Skip to content

Another voice in support of replacing the tunnel

Editor: Others have assembled valid and convincing arguments for the replacement of the Geroge Massey Tunnel with a bridge. This letter is to add my personal thoughts in support of the replacement.

Editor:

Others have assembled valid and convincing arguments for the replacement of the Geroge Massey Tunnel with a bridge. This letter is to add my personal thoughts in support of the replacement.

Firstly, my neighbours have occasionally expressed the concern that removing the tunnel would permit the passage of larger vessels. I find this argument strange as the tunnel is buried below the river bottom at a location that is not the shallowest part of the river.

Moreover, the size of vessels is limited by the river width as well as its depth.

Secondly, I recall a conversation with Gordon Shrum when he had just assumed responsibility for completion of the new Vancouver courthouse after it had run into financial difficulties.

Previously, shortage of funds had led to a decision to remove the top floor from the plans. This had resulted in an increase in costs, and Shrum told me that the most important lesson he had learned from the experience was that it was very expensive to make any change in completed plans.

His success in building the courthouse and Simon Fraser University persuade me to respect his opinions.

Finally, as a retired professional geoscientist and a former member of the Council of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, I have had occasion to talk with engineers about the tunnel. At that time (about 25 years ago), I learned that the tunnel was reaching its expected lifetime, and that bringing it up to acceptable standards would be difficult.

I believe these considerations are valid but, in any case, I hope that decisions are based on sound engineering advice and not on political expediency.

Don Russell