APPENDIX 5: STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES

Transcription

1 APPENDIX 5: STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES

2

3 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project VANCOUVER BOARD OF TRADE STAKEHOLDER MEETING December 18, 2015 Summary of the Vancouver Board of Trade, Metro Vancouver Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Stakeholder Meeting for Phase 3 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project held Friday, December 18, 2015 at Stantec, 111 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver, B.C. ATTENDEES Participants John Collings, Co-Chair Marian Robson, Co-Chair Rob Mackay-Dunn, VBOT Public Policy and Communications Iqbal Ahmed, VBOT Andreas Bakli, DB Schenker Catherine Fritter, Moffat & Nichol Jesse Koehler, TransLink Alvin Epp, Point Nexus Consulting Kleo Landucci, Ascroft Terminal Tony Nardi, Neptune Terminals/GVGC Aaron Robinson, VBOT Bruce Rozenhart, Counterpoint Communications Kip Skabar, Stantec Derek Stanger, CN Solomon Wong, InterVistas Consulting Inc. Project Team Representatives Joost Meyboom Pam Ryan Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses 1. Welcome/Agenda Overview John Collings, Committee Co-Chair, welcomed the Project Team representatives to the regular meeting of the Metro Vancouver Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Pam Ryan thanked the Vancouver Board of Trade for the opportunity to meet and encouraged participants to complete and submit the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report Consultation Feedback Form Vancouver Board of Trade Stakeholder Committee Meeting Summary held December 18, 2015 Page 1 of 3

4 online prior to the January 28, 2016 closing date. Pam Ryan also requested that participants inform a member of the Project Team if they are aware of other organizations that may be interested in a more in-depth presentation and discussion. 2. Presentation & Review of Project Definition Report Pam Ryan, GMT Director of Planning, presented the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report (PDR) and provided an overview of the consultation process being undertaken to seek input into the Project Definition Report. 3. Discussion Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange: C: Appreciate the improvements being proposed at the Highway 99/ Westminster Highway interchange, which currently has lots of challenges. Q: Has the Project Team considered the potential effects of increased weaving as drivers enter the highway and merge into the median HOV lane? R: Median HOV lanes are common in other jurisdictions and similar to what is currently in place on Highway 1 in Metro Vancouver. Median HOV lanes provide carpools and transit buses with better travel time savings than shoulder HOV lanes because they don t have to mix with traffic that is entering and exiting the highway. Q: How will this project fit within the context of future regional tolling? R: The Province intends to fund the Project at least in part through user tolls. The Province is also seeking a contribution from the federal government. The toll rate hasn t been set, but at tolls similar to that of the Port Mann Bridge, the Project can be self-financing without federal funding. The PDR consultation seeks feedback on tolling. We expect that there will be lots of discussion about tolling for this crossing and the broader region to support a final decision well in advance of when the new bridge opens in Q: What will happen at the Oak Street Bridge? Will there be more congestion? R: The efficiency of the Oak Street Bridge will continue to be governed by traffic lights at 70 th Avenue, so there will continue to be some congestion there during rush hour. Traffic forecasting indicates that while morning queues will continue as today and traffic patterns may change somewhat there will be no significant change in total traffic. This is in part because approximately 60 per cent of tunnel Vancouver Board of Trade Stakeholder Committee Meeting Summary held December 18, 2015 Page 2 of 3

5 users end their trip in Richmond so they aren t using the Oak Street Bridge, and in part because Oak Street Bridge traffic volumes have been relatively constant or declining over the past decade as a result of Canada Line and Highway 99 transit service. C: Recommend that the tolls charged should be sufficiently high to cover the costs of the next round of Highway 99 improvements as well. 4. Closing Remarks/Next Steps Pam Ryan thanked the participants for their time and reminded everyone to submit an online feedback form prior to the January 28, 2016 deadline. Ms. Ryan also encouraged participants to let other members of their respective organizations to do the same (the form is available online at and noted that written submissions are also welcome for those who wish to provide more comprehensive feedback about the Project. Vancouver Board of Trade Stakeholder Committee Meeting Summary held December 18, 2015 Page 3 of 3

6

7 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project RICHMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE STAKEHOLDER MEETING January 12, 2016 Summary of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee Stakeholder Meeting for Phase 3 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project held Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at the Chamber of Commerce offices at 5811 Cooney Rd, Richmond, B.C. ATTENDEES Participants Rob Akimow, Chair Matt Pitcairn, Executive Director Phebe Chan Gerard Edwards Rob Howard Don Mann Dan Sakaki Project Team Representatives Geoff Freer Enriquez Mitchell Pam Ryan Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses 1. Welcome/Agenda Overview Matt Pitcairn, Richmond Chamber Executive Director welcomed the Project Team representatives to the meeting. Geoff Freer, GMT Project Executive Director thanked the Chamber for the opportunity to meet. Meeting attendees introduced themselves. 2. Presentation & Discussion Guide Pam Ryan, GMT Director of Planning, presented the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report (PDR) and provided an overview of the consultation process being undertaken to seek input into the Project Definition Report. Richmond Chamber of Commerce Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 12, 2016 Page 1 of 4

