Appendix 5: Stakeholder Meeting Notes

Home , Burrard Bridge, Cambie Bridge, Port Mann Bridge

APPENDIX 5: STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES

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 Project Team Representatives John Collings, Co-Chair Joost Meyboom Marian Robson, Co-Chair Pam Ryan 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.

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

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 2022.

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 70th 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

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 www.masseytunnel.ca) 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

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 Project Team Representatives Rob Akimow, Chair Geoff Freer Matt Pitcairn, Executive Director Enriquez Mitchell Phebe Chan Pam Ryan Gerard Edwards Rob Howard Don Mann Dan Sakaki

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

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 2022.

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

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

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 www.masseytunnel.ca), 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

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, 2030 – 11662 Steveston Highway, Richmond, B.C.

ATTENDEES Participants Project Team Representatives Lois Armerding, HUB – Richmond Joost Meyboom Allan Buium, Cross Canada Cycle Tour Society Amber Standbridge Richard Campbell, BC Cycling Coalition Enriquez Mitchell Mark Heath, Richmond Active Transportation Erin Sept Committee Lori Alexander Matthias Heinzemann, HUB – Delta Pam Ryan 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

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

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, 2016.

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. 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?

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

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

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

allowing two-way traffic on both sides or requiring one direction to use an under- bridge 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

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 skid- resistant. • 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 www.masseytunnel.ca). 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

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, 20111 93A Avenue, Langley, B.C.

ATTENDEES Participants Project Team Representatives Louise Yako, BCTA Pam Ryan Greg Kolesniak, BCTA Geoff Freer 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.

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

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

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

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

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 www.masseytunnel.ca), 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

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 Project Team Representatives Kevin Connery, City of Richmond Geoff Freer Joan Caravan, City of Richmond Pam Ryan Linda Love, Committee Chair Enriquez Mitchell Graeme Bone Mark Heath Barbara Huisman John Reinders Debbie Snihur Derek Williams

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.

Richmond Active Transportation Advisory Committee Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 1 of 5

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

Q: Is a free alternative required?

R: It is in the current Tolling Guidelines.

Q: How will the bridge be decommissioned?

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

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 off- ramp.

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

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.

Richmond Active Transportation Advisory Committee Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 13, 2016 Page 5 of 5

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, 2030 – 11662 Steveston Highway, Richmond, B.C.

ATTENDEES Participants Project Team Representatives Bruce Rozenhart, Steveston 20-20 Group Geoff Freer Linda Barnes, Steveston 20-20 Group Enriquez Mitchell Judy Lau, Steveston Historic Society Pam Ryan 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

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.

Steveston 20/20 Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 1 of 5

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 80th 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

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?

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

It’s important to note that proposed coal and LNG projects currently under consideration pre-date plans for the new bridge, can take place with or without the Tunnel removal.

Q: What are your plans for traffic during construction?

R: The contractor has to keep the traffic moving.

C: The business community is concerned about local representation federally. We hope you will ensure the Federal Infrastructure Minister represents our interests.

Q: Can the Project proceed without federal funding?

R: Yes – the business case confirms that tolls could be used to fully fund the project if needed.

Q: Why are the HOV lanes 2+ passengers?

R: This has become the standard across the region. HOV lanes can be monitored and the minimum number of passengers increased if the lanes become too congested.

Q: Why a bridge instead of rapid transit?

R: The George Massey Tunnel is the busiest transit crossing of all Fraser River crossings except for the SkyTrain Bridge. It will be used for transit on this corridor; however, lots of people can’t use transit – such as goods movers and tourists. We need to find the right balance.

Q: How will the dedicated HOV/bus lanes work if Canada Line is extended across the bridge in the future?

R: The transit/HOV lanes on the bridge would be converted for rapid transit. It would still need to be determined where the line would tie into the bridge, as it is assumed it would not be along Highway 99 since that’s not where people want to stop.

For now, until demand and density increases, rapid buses will take passengers to Canada Line. TransLink’s priority for north-south rapid transit right now is King George Boulevard.

C: I like the future thinking and the ability to accommodate rapid transit on the bridge when it is needed.

Q: What is the estimated volume of pedestrians on the new bridge?

