As Metro Vancouver mayors mull over options to replace the region’s aging George Massey Tunnel, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce is voicing concerns over the direction of the project.
In a letter to Metro Vancouver’s Board of Directors, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce expressed dismay that officials favour a tunnel that it believes will end up costing more, taking more time and ultimately will leave traffic issues unsolved.
“This one of the most significant issues impacting not only our 1,000 members in Richmond, but most of the 14,000 businesses that call Richmond home,” said Matt Pitcairn, president and CEO of the chamber.
The Metro Vancouver George Massey Crossing Task Force and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s George Massey Crossing Project have generated a short list consisted of six options:
- An eight-lane immersed-tube tunnel with multi-use pathway.
- An eight-lane bridge with multi-use pathway.
- An eight-lane deep-bored tunnel plus use of the existing tunnel for a multi-use pathway.
- A six-lane immersed-tube tunnel plus use of the existing tunnel to provide two dedicated lanes for transit.
- A six-lane bridge plus use of the existing tunnel to provide two dedicated lanes for transit.
- A six-lane deep-bored tunnel plus use of the existing tunnel to provide two dedicated lanes for transit.
Metro Vancouver’s Finance and Intergovernmental Committee has already voted unanimously in favour of an eight-lane, immersed-tube tunnel (ITT). The project will likely go to Metro Vancouver’s board of directors next month for a decision and then to the provincial government.
“Our biggest concerns are around capacity, costs and timelines,” said Pitcairn, whose organization strongly supported the original bridge project. “The tunnel would essentially be at capacity the day it opens, costs are much higher, and the timeline would be considerably longer.”
According to an independent technical review, “reducing the number of lanes from ten to either six or eight will accommodate the majority of the 2045 predicted traffic but with delays in the peak direction in 2045 similar to today”.
Pitcairn explained that an immersed tube tunnel (ITT) will have the same three lanes of peak direction capacity available to them and that it stands to reason that peak direction traffic will be like today on its first day of operation. He added that by 2045 it is safe to say that peak direction congestion would be much worse.
Pitcairn also lamented the costs. A tunnel would need business case development, engineering and an environmental assessment process. He noted that $66 million was already spent on these tasks for a bridge option before it was cancelled. He estimated that for a new tunnel, this process could take at least three years.
The Chamber of Commerce also noted that of all the options, tunneling provides the biggest hurdles for addressing concerns from First Nations groups who have stated the project should not create additional, potentially costly, lengthy or prohibitive environmental challenges or reviews.
Pitcairn says a bridge project would be able to proceed much quicker than a tunnel and with fewer costs. But if a tunnel is to be built, the chamber recommended an immersed-tunnel configuration with additional capacity, so drivers won’t immediately face the same traffic problems they do today.
In addition to addressing seismic safety concerns, the 60-year-old traffic bottleneck is squeezing businesses.
“One of the big challenges our members are telling us is recruiting and retention of employees,” said Pitcairn. “With housing affordability and transportation issues, people are moving further and further east but still need to commute. Businesses are losing people because staff don’t want to make this daily journey through the tunnel.”
According to the province, with regular maintenance and rehabilitation, the existing George Massey Tunnel has approximately 50 years of serviceable life remaining. But currently it does not meet seismic standards for new or improved infrastructure.
Yard At A Time Concrete supports an eight-lane overhead crossing. There is no need to re-spend the good money already spent on design and an environmental assessment process.