The more I think about Premier Christy Clark's announcement to replace the George Massey Tunnel, the more it shapes up as one of those be-careful-what-you-wish-for situations.
There's no doubt the tunnel, built more than a half-century ago, was never intended to handle the volume of traffic that tries to squeeze through it today. An engineering marvel of its time, the tube struggles to keep pace with an area that it was, ironically enough, instrumental in developing. We have all clamored for a fix.
Yet as politicians begin talking about its replacement, I have to wonder whether this pre-election goodie, should it ever come to fruition, will be the panacea for our transportation-challenged region.
Firstly, shouldn't we add, rather than replace? Substituting a six-lane or eight-lane bridge for a four-lane tunnel is a capacity upgrade for sure, but not to the same extent if there were actually two crossings available to drivers.
I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons why we can't have both, but it seems to me that if the tunnel is still functional, and it clearly is at a certain level of traffic volume, then it could continue to serve at least a secondary role in the region's transportation network. It's an asset, albeit an expensive one to maintain as it ages, but it's not like there are a lot of river crossings around, so to pull the plug on one we've already got seems shortsighted.
I mention this because if the tunnel's four lanes aren't sufficient, and even three lanes in one direction during rush hour aren't able to keep up, then I fear a bridge that offers three or four lanes in each direction isn't going to be a significant improvement.
Throw in the fact there will be far more vehicles on the road by the time this crossing ever becomes a reality and it's not unreasonable to think it's going to be plagued by capacity issues not long after it opens.
On the bright side, perhaps tolls will scare enough drivers away to keep the traffic flowing.
However you look at it, the $2 billion or more it would likely cost for a replacement crossing is only going to go so far in improving the traffic situation in these parts. Throw in lost farmland and interminable construction and the shiny new bridge might not be all it's cracked up to be.
I don't mean to be a downer on what's supposed to be a good news, vote-inducing undertaking, but what most commuters have long wished for might not be the answer.