R: We don’t have an estimate at this time; however, experience with the Lions Gate Bridge improvements and the Canada Line suggest that here will be lots of cyclists. We also anticipate that as tourism increases,

Steveston 20/20 Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 4 of 5

pedestrian traffic will also increase.

Q: Will you use safety fencing?

R: Yes, this is mandatory for all new crossings.

4. Report Out – Key Themes Pam Ryan reported on the key themes that were expressed during the meeting:

• General support for the Project as proposed. • Interest in extending Canada Line across the Fraser River South Arm in the future. • Interest in confirming cost of toll and potential for federal funding. • Interest in the cost of Tunnel decommissioning and if the Tunnel could remain in place once it is decommissioned.

5. Closing Remarks/Next Steps The Steveston 20/20 Committee members thanked the Project Team for the informative discussion and noted that a summary would be provided to all Committee members at their next meeting on February 11, 2016.

Geoff Freer thanked participants and reminded everyone to submit an online feedback form prior to the January 28, 2016 deadline. Pam Ryan encouraged participants to let other members of their respective organizations to do the same (the form is available online at www.masseytunnel.ca) and noted that written submissions are also welcome for those who wish to provide more comprehensive feedback about the Project.

Steveston 20/20 Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 5 of 5

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

CITY OF RICHMOND GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE STAKEHOLDER MEETING January 18, 2016

Summary of the City of Richmond General Purposes Committee Stakeholder Meeting for Phase 3 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project held Monday, January 18, 2016 at Richmond City Hall in Richmond, B.C.

ATTENDEES Participants Project Team Representatives Mayor Malcolm Brodie Geoff Freer Councillor Chak Au Pam Ryan Councillor Derek Dang Enriquez Mitchell Councillor Carol Day Erin Sept Councillor Ken Johnston Councillor Alexa Loo Councillor Bill McNulty Councillor Linda McPhail Councillor Harold Steves City Clerk

Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses

1. Welcome/Agenda Overview Mayor Brodie invited GMT Project Executive Director Geoff Freer to present to the Committee as part of agenda item #1 of the regular meeting of the City of Richmond’s General Purposes Committee. Mr. Freer thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and thanked the City for the work of City staff in liaising with the GMT Project Team over the past two years.

2. Presentation & Discussion Guide Geoff Freer, Project Director, welcomed comments and questions as he provided an overview presentation regarding the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report (PDR) and the consultation process being undertaken to obtain feedback.

City of Richmond General Purposes Committee Meeting – Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 1 of 8

3. Discussion – Questions and Answers Questions and comments from the Committee and Mr. Freer’s response included the following:

C: Skeptical of the potential for a “net gain” of ALR, given the land that the Project is taking on the west side of Highway 99.

R: We are looking at a small strip from some private properties – anywhere from 10 to 30 metres – as well as from one City-owned property.

Q: Will the dedicated transit lane be used for LRT or will the LRT be taken from other lanes?

R: From the transit lane, in the future, when needed.

Q: Where will LRT extend?

R: The location has not yet been determined. TransLink’s current plans for this area of Highway 99 transit calls for RapidBus, followed by rail-based transit when the demand increases.

C: From as far back as the 1970s, through to 2007, the plan was for a parallel light rail corridor.

R: We have looked at everything MOT has available; if you have new information, we would be pleased to review it.

Q: In 2007, then Minister Falcon said the Province’s plan was to rebuild the Tunnel and would last for a long time. What happened?

R: Two phases of seismic study were undertaken in the early 2000s. The first phase (strengthening the connection between tunnel segments) was completed. The second phase was deferred because subsequent analysis by specialists determined that doing the second phase of upgrading (geotechnical strengthening) carried a high risk of potential damage to the existing tunnel. Instead, the Ministry installed an early warning system that senses seismic activity and shuts down public accesses.

Q: Regarding the 60 per cent of traffic coming to Richmond – if we instead banned trucking during rush hour, could we reduce the need for additional traffic?

R: Only about two per cent of traffic comes from the Port, and about six per cent total in rush hour is trucks. Mid-day that number jumps to as much as 14 per cent.

Q: So the Ministry did not consider adding one tube for transit and banning truck traffic?

City of Richmond General Purposes Committee Meeting – Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 2 of 8

R: Back in Phase 2 consultation, we looked at five options. I encourage you to revisit that.

Q: Traffic analysis was collected using Bluetooth technology. How do you adjust for the fact that not everyone has Bluetooth?

R: Bluetooth sensors actually collect a significantly larger sample of traffic than we used to – they don’t get all, but get enough to be able to accurately estimate. We also used information from Google and TomTom to help validate our results.

C: I have sat in the traffic waiting to get to Oak Street and it doesn’t seem like that’s the case.

Q: How much would a new tunnel cost?

R: It depends on the number of lanes, but even a smaller tunnel would require going upstream, so there would be significant property and environmental effects regardless.

Q: Did the tunnel shut down in the latest quake?

R: No. It sensed it, but the seismic activity was not sufficient to warrant shutting it down.

Q: The tunnel is the only area in Richmond that is red-zoned for geotechnical/liquefaction concerns. How does this allow for bridge construction?

R: You are absolutely right about soil stability concerns, which is precisely why we are looking at a bridge instead of a tunnel. Soil strengthening is used to provide a solid foundation for the new bridge piles.

Q: Page 14 of the Project Definition Report, which shows the Steveston interchange, seems to take as much area as the existing interchange and will have three levels. Won’t this affect people in the new residential complex?

R: The southeast loop ramp area will be completely available for agriculture in part because of the three-level interchange.

Q: That loop ramp is currently filled with concrete debris; will you cover over that?

R: No, we will remove the debris.

Q: The map appears to show that the bridge will touch ground before the Steveston interchange but we’ve been told that it’s 65 per cent longer than the Port Mann Bridge. If that’s the case, how can it touch ground before Steveston?

City of Richmond General Purposes Committee Meeting – Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 3 of 8

R: One of our goals from the beginning was to keep the Steveston Interchange in the same location, to minimize impacts. One of the reasons why this bridge is longer than the Port Mann Bridge is because if the flat topography and because the river is wider at this location. It is slightly longer than the Alex Fraser Bridge because of the river width here.

Q: Minister Stone has suggested that there will be some diversion to the Alex Fraser Bridge because of the toll. What will this do to traffic on the East-West Connector?

R: Our analysis shows that during rush hour, there is likely to be a net increase on the new bridge, as traffic from the Alex Fraser Bridge shifts to the new bridge, to avoid traffic congestion at Alex Fraser. During the mid-day, there will be limited diversion away from the new bridge. In the evenings and weekends is when diversion away from the new bridge would be most noticeable. During these times, Alex Fraser has excess capacity.

Q: How will the Project address Oak Street Bridge congestion?

R: The Oak Street Bridge actually has excess capacity, and congestion is largely due to the traffic lights at 70th. We have been meeting with City of Vancouver staff, and are scheduled to meet jointly with City of Vancouver and City of Richmond staff. The significant changes resulting from Canada Line helped to reduce vehicle growth at Oaks Street, and that’s one of the reasons why the Project includes improvements for transit at Bridgeport Road. What you might find on opening day is that the rush hour queue gets just a little longer as people begin travelling when they want, and then things will adjust. This is consistent with what is happening at the Port Mann Bridge.

C: So it isn’t going to make a difference because sometimes the queue goes all the way back to the tunnel?

Q: Has the Province put money aside to work with the City of Vancouver to address this problem?

R: Our understanding is that the City has no intention of changing the signal lights.

C: Richmond doesn’t want you to take ALR either but you aren’t giving us that choice.

Q: Thank you for presenting to us today. My question is: how much viable, usable farmland are we going to get as compared with what is being taken away? Is the quality of the land being returned the same as what’s being taken?

R: We don’t have an exact number today because the designs are still being revised. It varies a bit. We will continue to share information with staff, and can report back when we have more specifics.

City of Richmond General Purposes Committee Meeting – Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 4 of 8

C: The information should be available now. The Ministry is already negotiating with property owners, and the results of your acquisitions may have an impact on Richmond’s plan for the Highway 99 back lands. You should be dealing with this now, not later.

