PHASE 2 EXPLORING THE OPTIONS CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT AUGUST 2013

Transcription

1 GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT PHASE 2 EXPLORING THE OPTIONS CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT AUGUST 2013 Appendix A. Open House and Small Group Meeting Notes B. Written Submissions C. Sample Print Advertisements and Advertising Record D. Notification Letters and s E. Media Release Note: Consultation materials including Discussion Guide, Feedback Form, Open House Display Boards and Presentation are available separately on the project website at masseytunnel.ca

2 B. Written Submissions

3 APPENDIX B Written Submissions Received at masseytunnel@gov.bc.ca during Phase 2 consultation March 11, 2013 My input on this is to take Option 5. Keep the current toll-free tunnel. Upgrade Hwy 99. Build a new bridge elsewhere to relieve traffic congestion; include 5 lanes of nonrestricted traffic in each direction; include an HOV lane; include a transit lane; include a bike lane; include a pedestrian walkway; include infrastructure for a Skytrain overpass; include a Rest Area on both sides of the bridge. The funding for this new bridge can come from general revenue or re-directing funds from the Carbon Tax. If all else fails, toll the new bridge until it is paid off. We do not need a new tunnel, just give us a Sky train connection, similar to New Westminster to Surrey, and run the Sky Train from the Bridgeport or Brighouse stations to BC Ferries via the TFN's new housing & shopping mall development. A Sky train will solve the tunnel congestion and save a tax payers a dump-truck load of money and eliminate Translink buses from the tunnel as well as eliminating any need for Pacific Coachline's ""City To City "" coaches even being on the Ferries & PCL's ferrybound coaches from the Tunnel. Denying an alternative option, to daily vehicle commute, for South Delta residents is totally discriminatory. In addition South Surrey and White commuters would also likely welcome a train into the City from a TFN station. Neither a new Bridge or Tunnel will do anything to reduce Green House Gases... think think think!!!!!!!!!. Thank you for reading, and now I thank you for some plain good old Thinking. British Columbia's road Infrastructure projects have lagged far behind vis-a-vis growth of population and other developments within the province. One of the main obstacles to overall traffic congestion is Province's on going construction of roads with intersections without overpasses resulting in traffic flowing intermittently thus creating massive traffic backups during rush hour time and whenever there is accident or due to other unforeseen events. It is about time the province and the nation as a whole must develop a strategic plan which must take into account projected population shift, and all that goes with the need for various types of in fracture to address such needs without rushing to play catch up every time situations becomes extreme. The other main obstacle to development is the time it takes to get past the communities who stand in the way of governments decisions. I understand all development projects have to go through governments (EIE) commonly known as environment impact assessment department

4 which looks at the impact on the environment from scientific stand point and at the same time informs the communities accordingly. We should have trust in the government we vote to run the affairs of the nation and the provinces and if the governments do not perform to expectation than the communities have the power to vote the government out the next time around. When deciding on projects of this magnitude, we must not make mistake and ensure everything is taken into consideration like the size of the project number of lanes etc. Definitely projects like Lions gate Bridge and Massey Tunnels are too outdated with counter flow lanes which lost their usefulness long time ago. My views for all future Projects is to make sure they serve the usefulness for a long time to come as constructing new Infrastructures cost lot of money and looking into future will save the province a lot of money. As for the options it would greatly help diverting traffic if crossings are constructed away from the present Massey Tunnel location such as another tunnel or a bridge at the No 8 road as this will create another excess instead just creating bottle neck by converging into one existing road. Hope the planners will be able to take the right decision for the good of all British Columbians present and the future. 12 March 2013 In regards to the George Massey tunnel upgrade or replacement options. I cannot believe that the number one option would not be to extend the Sky train from the Brighouse station to the Ladner bus loop. Better yet extend the line to the BC Ferries Terminal in Tsawwassen. I travel through the tunnel on a daily basis in the morning only to see extensive gridlock heading North and once through, there is gridlock heading south.in the afternoon the same scenario happens the other direction. I am not sure what the stats are exactly but I would estimate a good 80 % of them are single riders. I believe adding or improving the existing tunnel is just going to add to single driver traffic and not deal with the issues that need to be addressed. How many more single riders will there be once the following occurs: The construction of 2200 homes at the Tsawwassen Shores development is well on it's way to being built. This will add 5200 more residents with a possible of 2000 more single riders. The construction of Tsawwassen Mills. A 1.8 million square foot mall with retail, office and entertainment facility. There will be 17 anchor stores,a 600,000 square foot Big Box Retail development with. Restaurants, hotels and theaters coming into the area. The possibility of the re-development of Southlands in Tsawwassen, adding more single family homes. I hope all this population increase has been taken into consideration. With the completion of the above due sometime in 2015.One can only imagine the increase of single drivers heading to the mall for shopping, work and entertainment from other metro Vancouver locations.

5 Extending the Sky train seems to make the most sense. Not only will it eliminate more single drivers that are on the road now and in the near future, but it will also eliminate green house gases that seem to be another current issue. Imagine the decrease in vehicles that make their way from the Islands to YVR airport. If residents had the option to walk on the ferry and take rapid transit to downtown Vancouver or onto their holidays. Unfortunately, I would still need to be a single driver as I need my truck for work. On the other hand, it would be convenient to get on the sky train from Tsawwassen and head to downtown Vancouver. As it is now, I park and know many others that leave their vehicle at the River Rock station to go downtown for leisure outings. I am sure there must be cost difference to the five options proposed by the BC government and extending the current Sky train. The bottom line is what makes more sense in the long term. The logical option is to twin the tunnel in the same location. The timeframe for feedback is inadequate. Today is the 12th and the only open house for Vancouver residents is March 13th. As a South Surrey citizen, we have paid enough taxes and levies to GVRD but receives very poor traffic conditions. Enough is enough! Please do more investments to resolve traffic problems in the south of Fraser River area! 13 March 2013 Rapid transit expansion is the way to go. We all lost our good transit south of the Fraser when the Canada Line went in. Don't spend more on bridges, tunnels, etc. put a train right down median of freeway to park and ride in S Surrey There are more provincial residents other than the GVA who should have been aware of this consultation process prior to this date. It certainly impacts the GVA the most but it has some direct and indirect impacts on the rest of the province (including the provincial budgets). What has been offered as options via Global TV appears to lack another alternative that may not have been presented. Due to the fact that some of my suggestions to government agencies have been rejected and then instituted at a later date* with no letter of credit to me, I am at this point less than willing to share any ideas without some surity through a disclosure process as is used in inventions etc.

6 I would strongly suggest that Rapid Transit MUST be included in the "new" Massey Tunnel. Ever since 1987 when the Sky Train was introduced there has never been a 25 year plan for the expansion of the Sky Train system, which I personally believe is the best way of transporting people. Since the "new" Massey Tunnel will not be finalized for many years I would strongly suggest that the Canada Line is expanded to include Ladner, S. Delta, South Surrey and White Rock and then it could be extended out to Ladner. Since I would suggest 60+% of the traffic is Commuter Traffic and this would alleviate a tremendous amount of the daily commuter traffic. I know people who have moved out to the White Rock area who work downtown and at the airport and they have all 100% stated that they would use Rapid Transit if ONLY it was available. Even if the final decision is to construct a new bridge do NOT demolish the Massey Tunnel but please ensure it is used for Rapid Transit. Also somehow the trucks must be detoured to some other crossing. There must be a long-term plan for the expansion of Rapid Transit which includes ALL of the people living in the Lower Mainland. If for some reason a particular city, like Vancouver and the Broadway Corridor, require Rapid Transit then that city/municipality MUST fund it themselves as it is/was NOT included in the long term plan. Thank You for reading my suggestions. Everyone complains about traffic congestion and expects the government to rectify the situation without any personal lifestyle changes or sacrifices. Refusal of people to consider changing their lifestyle is what causes congestion. Thousands of new people move into an area and each of these people brings a car with them because they know the government will cater to them with new and improved roads, bridges and tunnels. This in turn encourages more cars to take advantage of the improved facilities and congestion is soon worse than it was before. The insanity will only stop if a moratorium is placed on all new roads, bridges and tunnels. People will eventually learn that their automobile addiction is not sustainable and they will look at other options. These other options will never be explored as long as driving a car remains the most convenient way to travel. I CHALLENGE ALL OF YOU SIMPERING GOVERNMENT WIMPS TO STOP YOUR INSANITY. 14 March 2103 Hi, as a daily commuter I am looking forward to seeing a new crossing and interested in being kept up to date on the progress and decisions made. Thanks! I wish to strongly register my strong opposition to this incomprehensible proposal. As a long time White Rock resident for over 52 years, this tranquil stunningly picturesque waterfront town has been negatively transformed into a commercial wasteland.

