George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Klazu

It's going to be similarly overpriced but definitely nowhere near as impressive in what gets built. Big Dig is actually quite impressive to drive and how it transformed Boston. It was just plagued with huge cost overruns and construction issues.

The Big Dig cost $21.5 billion USD (~26 billion CAD) which was about 3x what was budgeted. I highly doubt this tunnel will cost 3x what is budgeted ($12 billion) or get close to the total price tag of The Big Dig. (Feel free to report me to #oldtakesexposed if I am wrong).

Also, in no way should a 700m tunnel under a river far from Vancouver's core be compared to burying 2.4km tunnel under Boston's downtown.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Klazu

It's going to be similarly overpriced but definitely nowhere near as impressive in what gets built. Big Dig is actually quite impressive to drive and how it transformed Boston. It was just plagued with huge cost overruns and construction issues.

And our project is no way similar to burying some highways to get more space in our downtown. Getting a highway going into our downtown would be our Big Dig.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I highly doubt this tunnel will cost 3x what is budgeted ($12 billion) or get close to the total price tag of The Big Dig.

We are already on our way to 2x the original bridge project budget for a way, way poorer result. One could say that the crossing piece of the project is already 2x the original price...

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Klazu

We are already on our way to 2x the original bridge project budget for a way, way poorer result. One could say that the crossing piece of the project is already 2x the original price...

As the seconds tick by, that multiplier increases.

[Alex Mackinnon]

The inflationary price increases don't really matter all that much. Use constant dollars to compare or it's pretty much meaningless.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Klazu

We are already on our way to 2x the original bridge project budget for a way, way poorer result. One could say that the crossing piece of the project is already 2x the original price...

How is $4.15 billion "on our way" to 2x $3.5 billion? 1.2x is a long way from 2x. I agree the end result may be inferior, but we don't need to overexaggerate the cost to make that point.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The inflationary price increases don't really matter all that much. Use constant dollars to compare or it's pretty much meaningless.

Please explain your reasoning. Inflation is used all the time to compare infrastructure projects.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Please explain your reasoning. Inflation is used all the time to compare infrastructure projects.

Dollars are only really comparable in real terms, relative to the size of an economy. That's really the only numbers that matter unless you've got a bunch of debt. Comparing inflated dollars to uninflated dollars just doesn't tell you much.

The dollar is free floating, constantly devaluating, and has to be tied to actual economic values to mean anything.

How many person-hours of labour, % of tax base, % of gdp, etc...

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The dollar is free floating, constantly devaluating, and has to be tied to actual economic values to mean anything.

Isn't this precisely why inflation is used to compare projects? The CPI has risen 9% since 2017, so if the purchasing power of the CAD has declined for consumer goods, why would it have also not declined for infrastructure?

I realize using inflation to compare the total price tag is simplistic. It would be far better to do a budget analysis to determine how efficiently resources are being used. Then you could separate price vs. quantity effects and figure out if the project is inefficient or is poorly timed.

I would argue that using price as a percentage of GDP or tax revenues is poor practice. That may justify overall spending (i.e. all infrastructure projects), but for a single project that excuses the government to waste money because they have money to spend. That is a "use it or lose it" mentality that is often associated with divisional earnings management and corporate bloat in the private sector. I would prefer for the government to be fiscally responsible and save money where it is possible... so that those savings can be allocated to other funding needs.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Please explain your reasoning. Inflation is used all the time to compare infrastructure projects.

I think it's his way of saying "get over it"

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

How is $4.15 billion "on our way" to 2x $3.5 billion? 1.2x is a long way from 2x. I agree the end result may be inferior, but we don't need to overexaggerate the cost to make that point.

Not sure what you find so hard to understand? We are now getting only the crossing piece (tunnel) for that four billion dollars, whereas previously the crossing was only one part of the three billion dollars, wider highway and intersections being the rest. The price for the crossing itself has multiplied many times due to idiotic NDP politics.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Not sure what you find so hard to understand? We are now getting only the crossing piece (tunnel) for that four billion dollars, whereas previously the crossing was only one part of the three billion dollars, wider highway and intersections being the rest. The price for the crossing itself has multiplied many times due to idiotic NDP politics.

When was that $3b from, and when was the $4b price from? Was one in the past and the other one from the present? Have you taken inflation into account when comparing the two?

I mean, the original Pattullo Bridge was built for $4m, why can't they replace it for the same price today?

[officedweller]

It's a change in scope to make it look cheaper.

It's like downsizing your box of cereal to keep the price the same.

[Vantage]

As a cyclist a feel the need to comment on the bike tunnel.

I bike everywhere, except when I visit my parents on Pender Island. With the addition of the bike tunnel you've got at least one more person (me) who will be using it. Using current cyclist usage numbers to dismiss the need for a bike tunnel is so stupid. "Build it and they will come" is what I'm saying basically. The bike tunnel will make my commute to the ferry terminal actually doable instead of being soul crushing.

I fully support it and I doubt I'm the only one who sees the current set up as a huge barrier. That's why no one goes through the tunnel now unless they absolutely have to. It will open up many new cycling routes for many people.

