It’s difficult to make sense of the NDP government’s efforts to come up with a new Fraser River crossing, but there’s one aspect of the process that’s an absolute head scratcher.
For a government that railed against the way the Liberals handled consultation for their ill-fated 10-lane bridge project, it’s rather curious that the public wasn’t invited into the tent this time around until 18 crossing options had been pared to just two. Question the move all you want, but don’t say you weren’t given a choice.
The idea of a new crossing aligning with regional plans also has me a little baffled given that Lower Mainland mayors have already landed on an eight-lane immersed tunnel. That means if this project is to adhere to the wishes of regional politicians, then we’ve already got our answer, so what’s the point of continuing the exercise?
However, the biggest head scratcher is the fact that a bridge is still on the table. I don’t have a problem if we go over the river rather than under it, but if that’s where this thing is headed, then why the heck didn’t we stick with the bridge the Liberals broke ground on three years ago? You know, the one that would be open to traffic two years from now.
Perhaps the bridge option is just for show because, well, it’s hard to hold a meaningful consultation with only one choice, but when you look at the technical analysis offered by Victoria, it would appear to be a real contender. The two spans are similar in cost, but the bridge has the advantage of a shorter completion timeline and minimal in-river impacts. Its downsides are dubious, and include noise, shading and exposing pedestrians and cyclists to the elements, which unless they hide in the tunnel all day, they’re going to have to brave at some point.
As much as a bridge makes environmental and economic sense, it’s hard to fathom the province seriously considering that option, and not only because it would put the NDP at odds with the region’s mayors. The bigger concern would be the optics. After shelving the Liberal project, it would be darn near impossible to turn around three years later and say you’re going to build a bridge that’s going to cost more, provide fewer lanes and take far longer to deliver.
