Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2
|
VICTORIA — At a recent announcement on health care funding, an off-topic question to Premier John Horgan brought an unexpected answer.
“The Massey tunnel — people are getting more and more upset with the delay. What’s going to happen?” was the question.
Had the premier been conversant with his own government’s policy on a replacement for the greatly congested tunnel, he could have responded as follows: “Work to develop options for a long-term solution for the George Massey crossing is underway.”
Indeed, that was the wording of a Transportation Ministry press release a few days before Horgan spoke out.
“The ministry will work closely with the newly formed Metro Vancouver mayors’ task force, Indigenous groups, TransLink, local municipalities and other stakeholders to explore and evaluate crossing options,” it continued.
Evaluating which option would best reduce congestion, support transit, enhance the movement of goods and promote a healthy environment would take time.
And, as the ministry noted in its May 16 press release, this would not be a rush job.
“The target completion for this phase of work is the end of November 2019. … A final business case will be completed by fall 2020.”
The leisurely pace was in keeping with strategy the New Democrats adopted after killing the previous B.C. Liberal government plan to replace the tunnel with a 10-lane bridge. Namely, stall as long as possible to avoid having to commit to project and a price tag much before the next election.
But in answering the aforementioned question on May 23, Horgan made news by suggesting that the NDP had abandoned its go-slow policy and switched to a fast track on replacing the tunnel.
“I think we can get going on this quite quickly,” Horgan told reporters. “Minister Claire Trevena is seized with this opportunity.”
Horgan also suggested that the choice of a replacement project had already been made — thanks to a recommendation from the regional mayors’ council.
“I’m very excited that the mayors’ council have come to an agreement that the best way forward would be to twin the tunnel.”
Horgan didn’t deny that the twinned tunnel would be expensive. “There’s a lot of money involved,” he conceded. “But we know that this is one of the significant congestion points in the region. We want to do our best to fix that.”
He insisted that the twin tunnel option would come in at “significantly less cost than the proposal that was on the table prior to the election, in the many, many billions of dollars.”
The B.C. Liberals budgeted the 10-lane crossing at $3.5 billion. Todd Stone, the transportation minister in that government, maintains that before leaving office, the Liberals had received a low bid for $2.6 billion.
The twinned tunnel could cost more than either amount — as much as $4 billion. That’s according to Stan Cowdell, the engineer the New Democrats hired to re-evaluate the B.C. Liberal plans for the project.
Horgan also suggested that Ottawa would be on board to share the cost of construction, now that the New Democrats have abandoned the B.C. Liberal plan to fund the crossing with tolls. But that remains to be seen, given existing federal commitments for infrastructure projects in B.C.
Horgan’s apparent green-lighting of the twin-tunnel option drew a “what the premier meant to say” clarification from the Ministry of Transportation.
“People are tired of being stuck in traffic, that’s why we are working with the communities to move forward with a long-term solution,” said the statement attributed to Trevena. “As the premier indicated earlier today, consensus among the mayors allows government to get started on this in a more timely way.”
Then came a significant caveat. “Last week, a request for proposals was posted on B.C. Bid (the government website) for a technical team to complete the engineering work on the viable options.”
The request, far from supporting Horgan’s view that a twinned tunnel was the best and cheapest option, indicated the choice was an open question.
“The successful proponent will provide transportation, planning and professional and technical services for development and evaluation of the … crossing.”
Options to be evaluated included a long-span bridge, a bored tunnel, an immersed tube tunnel or tunnels, possible uses (if any) of the existing tunnel and any combination thereof.
Far from stacking the deck in favour of a twinned tunnel, the proponent was asked to appoint a key team member as the lead for consideration of each option.
All this, plus consultations with First Nations and the public, to be completed by the end of 2019. Final report to be delivered at the consultant’s discretion. All work, including follow-ups, to be wrapped up by May of next year. Total fees capped at $2 million.
Only then will the ministry get on with preparing a proper business plan for the replacement project, with full costing of the preferred option and the rationale for so choosing. That’s due by late 2020, 18 months hence.
After reading over the ministry’s own request for a project evaluation, issued six days before the premier made his pseudo-announcement, two possibilities suggest themselves.
Either this whole exercise will turn out to be a sham, crafted to get the premier the answer he wants on twinning the tunnel just before the next election.
Or that in suggesting that the “best way forward is to twin the tunnel” and the government “can get going on this quite quickly,” Horgan did not know what he was talking about.
[email protected]
Prev
Linear Mode