If you exclusively drive a car then I'm sorry, but you can't really comment on whether a tunnel is necessary or not.

P.S. I think a few of you guys on here need to get out for a bike ride once in a while and stop being so grumpy about it.

[TransitJack]

100% agree with you. As a fellow cyclist and as a driver, this project needs cycling infrastructure and connections!

Originally Posted by Vantage

As a cyclist a feel the need to comment on the bike tunnel.

I bike everywhere, except when I visit my parents on Pender Island. With the addition of the bike tunnel you've got at least one more person (me) who will be using it. Using current cyclist usage numbers to dismiss the need for a bike tunnel is so stupid. "Build it and they will come" is what I'm saying basically. The bike tunnel will make my commute to the ferry terminal actually doable instead of being soul crushing.

I fully support it and I doubt I'm the only one who sees the current set up as a huge barrier. That's why no one goes through the tunnel now unless they absolutely have to. It will open up many new cycling routes for many people.

If you exclusively drive a car then I'm sorry, but you can't really comment on whether a tunnel is necessary or not.

P.S. I think a few of you guys on here need to get out for a bike ride once in a while and stop being so grumpy about it.

[Metro-One]

I 100% also support the cycling infrastructure in this project, but as someone who often cycles I much much much prefer cycling over a bridge with sweeping views than through a tunnel.

Cycling over the Golden Ears Bridge was one of my favorite rides in the Lower Mainland.

[zahav]

Delta is very popular with cyclists: the Ladner waterfront, Westham Island, further down in Boundary Bay, and of course Tsawwassen and the ferries. I know quite a few people living in Ladner and working in Richmond, and adding cycling capacity is a real game changer for them. I know a tunnel isn't the same as a bridge, but it is very accesible and easy to ride, I think the cycling aspect is a must for this project. And the HOV lanes can always be adjusted later to some other use, so I am not worried about that. Right now the choke points are when many lanes converge into one or two, so just having enough lanes to reduce this merging will make a big difference.

PS if they restricted container trucks from the tunnel during rush hour, that would make a huge difference. But not gonna happen I guess.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I mean, the original Pattullo Bridge was built for $4m, why can't they replace it for the same price today?

Pattullo Bridge was built 83 years ago and the George Massey Bridge quote is from 7 years ago. I think you do realize that the amount of inflation in your two examples is so different that your argument becomes completely senseless?

I think the new bicycle tunnel should be tolled until it has paid for itself in few hundred years. I do also think all new road bridges and tunnels should have tolls on them until they are paid for, but I especially think cyclists should pay their equal share. Also a GPS-based cycling mobility tax would make perfect sense to cover for all the infrastructure and its maintenance.

Originally Posted by Vantage

I think a few of you guys on here need to get out for a bike ride once in a while and stop being so grumpy about it.

Amen to that! I love cycling whenever my bicycle isn't stoln by some druggies. I am down two bicycles so far in the past two years. Ah, life in Vancouver.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I think the new bicycle tunnel should be tolled until it has paid for itself in few hundred years. I do also think all new road bridges and tunnels should have tolls on them until they are paid for, but I especially think cyclists should pay their equal share. Also a GPS-based cycling mobility tax would make perfect sense to cover for all the infrastructure and its maintenance.

As some have pointed out, the pedestrian / bike tunnel may have been built anyways, since it is the emergency escape route for the traffic tunnels. Are you going to toll pedestrians too, or do you hate them less than "cyclists"?

Why exactly would you charge cyclists for their use of infrastructure? They pay income taxes, property taxes, consumption taxes, etc. that all contribute to governments' coffers. Are you under some illusion that drivers pay for 100% of the roads through insurance and gas taxes? Cyclists take up a fraction of the space that a vehicle does, do not impose negative externalities on society like drivers, and cause essentially no wear to infrastructure since they weigh next to nothing. IMO cyclists should be paid by drivers since we clear space on the roads and don't contribute to the emissions problem

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

As some have pointed out, the pedestrian / bike tunnel may have been built anyways, since it is the emergency escape route for the traffic tunnels. Are you going to toll pedestrians too, or do you hate them less than "cyclists"?

Why exactly would you charge cyclists for their use of infrastructure? They pay income taxes, property taxes, consumption taxes, etc. that all contribute to governments' coffers. Are you under some illusion that drivers pay for 100% of the roads through insurance and gas taxes? Cyclists take up a fraction of the space that a vehicle does, do not impose negative externalities on society like drivers, and cause essentially no wear to infrastructure since they weigh next to nothing. IMO cyclists should be paid by drivers since we clear space on the roads and don't contribute to the emissions problem

I hate cyclist for the most part, but I fully agree with you. There seems to be this illusion that cyclist don't drive or contribute to society and somehow deteriorate roads and take up a large footprint. The reality is that most cycling infrastructure (outside of Vancouver) is either on the side of the road on a curb lane and separated by a painted line or shares the same space that pedestrians use. I prefer more cyclist on these areas cause that means that's 1 less car in front of me.