7 Consequently this little Sausalito of the north borders a 24/7 busy and noisy rail corridor in the transport of a proven toxic substance bound for Roberts Bank. Why should we abandon our special unique quality of life and protection of the environment to satisfy the commercial resource demands of China? We have literally become the dumping ground of coal extracted from the mines of Wyoming. The harmful health effects of breathing coal dust is well documented and is reputedly more dangerous than asbestos! And to make matters worse these uncovered coal containers are sprayed with a toxic spray and lets not forget the diesel fumes from the minimum four engines per train! This bridge proposal will foster and perpetuate an already existing environmental catastrophe and permanently ruin everything we treasure about living in God's country! Let's not abandon our basic principles for the sake of commerce all in the name of greed! We are opposed to the expense of building a new bridge in the tunnel's place. The tunnel is a great idea (found all throughout Europe), which needs to be expanded, and it is much preferred to a bridge which will be loud, visually unattractive and encroach on neighbouring farm land. A bridge would allow moving of ships and supertankers to Richmond and Surrey, and we are strongly opposed to this! This is great news. I am however perplexed that no Canada Line extension solutions have been proposed in the list of current ones. Living in Richmond seeing and experiencing the success of the Canada Line, which is now oversubscribed, I am sure that rail options from White Rock could be just as successful. Is there some reason why rail solutions have not been included or even mentioned in these proposals? Unfortunately, I will not be around for the open houses. I wish that this whole expensive, tax payer funded electioneering for the Liberals could be stopped; it must be illegal. My vote is for Scenario 1: Maintain Existing Tunnel and do the suggested upgrades: 1. Because traffic volume will be reduced substantially once the South Fraser Perimeter Road is opened. So the current need will decline. 2. By the time any bridge is built for Port Metro Vancouver, at public expense, the price of fossil fuels will be so high that truck and car volumes will have declined. Also global trade will be lower as economies wake up to a no growth future and the exorbitant cost of transport. 3. Most importantly, the presence of the Massey Tunnel protects the Fraser River from Port Metro Vancouver. Larger vessels will cause larger disasters if accidents happen. Larger vessels on the Fraser River will cause more erosion of vital riverbank, wetland habitats. And who knows what they will be carrying that will and could pollute the river e.g. coal barges emitting fugitive coal dust as they move up and down the river full and empty.

8 15 March 2013 I am unable to attend the open houses dealing with tunnel improvements. I am totally opposed to a new bridge being located at No 8 Road. It would destroy much needed farmland, which is already under great pressure, and once again carve the Island into compartments, as was done when the tunnel was built. East West transportation corridors would be restricted as well. Whatever happens with the tunnel should result in a new Highway 99 exit at Blundell Road. The distance between Steveston Highway and Westminster Highway is too great to facilitate effective traffic flows. Further, a Blundell exit relieve pressure at the Steveston Highway exit, which is currently a disaster and will likely remain so, even with contemplated improvements. I support improving or replacing the current tunnel, with either a higher capacity tunnel or a bridge at the existing location. 18 March 2013 Years ago, we moved out of Ladner and into North Delta to get away from the congestion at prime times of day. We and others who need to commute to Vancouver/Burnaby would certain look at moving back to South Delta region should options 2-5 be implemented. Tunnel Options Maintain & Upgrade present, with NO Increase In Capacity?, Replace Existing Tunnel with New Tunnel, at same location?, Add a 2 nd Tunnel, keeping existing Tunnel, or Build a New Tunnel from #8 Road I assume (ass out of you and me) there has been no, or little, if any, consultation with Chairman Harper (the new Chinada); and his continual and increased need to EXPAND on Exporting Canada s Commodities, using the Pacific Gateway and particularly, the Lower Mainland. As Such, the current Massey Tunnel, sits Too High In the Fraser River, to allow the Newly Needed PANAMAX Ships to ply the river, up to and including Port Coquitlam and probably points further up river/beyond. Coal (soon to be the Largest Coal Port in North America), OIL, LNG, Jet Fuel, Containers, possibly Forest Products, etc. This Now Means BRIDGE Bridge Options Replace Tunnel with a New Bridge in the same location, add a New Bridge alongside & keeping the existing tunnel, Building a New Bridge from #8 Road connecting the SFPR

9 New Bridge Same Location Not bad; however, the then need to Expropriate (not Buy) all existing South Side Residences, east & west of Hwy 99..Hmmm, Admiral Way Developer may have something to say about that and his new development expansion plans Plus, there goes Steveston Hwy/#5 Road, Ironwood, Business/Residential area New Bridge alongside tunnel & keep tunnel WHERE? - + Tunnel Sits Too High, Panamax Ships New Bridge - #8 Road..to the Connector?????, who is the Brainiac making that suggestion? The Connector Can t Handle the current Traffic Now! - So you mean the Container Trucks to Inner Harbor, will travel east from Deltaport & Deltaport ll, using the SFPR, to the Connector, to Knight Street????? Wow, Scary! - So you mean, I as a commuter from Ladner to Vancouver, will also need to head east to #8 Road (via River Road?, or Hwy 10?, or SFPR?,, to the Connector, then back west to either Knight Street, or further west to Oak Street GOD Help US! In A Word, NO!, NOT!, NADA! CONSIDER Delta s - 62B STREET BRIDGE crossing the Fraser on an angle, to Upgraded #6 Road, or new connection to existing Hwy99 in Richmond - Beautiful, open, minimal disruption, connection to/from existing Hwy 99 in Delta - Easy feeder connection to River Road Industrial Area - Closer to SFPR for Inner Harbor Container Traffic - Clear Panamax Shipping Access Fraser River - ETC! 19 March 2013 I think not only do you have to think about getting traffic over/under the river you have to think about how to get them into vancouver. The Knight street and Oak are already jammed full and I hope you are thinking of how you hook up this new tunnel or bridge to existing roads. You will almost need to build another bridge to the cambie st.to get all this traffic into vancouver...and if you are thinking of tolling these news tunnels and bridges you should share the pain with North van and vancouver residents. 22 March 2013 Please advise the Mayor of Vancouver that there has never been the kind of congestion on Broadway that so many of us face twice each work day. Taking the available public transit would mean a 1.5 km walk, 2 buses and the Canada Line twice each day for me. The amount of trucks using the tunnel has increased significantly in the last year or two, sometimes making it dangerous for ordinary passenger vehicles. I applaud him for wanting to make Vancouver a green city but he needs to also consider how much fuel is being wasted and pollution occurring due to the

10 congestion between Richmond and Delta/South Surrey. We absolutely need a good solution SOON. Thank you. It is very difficult to evaluate the options that you have presented without dollar figures for the cost of each. I would like to see similar studies on the Second Narrows Bridge which is equally congested. Our government leaders seem to be dumping the movement of port trucking onto our community without much regard for the inconvenience and congestion that it will cause at the already overloaded Massey tunnel. If another tunnel is not in the works because of expensive land acquisition and route infrastructure, then perhaps a suggestion of mine can be used to alleviate the load on the tunnel. It may seem like a far-fetched notion, but with proper engineering and an open mind it might be a feasible and cost effective alternative. My suggestion is to have a bridge built over the tunnel. Now, before everyone gets bent out of shape over this proposal, give some thought to the benefits of my idea. First and foremost there wouldn t be a need for land acquisition and ultimately, the tunnel and bridge could be used for a one-way traffic flow in either direction, which in itself would alleviate gridlock. There may be some difficulties encountered in placing footings for a bridge on either side of the tunnel, but with modern engineering techniques it shouldn t be an insurmountable task. The problem isn t in getting the job done. As always, the problem is to get people motivated before the flow of traffic becomes uncontrollable. 25 March 2013 I was very happy to hear that there is a group lobbying to get a transit option on the table for the Massey Tunnel replacement project. There is a book I feel every city transportation planner should read. Taras Grescoe, a Canadian, has written a book called "Straphanger". He takes his readers on a tour of cities around the world. From Tokyo, New York, Bogota, London, Moscow, Los Angeles and many more. Grescoe studies the evolution of transportation systems in these massive cities. Every one of these cities have a strong history of public transport in their early days. With the invention of the individual vehicle, each of these cities became dependent on roads and freeways. Of course each of these cities realized eventually that building more transportation corridors for individual travel wasn't alleviating traffic headaches. The different transit systems each city has implemented or experimented with are interesting.

11 I feel very strongly that every mode of transportation in large metropolitan areas need to be available to accomodate all of the needs of its citizens. Public transport in all its various forms is an important part of any transportation corridor infrastructure. It is not a social program! One more important part of the planning process. Behavioural science! Hire a behavioural scientist. Tolls for all bridges in the lower mainland. Not large tolls! Sensible, affordable tolls! Different tolls for different times of the day. Options for commuters. Take the $1.00 lane if you want to go faster..25c if you want to go slower. Two or more in a car, cheaper, faster. Non peak periods cheaper!!! Etc.etc. We just need to come up with ways to make humans to do what we want them to do!! Hire real people to collect, so they can adapt!!! They are also a big part of your security and can make sure there are two people in a fast lane! Jobs for life or for students! Behavioural scientists could come up with a million more ideas to motivate people!!! Thank you and I hope you make public transit and behavioural science a viable, important part of your planning. My vote (strongly agree) is Scenario 2, Replace Existing Tunnel with a new bridge. I do not see any reason to maintain or upgrade the existing tunnel. My choice would be to coordinate access to a new bridge, from the south side, via the SFPR, exiting on the north side near or at the Number 6 Road in Richmond. I evaluate the criteria as follows: "Important" for Agriculture, Environment, Jobs and the Economy, and Social and Community Considerations. And "Very Important" to Efficient Transportation for all Users and Safety I live in South Delta, am retired, use the Massey Tunnel 4 or more days a week, for a combination of personal and business purposes and thanks, "no" I do not wish to be added to your database. 28 March 2013 To reduce congestion, I suggest to extend the Canada Line to the Ladner bus exchange where the buses transport commuters to/from the SkyTrain. Basically there should be a connected multi-use path that goes from the Oak Street bridge to the US Border for cyclists and pedestrians built to advanced European standards. The Surrey Greenway plan has planned cycling corridors and these can be used. The existing corridor on Shell Road can be used and upgraded.

12 The project/tolls should pay for more transit service, not just a lane for transit to use. Increased transit lowers the need for more lanes. Considering currently transit accounts for 26% of people using the current tunnel but only generates 1% of the traffic. Increased transit use in the south of Fraser region will lower the need to spend extra money on more lanes. Considering the gateway project cost $3.3 billion for 8 lanes of traffic. If the need for extra lanes is reduced with more transit then the capital cost of the project will be reduced. 29 March 2013 Thank you again for this opportunity; I did indeed drop off the following feedback, in my attendance at the Open House, Mar 16/13, Tsawwassen, Delta Further Comments: New Bridge crossing at 80 th Street to the Connector, from SFPR - The Connector CAN T HANDLE today s traffic!!!!!! now you want to include B.C. Ferry Traffic, TFN Mega Mall(s) + new TFN Residential traffic, (+ Casino? Traffic) + new Twsn. Southlands Residential traffic - As a West side resident, Ladner, South Delta (22 years) I will then need to WASTE even more time to travel East to the SFPR, then further East to the New Bridge and then Back West on the Connector to get to Vancouver, either via Knight Street and the current/ongoing/increasing Commuter & Inner Harbor Container Traffic, or via Oak Street and the daily current/ongoing/increasing General Commuter Traffic the ONLY 2 entries into Vancouver. CONSIDER NEW BRIDGE ONLY! at/crossing from - 62B Street - Hwy 99 infrastructure, north and south bound already in place - Easy/Easier Hook-up to both #6 Road & Knight Street Bridge and Hwy 99 Richmond to Oak Street Bridge the ONLY 2 entries to Vancouver - Easy access to Tilbury industrial Area - Easy, more direct, access to SFPR TUNNELS of any kind, anywhere, Can t/won t accommodate PANAMAX Shipping Coal, Jet Fuel, Oil, Containers, ETC., ETC., ETC. Dear Sir or Madame do not allow Port Metro Vancouver to be the driving force or to be a financial contributor behind a new crossing, for they do not have the best interests in retaining the Fraser River Estuary as a Wetlands of International Wildfowl Significance or Protecting its Estuarine values. They have proven to date by installing retaining walls (Trifurcation) at points along the Fraser Rivers banks in order to direct more flow through the main shipping channel to scour the sediment flow and require less dredging. This resulted in depleting the oolichan and spring salmon runs.

13 They installed the Roberts Bank Port facility causeways with little or no regard for the current and tidal flows so vital to migrating salmon and the shellfish grounds. Now they want to remove the George Massey Tunnel so that they can deepen the Fraser River so they can bring super tankers to their docks at Surrey and New Westminster and facilitate yet another coal port, right in the middle of the Wetland of International Significance and Estuarine value. They favour a high level bridge, once again that would require a large imprint for its approaches and create untold dangers for the Pacific Flyway in a Ramsar Convention designated area. As you can see their record speaks for itself and their interests are heavily biased and they are mandated to increase the commodity flow, no matter what the consequences. Retain the present George Massey Tunnel to retain the union between Delta and Richmond. If you are to build another crossing let it be another tunnel upriver from the George Massey Tunnel as it would require less of an imprint on the wetlands and agricultural lands and could be built to include vehicle, bus, rapid transit, bicycle and pedestrian. Progress yes but bearing in mind the value placed on the Fraser River Estuary by the Ramsar Convention and others. 30 March 2013 When designing this bridge or tunnel remember you should make sure the bridge capacity into vancouver is going to handle the increased load from the tunnel. Vancouver requires another bridge linked to Cambie from richmond. People are not goingotherwise all the time savings from a new tunnel is going to wasted with a bottleneck on the Oak and Knight street. Also, a rapid transit plan to south surrey and south delta is required. One question: as with other south river crossings why are the suburbs paying for upgrades when North van citizens and vancouver bridges are not required to pay tolls? Not very equitable. I also think there will come a time when a tunnel under vancouver to North van (bypassing Oak/Granville/Cambie) corridors is required. This whole new Massey tunnel infrastructure should take that into consideration... In other words plan 20 to 30 years ahead and not just 5...thanks. 31 March 2013 I would love to see a 8 lanes, 3 parts bridge that lines up between SFPR & 72 Street in Delta to Boundary Road that could act as a Vancouver By-pass to Whistler for American tourist and totally replace the tunnel while accommodating the trucking traffic between Delta Port and the Burrard inlet ports. I would gladly pay more tolls for that.

14 1 April 2013 As a Ladner citizen for 25 years I would prefer option 5, new crossing. The majority of the congestion today is south delta resident trying to merge into the hundreds of thousands that have moved to whiterock / surrey over the last 20 years. Give them a new way to cross and improve our old way and I will be happy. 2 April 2013 Would like to see existing tunnel upgraded, but a new bridge built to handle capacity. Tunnel could be restricted in use to HOV traffic, or possibly HWY 99 traffic only. Is this another way to destroy the Bog and farmland? Why haven't you considered a ferry from Ladner Harbour to Richmond for at least foo traffic? Apparently there was one years ago. We have the Albion ferries sitting idly if they haven't been sold for scrap already. While public transit in the form of an urban rail transit system at roughly the same crossing location as the current tunnel would be beneficial, it does not negate the need for the tunnel to be replaced with a greatly expanded capacity bridge. Further to my previous comments about truck transport and commercial vehicles, one must also take into account the people whose work entails traveling to multiple sites in a single day, those who fill up their gasoline tanks across the US border, the majority of cross-border shoppers, vacationers driving campers or RVs, most families coming to Vancouver via the Tsawwassen, ferry terminal for medical appointments and many others. There are probably a plethora of situations for which public transit is impractical. Urban rail systems do facilitate the effective as well as the rapid transport of masses of individuals in addition to playing a role in supporting and fostering development Merely maintaining the current tunnel could be a financial bottomless pit with ongoing repairs, upgrades, safety improvements downtime, as well as significantly increased congestion associated with projected population expansion (*the traffic flow would also be impeded by the continued as well as periodic work) and there would be no relief to look forward to on the horizon. It would dampen economic growth in the region. Overall, bridges are perceived to be safer than tunnels Moreover, neighborhood delineations and locale characteristics should be more or LESS preserved. Therefore, Scenario 2 is the preferred option for the tunnel replacement. Thanks for your consideration. I fear the tail is wagging the dog on this one -- that the desire to allow deeper draft vessels up the Fraser is driving this process, and that we (taxpayers) are going to fund a major piece of infrastructure to benefit Fraser Surrey Docks and its customers, under the guise of improving travel times for commuters. Or maybe it's being driven by the

