Editor:
The recently hatched discussion on a tunnel replacement, aside from obvious political opportunism, raises some interesting questions.
Before discussing the alternatives going forward, some facts need to be reviewed. In the mid 1990s, the tunnel was painted, with some of the results still peeling from the walls. In 2006, $19 million was spent doing seismic upgrades to the tunnel to extend its life and survivability during earthquakes.
During the Hoover-Naas/ SFPR discussion, the ministry and the minister (Kevin Falcon) stated the tunnel was expected to be usable for some 40 more years. Why is its life now only 10 to 15 years?
Let me suggest the tunnel stay the 40 years. Paint it? No, however tile it with white tile, a durable and easily cleaned lining that reflects light, eliminates the need for more artificial lighting and increases the "visual" size of the tunnel. Virtually all major tunnels in the world are so lined.
Do more seismic upgrades? No, with the tunnel sitting on 600 feet of gravel substrate, no additional upgrades would make sense. Instead, invest in a new bridge crossing designed for seismic stability (and no risk of flooding).
If the tunnel is damaged in the eventual "big one," then the bridge provides a link. In conjunction with this, modify the Highway 17 and Steveston Highway interchanges to eliminate the lights, but only after the SFPR is up and running.
If one looks at the existing traffic bottlenecks and the SFPR in tandem, the No. 8 Road crossing makes a lot of sense. We would then have two alternative routes north via Highway 91 without using the tunnel or the Alex Fraser Bridge.
The No. 8 Road allowance already exists and would facilitate the eventual connection of the Boundary Road corridor with all northbound traffic. Very little farmland would be sacrificed and route diversity would be maximized.
Cecil Dunn
