TUNNEL VISION BLURRED
Plans to replace Massey Tunnel taking much longer than the motorists stuck in it
VICTORIA The New Democrats recently announced the latest instalment in a $40-million refurbishing of the George Massey Tunnel, the aging Fraser River crossing that they plan to replace, one of these days.
“We continue to move ahead with our work to replace the George Massey Tunnel,” said Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Claire Trevena via news release from her office last month.
“But in the meantime, we are making immediate safety improvements inside the tunnel for drivers who use this route every day.”
This after her ministry awarded a $19-million contract to Vancouver-based Black & McDonald, lowest of five bidders on an open tender call for drainage, ventilation, electrical and lighting improvements.
“The existing lights on the tunnel walls and ceiling will be converted to an LED standard to increase visibility and better illuminate the tunnel for drivers, save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said the release.
The $19-million contract, along with $3 million spent blacktopping the tunnel entrances last year, are part of a “suite of interim safety and reliability improvements” the New Democrats promised 18 months ago.
They conceded the need to improve safety and reliability of the 60-year-old tunnel after formally scrapping the plan, inherited from the previous B.C. Liberal government, to replace it with a 10-lane bridge.
The cancellation entailed writing off almost $100 million in work undertaken by the Liberals, including design, site preparation, extensive consultations and money spent by B.C. Hydro to begin relocating a power line across the river.
Trevena insisted that not all the expenditure was wasted because “we’re not going back to square one.” But to all appearances that is precisely what she did.
Scrapped were some 150 project reports, analyses, traffic forecasts, seismic, geotechnical, environmental and other studies. Plus three rounds of public consultations and separate sessions with 13 First Nations and other Indigenous groups, entailing 700 meetings in all. The ministry commissioned another technical study of the project, setting the stage for new public consultations earlier this year.
Participants learned details of the government’s preference for replacing the existing crossing with an eight-lane tunnel or an eight-lane bridge.
Each would have less carrying capacity than the 10-lane bridge, but cost more. The Liberals budgeted their project at $3.5 billion, but their transportation minister Todd Stone maintains that before leaving office, they received a low bid for $2.6 billion.
The NDP’s eight-lane bridge would cost as much as $4.5 billion and the tunnel up to $5 billion, according to the technical report released with the consultations.
Both estimates came with a caveat: “These cost ranges are not suitable for budgeting purposes.”
Even with that qualification, both options echo what Stone said this week about the NDP approach to four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway through the B.C. Interior: “More money for less highway.”
The technical report from the North Vancouver-based COWI-Stantec engineering team discounted several other options for replacing the tunnel.
Six-lane crossings were deemed inadequate. The existing tunnel was found wanting in terms of seismic standards and crossing times for transit. The report said it should be retained to carry utilities only. A tunnel bored deep under the river was rejected because of the risk of encountering sinkholes during construction and the prohibitive price tag of up to
$17 billion.
The eight-lane tunnel (constructed in sections on shore and then immersed in the river) would have less above-ground impact and make for a shorter crossing. The long-span bridge could undergo expedited environmental review (because the earlier bridge was already reviewed) and entail less disruption of the river bottom. But it would generate impact above the water line including “long-term noise, light, visual and shading effects.”
The Metro Vancouver mayors endorsed the tunnel option. But the Transportation Ministry has kept the bridge option alive, having recognized its advantages under the previous government.
Trevena drew fire earlier this year when she suggested neither option needed provisions to carry light-rail transit across the river.
“There will not be the need for a light-rail system or anything like that for the foreseeable future,” she told CBC Radio. “Transit planners have looked at this. What they do see is frequent buses.”
The Liberals did make allowance for light rail in the carrying capacity of their 10-lane bridge and it seems likely the New Democrats will restore the option in whatever crossing they choose.
The ministry is now crafting a business plan drawing on the technical report and public consultations. It is due by the end of the year.
“I think we can get going on this quite quickly,” Premier John Horgan claimed a year ago. “This allows government to get started on this in a more timely way,” agreed Trevena.
But even if the business plan is ready by the end of 2020, the government routinely takes months to review, settle on a final proposal, call for bids, select a preferred proponent and finalize a contract.
Environmental approvals can take up to three years, according to the information provided in the public consultations. Construction of either bridge or tunnel would take another five.
The Liberals scheduled their 10-lane bridge for completion by 2022. On the NDP’s leisurely schedule, it could be another 10 years before their replacement crossing is in place.
If that meets the definition of “timely” (Trevena) or “quickly” (Horgan), one would hate to contemplate the schedule if the New Democrats were dragging their feet.