15 proposed expansion of Delta Port and the desire to ship containers all over the Lower Mainland in as little time as possible. Or both. In either case, I think it's time to think outside the box if we really want to ensure that our region remains as sustainable and livable as possible. The Fraser delta has taken enough hits already. This is a long winded way of saying I'm all for Scenario 1. Let's keep the existing tunnel and spend the equivalent cost of a new crossing on improved rapid transit service across and south of the Fraser. Let's consider refitting the Albion Ferry for a South Richmond - Ladner service. Let's look at building more complete communities on both sides of the river, to reduce the need for massive commutes. What I don't think we should do is spend billions more on infrastructure to serve the "Asia Pacific Gateway" and pretend that it's all about making our lives better at the local level. I believe that building the tunnel causes major costs with only marginal benefits. Let me explain - Even with the oil sands resources North America...the world's oil extraction is at peak production. With the world much closer to running out of "cheap" oil it would be foolhardy to build a tunnel for which there would be few in users. So if you think you will be able to build with a "business as usual" model you could be in for a rude awakening. And so to stay on this path, with the combination of an oil shortfall and skyrocketing fuel prices could only begin a metropolitan collapse. The upgrades may be necessary, but extensive investment in auto traffic does not help our environment, we need to look at more public transit that is affordable, and alternative power sources. Funding this upgrade for increased private vehicle traffic is not to the regions best interest. I would also not like to see this opening up tanker traffic for coal terminal further up stream. I do not support expansion of the existing coal terminals nor the construction of one in Surrey. Coal Kills! Stop the increased exports. Invest in alternative energy! I strongly favour Scenario 2 - Replace Existing Tunnel with New Bridge. The tunnel concept has seen its day and is no longer viable for the traffic of 2013 and into the future. I have read a lot of comments in regards to the Massey Tunnel replacement. How is it that people who live in the area that are effected by daily travel through the Massey Tunnel are never consulted or asked for their opinions. It s easy for people who do not live on the other side to say it should not be replaced, because they do not use it daily.

16 This tunnel needs to be replaced, it does not work anymore for the volume of traffic using it. This is my opinion for what its worth. 9 April 2013 Due to family emergencies I was unable to reply in time to your deadline. However, I feel my proposal may have enough "weight" to merit your consideration. I only ask that if the idea presented is used, that I be given written credit for the concept/solution. There have been proposals for a Bridge - my concept is TWO SMALLER (two lane) BRIDGES running beside the tunnel. The reasons are as follows; There would probably be a SMALLER OVERALL FOOTPRINT than a larger single bridge. Should flooding in the tunnel occur - pumping could be done while still continuing traffic flow. I suspect that two smaller bridges would be LESS EXPENSIVE than one large bridge. In the event of a Tsunami, one bridge might provide a protective barrier for the other one (depending on their alignment) and thus leaving two emergency lanes still operative (with a flooded tunnel) shortly after the event. The two bridges could carry traffic when upgrades or repairs are made to the tunnel. It would FACILITATE FASTER REPAIRS OR UPGRADES TO THE TUNNEL. DANGEROUS GOODS, TRUCK TRAFFIC, and BUSES could use two lane bridges thus allowing easier automobile traffic through the tunnel. I trust that the concept above will be given some serious thought.

17 March%29,%2013% % % BCCC%Submission% For%the%George%Massey%Tunnel,%Phase%2% Consultation% The%British'Columbia'Cycling'Coalition!(BCCC)!appreciates%being%part%of%the%Phase%2% Stakeholders%consultation%process%and%wishes%to%submit%the%following%for%your%consideration.% Forewords( For!the!George!Massey!Tunnel!Replacement!Project!consultation,!the!British'Columbia'Cycling' Coalition!comments!reflect!the!Coalition s!perspective!of!cycling'for'transportation'and!cycling! as!an!alternative!mode!of!transportation!for!motorists!to!consider.!the!coalition s!interests! include!a'province8wide'highway!(rightcofcway)'infrastructure'and'network!for!people!of!all! cycling!skills!and!preferences!to!cycle!in!any!part!of!british!columbia;!a!provincial!network!for' cycling'touring,!which!contributes!to!the!local!economies!where!cyclists!pass!through;!and! capacity!within!the!province!for!combined'mobility!of!transit!and!cycling!(and!public! transportation),!usually!where!cycling!is!a!feeder!to!transit.! Comments( General(Comment( 1/9% It%appears%too%early%to%focus%on%narrowing%down%a%number%of%road8based%alternatives% when%there%is%lack(of(knowledge(on(future(use(of(the(tunnel,%including%road%usage,% traffic%patterns,%bc%ferry%future%and%impact%on%the%local%terminal,%and%impacts%of%a% number%of%significant%factors,%ranging%from%affordability%of%car%usage%in%the%future%and%to% roads%being%built%for%future%traffic%volumes%and%patterns.% It%may%be%more%prudent%for%the%Province%to%proceed%on%upgrading(the(tunnel(to(the( level(of(scenario'1' 'Maintain'Existing'Tunnel(and(then(study(the(need(for(the(tunnel% over%the%next%few%years%as%other%factors%evolve,%including%the%affordability%of%individuals% to%drive,%now%and%in%the%future%years%at%all%income%levels.%

18 Alternatives(Not(Included(in(this(Consultation( There%should%be%an%alternative%that%consists%of%Scenario(1( (Maintain(existing(tunnel( and(provide(an(active(transportation(option,%including%semi%or%rapid%transit%serving%the% area%south%of%the%fraser%river,%including%the%communities%along%the%way%to%the% Tsawwassen%ferry%dock%and%the%U.S.A.%border.% Consultation(Inputs(that(are(common(to(Scenarios( The%following%comments,%requirements%from%a%cycling%perspective,%and%suggestions%apply%to%any% option,%which%includes%the%tunnel(remaining(in(operation.% For%Scenario%1%and%any%Scenario%that%does%not%provide%a%cycling%path%through%a%tunnel,% shuttling%of%bicycles%across%the%south%arm%of%the%fraser%must%be%improved:% 1. Any%bike%ferry%service%through%the%tunnel%solution%needs%to%be%provided%24% hours%a%day%with%service%on%an% on%call %basis.%with%a%trip%passage%through%the% tunnel%of%less%than%10%minutes,%this%is%quite%feasible.% a. For%a%bike%ferry%through%the%tunnel%solution,%upgrades%of%pick8up%points% and%drop%off%points%at%both%ends%need%to%be%included%in%any%project,% including%access,%waiting%shelters,%and%toilets.%the%location%of%these% points%should%facilitate%continuing%cycling%journeys%more%safely%and% should%be%more%appealing%to%less%risk8taking%and%less%confident%cyclists% than%those%that%currently%exist%on%the%south%side,%especially.% 2. A%water%ferry%crossing%should%be%considered%between%Richmond%and%Ladner%for% cyclists%and%passengers%with%a%frequency%that%would%promote%the%use%of%the% ferry%by%cyclists%and%pedestrians.%on8demand%crossing%may%also%be%feasible%for%a% water%ferry.% 3. If%a%248hour%a%day%bike%ferry%solution%is%not%provided,%then:% a. Consideration%should%be%undertaken%for%improving%the%TransLink%bus% capacity%and%service%level%for%taking%commuter%and%touring%cyclists,% including%those%with%trailers.% Bikes%inside%buses %is%one%solution%used%in% some%countries.%adding%capacity%to%the%outside%bike%racks%has%been% shown%to%be%feasible%in%other%jurisdictions.%as%the%tunnel%crossing%by% cars%is%not%tolled,%so%should%the%crossing%by%transit%not%be%tolled%(fare)% for%cyclists.% b. TransLink%bus%stops%need%to%be%enhanced%for%boarding%of%cyclists% through%the%tunnel,%especially%on%the%south%side:% i. Bus%stops%on%both%sides%of%Highway%17%west%of%Highway%99%for% boarding%and%disembarking%of%cyclists.%alternatively,%for%the% northbound%direction,%the%bike%ferry%boarding%area%at%the%start% of%the%ramp%onto%hwy%99%could%potentially%be%a%bus%stop,% provided%that%the%crossing%for%cyclists%of%hwy%99%eastbound%is% 2/9%

19 3/9% dramatically%improved.%alternatively,%river%road%could%be%a% disembarking%stop%for%southbound%crossings.% ii. On%the%north%side%of%the%tunnel,%cyclists %access%to%bus%stops% needs%to%be%more%visible%for%cyclists%and%to%motorists,%providing% greater%awareness%of%cyclists%on%the%road.% Needed%intersection%improvements%are%commented%on%below.% The%following%comments,%requirements%from%a%cycling%perspective,%and%suggestions%apply%to%any% option,%which%includes%a%new(tunnel.% In%any%new%tunnel,%either%two8way%bike%lanes%(or%multi8use%paths)%connecting%to%local% bike%routes%and%multi8use%facilities%should%either%be%designed%on%each%side%of%the%tunnel% or%a%one%path%should%be%included%within%the%tunnel%configuration.%the%width%of%the%paths% should%be%designed%for%social%cycling%and%for%bikes%with%trailers%and%have%a%minimum% inside%clearance%path%width%of%4.5%metres.%cyclists%and%pedestrians%should%be%able%to%use% the%pathway%without%significant%interference%between%the%modes.%clear%way8finding,% guidance%signage%and%road%markings%are%key.% The%paths%should%be%designed%for%cycling%in%darkness%and%inclement%weather%with% adequate%lighting%at%cycling%speeds,%and%cyclists %protection%from%blinding%by%oncoming% car%lights.% For%exterior%portions%of%paths,%adequate%lighting%at%cycling%speeds%and%protection%from% strong%crosswinds%should%be%provided.%the%paths%should%be%designed%for%winter%cycling% with%considerations%for%surface%material%and%snow%clearing,%among%others.%rain% protection%is%desirable.% The%design%level%of%the%paths%should%be%to%the%advanced%European%design%levels,% including%centre8line%markings%and%guidance%marking%to%help%separate%different%types%of% users.% A%walking%and%cycling%lane%could%be%used%by%emergency%vehicles,%providing%that%the% width%of%the%lane%is%sufficient%to%accommodate%the%width%of%a%faster%moving%emergency% vehicle%plus%at%least%1.5%metres%for%oncoming%cyclists.% The%following%comments,%requirements%from%a%cycling%perspective,%and%suggestions%apply%to%any% option,%which%includes%a%new(bridge.( Grade%8%The%paths%should%be%designed%for%minimizing%the%amount%of%elevation%gain%over% the%bridge%for%cyclists.% The%bridge%deck%should%not%have%any%slope%greater%than%3%%desirably,%4%% maximum.%if%ramps%are%required%where%cyclists%would%ascend%or%descend%in%any% option,%then%the%slopes%of%the%ramps%should%be%kept%to%3%%or%less%for% accommodation%of%seniors,%children%and%infrequent%cyclists.%in%no%case,%should%a% ramp%slope%be%greater%than%4%.%minimizing%the%slope%of%a%grade%on%a%route%will%

20 4/9% encourage%more%infrequent%cyclists%and%motorists%to%cycle%for%transportation.% Perceived%personal%effort%when%cycling%is%a%barrier%to%cycling.% MultiEUse(Path(under(the(General(Traffic(Deck(option%8%Consideration%should%be%given% for%the%path%to%be%designed%below%the%general%traffic%lanes%deck,%providing%protection% for%cyclists%and%pedestrians%from%air%pollution,%noise%pollution,%rain,%wind%effects%of% trucks%and%buses%and%blinding%light%effects%from%oncoming%vehicles.%an%under%the%deck% path%would%permit%passage%to%both%sides%of%the%highway%at%each%end.%width%of%the%two8 way%path%for%future%cycling%traffic%growth%would%be%easily%accommodated.%the%width% could%be%set%to%accommodate%emergency%vehicle%crossing,%as%well.%cycling%under%cover% on%a%rainy%day%would%be%an%attraction%for%cyclists,%as%it%is%with%the%bike%path%on%the% Canada%Line%Bridge%crossing%the%North%Arm%of%the%Fraser%River.% General(Traffic(Deck(option%8%Two8way%bike%lanes%(or%multi8use%paths)%on%each%side% should%be%designed%into%any%new%bridge.%the%width%of%the%pathways%should%be%designed% for%social%cycling%and%for%bikes%with%trailers%and%have%a%minimum%inside%clearance%width% of%4.5%metres.% The%paths%should%be%designed%for%cycling%in%darkness%and%inclement%weather%with% adequate%lighting%at%cycling%speeds,%protection%from%oncoming%car%lights,%and%protection% from%strong%crosswinds.%rain%protection%is%desirable.%the%design%level%of%the%paths% should%be%to%the%advanced%european%design%levels,%including%centre%line%markings.% The%paths%shall%be%designed%for%winter%cycling%with%considerations%for%surface%material,% among%others.% The%following%comments,%requirements%from%a%cycling%perspective,%and%suggestions%apply%to%any% option,%which%involves%reworking(of(hwy(99(intersections(at(hwy(17(or(steveston(road.% For%improving%the%safety%of%cyclists%and%for%providing%conditions%for%drawing%the%less%risk8 taking,%less%cycling%skilled,%and%less%confident%cyclists%of%all%ages%to%cycle%in%the%vicinity%of% the%tunnel%and%intersecting%roads,%any%intersection%work%must%include%in%its%scope%the% provision%of%cycling%underpasses%for%travel%in%both%directions%of%the%intersecting%roads.% Depth%of%cycling%underpasses%can%be%minimized%by%partially%raising%the%intersecting%roads% at%the%intersection.% The%following%comments,%requirements%from%a%cycling%perspective,%and%suggestions%apply%to%any% option,%which%involves%improvements(along(hwy(99(south(of(the(tunnel.% It%has%been%stated%that%the%Highway%99%right8of8way%is%very%wide.%As%part%of%any%Highway% 99%corridor%improvements,%a%high%quality,%paved%bike%trail%should%be%built%from% Bridgeport%Road%to%the%border%at%Blaine%WA.%This%trail%should%be%designed%for%dark%hours% and%poor%weather%cycling.%the%width%of%the%paved%trail%should%be%a%minimum%4.5%metres% for%encouraging%social%cycling,%in%addition%to%commuter%and%transportation%cycling%and% touring%cycling.%the%bike%trail%should%be%built%at%an%elevation%that%would%negate%effects%of% rain%and%icing.%creative,%cyclist%motion8activated,%and%solar%powered%lighting%should%be%

21 part%of%the%trail%that%functions%only%when%cyclists%pass%within%coverage%area%of%light% poles.%this%bike%trail%would%serve%cycling%touring%traffic%from%the%us%border%towards% Downtown%Vancouver,%the%YVR%airport,%Canada%Line,%and%the%ferries%at%Tsawwassen% ferry%terminal,%besides%connecting%to%communities,%beach%and%parks%along%the%way.% The%following%comments,%requirements%from%a%cycling%perspective,%and%suggestions%apply%to%any% option,%which%involves%dedicated(transit(lanes.% Transit%stops%for%disembarking%and%boarding%cyclists%should%be%provided%at%each%end%of% the%bridge%with%connection%to%multi8use%paths%and%any%cycling%network%on%either%side%of% the%river.% Information%not%made%available%to%the%consultation%process%that%hinders(the(effectiveness(of( the(consultation:% % Trip%data% %Origin(to(destination.%It%is%difficult%to%understand%who%uses%the%George%Massey% Tunnel%and%daily%frequency%of%trips%by%user%type.% Traffic%data% %Demographics(of(tunnel(users( %Car%drivers%(commuters,%business,%tourists,% personal%trips,%etc.);%truck%drivers%(origin%and%destination%and%alternatives%to%the%tunnel,% especially%with%the%south%fraser%perimeter%road).% Traffic%data% %traffic(volumes(in(2012(and(forecast(for(the(next(50(years.%usage%statistics%of% the%tunnel.%%usage%statistics%and%cost%of%the%current%bicycle%shuttle%would%also%be%very% useful.% Urban(form(plan(with(densification(objectives%for%this%part%of%Metro%Vancouver%and%the% transportation%needs%that%flow%out%of%the%plan%by%mode.% Sustainable(transportation(plan(that(fits(a(liveable(region%with%modal(shift(forecasts(to( Active(Transportation( (transit,(cycling,(walking.% The%Phase%2%Feedback%form:% Draft(Project(Scope(and(Goals( 1. Draft(Project(Scope( Refer%to%General(Comments( Refer%to%Alternatives(Not(Included(in(this(Consultation( Refer%to(Information(not(made(available(to(the(consultation(process(that%hinders(the( effectiveness(of(the(consultation( 2. Draft(Project(Goals( We%take%exceptions%to%government%statements%and%goal%for%this%project%that%congestion%is% bad.%as%many%university%researchers%have%stated,%congestion(is(good%as%it%causes%people%to% make%proper%decisions%on%which%transportation%mode%to%use,%where%to%live,%and%so%on.%the% outcome%of%congestion%allows%for%the%province%to%make%better%transportation%decisions% 5/9%

