Imagine in fifty years what people will say about the decision-making occurring in Metro Vancouver. For some reason the Province has decided that the Metro region, the largest in the province is not an equitable partner and needs to be told what to do, despite the fact that there is a Mayor’s Council, a regional government, and TransLink, all committed to making the region accessible and affordable.
Those two elements are fundamental in the sustainable stewardship of the region. But not to the current government-it is all about those two second soundbites-Build a Bridge. Create jobs building a Bridge. Maybe build another bridge at Oak Street. Don’t consult with what is really needed. Don’t analyze why twinning the tunnel might be effective. And don’t tell citizens that the tunnel is being removed to provide deeper draft access for boats carrying hazardous items like LNG (liquid natural gas) to Asian ports.
The Premier continues to wear a blue hard hat when talking about her bridge. The blue hard hat is the colour of hard hat traditionally given to probationary workers that don’t know the job site, and require active supervision. Not listening to the Mayors’ Council, ignoring the regional plan for growth and spot building bridges in the wrong place serves no one.
As reported in the Delta Optimist a faction of local residents are continuing to speak out about this billion dollar blunder. “Saying there’s a crises situation when it comes to the Fraser estuary and its sensitive habitat, biologist Otto Langer warned the new industrial era on the river, as well as the bridge, will completely wipe it the estuary in a few decades. He also said the federal government has also let the citizens of B.C. down. Richmond Councillor Harold Steves said the government’s “lies go on and on” and that he’s never heard so many untruths about a project before the bridge plan. He noted the structure will open up Delta and Richmond farmland for industrialization.”
Critics also “disputed a number of government conclusions including the claim the tunnel is at the end of its design life, noting that back in 2009 former Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon had declared the current tunnel was good for another 50 years.”
So why is this bridge in the wrong place being built?
Stephen Rees posted an extensive quote on Massey from Fraser Voices and linked to a great report by Voters Acting Against Climate Change on the dangers of transporting LNG in urban areas, such as from the Fortis plant on Tilbury Island. Transport Canada and the Port have only the sketchiest regulations. By comparison, the US Coast Guard requires that bridges be closed down before allowing LNG tankers to sail underneath them. The report takes the USCC LNG transport safety radii and imposed them onto a scale map of the South Arm. As you can guess, significant residential areas are covered.
Why doesn’t the public have this information from the main proponent, the BC Libs, especially during an election campaign that could re-elect them and potentially lead to disasters in three areas, public safety, financial and environmental?
https://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/sailing-into-unknown-waters/
Stephen also posted information previously on the ground conditions below the bridge site. There are apparently no firm bearing soils even 330 m below the surface, which was one of the top considerations that led to building a tunnel decades ago. In addition to the above issues, this bridge could literally and figuratively sink.
See also
https://www.desmog.ca/2017/04/24/are-b-c-taxpayers-paying-3-5-billion-massey-bridge-make-room-coal-lng-exports
I don’t see a path to winning for the NDP this election, so this bridge is a done deal, I’d say.
It is indeed very sad that politics often win over every independent technical and economic analysis. History is replete with political boondoggles and white elephants triumphing over sound planning. In many ways we can’t afford uninformed politicians. There outta be a law …..
Respectfully Alex, while I think that this bridge is a terrible idea, I do not agree that the solution is to insulate experts from politics (if that is indeed what you are suggesting).
It is true that experts are often ignored when they are right: climate change, copyright, transit, and political communication are instances I know about. At the same time, experts have implemented some pretty disastrous policies: e.g. the construction of motordom and the financial crisis.
It seems to me that insulating experts from politics only increases the risks. It leads to a disconnect from the context of their work. It alienates the public, resulting in backlashes of stupidity. Experts are are hardly disinterested: they may have interests that conflict with those of the rest of us.
How are we to choose which experts to listen to, and which to ignore? Within a field there may be consensus (e.g. climate science), but in society at large it is the powerful who choose. Through expertise, the wealthy rule whole domains out of bounds of politics. The claim to expertise makes their agendas politically untouchable. It is no accident that economists, not climate scientists, are among the most influential experts around. (To a large degree, the problem of expertise is a problem of inequality.) A society governed by expertise is fundamentally fragile, vulnerable to errors, to narrow interests and to control by a few.
I am not saying that everyone can be an expert. The transit referendum made that very clear to me: I realized that despite following the matter for years, I am simply not qualified to make detailed technical judgements. The same with climate change. The science, as I understand it, is overwhelmingly sound: but I really am not qualified. In the end, I must rely on the consensus of scientists.
Yet despite my lack of transit expertise, I have every business asserting what kind of city I want to live in. Technical analysis from economists or traffic engineers can inform that, but it cannot overrule it. And experts clearly do get wrapped up in echo chambers (I see it on this blog too – even though I agree with so much of it).
I believe that experts simply cannot afford to abandon the public. They must engage with us and bring us with them. I do not think that smarts or education are the solution; as often as not these bring a false sense of expertise. (Those who deny climate change, for instance, are more informed about it!) Instead, I think we need wisdom: we need to learn how to be ignorant, experts and the lay public alike. For instance, I think the real underlying problem of the referendum less that we had one (though it was a terrible idea) than that we are so out of practise with citizenship and dealing with people with whom we disagree that we don’t know how to do it.
The uncertain, imperfect road of democratic engagement is hard and frustrating compared to the satisfying short-cut of imposing good policy: but in a world brought to its knees by technocrats, I believe it is the only solution.
Also, to be fair, the overwhelming majority of political leaders in the region are opposed to the bridge.
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner.