It would take up less land area and have less of an ecological impact.
More on this in today’s Vancouver Sun.
The tunnel was said to have a fifty year life span, and there has been a lot of press from the son of Geoff Massey, who is suggesting that the reason the tunnel is being abandoned is to provide a deeper draft for future ships to navigate up this arm of the Fraser River.
More on Geoff Massey in the The Province today
It was Harold Steeves, a councillor for the City of Richmond that put in a Freedom of Information Request to find out how a ten lane bridge, which would take out ALR land on both sides of the bridge approaches, got approved. It turns out that Port Metro Vancouver and Fraser Surrey Docks had lobbied in favor of the bridge, exchanging memos in 2012 and 2013 noting “the sensitivity to premature disclosure of their choice…Replacing the tunnel with a new bridge at the same location. Not publicly confirmed yet, but this is (Port Metro’s) preference”.
This is curious as the documentation from the new Massey Bridge project states that the bridge is NOT being built to assist the navigation of ships. Except, this latest disclosure of FOI information says that is the reason for the bridge option, not the tunnel.