22 beyond%just%continuing%to%build%and%increase%road%capacity%with%widened%highways%or%new% facilities%as%the%default%status.%it%is%more%an%issue%of%degree%of%congestion%beyond%the%level% that%will%trigger%rational%mode%choice%selection.% Instead%of%reduction%of%congestion,%reduced%travel%time%is%more%of%an%appropriate%goal.% However,%this%goal%should%be%expanded%and%replaced%by%a%goals%of:% More%choice%of%travel%modes%for%transportation%users%of%this%corridor.% Growth%of%use%of%active%transportation%along%this%corridor%(focussed%primarily%on% transit%and%cycling)% Faster%trip%time%for%movements%of%goods%along%this%corridor.% Usage%of%cars%and%other%personal%vehicles%less%than%a%50%%mode%share.% As%the%Coalition%supports%Combined(Mobility%of%transit%and%cycling,%the%goal%for%this%project% should%include%alignment%within%the%highway%design%for%rapid%transit%and%other%light%rail% options,%including%fast%trains%to%the%u.s.a.%border.% ( Potential(Crossing(Scenarios( The!Coalition!is!not!expressing!any!preference!for!any!of!the!scenarios.!The!Coalition!advocates! for!cycling!to!be!incorporated!into!the!final!chosen!scenario!to!a!level!which!will!appeal! sufficiently!to!those!currently!choosing!to!drive!for!them!to!choose!cycling!or!combined!mobility! of!transit!and!cycling!in!the!crossing!of!the!fraser!ricer!and!leave!their!cars!at!home.!the! Coalition!requests!that!the!following!comments,!requirements,!and!suggestions!to!be! incorporated!into!the!final!chosen!scenario.! 3.(Scenario(1( (Maintain(Existing(Tunnel( 6/9% Refer%to%comments%on%tunnel(remaining(in(operation.% Refer%to%comments%on%reworking(of(Hwy(99(intersections(at(Hwy(17(or(Steveston(Road.% Rice(Mill(Road(Bridge% %if%this%bridge%is%maintained%for%the%long%term%and%rebuilt,%then% the%bike%path%in%the%no.%5%road%right8of8way%should%be%extended%over%the%bridge%to%the% bike%ferry%stop,%provided%that%the%forecast%of%traffic%for%this%road%in%the%future%has% significant%truck%or%car%growth.% Deas(Slough(Bridge% %if%this%bridge%is%rebuilt%or%significantly%retrofitted,%then%a%multi8use% path%to%deas%park%should%be%part%of%the%project.%the%existing%bike%path%under%the%bridge% by%the%river%should%be%significantly%improved.% 4.(Scenario(2( (Replace(Existing(Tunnel(with(New(Bridge( Refer%to%comments%on%new(bridge.( Refer%to%comments%on(dedicated(transit(lanes.( Refer%to%comments%on%reworking(of(Hwy(99(intersections(at(Hwy(17(or(Steveston(Road.% Refer%to%comments%on%improvements(along(Hwy(99(south(of(the(tunnel.(

23 7/9% River(Road% %a%cycling%connection%should%be%built%to%river%road%and%to%the%existing%path% under%deas%slough%bridge% 5.(Scenario(3( (Replace(Existing(Tunnel(with(New(Tunnel( Refer%to%comments%on%new(tunnel.( Refer%to%comments%on(dedicated(transit(lanes.( Refer%to%comments%on%reworking(of(Hwy(99(intersections(at(Hwy(17(or(Steveston(Road.% Refer%to%comments%on%improvements(along(Hwy(99(south(of(the(tunnel.( Rice(Mill(Road(Bridge% %if%this%bridge%is%maintained%for%the%long%term%and%rebuilt,%then% the%bike%path%in%the%no.%5%road%right8of8way%should%be%extended%over%the%bridge%to%the% bike%ferry%stop,%provided%that%the%forecast%of%traffic%for%this%road%in%the%future%has% significant%truck%or%car%growth.% Deas(Slough(Bridge% %if%this%bridge%is%rebuilt%or%significantly%retrofitted,%then%a%multi8use% path%to%deas%park%should%be%part%of%the%project.%the%existing%bike%path%under%the%bridge% by%the%bridge%should%be%significantly%improved.% 6.(Scenario(4( (Maintaining(Existing(Tunnel(and(Build(New(Crossing(along(Highway(99(Corridor( If(new(tunnel:( Refer%to%comments%on%new(tunnel.( If(bridge:( Refer%to%comments%on%new(bridge.( Common(to(tunnel(or(bridge:( Refer%to%comments%on(dedicated(transit(lanes.( Refer%to%comments%on%reworking(of(Hwy(99(intersections(at(Hwy(17(or(Steveston(Road.% Refer%to%comments%on%improvements(along(Hwy(99(south(of(the(tunnel.( Rice(Mill(Road(Bridge% %if%this%bridge%is%maintained%for%the%long%term%and%rebuilt,%then% the%bike%path%in%the%no.%5%road%right8of8way%should%be%extended%over%the%bridge%to%the% bike%ferry%stop,%provided%that%the%forecast%of%traffic%for%this%road%in%the%future%has% significant%truck%or%car%growth.% Deas(Slough(Bridge% %if%this%bridge%is%rebuilt%or%significantly%retrofitted,%then%a%multi8use% path%to%deas%park%should%be%part%of%the%project.%the%existing%bike%path%under%the%bridge% by%the%river%should%be%significantly%improved.% 7.(Scenario(5( (Maintaining(Existing(Tunnel(and(Build(New(Crossing(in(a(New(Corridor( For(existing(tunnel:( Refer%to%comments%on%tunnel(remaining(in(operation.( Rice(Mill(Road(Bridge% %if%this%bridge%is%maintained%for%the%long%term%and%rebuilt,%then% the%bike%path%in%the%no.%5%road%right8of8way%should%be%extended%over%the%bridge%to%the%

24 bike%ferry%stop,%provided%that%the%forecast%of%traffic%for%this%road%in%the%future%has% significant%truck%or%car%growth.% Deas(Slough(Bridge% %if%this%bridge%is%rebuilt%or%significantly%retrofitted,%then%a%multi8use% path%to%deas%park%should%be%part%of%the%project.%the%existing%bike%path%under%the%bridge% by%the%river%should%be%significantly%improved.% For(new(crossing,(if(new(tunnel:( Refer%to%comments%on%new(tunnel.( For(new(crossing,(if(new(bridge:( Refer%to%comments%on%new(bridge.( Common(to(existing(tunnel(crossing(and(to(new(crossing:( Refer%to%comments%on(dedicated(transit(lanes.( Refer%to%comments%on%reworking(of(Hwy(99(intersections(at(Hwy(17(or(Steveston(Road.% Refer%to%comments%on%improvements(along(Hwy(99(south(of(the(tunnel.( Draft(Evaluation(Criteria( Efficient%transportation%for%all%users% Safety% Transit%capability%and%pedestrian%and%cycling%accessibility% %Very%important% Traffic%congestion% %of%little%importance.%refer%to%2.%draft%project%goals% Travel%time% %Refer%to%2.%Draft%Project%Goals%for%alternate%criteria% %Incident%response%capability%and%earthquake%protection% %Very%important% Safety% %needs%definition%before%rating.%transit%is%safer%than%car%travel,%so%mode%is%very% important.% Agriculture% %Very%important% Environment% %Very%important% Jobs%and%Economy%8%Important% Social%and%community%considerations%8%important% What(is(missing(in(the(evaluation?(Criteria(for:( Urban%form%and%densification,%regional%and%local%transportation%mode%share%targets,% cycling%and%combined%mobility%targets,%air%quality%and%greenhouse%gas%reduction%targets.% 8/9%

25 Additional(Information( 9.%What%questions%do%you%have?% 10.%Additional%Comments% % A%futures%comprehensive%transportation%requirement%and%transportation%mode%choice%study,%a% comprehensive%transit%strategy,%and%a%comprehensive%cycling%strategy%for%the%lower%part%of% Metro%Vancouver%from%the%USA%border%north%are%needed%before%any%options%for%road%expansion% is%undertaken.% There%is%not%a%clear%understanding%of%current%and%future%transportation%(50%years%plus)%usage%of% resident%and%workers%of%the%cities%bounded%by%the%fraser%river%and%of%users%that%pass%through% these%cities,%some%who%cross%the%fraser%river.%%%there%is%no%clear%understanding%of%transportation% mode%usage%and,%very%importantly,%shift%of%modes%if%mode%options%are%provided,%including% Combined%Mobility%and%also%cycling.%%There%is%no%clear%understanding%on%the%impact%of% transportation%mode%choice%and%on%the%need%to%cross%the%fraser%river%as%the%economic%factors%of% the%future%unfold,%especially%as%the%cost%of%car%fuel,%car%ownership,%and%car%operating%costs% escalate.% % Submitted%on%behalf%of%the%British%Columbia%Cycling%Coalition% Richard%Campbell,%President% % Contact(Director(for(the(George(Massey(Replacement(Project( Jack%Becker% Director%and%Past8President%8%the%British%Columbia%Cycling%Coalition% %Marinaside%Cr% Vancouver,%BC% V6Z%3A3% Telephone%%%%%%%%%%% % E8Mail%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%pastpresident@bccc.bc.ca% Skype%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% hjeh.becker% Website%%%%%%%%%%%%%% bccc.bc.ca% % 9/9%