8 3. Discussion Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange with the Project Team: Q: Some have questioned the viability of a bridge, given soil conditions in the area and the potential for soil liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. How will the bridge towers be built to withstand this? R: Through a process called ground strengthening, in which river sand is replaced with gravel, to a depth of about 25 to 30 metres. This stops sand from outside the area from moving sideways. After the ground is strengthened, piles can be driven to a depth of about 65 to 85 metres, and the towers are built on top of the piles. This is a very common practice. A similar approach was used for the (new) Port Mann, Alex Fraser and Pitt River bridges. Q: Are there any conflicts or impacts to Gardens development at Steveston Highway and No. 5 Road? R: Some residents there may have a view of the new bridge, and their view of the Steveston interchange will change because the new interchange will look different. There are no property impacts, and the reference concept maintains access from Highway 99. Q: What about light impacts? R: All interchanges must be lit for safety reasons, but there s a lot that can be done to minimize light distribution. We don t anticipate any significant effects from lighting, since the current interchange is also lit. The bridge will have minimal lighting, but will require aircraft safety lights at the top of the towers. Q: How much of the Project will be funded through user tolls? How much is the federal government is contributing? Is regional tolling being considered? R: Details are yet to be determined because federal funding has not yet been confirmed. The Project can be fully funded through user tolls; so federal funding is not a requirement for the Project to proceed. As to regional tolling, we expect that there will be lots of discussion over the next several years, and changes, if any, can be made well in advance of when the new bridge opens in Q: What are the quantified user benefits? R: Primarily travel time savings and improved safety through reduced vehicle collisions. These have been calculated in the standard way for business cases. The benefits are summarized in the PDR and discussed more extensively in the detailed business case, which is available on the Project website. Richmond Chamber of Commerce Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 12, 2016 Page 2 of 4

9 Q: Why is the bridge design so large and so tall? R: We wanted to maintain the existing three travel lanes in the peak direction during rush hour as well as to extend the existing transit queue jumper lanes across the bridge, which means four lanes in each direction. The fifth lane will support the high volume of traffic entering and exiting the highway at the two interchanges on either side of the bridge as well as provide a lane for slower moving traffic like trucks. As for the height, it s primarily the result of keeping piers out of the water, which has environmental and navigational benefits. That s a very long distance to span, which affects the height of the towers. Q: What is the projected lifespan of the new bridge? R: 100+ years. Q: When does tolling start to pay for itself? R: At approximately the 40-year mark if the bridge is 100 per cent funded through tolls. Q: In the past, the Ministry has indicated that a challenge for construction of a Blundell interchange was its proximity to Steveston. Is this still an issue? R: It is always a consideration. However, with this Project, the issue is addressed by having a continuous merge lane through to Steveston, to help minimize safety concerns that would otherwise have occurred with the weaving pattern that is created as vehicles enter and exit the highway. Addressing weaving concerns is also a key reason why the Project includes Westminster Highway access improvements. Q: Can a Blundell interchange be built in the future? Could it be added to the Project at a later date? At what cost? R: The new Blundell overpass that will be built as part of this Project will be constructed to allow for a future interchange. A very rough estimate of extra costs to build the interchange is about $25 million. Q: Richmond s Mayor has vocally disapproved of the Project and says the City doesn t have sufficient information about the Project; what are the Province s plans to rebuild this relationship? R: The Project team has met with staff every two weeks for the last two years, and our relationship with staff is good. The Mayor and some councillors have attended past consultation sessions, and we are meeting with several council committees over the next several weeks. Some of the main things we have heard from council members are preference not to remove the tunnel as a means to limit further industrialization and increased port activity, as well as concerns about potential for soil liquefaction concerns. Richmond Chamber of Commerce Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 12, 2016 Page 3 of 4

10 We also know that the City has concerns about congestion at No. 5 Road and Steveston Highway. We can t address all of this but we are addressing the Highway congestion, which should help. The City of Richmond will be able to adjust traffic signal timing at this interchange once the Project is complete. Construction of the Rice Mill Road accesses as part of the Project will also help. This connection can t be built until after bridge construction is complete because we will need the area for construction staging. We re continuing to work with City of Richmond staff on this. We also know that property acquisition is a concern. We don t require any property from Westminster to Blundell and in fact, can potentially return some for farming. From Blundell to Steveston, highway widening will be done to the west, to minimize impacts to active farmland, and we will require some small strips of land to accommodate the widening. We ve initiated discussions with these property owners. At Steveston, the new interchange will have a reduced footprint, which means we can return some land for farming there too. 4. Closing Remarks/Next Steps Matt Pitcairn thanked the Project Team for the informative discussion and the meeting adjourned. Geoff Freer thanked participants for their feedback and reminded everyone to submit an online feedback form prior to the January 28, 2016 deadline (the form is available online at and noted that written submissions are also welcome for those who wish to provide more comprehensive feedback about the Project. Richmond Chamber of Commerce Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 12, 2016 Page 4 of 4

11 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project CYCLING GROUPS STAKEHOLDER MEETING January 12, 2016 Summary of the Cycling Groups Stakeholder Meeting for Phase 3 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project held Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Office, Steveston Highway, Richmond, B.C. ATTENDEES Participants Lois Armerding, HUB Richmond Allan Buium, Cross Canada Cycle Tour Society Richard Campbell, BC Cycling Coalition Mark Heath, Richmond Active Transportation Committee Matthias Heinzemann, HUB Delta Sandra Jones, HUB Delta Jeff Leigh, HUB Regional Advisory Committee Neil Pope, HUB Delta Roel Schootman, HUB Regional Advisory Committee Debbie Snihur, HUB RATC Arno Schortinghuis, HUB Richmond Patrick Thompson, HUB Delta Committee Carol Vignale, HUB Safe Route Tsawwassen Derek Williams, HUB Richmond Liesl Fox, Corporation of Delta Joan Caravan, Cycling City of Richmond Tim Kooistra, City of Surrey Jordan Magtoto, City of Surrey Project Team Representatives Joost Meyboom Amber Standbridge Enriquez Mitchell Erin Sept Lori Alexander Pam Ryan Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses Cycling Groups Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 12, 2016 Page 1 of 6

12 1. Welcome/Agenda Overview Pam Ryan, GMT Director of Planning, welcomed participants to the meeting, and all participants introduced themselves. Ms. Ryan encouraged participants to complete and submit the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report Consultation Feedback Form online before January 28, Presentation & Review of Project Definition Report Ms. Ryan provided an overview presentation regarding the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report (PDR) and the consultation process being undertaken to obtain feedback. Ms. Ryan and Joost Meyboom, Project Engineer, then provided a detailed presentation of the Project cycling elements. 3. Discussion Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange with the Project Team: General Questions and Comments: Q: What is the width of the multi-use pathway (MUP) on the new bridge? R: Three metres. Q: Will the counterflow be maintained? R: No, but the new bridge will be built to allow for counterflow in the future, if needed. Q: How wide will traffic lanes be? R: 3.65 metres, which is standard. Q: Why a 10-lane bridge instead of an 8-lane bridge? R: We wanted to maintain the existing three travel lanes in the peak direction during rush hour as well as to extend the existing transit queue jumper lanes across the bridge, which means four lanes in each direction. The fifth lane will support the high volume of traffic entering and exiting the highway at the two interchanges on either side of the bridge as well as provide a lane for slower moving traffic like trucks. An eight-lane bridge would have congestion on opening day, whereas a 10- lane bridge does not. Also, although it s marginally more expensive, it has a higher benefit-cost ratio. Q: Was a transit-only option considered? R: Yes, during the early stages of the review. However, the traffic analysis found that given this corridor s already-high transit usage, a transit-only solution would not meet forecast demand. Additionally, it would not provide the safety benefits for other vehicles. Cycling Groups Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 12, 2016 Page 2 of 6

13 C: The Project should include a Park & Ride at the Bridgeport Canada Line station and also should improve the Marine Drive off-ramp at the Oak Street Bridge. C: Municipalities should get involved in all of this, including making improvements to the cycling access on the Richmond side of the Oak Street Bridge as well as better signage, using a numbering system like there is on highways. Q: What is the height and steepness of the new bridge? R: There will be a five per cent grade on the bridge. C: You should try to keep cyclists and vehicles separate get bikes away from the highway. The grade of the bridge is steep but acceptable. Q: There are safety issues with long, steep MUPs that have multi-directional traffic because cyclists can end up going quite fast and it is difficult to stop. There is a potential for head-on collisions and cyclist-pedestrian collisions. R: The current design calls for a path on each side of the bridge. Q: Will there be any poles, which reduce the effective width of the pathway? R: No. The path will have three metres of clear width. Q: Will the Project include additional cost-sharing opportunities for cycling and pedestrian improvements, as was done for the Gateway Program? R: We are working with our colleagues at the Ministry to look at options within the Cycling BC program. C: Will there be a camera system for safety? R: Yes. C: The Project Success Measures should incorporate a goal of a 10 per cent increase in cycling. C: Add zero-fatality as a goal or success measure. Q: How will the Ministry ensure that the contract documents are more prescriptive so that the contractor delivers what we want? Past projects have resulted in delivery of lower standards of infrastructure than had been discussed with the cycling community (e.g. cycling access on the west side of the Pitt River Bridge and the cycling path through the Cape Horn area of Coquitlam). R: Right now, we are focusing on confirming the scope of the improvements. Cycling Groups Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 12, 2016 Page 3 of 6

14 Q: If surface is exposed, will there be joints? R: Yes. Three to four joints over a distance of about one kilometre. C: Joints need to be safe, and the surface should be smooth, skid-resistant, and reflective. Area-Specific Cycling Questions and Comments: 1) Bridgeport C: There is a conflict with the bus lane at Bridgeport trail. C: Recommend having the MUP follow the existing route along Van Horne and connect to the new greenway that will provide a new route. 2) Odlin/Shell C: There should be a paved connection to Shell and a crossing under Shell to connect along the CN Rail line. 3) Westminster Highway C: Recommend also improving the cycling crossing at the ramp so it is safer. C: Suggestions for how to address cycling at Westminster/No. 5 Road: Take the cycling path on Westminster as far as Shell Road. Allow for a four-metre-wide MUP that ties in with existing trail. Consider an underpass (would require switchbacks). Consider no right-turn on red at the light (from No. 5 to Westminster). Move path to the service road. Think about grades can t be too steep. 4) Steveston Highway C: No issues with the at-grade. C: Regarding the transit station: there should be two elevators as well as stairs, instead of the current TransLink standard of one elevator and stairs. The stairs should have channels (e.g. at Burrard Bridge in Vancouver). The stairs and elevators should connect to the first level. C: Please be sure that the elevator size can accommodate tandems or bikes with trailers. 5) Bridge A general discussion of the accesses to the bridge if the MUPs are designated for one-way use (e.g. access to the bridge from the east side would require either Cycling Groups Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 12, 2016 Page 4 of 6

15 allowing two-way traffic on both sides or requiring one direction to use an underbridge path to access the other side) generated the following comments: Install a spiral ramp on the west side and a switchback ramp on the east side. As long as it s easy to get across, people will use only one side. A spiral is preferred to switchbacks (ramp is not possible on both sides). Consider a bike path under the bridge to cross, like on Canada Line. C: Bad examples of existing ramp infrastructure include: The north end of the Cambie Bridge (switchback) South side of Canada Line cycling bridge (switchback) North end of Alex Fraser Bridge (partly due to the height of the bridge (seven metres at the abutment) so there are a number of twists) C: Good examples of existing ramp infrastructure include: Roundabout at Golden Ears Bridge works well good line of sight. 6) Other Richmond Areas C: It s good that Blundell will also have a multi-use pathway crossing to Sidaway Road and Shell Road, but a bike lane on Sidaway is also needed or it won t work. Q: Have you considered a crossing to Williams directly? R: There is no room. 7) River Road, Delta C: If River Road becomes a through-road, there needs to be adequate room for safe pedestrian and cycling access along River Road and Vassey/64th. Q: The PDR isn t clear about whether improvements to the Millennium Trail are included. Recommend showing the trail as it exists today, to make the importance more clear. R: The Millennium Trail is incorporated into the Project design. 8) Other Delta C: More information about cycling improvements on the Delta side is needed not as developed as on the Richmond side. C: Some members of the cycling community would like a direct path along Highway 99 to Highway 17A and Burns Road. This would be the big win for the Project. Cycling Groups Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 12, 2016 Page 5 of 6

16 C: The Project should include an integrated transit crossing at Highway 17A. If we connected it better, more people would use it. R: The current concept assumed that the regional transit connections would remain at Ladner Loop and King George. The Highway 17A transit connection was planned as a local connection only. We are working with TransLink to look at this area in more detail. C: The Project should include better signs to direct cycling traffic to the ferry. C: Provide more information for the south (e.g. where Ladner Trunk Road crosses Highway 99; information about other crossings). 4. Report Out Key Themes Pam Ryan reported on the key themes that were expressed during the meeting: Review plans for two-directional cycling trails consider pedestrian/cyclist conflicts and the potential for requiring one-way travel for bikes, with convenient crossovers for cyclists. Need to think about pedestrians ways to slow cyclists down, especially near viewing platforms. Ensure all crossings have good sightlines, are efficient and connections are grade- and user-appropriate. Incorporate improved signs as part of the Project scope (including to airport/border/ferry) HUB may be willing to cost-share in this regard. Generally prefer the path bridge pathways to be tucked under the bridge (like on Canada Line) to better protect users from vehicle traffic and from the elements. Good cycling and pedestrian connections will increase the number of users this should be a Project goal. Concerns about timing for decisions and funding of all the routes don t want to end up with a partially built network. Safety incorporate measures to keep the pathway surfaces clean and skidresistant. Update the Project maps to make the Delta bike route improvements more clear. Appreciation for the early engagement cautiously optimistic. 5. Closing Remarks/Next Steps Joost Meyboom thanked participants for their detailed and informative feedback. Pam Ryan reminded everyone to submit an online feedback form prior to the January 28, 2016 deadline and encouraged participants to let other members of their respective organizations to do the same (the form is available online at Written submissions are also welcome for those who wish to provide more comprehensive feedback about the Project. Cycling Groups Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 12, 2016 Page 6 of 6

17 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project BCTA LOWER MAINLAND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES COMMITTEE STAKEHOLDER MEETING January 13, 2016 Summary of the BCTA Stakeholder Meeting for Phase 3 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project held Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at the BC Trucking Association Office, A Avenue, Langley, B.C. ATTENDEES Participants Louise Yako, BCTA Greg Kolesniak, BCTA Lindsay Samson, BCTA Doug Elliot, Apex Specialized Rigging & Moving Paul Schroeder, Bison Transport Jim White, Commercial Logistics Inc. Brad Cruickshank, HUB International Insurance Darren Racine, Protrux Systems Inc. Steve Szalkai, Ocean/Rempel Bros. Concrete Rob Slarks, Ocean/Rempel Bros. Concrete Murray Scadeng, Triton Transport Ltd. Keith Freeman, Triton Transport Ltd. Project Team Representatives Pam Ryan Geoff Freer Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses 1. Welcome / Agenda Overview Louise Yako, BC Trucking Association CEO, welcomed the Project Team representatives to the regular meeting of the Lower Mainland Transportation Issues Committee. Geoff Freer, GMT Project Executive Director, thanked the BCTA for the opportunity to meet. Meeting attendees introduced themselves. 2. Presentation & Review of Project Definition Report Pam Ryan, GMT Director of Planning, presented the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report and provided an overview of the consultation process being undertaken to seek input into the Project Definition Report. BCTA Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 1 of 5

18 3. Discussion Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange: Q: How dense/stable is the soil where the pylons will be? R: The area has soft soils but is similar to the Alex Fraser Bridge and Port Mann Bridge. With current engineering designs and standards, a bridge is the more practical structure for our combined geotechnical/seismic conditions. Q: Is the design set? R: We have a reference concept. During the procurement process to retain a contractor, we will focus on design specifications to deliver the desired outcomes but that also leave room for private sector innovation. In some areas, specific deliverables may be required and these will be prescribed. Q: Will you expect more competition/interest in this project as compared with others? R: The construction community and P3 community is already actively expressing interest, and this is from around the world. Q: What is the plan for a Rice Mill Road connection? R: This connection was developed as a result of significant interest from businesses in the area. It will also help to relieve some of the congestion that currently happens at the Steveston interchange because of back ups from traffic accessing the Ironwood commercial area at Steveston Highway and No. 5 Road. The reference concept calls for a Highway 99 southbound access to Rice Mill Road and a Rice Mill Road to Highway 99 northbound access. The new bridge will free up room for these connections to occur underneath, where currently the tunnel prevents a connection. Q: Will there be work for local contractors as well? Are you anticipating any relaxation on foreign worker requirements? Would you consider WorkSafe relaxations? R: The Ministry would not consider WorkSafe relaxations. Experience with the Port Mann/Highway 1 Project and the South Fraser Perimeter Road indicates that larger contractors subcontract with local firms, which have the expertise and the local area knowledge necessary to do things efficiently. Most of the workers on the job are also local. Q: For these projects, were there fewer foreign workers by regulation or by happenstance? R: Probably more by happenstance. This area is federally controlled. BCTA Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 2 of 5

19 Q: Construction of the Alex Fraser Bridge led to a housing boom in North Delta. Has this potential effect been considered for this project? R: The Ministry has undertaken extensive traffic modelling. The presence of the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy and the Agricultural Land Reserve will help to manage any potential changes in land use or unplanned density changes. The reality is that there is not much vacant residential land available, so changes, if any are likely to be in a bit more densification of built out areas. Q: Does the traffic modelling consider full build-out of Deltaport? R: Yes. C: BCTA members are concerned about the diversion effects of having only one non-tolled crossing once the Massey Tunnel replacement bridge and the new Pattullo Bridge are constructed. Q: Is the analysis of tolling effects for this Project based on current traffic? How confident is the Ministry in the estimates based, on the fact that history has shown them to be too optimistic? R: Traffic modelling is much more conservative now than it used to be. For this project, we have the benefit of the Port Mann Bridge and the Golden Ears Bridge to draw from. We also have better traffic data (Bluetooth data capture). What we do now is created a blended forecast based on the traffic model results, current traffic volumes and good judgment. One thing no one can accurately predict is latent demand. Instead, we undertake sensitivity analysis to look at what could happen if traffic volumes are much lower or much higher than anticipated. This provides a range of potential demand. The Project Team will continue to monitor traffic volumes and continue to conduct sensitivity analysis and update traffic forecasts as appropriate. Q: Is the Ministry satisfied with the results of the Highway 1 Brunette to McGill traffic patterns now? R: It s not perfect, but then again, original forecasts for the Gateway Program contemplated a North Fraser Perimeter Road and a significantly different interchange at Brunette Avenue. That didn t happen for a lot of reasons. We are also seeing local traffic using Highway 1 to avoid congestion on other routes, which is the opposite of what was happening before the improvements were done, so arguably, this is the right amount of traffic on the highway. We are also seeing more traffic at east end of SFPR than forecast, but west end is pretty accurate. This is the latent demand phenomenon that is so hard to predict. BCTA Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5

