George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[Migrant_Coconut]

From what cairnstone says, the engineers never considered a bridge in the first place - that was the Libs (now United) dreaming out loud.

[madog222]

But there were piles of sand, it was already under construction!

[Klazu]

Nothing against the poster, but that comment is pure internet hearsay. Even if the bridge would have turned more expensive than advertised (probably, but so is the tunnel going to), it would have still been the same price as the new tunnel AND with massive highway upgrades included.

This is a full on NDP failure and there is no way to turn the tables around on it. What's worst is that a full DECADE has been wasted.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by madog222

But there were piles of sand, it was already under construction!

The fact that they had already started moving sand means that either the Liberals were so insanely incompetent they started pre-construction ground work without sufficient planning, or cainstone is just talking junk.
A lot of people didn't like the bridge idea, remember that.

Even if what he is saying is true, the fact is that the delay pushed construction to after COVID (meaning higher cost inflation) and the reduction in the bus system makes this a bad deal.


If the NDP really cared about reducing congestion and emissions rather than looking good to Greens, they would have kept the tolls on the bridges and moved forwards with the existing projects.

If the George Massey went overbudget (which I doubt it'd be as high as the current cost estimate regardless), they could just blame the previous government.


They did the same thing with the Hwy 1 widening- cancelling the project only to revive it (at higher cost) soon after because it turns out the Liberals indeed knew what they were doing.
It was a pattern when the NDP took charge.

We're lucky they didn't do that with Site C.

[Metro-One]

The leading bid when the project was canned was under 3 billion.

Also I personally know a rather large figure with a certain pile driving company, and all preparation work had been completed for the actual pile driving to commence. So the design was far more along than being suggested by some on here.

Utilities had all been relocated, and the preloading had been done for the interchanges and road expansion.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

From what cairnstone says, the engineers never considered a bridge in the first place - that was the Libs (now United) dreaming out loud.

Its amazing how quickly and easily people can re-write history. The bridge wasn't some sudden idea at its infancy...

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The leading bid when the project was canned was under 3 billion.

Also I personally know a rather large figure with a certain pile driving company, and all preparation work had been completed for the actual pile driving to commence. So the design was far more along than being suggested by some on here.

Utilities had all been relocated, and the preloading had been done for the interchanges and road expansion.

Going by my recollection the winning accepted bid that was ready to start construction was in the range of $2.1B. Project oversight costs are on top of that but grand total would have been well under $3B (before any change orders of course).

The other comment is absolute revisionism. The project had been fully pre-designed, went through a full bidding process and was ready to go. When these bids come back it'll be 2x the price for half the project.

Edit: I read the cairnstone comment now. It's incorrect. The RFQ closure and shortlist finalized in 2016. The RFP technical and financial submittals went in ~ April 2017 and there was a selected low bidder prior to the election.

Now if you were to say the Liberals rushed the process to try to get it done before the election, that statement would be true.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I still fail to see how it made any financial sense to stop the bridge project, just to proceed with a less expansive more expensive version a decade later…

You need to look at this as a political decision not a financial one

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I still fail to see how it made any financial sense to stop the bridge project, just to proceed with a less expansive more expensive version a decade later…

The bridge would not have been on budget. We'd also be spending 2018 dollars which are worth more than 2023 dollars.

[Klazu]

The current price tag is also pre-inflation and hasn't been adjusted, I believe. The tunnel alone is going to cost 5 billion dollars, which is absolutely ludicrous.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The current price tag is also pre-inflation and hasn't been adjusted, I believe. The tunnel alone is going to cost 5 billion dollars, which is absolutely ludicrous.

The bridge happening under budget is a fairy tale. Look at Site C or TMX.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Klazu

... This is a full on NDP failure and there is no way to turn the tables around on it. What's worst is that a full DECADE has been wasted.

Had the Libs started actual construction in 2017 like they said they would (pre-construction doesn't count), then the Dippers would've been forced to keep going, the bridge would be open by now, and all this would be a moot point. Instead they hitched it to their reelection platform, and so here we are.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The bridge would not have been on budget. We'd also be spending 2018 dollars which are worth more than 2023 dollars.

