While everyone waits to hear what the Provincial government is recommending for the new Massey Bridge/Tunnel/Fraser River crossing, it appears that Delta NDP MLA Ravi Kahlon spilled the beans that it is not one, but three options that will be developed and released for public comment in early 2020.

As Sandor Gyarmati reports in the Delta Optimist the Province announced in November 2018 that the multi-billion dollar ten lane Massey Bridge, a pet project of the previous Provincial Liberal government was axed.

After that axing,the report that Stan Cowdell prepared for the Minister of Transportation Claire Trevena  suggested several options including a six lane bridge, an eight lane bridge and the twinning of the existing tunnel. The Province did immediately announce that 40 million dollars would be directed to upgrade the current tunnel and highway system.

Here is what MLA Kahlon said: “The work is still ongoing and we’re not studying any more, now we’re just looking at a business plan with three options and we’ll decide what the best option is”.

Kahlon reiterated that the Minister of Transportation was working with Metro Vancouver mayors to “find a solution that makes the most sense”.

With the Metro Vancouver Mayors’ Council  and regional input what will those three options be? Will those options include an eight lane bridge, a six lane bridge, or a tunnel hybrid? We will have to wait a year to find out.



  1. What if instead everyone in BC got seriously behind reducing demand? What if we then won’t need any new capacity?
    Transportation currently accounts for almost 40% of BC’s carbon emissions and we must make drastic cuts. Building more roads and bridges and tunnels is obviously wrong thinking.
    In case you missed it, this is a climate emergency:

    1. Yes. I don’t understand y demand use n electified transit coaches cld not be an option.

      There’s way too many container semis going through that crossing now. There shld be better management n planning for that commercial traffic. I bet that’s 1/3 the problem.

    2. There are many simple, commonsense demand reduction strategies that could have large impact. Here are two:
      1. pay-as-you-drive PAYD insurance would be revenue-neutral for ICBC and “PAYD pricing is predicted to reduce affected vehicles’ annual mileage by 10-15%”
      2. closer commutes can be orchestrated for up to 400,000 Metro Vancouver commuters who work for multi-worksite employers simply by allowing peers (people doing the same job) to swap work locations. Zero cost for the employers (think school districts, banks, health authorities, etc.) and no cost to implement. Should trigger better productivity and decreased HR costs for these employers. Life-changing for the workers who get to work closer to home, with the same pay, same role, same seniority, voluntary. A pilot project with 30 bank branches in Seattle produced a 17% reduction in VMT within 15 months.
      IMHO: Reducing demand seems worth doing before adding more infrastructure or before jamming more people into existing transit.

  2. Unclear why we don’t just build another parallel tunnel, and retrofit the 2 old tubes. That doesn’t need a $40M business case. It makes no sense to rip out perfectly good tunnels. Just add more capacity besides it.

    1. Agree. No sense in replacing existing tunnel.

      N I have to agree with Bruce above, if we take the climate crisis seriously we shld not be expanding road traffic or infrastructure one bit going forward.

      We shld be consolidating existing n moving as many ppl on to transit systems as possible.

      1. A south fraser Rapid bus from a new skytrain station under the oak street bridge with bus only on / off ramps to the highway would be as fast as skytrain

        1. Buses will NOT get people out of their air conditioned and music filled cars. Cars allow detours at will, go in any weather, allow pickups & stops along the road and have ample cargo space. Only a faster less bumpy ride, ie a subway, LRT or train will incent people to use it instead of a comfortable car for their daily commute ! With AVs that auto-follow the car ahead of you even a traffic jam will soon be far more tolerable as you can blog here (or on Facebook or read) while the car drives you to or very close to your destination. The death of the individual car is widely exaggerated. Yes it is likely more electric (or at least hybrid), smaller and/or semi-autonomous, but is is an individual transportation device (ITD) nevertheless.

          Reduce / re-distribute demand by a toll if congestion persists. $4 at rush hour but still congested ? How about $6 or $8 or $12 ? Raise toll until it flows. Simple.

          1. And yet millions of people who can afford to drive, take the bus.

            What a head scratcher. It’s almost as if your personal philosophy of comfort above all doesn’t scale out or apply to those who think things through and see their stay on Earth as a privilege rather than birthright.

            Comfort, Speed, Efficiency. Apparently we will only need three horseman to deliver a destroyed planet. How efficient.

          2. Well, many people associate buses with freedom and cars with burden. Then there are all the people who don’t even have driving as an option in their life. To them a well designed transit system means freedom. The alternative is not ever going anywhere or being dependant on others.

            I don’t think anyone is saying there is a death of the individual car. What people are saying is the enforced dominance of a single travel mode is ending. They will still be around but will be sharing space with many other modes. I think what is ending is the idea of a person’s identity being tied to their travel mode. If you ask young people about cars they see it as just another tool. It’s not who or what they are.

Leave a Reply to Bruce Batchelor Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *