Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12
I'm not defending anything. It's fair to say the bridge would not have proceeded exactly like the BC Libs had it on paper in 2013.
The tunnel option was always going to be cheaper with tradeoffs.
To somehow suggest the bridge would be half the cost of the tunnel doesn't hold up to common sense.
What's the point in debating something theoretical from so long ago?
|
The tunnel option was going to be cheaper? Umm, it's now tagged at 11 billion.
The leading bid was 2.6 billion, this was not "theoretical," and included 30 km of highway upgrades and new major interchange upgrades and a true median lane rapid bus with median stations and direct free flow bus access ramps. All one package.
The tunnel is now estimated at 11 billon for a roughly 2km long stretch of major upgraded roadway. This also does not include the costs spent on the pitiful "upgraded" Steveston Interchange and the pitiful at grade conflict ridden bus on shoulder "ramps."
But, let's just say that the project did balloon in cost, heck, lets go 2X (even though that never happened for any of the other major projects built around that era).
Now we are at 5 billion. And let's say it was delayed by a year or two from covid and the concrete strike.
Now we are looking at 5 billion and an opening of 2024 (again, both very unlikely, just playing your game) for a 10 lane bridge, 30 km of upgraded modernized highway, a true rapid bus, and major interchange upgrades.
That would still be less than half the cost of 11 billion, with 28km more of upgraded highway and rapid bus, opened at least 6 years (now likely more) earlier than this boondoggle.
And this will ALWAYS be relevant to this conversation, because this current quagmire is the direct result of cancelling a project that already had pre-construction complete and contractors lined up to commence main construction.
Just say I was right.
No one here will tease you for that.
Or just keep the cope, with "but perhaps maybe this might have happened..."
Threaded Mode