20 Q: Does the traffic analysis go all the way to the U.S. border? R: Yes. Q: How will the Tunnel be decommissioned? R: We are still analyzing this, and it depends on how much of the Tunnel is removed. The Project Team has assumed that the four sections will be removed, through essentially a reversal of how it was installed. The concept is that once the tunnel is decommissioned, the bulkheads will be sealed to separate individual sections. The riprap can then be removed from the top and each section floated to the surface one by one. Ultimately, the contractor will decide on the best process to do this. Q: How long will construction take and what is being planned for traffic management purposes? R: Although the Project will take about five years to construct, the most notable portion from a traffic perspective will be only about two years piling likely will start in 2017 and continue through 2018; this will mostly be off corridor work. From 2019 to 2020 will be the key timeframe for highway widening. The contractor will be required to keep traffic moving, with performance specifications to monitor compliance. Like the Port Mann/Highway 1 Project, we will not permit any girder installations over traffic. The new bridge will be wide, so it will be feasible to work beside (but not over top of) moving traffic and then shift traffic lanes at night to allow work to continue. There may be a need for some short Highway 99 lane closures overnight, in which case traffic would be rerouted to the Alex Fraser Bridge. C: So the piers of the new bridge will be on either side of the tunnel? R: Yes. Q: Did the Ministry s tolling analysis consider the possibility of tolling the Alex Fraser Bridge before construction? R: This is not contemplated in the current provincial tolling guidelines. Q: What considerations will be made for trucks at Nordel Scale if traffic is diverting to Alex Fraser Bridge? R: We will have to monitor that with our Ministry colleagues. The Ministry is separately considering upgrades to Nordel Interchange. C: From the BCTA s perspective, the traffic management for the recent Port Mann/Highway 1 Project was a success. A similar program including the use of a Traffic Management Advisory Committee would be a good approach for the GMT Project. It would also be a good idea to include penalty clauses in the contract, to minimize potential for issues. BCTA Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5

21 R: We appreciate the positive feedback and agree that everything ran quite smoothly. The Ministry agrees that the Traffic Advisory Committee process was good. The PMH1 and SFPR contractors were also very responsive to comments. Q: What elements of consultation will be most influenced by ongoing consultation? R: We re still working on the cycling and pedestrian access details. We re also working with the farm community on a few items of agricultural interest. There will be other areas as well. Q: What is the status of cost sharing discussions with the federal government? R: The Province has submitted a request to PPP Canada and we anticipate feedback in coming months. Discussions have been underway for some time and there are many projects asking for funding. The GMT Project is not contingent on federal funding but it would certainly help. Q: Will the tolls be similar with TReO classifications? BCTA would appreciate greater consistency with standard vehicle classifications. BCTA prefers the Golden Ears Bridge classifications, which correspond to national standards for vehicle weights and dimensions. BCTA will provide additional information. R: Noted. Q: Is there a potential to lower the grade of Highway 99 in the areas where overpasses are not being replaced, to achieve a greater height clearance? BCTA recommends a minimum clearance of 5.5-metres, but would prefer between 6-metres and 7.2-metres. R: Noted for follow up. 4. Closing Remarks / Next Steps Louise Yako thanked the Project Team for the informative discussion and the meeting adjourned. Pam Ryan thanked participants for their feedback and reminded everyone to submit an online feedback form prior to the January 28, 2016 deadline (the form is available online at and noted that written submissions are also welcome for those who wish to provide more comprehensive feedback about the Project. BCTA Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 5 of 5

22

23 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project RICHMOND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE STAKEHOLDER MEETING January 13, 2016 Summary of the Richmond Active Transportation Advisory Committee Stakeholder Meeting for Phase 3 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project held Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at Richmond City Hall in Richmond, B.C. ATTENDEES Participants Kevin Connery, City of Richmond Joan Caravan, City of Richmond Linda Love, Committee Chair Graeme Bone Mark Heath Barbara Huisman John Reinders Debbie Snihur Derek Williams Project Team Representatives Geoff Freer Pam Ryan Enriquez Mitchell Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses 1. Welcome / Agenda Overview Linda Love, Committee Chair, welcomed the Project Team representatives to the regular meeting of the Richmond Active Transportation Group. A round table of introductions followed and after completing some committee business, the Chair invited the Project Team to present. 2. Presentation & Review of Project Definition Report Pam Ryan, GMT Director of Planning, presented the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report and provided an overview of the consultation process being undertaken to seek input into the Project Definition Report (PDR). Richmond Active Transportation Advisory Committee Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 1 of 5

