Editor:
Regarding Coast Reporter’s Dec. 8 headline, “Fixed link costs far outweigh benefits,” I think we need to understand that this headline is an opinion and not a fact. Since the study showed that 43 per cent of those who took part in consultations expressed general support for considering a fixed link, why wasn’t that the headline?
The NDP report’s choice of 25 years for purposes of cost analysis does not make a lot of sense: 25 years may be the lifespan of a ferry boat, but certainly not that of a bridge (which would be in excess of 100 years). The ferry service is an operational cost, but the construction of a new bridge is an infrastructure investment. If you do some simple arithmetic, you will see that the bridge link is a very good investment: Using an average BC Ferries trip charge of $55/vehicle, 2,000 vehicles per day, that would generate $1 billion revenue in 25 years. Add Binnie’s estimate of 2,000 additional vehicle crossings per day if there were a fixed link, that adds another $1 billion; $2 billion would go a long way to pay for the construction of the Anvil Island fixed link.
A 4 km tunnel (not particularly long by international standards) might be more economical than a road on Anvil Island, and would eliminate expropriation of private properties.
Really puzzled as to why they refer to the Anvil Island bridge crossings as “Langdale bridge link.” It’s geographically very misleading.
It would appear that Nicholas Simons is the representative of the 14 per cent of the respondents who were opposed to the road access. That does not change the fact that 43 per cent of the people who participated in the study expressed general support for considering a fixed link, and 43 per cent did not give an opinion.
Hal Lindhagen, Halfmoon Bay