Q: I question your “60 per cent of traffic to Richmond” number – the new bridge will just extend the traffic all the way back to Westminster Highway. The Ministry should be focusing on working with the City of Vancouver to develop a full solution.

Q: Did we learn anything from the Alex Fraser Bridge regarding congestion? Are we doing just the same thing?

R: I think we are doing the right thing. The region continues to grow; the economy continues to grow. There are more businesses and more residential areas. We need a multifaceted solution – one for all modes of transportation. We are using the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy population and employment targets, and we are working with TransLink and municipalities.

Q: Did you get assurances from TransLink that the planned additional transit buses will be implemented on opening day? We used to have the interurban line and what we have now is worse.

R: We have been working with TransLink and our understanding is that they are pleased with the transit infrastructure we intend to build, and fund, as part of the Project.

Q: Why not add a rail line underneath the bridge?

R: TransLink’s current priority for rapid transit across the river is along King George Highway. We are building the Project to accommodate LRT when the region is ready for it.

Q: What kind of feedback did you get in previous phases of consultation?

R: In summary, we heard “do something about congestion now, be sure the solution includes transit, and incorporate transit and cycling.”

Q: Isn’t soil liquefaction a major risk?

R: No, we actually need to get the crossing to modern seismic standards, and it’s less intrusive to do this by building a bridge instead of a tunnel.

C: Thank you for coming. I hope you come back again, and continue to keep us informed.

C: Thank you for sharing the Project Definition Report. It seems to me that this will bring tremendous economic growth and get people moving. I heard you say that if we were to twin the tunnel, it would have a much more significant environmental impact than a bridge.

City of Richmond General Purposes Committee Meeting – Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 5 of 8

R: That’s correct.

Q: Regarding transit hubs, has there been any thought about partnering for Park & Ride areas?

R: We talked with TransLink about that and there is already good Park & Ride service at Ladner and at King George. Providing one at Steveston would require use of farmland. Instead, our focus is providing good connections to transit service along Steveston Highway, to feed existing Park & Rides.

Q: So, with the existing tunnel, in a major seismic event, we risk not having access to a crossing, whereas with the new bridge, we stand a better chance of having access?

R: Correct. The tunnel was a great feat of engineering when it was built, but we just didn’t have the seismic standards then that we do today.

Q: Kind of like our schools that we are dealing with now right?

R: Yes.

Q: What are the criteria for this project to go ahead?

R: One of our criteria from the beginning has been to minimize impacts on farmland. We have been meeting with farmers and the Agricultural Land Commission and we know that we will have a net positive effect on farmland. We don’t know exactly how much yet because we haven’t finished our consultation.

Q: When and how will you confirm that you are not replacing good farmland with bad farmland? Will there be a written report?

R: Yes there will be. We have two expert agricultural firms and will be working with the Agricultural Land Commission and with City of Richmond staff and we will have to submit an application to the ALC for approval as well as submit an agricultural effects assessment as part of the Environmental Assessment Application.

Q: Thank you for the presentation and the great information. On page 12 of the Project Definition Report, it says “more access”. This will have impacts on our local roads. Is the cost of our roadwork included in the Project costs?

R: Project costs include improvements within Ministry right-of-way, which generally extends to the end of the interchange ramps or the first intersection. However, these improvements will have benefits for City of Richmond including improved drainage and cycling access.

Q: Is there potential for some City of Richmond improvements?

City of Richmond General Purposes Committee Meeting – Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 6 of 8

R: Will have to continue these discussions; we always like to see our partners sharing in costs.

Q: What costs do you expect Richmond to pay for?

R: The Ministry will cover all costs within the Highway 99 right-of-way, and doesn’t expect any cost sharing from City of Richmond. Some discussions will need to continue, such as for Rice Mill Road, which will help take traffic and congestion away from No. 5 Road/Steveston Highway, but will add traffic to Rice Mill road, so improved municipal connections may be needed. The Project Team will continue discussion with City staff following Phase 3 consultation.

Q: Thank you for coming. I was taken aback when the Minister announced the project in December without inviting anyone from City of Richmond, but I am glad that you are coming now. Please spend some time talking about the environmental benefits.