24 3. Discussion Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange: General Questions: Q: How will construction be staged? How will heavy trucks (for construction) navigate the area without affecting regular highway traffic? R: Although the Project will take about five years to construct, the most notable portion from a traffic perspective will be only about two years. The contractor will be required to keep traffic moving, with performance specifications to monitor compliance. The contractor likely will create an on-site concrete batch plant to minimize hauling. We also anticipate that equipment will be barged in. Q: How are the traffic forecasts measuring up in reality? R: Traffic modelling is much more conservative now than it used to be. For this project, we have the benefit of the Port Mann Bridge and the Golden Ears Bridge to draw from. We also have better traffic data (Bluetooth data capture). One thing no one can accurately predict is latent demand. Instead, we undertake sensitivity analysis to look at what could happen if traffic volumes are much lower or much higher than anticipated. This provides a range of potential demand. Q: When and how will rapid transit be extended in this area? R: The timeline for potential future expansion is not known. TransLink s priority for north-south rapid transit right now is King George Boulevard. For now, rapid buses will take passengers to Canada Line. In the future, the transit/hov lanes on the bridge would be converted for rapid transit. Q: What percentage of population is opposed to tolling? R: The Project Definition Report consultation is seeking feedback on plans to toll the bridge. The Port Mann Bridge provides a recent similar comparison though. In the first two years of tolling, traffic dropped by about 13 percent. But since then, traffic volumes are steadily increasing. During the morning rush hour, traffic volumes have increased by more than 25 per cent. Q: Any thought to tolling all the bridges? R: Discussions like this are happening now and we are interested in your input. Q: What will the toll be? R: Similar to Port Mann. Richmond Active Transportation Advisory Committee Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 2 of 5

25 Q: Is a free alternative required? R: It is in the current Tolling Guidelines. Q: How will the bridge be decommissioned? R: We are still analyzing this, and it depends on how much of the Tunnel is removed. The Project Team has assumed that the four sections will be removed, through essentially a reversal of how it was installed. Q: How will our feedback be captured and considered? R: A consultation summary report will be posted to the Project website after the consultation period is complete and feedback analysed. The Project Team will use this information to revise the reference concept as appropriate. The Environmental Assessment review of the EA application will begin later this spring, which may lead to further design changes. A final reference concept will then be prepared to support the procurement process to select a contractor. Additional consultation may take place if significant changes are made after the reference concept is finalised. Cycling-Specific Recommendations (North to South): 1) Bridgeport Road Area Recommend realigning the proposed connection to go along Van Horne, and Bridgeport, connecting to the existing trail, or make the connection go all the way from Bridgeport Road to Shell Road. The City is working on a significant park initiative at Garden City and Westminster Highway, which should be considered. If the connection remains on Bridgeport, cyclists could connect to the trail to the east to get to Shell Road, but there is a gap in the cycling network for cyclists heading south that should be connected. 2) Odlin Road/Shell Road No comments. 3) Westminster Highway Agreement that the cycling plans as proposed represent a significant improvement as compared with today only one conflict would remain, instead of many. Support pathway on south side only, to avoid the Highway access ramp, and to better connect to service road and No. 6 Road The interchange at No. 6 Road and Westminster Highway is very difficult to cross. It would be the City s responsibility to manage any Westminster Highway cycling improvements beyond No. 5 Road. Richmond Active Transportation Advisory Committee Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5

26 4) Blundell Road The Project Team noted that while the Blundell overpass will be replaced, the significant bend in the road would remain because of existing property boundaries. Some committee members believe this is a safety issue and recommended a wider-than-normal standard lane width on the north side to provide sufficient shy distance for people to cycle across. Agreement with the Project s plans for a multi-used path (MUP) on south side of the road given that a future interchange could be constructed. 5) Steveston Interchange General agreement with the schematics as shown. Noted that there is likely to be major east-west cycling movements, as well as to/from the bridge and to/from the transit platforms. Q: How far will the transit platform be from the Richmond Farm Market? R: Specifics are still to be confirmed, but it is anticipated that the connection will be only slightly farther than the current northbound transit stop near the offramp. Q: Will there be a connection to the MUP on the north side of Steveston Highway to access No. 5 Road/Loblaws? R: Yes. Committee members requested hybrid connections as much as possible to encourage use by cyclists and pedestrians. Richmond s goal is to be more pedestrian friendly. Q: Will the ramp connections to the bridge be ellipsis, spiral or switchback styled? R: Details are yet to be determined. Switchbacks or spirals are easier to accommodate in tighter spaces. Committee members noted that people in wheelchairs have challenges with spiral designs because they put significant pressure on wheel rebalancing. Committee members requested that the Project Team consider turning radius for tandem bikes and for trailers. 6) River Road Q: Will there be a connection to Deas Island Bridge? R: No. The connection will be via the Millennium Trail, similar to today. Q: Will the MUP be on both sides of the bridge or one side? Richmond Active Transportation Advisory Committee Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5

27 R: While not 100 per cent confirmed, we anticipate on both sides. Committee members expressed a preference for one direction on one side and one on the other side for reasons of safety and latent demand as tourism and recreation increase [e.g. Experience the Fraser program]. As long as the connections are close enough and sign with wrong way for cyclists, most people will respect the one-way use. Support for a 3-metre width. Q: Will the MUPs be lit? R: Interchanges are always lit. We anticipate some lighting on the paths, but will try to keep it to a minimum (softer/human scale), to avoid complaints about light pollution. 4. Closing Remarks/Next Steps The Committee Chair thanked the Project team for the informative discussion. Kevin Connery offered to forward to the GMT Project Team a copy of Richmond s trail network and municipal trail system standards. Pam Ryan thanked participants for their feedback and reminded everyone to submit an online feedback form prior to the January 28, 2016 deadline (the form is available online at and noted that written submissions are also welcome for those who wish to provide more comprehensive feedback about the Project. Richmond Active Transportation Advisory Committee Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 5 of 5

