Editor:
Re: Nice to see the tunnel not dead yet, Murphy's Law, March 15
The Phase 2 Tunnel Replacement consultation was a respectful and civilized inquiry, full of insights about key aspects of the project ... from the audience members, that is.
Representatives of the Ministry, meanwhile, offered a tunnel vision that was more abstract than real - full of colour, but lacking in dimension.
In a pre-election environment - where, sadly, cynicism boils quickly - it would have been helpful to hear actual facts and figures about the advertised alternatives.
Instead, the public has been asked to comment on five embryonic concepts, missing any detail about comparable costs.
In two of the options, the public is also being asked to consider (and pay for) the removal of the existing tunnel.
The latter point proved particularly confusing. With no mention of river traffic or depth being critical to the project - it, along with cost, did not make the evaluation criteria - the idea of decommissioning an existing, functional structure was puzzling.
I suppose it "is what it is," as they say - whether categorized as an act of electioneering, growth substitution, or infrastructure clairvoyance.
In modern times, busy people increasingly outsource the big decisions to the organized. "Tell us what we need, then do it," the plebeians chant. And they do.
What is encouraging, however, is the option analysis that is going on behind the scenes.
More and more we see citizens deconstructing the budgets - then reconstructing them with smaller implementations that might work, might not work, or might lead to a solution that does work.
From transit to lane sharing to density design, such ideas have begun to attach themselves like ivy to the George Massey Tunnel.
Perhaps this is true community "planning and consultation" - without all the expense and counterfeit of a public relations strategy.
Lets keep it up, and, as the Tunnel Replacement Guide states, "Help plan your future."
Patrick Thompson