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33 George&Massey&Tunnel&Replacement&Project:&! This!is!a!Phase!2!response!from!the!Garden!City!Conservation!Society,!Richmond!(V7A),! 778J320J1936.! The Garden City Conservation Society board of directors strongly agrees with Scenarios 1 and 4 in the "George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project" Phase 2 options (with qualifications). Scenarios 1 and 4 both maintain the existing tunnel. There are only advantages to that. There are no real disadvantages. The only known reason for replacing the existing tunnel is to deepen the channel to allow larger ships up the Fraser River. However, that is supposedly not a goal of the project, and the conservation effects of it are not good ones. Here are some quick comments prompted by supposed reasons that don't stand up to examination: The earthquake preparedness of the existing tunnel can be upgraded to the point that it would out-survive the buildings and infrastructure on either side of the river. (At least that's my conclusion after consulting a reliable engineer.) Along with the earthquake upgrading, the tunnel will need internal upgrades for ventilation, lighting, etc., apparently in ten or fifteen years. However, since the tunnel "tube" is made of concrete, which gets stronger with time, the tube (essentially the tunnel) is getting better, not worse. All the refurbishing that is needed would be easier to accomplish, and less expensive, than building a new structure. On balance the tunnel is relatively safe, even though it should never have been built without an emergency-access route (essentially a sidewalk in each tube). If the tunnel is completely replaced, it will most likely be by a bridge, which is less safe in icy and foggy conditions. Since the project engineer envisions steep approaches, that will be especially problematic with snow and ice. One of the greatest needs is for the new Steveston Highway Interchange, as proposed 22 years ago. That would stop backups in the tunnel, especially northbound ones, since Steveston Highway Interchange backups in rush hour can block the only northbound lane, bringing all traffic toward Richmond and Vancouver to a halt. That plus the effect of about 10-20% of the tunnel traffic diverting via the new perimeter road (in Delta) will greatly reduce congestion, and it could be all that is needed. However, we do want to strongly encourage transit, including every possible way to enable reliable rapid crossing of the Fraser River on the Highway 99 route. To enable that, we see an additional two-lane crossing on that route.

34 Personally, I see a new two-lane tube. It would include sidewalk, with a firewall between sidewalk and traffic, with firedoors, probably with sealed fireproof windows. It would be up to a hundred metres east of the existing tube, still within the corridor, which is quite wide where it meets the river. As a board of directors, we have not ruled out a bridge with the same capacity for the transit purpose. However, it is making less and less sense as more factors come to light: It seems counter-intuitive to have rising approaches ascending toward a 211-foot-high bridge crown next to flat-to-declining approaches. It also seems shortsighted to build one structure above the other when they have different life expectancies. The new bridge over the old tunnel might have to be removed first, since tunnels have much longer lifespans, but the removal would be awkward either way. The lifespan aspect also has a huge cost effect, making a bridge vastly more expensive on an annual basis than a tunnel of the same price because the tunnel construction cost can be spread over so many more years. From the standpoints of noise and aesthetics, the tunnel method is better in this location, and there is no reason to give up those advantages either. Also, the tunnel construction takes a much shorter time, and the environmental assessment would likely be simpler. The existing tube is rectangular, but the new one could be circular (but with a rectangular traffic route), and one of the advantages is that the sections can be built in a shipbuilding dry dock before being floated to the trench and immersed. That would limit the impact on the Delta/Richmond shores. It also happens to be less expensive because, as the preliminary report on options way back in 1955 stated, "The external loads on the tunnel can be carried more efficiently by the circular shape." (It's over 57 years later now, but the basic physics principles wouldn t change.) Since our focus is on an optimal choice for transit, the new tube should be suitable for either light rail or buses. (If it is ever used for light rail, the eventuality would probably happen later.) For buses, the two lanes for that purpose would not necessarily be the new ones, although a reason in favour of that is that the wider lanes would be good for buses, wide vehicles that need to travel fast safely. Since buses don't necessarily require sole use of a lane in each direction, two suggestions I've heard are (a) to make the bus lanes also HOV lanes or alternatively (b) allow tollpaying trucks in the bus lanes. In both cases, that would need to be monitored so that the HOV or truck use does not in any way impede the bus flow. It also should not limit the possibility of eventual light rail use.

35 We continue to believe that the new tube should initially be used to replace one two-lane side of the existing tunnel at a time while all forms of upgrading are done on that side. That way the existing tunnel will be better than new for health and safety, and the whole six-lane tunnel, all either new or better than new, could celebrate its opening after that. If the planning is committed to the sorts of values being advocated, this grand opening would be a celebration of a leading-edge set of priorities in keeping with the values of Delta and, increasingly, Richmond. Later, when the new tube is available for transit purposes, it might well be that transit would actually use one lane on each side of the Highway 99 corridor. Since we also strongly support safety (conservation of human life and wellbeing), the ideal approach would be to always have four lanes in one direction and two lanes in the other direction, with the centre lanes behaving like the counterflow lanes in the current operation. This would eliminate the fear (and occasional reality) of head-on collisions in a tube with lanes flowing in opposite directions. A final detail: All of this should be done in a way that allows for the possibility of another two-lane tube being added on the west side of the Highway 99 corridor at some future time, although we basically hope it won't happen. Of course, the intent if it does happen could be to enable a dedicated emergency lane and a lane dedicated to pedestrian and bicycle/rolling use, and maybe the future will evolve to the point where a scenario like that would be considered.!

36 ! April 2, 2013 HUB Submission for the George Massey Tunnel, Phase 2 Consultation Introduction HUB: Your Cycling Connection is a charitable organization whose mission is to make cycling an attractive choice for everyone in Metro Vancouver. We achieve our mission through education, events and engagement. HUB believes that improved cycling facilities will encourage more people to ride bikes, thereby conferring many benefits to society. Improving cycling infrastructure is the least expensive way of providing mobility. People who cycle are healthier and cycling reduces noise and traffic congestion. HUB would like to submit the following for consideration. Comments HUB fully supports the submission which was sent by the British Columbia Cycling Coalition in regards to the Massey Tunnel Phase 2 Consultation process. Though transit riders and drivers are already well served throughout Metro Vancouver, a complete, safe and convenient cycling network has not yet been established in Metro Vancouver. HUB believes that such a network should be completed as rapidly as possible. For cyclists, the existing tunnel is a strong barrier to cycling. While cyclists appreciate the available shuttle service, the frequency of service is insufficient and inadequate, especially during non-summer months. This service should be improved immediately. This service could be augmented or replaced by free transit service (with much larger racks on some buses) or a cyclist/pedestrian ferry. If the existing tunnel is to be replaced, then we would like to see high quality cycling infrastructure as part of any replacement crossing. Improved Cycling Connections in the Hwy 99 Corridor Project Area There currently exist few safe and convenient cycling routes within the immediate vicinity of the tunnel. We suggest that the scope of the Massey Tunnel Replacement Project be widened to include the creation of safe and convenient cycling connections to the Massey Tunnel area from communities within a 10 to 15 km radius and to include safe cycling access to the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. We further recommend that a cycle path which is safe!

37 ! and convenient for cyclists of all ages and abilities should be constructed parallel to the Hwy 99 corridor between Vancouver and the USA border. Existing cycling connections to the tunnel are not of such quality as to encourage many people to consider cycling. We recommend that the following routes be improved: Shell Road The section of Shell Road between the Hwy 99 underpass and the Canada Line Bridge is totally unsuitable for cycling. Completion of a safe and convenient cycling route in this area should be included in the scope of the Massey Tunnel improvement project. Note that the railway parallel to Shell Road is in the process of being abandoned by CN and this would make a great active transportation corridor. Other sections of the Shell Road routing for tunnel access should be upgraded to accommodate cyclists of all ages and abilities. Connections to Ladner, Tsawwassen and Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal Existing cycling routes need improvement to be suitable for cyclists of all ages and abilities between Ladner and the Ferry terminal. As costs continue to increase for ferry travel and demand outpaces capacity on some busy weekends, cycling to the ferries is an option that benefits many people and reduces the space required for all travellers on the ferries. With improved cycling infrastructure, we see great potential for an increase in the number of travelers who choose to cycle to the ferries. The Ferry causeway is currently very intimidating for cyclists and requires a secure, separated cycling path. Connections to White Rock, North Delta and Surrey No suitable cycling connections currently exist to connect these areas. A multi-use path should be developed along the Fraser as part of the Experience the Fraser project. Connections to Ladner Trunk Road and River Road need to be improved, including the South Surrey Delta Greenway which parallels Highway 91. Planned multi-use paths in Surrey s Greenway Plan along the Highway 99 corridor need to be constructed, including connecting paths (20 Avenue). A continuous separated or off-road cycling path should be constructed along the entire Highway 99 corridor from the US border to the Oak Street Bridge. Conclusion Cycling is the least expensive way of providing mobility, especially in an urban environment and offers many benefits to society, including healthier people, healthier environment, more economical means of transportation. We support the provincial government in making a commitment to improve cycling both as part of the existing Fraser River crossing or as part of any new crossing. We further encourage the Province to work with other levels of government to improve cycling connections to the Massey Tunnel area from surrounding communities. Sincerely, Tess Kitchen President!

