The George Massey tunnel saga
October 5, 2012
Some Addendum on Nov 23, taking finding of 
The Clark government has decided that the George Massey tunnel need to be replaced, why?
The tunnel is congested
Of course, but how congested is the tunnel (see our bridge traffic post for more context)?
By reasonable standards, the level of congestion in the tunnel is manageable noticing that there is a significant amount of time where traffic is free flow. Beside the lack of substantiation, the announce, that the Delta port extension will generate an additional 1700 daily truck trips , has to be taken with a grain of salt:
- It represents only 2% of the actual traffic, what the Tunnel used to handle in the past
- It represents only 1% of the actual Tunnel capacity
The question one should asks, is:
Never mind the present (or the port),
population growth will make the tunnel congested in the future anyway?
The past trend suggests otherwise: the region has already experimented a significant population growth, which has not prevented a declining trend for the traffic into the tunnel:
But why people see it differently?
The Province has engineered a funnel effect at the tunnel portals, that is feeding the tunnel with more lanes than it can handle, this in the disguise of Transit investment:
In light of the above, one must asks: Is the George Massey tunnel replacement the best we can do to improve the lower mainland traffic?
The Clark government seems already have made his mind on it, but where are the studies and analysis supporting the replacement choice?
Is building more road the way to alleviate congestion?
Is it some other solutions?
At least two avenues deserve to be explored: better transit and road pricing, both working better hand in hand
Currently, the transit modal share in the tunnel is nothing to cheer about:
|Transit modal share||Lions gate Bridge||George Massey Tunnel|
|overall (all day all direction)||> 20%||~ 11%|
|AM peak hr To Vancouver direction||> 36%||~ 19%|
|PM peak hr leaving Vancouver direction||> 28%||~ 18%|
It is not better than the average mode share in the region, way far below than what is witnessed on the Lions gate bridge, and even much lower than the 2020 provincial transit plan’s target, 17% . There is no reason for such dismissal modal share when a level of transit similar to the one witnessed on the Lions gate could remove enough car (~12000 per day, or 1200 peak hour NB, that is almost the capacity of a full lane!) to make the tunnel virtually congestion free. Transit offer could be much better for people coming from south of the tunnel. It doesn’t necessarily require a huge investment (Proper bus lane and queue jumper are among them) and we believe a lot can be done in the current Translink budget, some suggestion below:
A Vancouver network more accessible from the South of Fraser
First, Translink needs to recognize that not all people are heading to downtown and has to provide a larger access to Vancouver from south of the Fraser. A suggestion already made in a previous post is to extend most of the North South Vancouver bus route to either Marine Drive or Knight Bridge.
A Richmond network more accessible from the South of Fraser
A Proper branding
Lastly, when the service level is objectively good, people need to know it. Branding is important as we have already seen with the suggestion of code sharing to create a B #699 line between Ladner and BridgePort, leveraging the existing #601 and #620 routes.
What is the cost of congestion in the tunnel?
Phenomenal will tell some…some more substantiated studies will tell at which level a toll needs to be set to avoid congestion (That is the real economic cost). In the case of the George Massey tunnel, it is at a level such that the congestion toll need to be in effect not much more than 5hr per day, and could rise only $46 millions  as we have already seen in a previous post.
…that barely pay for the interest of a $1Billion debt…
Regarding the George Massey tunnel, the choice the Vancouver region should face is not “do you prefer a tunnel or a bridge as replacement” but do you prefer:
- Pay an infrastructure toll, at all time, to help to finance a new crossing, knowing the toll will probably not be enough and taxpayer money will be required
- Pay a congestion toll, that is a toll only at time where congestion could occurs, the toll revenue helping to finance transit alternative reducing the demand pressure for road space (see our congestion charge post for more detail)
The first solution needs 10 years time frame to be implemented and doesn’t resolve transit funding issue. The second solution, which doesn’t preclude the first one in due time , can be implemented overnight and resolves the congestion issue now as well as provide transit funding. Which alternative is the best?
We humbly suggest that the best alternative is the one requiring the less tax-payer and user fee money.
That said, some other parameters need to enter in consideration, like
- Structure resilience to earthquakes
- Road safety issue
- Marine traffic
On the later, some rumors suggest that the presence of the tunnel is limiting the possible amount of marine traffic, due to draft restriction. The Nautical chart of the Fraser river tell another story. In fact the depth along the channel is around 11 meters, 12 meters above the Tunnel.
Allowing ships with greater draft than allowed now could require considerable dredging of the Fraser channel, from the Stevenson jetty far end to East of the tunnel, as well as significant on going maintenance, due to constant build up of sandspit. That certainly has a non negligible ecological cost as well. The economic rational of this is pretty unclear, and we notice that around the world, ports don’t seem to develop operation inland…beside barging (option here restrained by the railway bridge at New West)… since not all ports can count on a government building road for free to them.
 Delta port truck gate hour of operation are 7am-12pm and 12:30pm 4pm Monday to Friday
 From Freeway to feeway: Congestion pricing policies for BC’s Fraser River crossing, Peter Wightman, Simon Fraser University, 2008
 Christy Clark announces plans to replace George Massey Tunnel, VancouverSun, September 29, 2012
 BC MOT
 Lions Gate Bridge / Marine Drive Transit Priority Study: Summary of Technical Study , Translink/IBI. peak hour number are extrapolated of hourly traffic graph
 Highway 99 corridor assessment, draft v.1.5, Januray 2009, BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (report got thru civicsurrey.com). Notice: thought the transit numbers of this report pre-date the advent of the Canada line, they are based on a bus count (36 in peak hour/direction), which is the same as of November 2012.
 The Provincial Transit Plan, 2008