Apologies for the long-winded post, but I’ve been reading through the document library on the Massey Tunnel site and thought I’d re-hash some of the key points. The sense I got from reading a lot of the documents is that the ALR lands are considered sacrosanct, and that other considerations were secondary. Particularly when SkyTrain was discussed. The highway right-of-way would have been widened to accommodate SkyTrain down the center, which presumably would attract more ridership and help people get out of their cars, but it was like ooo....it'll infringe on the farms. Even with bus lanes down the median, which would be faster than merging on/off at Steveston, it was like ooo...the interchanges will be bigger and infringe on the farms again! Anyways, here's the key points:
Rapid Transit:
Rapid Transit Review Discussion Paper prepared by Urban Systems, December 2020. Source:
https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...sing-Rapid-Discussion-Paper-Redacted.pdf
The main takeaway from this report was that RapidBus along the corridor could, in theory, handle 3x as much traffic as the 2050 modelling undertaken for the crossing shows. Therefore, LRT/ALRT was not considered being needed (probably ever...). The report noted that the structural design of the tunnel would basically require a separate "cell" to accommodate transit. The bonus of doing that (for center running) LRT/ALRT was that it could allow the cell to be used as a counterflow system until rail was required. With side running (both tracks grouped onto one side of the tunnel), it was considered challenging to implement because you couldn’t have counterflow lanes passing through the interchanges on the side.
George Massey Tunnel Technical Briefing dated August 18, 2021. Source:
https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...sing-Technical-Briefing-Aug.-18-2021.pdf
This document shows the walkway/emergency egress tunnel is on one side only. God forbid anything ever happens in the future, but it does look like people would still need to cross the opposing lanes of traffic to reach the exit walkway. Considering ALRT/LRT would need its own cell, the pedestrian/evacuation walkway being only 5m across and the Canada Line cars being 3m wide each...I think it's safe to say the walkway won't ever be wide enough, nor warranted, to include transit.
Environmental Assessment and First Nations Engagement:
Appendix A, Summary of Ministry's Response to ITR Recommendations, page 6. Source:
https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sit...Summary-ITR-recommendations-Redacted.pdf).
Thought this excerpt below was interesting, considering how reconciliation has been in the forefront of people’s minds nowadays as well as the recent environmental protests. I don't believe the casting basin has been discussed on here either.
"Engagement identified impacts (positive and negative) of ITT construction. These include but are not limited to:
• Need for a casting basin location
• Impacts to fish and fish habitat (during construction and potentially long term)
• Anticipated DFO requirements for offsets
• Impacts to vessel navigation and the need for ongoing communication with marine users and First Nations marine users during construction
• Potential impacts to Indigenous groups’ traditional and cultural use
• Potential impacts to Musqueam and Tsawwassen fishing rights in the area”
As a closing note, the biggest gripe I have about BC infrastructure planning (or lack thereof for future-proofing) comes from the same document on page 6:
“Future planning should be completed in accordance with Ministry practice identifying the
minimum solution and then assessing incremental improvements separately on a value for money basis.”
Prev
Linear Mode
