Advertorial THE HANS BENTZEN TUNNE: A Self-Financing - & Lasting Transportation Solution That Protects Stanley Park; Saves Lions Gate Bridge The Hans Benrzen option-is the only Lions Gate Bridge choice which creates new wealth.to pay for itself.» . HANS BENTZEN, P. Eng Hans Bentzen, P Eng... is the man who built the Massey Tunnel beneath the. Fraser River in the late 1950s. Now, as a solution to traffic and other prob-- lems arising from the aging of the over-used Lions ~ Gate Bridge, he has updat- ed and refined a concept he First put forward in 1963 i in this proposal: . “A tunnel crossing of Burrard Inlet that would meet "immediate: demand, provide. for future growth, save the Lions Gate Bridge, remove ‘commuter ‘traffic from the bridge, Stanley Park and the West End of Vancouver and. virtually pay for itself. _ Here‘are key Bentzen Tunnel factors: | Six'lanes for vehicles, with provision co carry through craffic ‘from Upper Levels’ Highway to False’ Creek Bridges withouc . using existing surface Streets; Two rail lines for rapid transit, linked with SkyTrain- in Vancouver; “Self -Findricing through real estate development on about two- thirds of a-175-acte island to be created just off Brockton Point -on Burnaby Shoal using fill from tunnel trenching and other sources; ” Constructed with no interference with existing Lions Gate Bridge craffic; ; * Designed-and buile to meet modern earthquake safety codes; and municipal aiid Port development guidelines; Construction period of four to five yeais. This cunnel provides a long- term solution co many ‘traffic: - congestion problems for North. Shore * municipalities and Vancouver. It permits restora- tion of the Stanley Park cause- | way to park use and could add as much as 50 years’ to the life of Lions Gate Bridge. When the tunnel is.complete, the bridge could be refurbished for use asa pedestrian and cycle crossing. The Benczen crossing would fol- low ‘a route from the area between Burrard and Bute _streets on the South Shore, to ‘the east of Stanley Park across ‘Burnaby Shoal and the harbour toa point near che mouth of Mackay Creek, cast of the foor of Pemberton on the North * Shore. There, it would connect with the existing street’ system and thé Upper Levels. highway. ‘Te would: carry through traffic from Upper Levels to the False Creek bridges without use’ of existing ‘surface streets at cither end, Based : on - initial. projections made ‘in 1990, updated in 1992 and confirmed .by an indepen- dent engineering firm, the cost is estimated at $1.2 billion, END TO-END. The tunnel beneath the harbour would be built using the | same basic ~— method employed in the Massey Tunnel. : Prefabricated concrete cunnel sections are placed in a prepared trench excavated across the inlet, then joined to create a continu- ous reinforced concrete tube from shore to shore. Local accesses and routes to Upper Levels and False Creek would be designed to fit with local com- munity wishes, If you favour a Self-Financing and Lasting Transportation Solution: That Protects Stanley Park and Saves Lions Gate Bridge, let your Municipal Council, MLA, MP and Provincial governments know — with a call, a leter or a fax. For further information about the Bentzen proposal, ‘ail 669- 1065 ~ ANN AON NUNN > sy - RICA fof a x x NNN ANS ? Ae e too 4 0 OTe AL ale ne I ER A RON cae "NEWS graphic D-Anne Burke - THE LIKELIHOOD of an earthquake, with an epicentre in Burrard Inlet, is ; slim, inactive, sec: ° ondary fault lines run east-to-west through the inlet. Extensive geotechnical studies would be. SEISMIC ACTIVITY. in and around the Lower Mainland is a factor that should be considered.’ when examining proposals for the Lions Gate Bridge. = '- A “megathrust” earthquake in the Greater Vancouver area could possibly occur in the next 100 years. . While a 1970s study of Burrard Inlet showed inactive, secondary faults, an earthquake could affect a tunnel crossing Burrard inlet if it was centered on those faults, or nearby. In that situation a bridge would fare better, although neither the Lions Gate Bridge nor the Second Narrows Bridge meet current seis- mic standards. Daniel M. Jarvis, M. L.A. North Vancouver-Seymour required for any tunnel proposal before it would be considered technologically s sound. ' 66 . neither the Lions Gate Bridge nor the Second Narrows meet” current seismic standards. 99 The recent Los Angeles. earth- quake was around seven. on the Richter scale. Damage to freeways and buildings was extensive. During 2 forum in West Vancouver, North Shore Emergency Coordinator Ross Peterson said the realities of an TO recent transportation Ri eantiquake in the Lower Mainlaid would most likely involve the loss’ of service, of both Burrard Inlet: crossings.. : . . "He added. that ihe loss of dur; ot road transportation. system, espe- cially the loss of the Highway. No. 1-Second Narrows Bridge, would “greatly hamper our.ability to’ effect repairs to our lifelines, and move. essential equipment, materials and |“ supplies to the: North Shore for recovery operations.” Stating that the Lionas Gate. Bridge does not offer the same ser- vice for recovery, | Ross felt that the | strengthening - of the: Second Narrows crossing should be pur- sued, but dealt with as a separate issue to the Lions Gate Bridge.’ GE NOT TO BRIDGE? A tunnel or a new bridge certainly appears to be the unswer to , alleviate the question of North Shore traffic and any expected traffic growth. However, there are certain aspects of which many people are not aware, or fail to recognize the ramifications. A. Money B. Environment CG. Land Acquisition We know that any future crossing will require a rninimum of 6 lanes plus the movement of pedestrians, bicycles, and light or rapid transit. | look at these features/benefits and give consideration to the fact that: A. It will cost $400 million to $1 billion for a new tunnel or bridge, any- where not within the 200 ft. swath where the existing bridge resides. B, When the original bridge was built 200 ft. on the north side was trad- ed with the Squamish Indians (a portion of Park Royal area), so new structures will require new acquisitions or trading of lands across the waterfront. c.A segment of Vancouver says, “no widening of Stanley Park Causeway, no further roads, no possible darnage to the water- front/harbour that could impair water fowl, water habitat, etc.” So where are we now? | believe we are down to one or two choices! 1. Utilizing the existing bridge by double decking ’to 6 lanes, with an additional pedestrian and bicycle lane, would cost under $275 mil- lion, 2. Utilizing the same North Shore area for access and egress which could cost minimal dollars. 3. Utilizing the same Parkway access which will alleviate the environ- mentalists concerns.