The winning $2.6B bid would be $3B in today's dollars.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The bridge happening under budget is a fairy tale. Look at Site C or TMX.

Those were in large part due to activists blocking the project, then complaining when it went overbudget to to their actions.

[officedweller]

Hmmm -
The City of Richmond was also instrumental in single tracking the Canada Line terminus.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Hmmm -
The City of Richmond was also instrumental in single tracking the Canada Line terminus.

Richmond and Delta also really did not want the high bridge structure or the tall HOV Steveston Way Exit, though I'm sure Delta could have been bribed with a full-flow River Road exit, and Steveston Way was only so tall because of wanting to keep the nearby ALR land.

Basically, the Bridge and exit structures were 'too tall'.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Those were in large part due to activists blocking the project, then complaining when it went overbudget to to their actions.

'Activists' would not have been able to stop the Province from letting a construction contract. The opposition that mattered was from the Mayor's Council. In 2013, then-B.C. Liberal Christy Clark said if she was re-elected the party would build a replacement, and the government settled on a bridge later that year. The tolled project was only in pre-construction by the time the 2017 election arrived, and the NDP made no commitments to continue it. When it was cancelled, no announcement had been made on which of three bidding companies would build it, or what the actual cost was expected to be.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Those were in large part due to activists blocking the project, then complaining when it went overbudget to to their actions.

Oh man, the Site C protestors sure do look the blistering idiots today that they truly are. The EV revolution and the old Nissan Leafs these very same idiots drive, is going to consume the entire capacity that project will produce in just a few years. BC Hydro is already desperate and late to look for more power sources, as we will run out of electricity by 2027. Yup, get used to European electricity prices by 2030.

Green nuts be green nuts and it's exactly the same with this project. Do these people really think the out-of-control mass immigration heading for Metro Vancouver is going to all fit in the TOD towers going up? Not even close and megaprojects like the original proposal will be an inevitability for the South of Fraser.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

'Activists' would not have been able to stop the Province from letting a construction contract. The opposition that mattered was from the Mayor's Council. In 2013, then-B.C. Liberal Christy Clark said if she was re-elected the party would build a replacement, and the government settled on a bridge later that year. The tolled project was only in pre-construction by the time the 2017 election arrived, and the NDP made no commitments to continue it. When it was cancelled, no announcement had been made on which of three bidding companies would build it, or what the actual cost was expected to be.

None of that matters- they still should have gone forwards with it.

Even the higher cost estimates of $3.5B would only get you to around the same cost the project is today (($4.2B today) - a bit higher if we use higher construction inflation rather than CPI) - with a project built earlier, with better transit service and a wider crossing and road network that was more future-proofed and flexible.


The idea the George Massey was going to last much longer in its current state was always unrealistic considering safety concerns.
The NDP was always going to revive the project later on, because they simply didn't really have a choice.
So the initial cancellation never made policy sense.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

None of that matters- they still should have gone forwards with it.

Even the higher cost estimates of $3.5B would only get you to around the same cost the project is today (($4.2B today) - a bit higher if we use higher construction inflation rather than CPI) - with a project built earlier, with better transit service and a wider crossing and road network that was more future-proofed and flexible.

Who is 'they'? The Liberals should have got it started. Once the NDP got in, they were always going to look at it again. Partly because they could - and did - listen to the Mayor's Council, and also because the financial regime was different - the dropping of tolls was one of the factors that probably got them elected.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Who is 'they'? The Liberals should have got it started. Once the NDP got in, they were always going to look at it again. Partly because they could - and did - listen to the Mayor's Council, and also because the financial regime was different - the dropping of tolls was one of the factors that probably got them elected.

They did- they just assumed they would be able to actually send the contracts out because they would win the election.

Sometimes the timing and plans don't work out.
Speeding up the studies for political reasons would have been criticized too later on if something went wrong.

Again, 'the fiscal regime was different' is a bit dumb because interest rates were at 0% then.
The fiscal regime today is significantly worse, not better.

And the NDP could have ignored the mayors if they wanted to.
Like with the housing targets nowadays.