It's still early in the process so I'm not getting my hopes too high, but it was heartening to see the province hasn't ordered explosives for the old George Massey Tunnel just yet.
When Victoria launched what it called the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project last fall, the name of the undertaking implied the tube's days were numbered. It seemed like a shortsighted concept because even though the tunnel is aging and unable to cope with today's ever-increasing traffic volume, it didn't appear we were in any position to rid ourselves of a structure that could still play an integral role in our cross-river travel.
With the consultation process moving into its second phase this week, the province unveiled five options for improving traffic flow across the Fraser. Given the name of the exercise, it's surprising that three of them involve keeping the tunnel open.
Option 1, which maintains the same lane configuration but offers lighting, seismic and interchange upgrades, is a non-starter because of the minimal improvements it would provide. Options 2 (replacing the tunnel with a bridge) and 3 (replacing the tunnel with another tunnel) would increase capacity, but still leave us with a single crossing, so neither is considered desirable.
That leaves Options 4 (twinning the tunnel with a bridge) and 5 (maintaining the tunnel while building a bridge further up river) as the two leading candidates, at least according to my scoresheet. They would be the options that provide the most lanes across the river, which surely has to be a significant factor when the powers that be make the final design decision.
The twinning idea, which was championed in this space about a year ago, keeps traffic in the same corridor so would have the least impact on the surrounding landscape, an important consideration with these kinds of infrastructure projects. A bridge near the tip of Tilbury Island would be more of an intrusion, particularly on the Richmond side, but that site might offer a greater footprint in which to work.
Either way, I think it's imperative that whatever comes out of this planning process the tunnel continues to be a component of cross-river travel. There's no point taking two steps forward if we're also going to take one backwards.
In fact, just to ensure that notion is reinforced, I think it would be prudent for the provincial government to rename the exercise the George Massey Tunnel Augmentation Project.