28

29 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project STEVESTON 20/20 STAKEHOLDER MEETING January 18, 2016 Summary of the Steveston 20/20 Stakeholder Meeting for Phase 3 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project held Monday, January 18, 2016 at the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Office, Steveston Highway, Richmond, B.C. ATTENDEES Participants Bruce Rozenhart, Steveston Group Linda Barnes, Steveston Group Judy Lau, Steveston Historic Society Ralph Turner, Gulf of Georgia Cannery Carlton Hibbert, Gulf of Georgia Cannery and Britannia Heritage Yard Loren Slye, Britannia Heritage Yard Lorin Yatiwchuk, Britannia Heritage Yard Robert Hayman, Richmond Marine Rescue Society Project Team Representatives Geoff Freer Enriquez Mitchell Pam Ryan Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses 1. Welcome/Agenda Overview Pam Ryan, Facilitator, welcomed participants to the meeting. Participants were each encouraged to complete and submit the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report Consultation Feedback Form online prior to the January 28, 2016 closing date. Ms. Ryan also requested that participants inform a member of the Project Team if they are aware of other organizations that may be interested in a more in-depth presentation and discussion. 2. Presentation & Review of Project Definition Report Ms. Ryan provided an overview presentation regarding the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report (PDR) and the consultation process being undertaken to obtain feedback. Steveston 20/20 Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 1 of 5

30 3. Discussion Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange with the Project Team: Q: Did the traffic analysis consider all crossings? R: The analysis focused on the George Massey Tunnel and the Alex Fraser Bridge; with numerous data capture points along Highway 99 and Highway 91, including entrances and exits to other routes. Q: How does Bluetooth work? R: It captures signals from Bluetooth-enabled devices such as cell phones and in-vehicle GPS units. The Project Team also recorded vehicle counts using the more traditional (manual) method. The advantage of Bluetooth data capture is that it can identify where vehicles enter and exit the highway, to provide origin-destination information rather than just volume counts. C: Google does this as well. Q: What is the volume of vehicles at the Tunnel? R: Average 80,000 vehicles per day. Q: Will the Project make agricultural land more accessible? R: Yes. C: Like that the ramp from Steveston Highway to the bridge has no signal lights. Q: Where do the extra lanes drop/increase from 10 lanes to the current number? R: On the Richmond side, one lane in each direction at Westminster, one in each direction at Highway 91 and one in each direction near Bridgeport where the transit/hov lanes end and transit buses exit/enter the highway at a dedicated ramp. On the Delta side: at Highway 17, just past 80 th Street, and at Highway 91. Q: What effect will this have on ownership of properties? R: The widening can primarily done within the existing right-of-way. Some property acquisition will be needed including a small strip on the west side of Highway 99 between Blundell Road and Steveston Highway. The Ministry pays market value, and has already contacted property owners already to initiate discussions. Q: How long is the payback period for the toll? Steveston 20/20 Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 2 of 5

31 R: About 40 years. Q: What was the toll in the 1960s? R: We understand it was 50 cents. Q: Any idea how much the federal government will contribute? R: Not at this time. C: I understand the Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum is also advocating with the federal government for funding participation for this project. Q: Will Richmond contribute? R: The Ministry is not seeking municipal contribution for the Project; however, there may be opportunities for additional municipal infrastructures enhancements that could take place concurrent with the Project, and as with other projects of this nature, the Ministry would expect municipalities to share, or in some cases, fully fund these costs. Q: Will Metro Vancouver water main come out? R: Not as a result of this Project. The Project Team is not aware of any plans by Metro Vancouver to do so. In fact, Metro Vancouver staff has been involved to ensure that the Project has no negative effects on the crossing. Q: What is the cost of the tunnel removal? R: We are still analyzing this, and it depends on how much of the Tunnel is removed. The Project Team has assumed that the four sections will be removed, through essentially a reversal of how it was installed. Analysis to date suggests this would cost approximately $50 million. Q: Could the Tunnel just be sealed and left in place? R: Technically yes. It would cost about $2 million per year to keep the Tunnel safe for continued use by utilities. Flooding it and leaving it in place is possible, but would leave an ongoing risk. It makes most sense from a cost and risk perspective to have the same contractor that builds the new bridge remove the Tunnel. The Project Team commissioned a hydrological model to simulate what will happen in the river when tunnel is removed and found that the hole left behind would fill in with river sand in about 250 days. The marine community has advocated for tunnel removal to provide more flexibility for the future; however there currently are no long-term plans to dredge the river to a deeper depth. Steveston 20/20 Stakeholder Meeting Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 3 of 5