38 - Pbinn,nq, 7 Policy irnil Env,ronrr ent (3epo,t,nent IL! Fux File: CP Mr. Geoff Freer Executive Project Director George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure c/o 7351 Vantage Way Delta, BC V4G 3C9 Dear Mr. Freer: Re: Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, Phase 2 Metro Vancouver is pleased to provide the attached comments on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. As part of the Phase 2 consultation, Metro Vancouver staff attended one of your community open houses, and the stakeholder meeting. In lieu of completing the feedback form, we are providing this letter. In Phase 1, Metro Vancouver provided comments from a broad perspective based on its plans: Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air quality and Greenhouse Gas Management, Regional Parks Plan, and Regional Food System Strategy. The attached comments identify which items have been addressed and which items remain outstanding. As the Phase 2 technical analysis proceeds through the summer, the Ministry should make every opportunity to consult with Metro Vancouver on the issues identified in this letter. For further information, please contact Heather McNeil, Regional Planning Division Manager, at , or myself at Thank you. Yours truly, & Delia Laglagaron, MPA Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment D L/R K/mit cc: Bob Paddon, Executive VicePresident, Strategic Planning and Public Affairs, TransLink End: Attachment 1: Detailed Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on Phase 2 Attachment 2: Letter dated December 19, 2012, Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on George Massey tunnel Replacement Project lt/3278

39 ATTACHMENT 1 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, Phase 2 Detailed Metro Vancouver Staff Comments Multi-Modal Perspective The draft project goals and evaluation criteria support a multi-modal perspective to a certain extent. One of the draft project goals is to support objectives for regional people movement, including increasing transit ridership and protecting the Highway 99 corridor for future rapid transit, and providing cyclist and pedestrian access. One of the evaluation criteria is pedestrian and cycling accessibility. In our first letter, dated December 19, 2012, we suggested that the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project should be recast as a multi-modal mobility project, where in transportation demand management and features to support walking, cycling, buses, rapid transit, and multiple-occupancy vehicles are built into the project definition rather added afterwards. It is desirable for the project to respond to Action in the Regional Growth Strategy requesting TransLink and the Province to evaluate the following elements when contemplating future expansion of private vehicle capacity on major roads, highways, and bridges: a) Transportation demand management strategies as alternatives to, or as integral with, such capacity expansion; b) lrnpacts on the achievement of the Regional Growth Strategy and the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, including potential cumulative impacts. Forecasting Considerations We remain concerned about the absence of information about the basic assumptions being made about future population and employment projections and spatial allocations in the travel demand modeling work. We understand that there may two versions of the Regional Transportation Model being calibrated and deployed right now on two major infrastructure planning projects the Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and the Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project. Both are truck corridors. It is urgent that a meeting of provincial, TransLink, and Metro Vancouver staff be convened to set out the parameters for travel demand forecasting. Ministry staff committed to this at the stakeholder meeting. And we reiterate that if alternative land use scenarios or adjustments to land use assumptions are made that depart from current assumptions, the Ministry should coordinate with Metro Vancouver staff to ensure transparency and traceability of such work. Metro Vancouver will be happy to assist in such efforts. Performance-Based Perspective In our first letter we suggested clear outcomes should be identified so that alternative can be evaluated. We also offered some performance measures, which are consistent with regional objectives, to be included. The following tables shows to what degree our initial comments have been incorporated into the project definition. We respectively request that the Ministry incorporate the remaining elements of our comments.

40 Performance Measure Included in Included in Draft Draft Project Evaluation Criteria Change in Mode Share for transit, multiple-occupant vehicles, No No cycling, walking, goods/service vehicles (net reduction of singleoccupant vehicles required) Change in vehicle kilometers travelled as a measure of No No transportation intensity and emissions (net reduction required) Change in greenhouse gas emissions (net reduction required) No No Change in common air contaminants, including diesel particulates Yes Yes and road dust (net reduction required) Travel time reliability for transit, and goods and service vehicles Yes Yes (net reduction in travel time for multiple-occupant vehicles and transit vehicles; same or increased travel time for single-occupant vehicles) Change in agricultural lands acreage (no net loss) Yes Yes Change in parks acreage (no net loss) Yes No Change in industrial lands acreage (no net loss) No No Change in environmental and natural assets (no net loss) Yes Yes Goal Corridor Perspective In our first letter, we encouraged a broader outlook on the ultimate role of the corridor, and how a new crossing may have upstream or downstream implications along the Highway 99 corridor and adjacent lands. We appreciate the draft scope now considers all interchanges within the Highway 99 corridor from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to the Canada/US border in Surrey, as well as connections to other provincial highways, and regional and local routes. What remains to be articulated is consideration of the impacts on adjacent lands. Modifications to existing interchanges or new interchanges will have materials impacts on adjacent agricultural, parks, industrial, or general urban lands. These matters must be carefully quantified and evaluated for potential mitigation measures. Network and Whole Systems Perspective Related to the corridor perspective is the network and whole systems perspective. What is missing from the project scope of work is an awareness of other potential regional transportation investment priorities, the growth targets set out in the Regional Growth Strategy, and other established regional objectives. It would benefit the region, and the province, if major transportation investments are brought forward as part of the Regional Transportation Strategy process for evaluation and debate, as opposed to having a piecemeal process. Such a comprehensive process will help to establish the medium-term and long-term investment priorities and to confirm the funds that the region can generate locally and the funds that must be requested from senior governments to pay for these investments. Environmental and Parks Considerations As noted above, the impacts on parks acreage must be included in the evaluation framework. Consideration should be made to prepare specific plans to reduce, mitigate, and compensate for impacts on Deas Island Regional Park and the immediate marine environment and associated habitats. For

41 example, it is unknown whether under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 the construction will block public access to the west end of the park along the right of way, and what the construction and operations impacts will be. In addition, the project should ensure solid east-west recreational connectivity supportive of Experience the Fraser. Agricultural Considerations We reiterate from our first letter that agricultural impact assessments should be undertaken for each scenario alternative. We note that minimizing adverse agricultural impacts and access to/from agricultural areas are included as evaluation criteria. Congestion We note that the summary of the Phase 1 consultation identifies congestion reduction as the most important factor to consider in developing replacement options. We request that analysis be provided to indicate to what degree weekday and weekend congestion are caused by recurring or non-recurring congestion. Non-recurring congestion, whether caused by a stalled vehicle or collision, points to different types of solutions, such as ramp metering. The region has adopted regional greenhouse gas reduction targets of 33 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by These are the same targets adopted by the Province. To make incremental steps towards these targets, the region (and Province) must recognize managing the growth, and even reversing, in vehicle kilometres travelled is crucial to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We recognize reducing idling and improving the overall flow of traffic will reduce emissions. But we also recognize that the region cannot build itself out of congestion solely through expanding roadways. Road pricing should be tested, not simply as a revenue source to pay off the construction and operating expenses, but to also manage existing and incremental private vehicle demand. Regional Economy Considerations The current discourse over expansion of highways and watercrossing capacities is missing a broader perspective on the regional economy. What assumptions are being made about the growth in containers and commodities as they relate to increased truck and rail traffic, and origins and destinations, for this region versus Prince Rupert? What is the correlation with specific road investments? Why are transportation demand management and system management measures, such as the deployment of technology and pricing, and smarter port logistics, not contemplated as part of these infrastructure proposals? What policy assumptions are being made about servicing goods movement as a priority over other economic, environmental, and social objectives? What policy assumptions are being made about prioritizing the reduction of delay for private vehicles versus the reduction of delay for transit customers? These questions need to be answered in a more holistic fashion long before investment decisions are made on capital-intensive and irreversible infrastructure. The assumptions must be made transparent and deliberated for their validity. Conclusion As Phase 2 progresses, we will remain engaged to better understand the performance benefits, costs, interactions with other parts of the regional transportation system, and implications to agricultural, industrial, and park lands.