R: The Project includes a number of transit and cycling improvements to help encourage a shift away from automobiles. Environmental benefits also include stormwater management, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved drainage, and improved vegetation along Highway 99. The Ministry’s highway ditches collect highway runoff but also a lot of the City of Richmond’s drainage. The ditches are not fish bearing but they feed fish-bearing streams, so improving them is important. We also plan to return Green Slough to its natural alignment, which will help reconnect east and west portions of Deas Island Regional Park.

Q: Shouldn’t the priority be to talk with City of Vancouver now about addressing Oak Street? The Ministry needs to get Vancouver on side.

R: We have been talking with Vancouver staff. It’s also important to remember that 60 per cent of the traffic using the tunnel is travelling between Richmond and south of Fraser communities. At times during the day, as much as 30 per cent of the traffic using the tunnel exits at Steveston Highway.

Q: You can quote numbers all you want but the congestion is fierce there and you are telling us that the Project will not improve this.

R: What I am saying is that Oak Street isn’t going to change. It will still be congested.

Q: You are missing a big part of the problem if you don’t fix Oak Street.

Q: Richmond isn’t just concerned about the farmland; it’s the location of the farmland. We need to know where the farm impacts are so that we can finish our back lands plan.

City of Richmond General Purposes Committee Meeting – Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 7 of 8

Q: What will happen with the Port and dredging?

R: There are no plans for dredging. Once the tunnel is removed, the hole it leaves behind fill within about 200 days.

Q: Why take out the tunnel at all? Why not leave it in place?

R: It is better for the environment.

Q: Has the Project Team discussed with Metro Vancouver the effects of the Project on the Metro Vancouver water main?

R: Yes. We meet with them regularly.

Q: How does the Project fit with the Metro Vancouver Growth Strategy?

R: Our forecasts are based on the Metro Vancouver Growth Strategy.

Q: According to your map, there won’t be a loop ramp exit at Westminster Highway interchange. Will the design be sufficient to accommodate additional traffic there?

R: The reference design does not include a loop ramp/cloverleaf design, to avoid the park located in the northeast quadrant. The large traffic movement at the Westminster interchange is Westminster Highway to Highway 99 southbound in the afternoon. The Project will address this movement, but will leave the northbound left-turn to avoid the park.

5. Closing Remarks Mayor Brodie closed the discussion and thanked Geoff Freer for presenting. Mr. Freer thanked the Committee members for their time and offered to return again for a future meeting after Phase 3 consultation is complete.

City of Richmond General Purposes Committee Meeting – Summary held January 18, 2016 Page 8 of 8

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

ROTARY CLUB OF STEVESTON STAKEHOLDER MEETING January 19, 2016

Summary of the Rotary Club of Steveston Stakeholder Meeting for Phase 3 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project held Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Office, 2030 – 11662 Steveston Highway, Richmond, B.C.

ATTENDEES Participants Project Team Representatives Peter Mitchell Geoff Freer Syd Harmon Joost Meyboom Bill McEwan Enriquez Mitchell Sean Graham Erin Sept Trevor Stickler Lori Alexander Pat Kasprow Pam Ryan Martyn Westerman Brian Van Sickle Cindy Siesling-Webb Vivienne Westerman Bob Blacker John Madsen Sylvia Mahal Jack Evans Mary Laing Lynne Rimmer

Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses

1. Welcome/Agenda Overview Geoff Freer, Executive Project Director, welcomed participants to the meeting, and all participants introduced themselves. Pam Ryan, Planning Director encouraged participants to complete and submit the “George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report Consultation Feedback Form” online before the January 28, 2016 closing date.

Rotary Club of Steveston Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 19, 2016 Page 1 of 4

3. Discussion – Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange with the Project Team:

Q: Why not build two tunnels on either side of the existing tunnel to strengthen it?

R: Geotechnical conditions in the area indicate potential for damage to tunnel, if we construct too close to it.

Q: Are the geotechnical conditions also a risk for building a bridge too? What about in the event of an earthquake?

R: The bridge towers will be similar to the Alex Fraser Bridge. The ground under where the towers are to be built can be strengthened, then piles driven to a depth of about 65 metres, to support the base of the two towers.

Q: How strong of an earthquake will the new bridge be able to withstand?

R: The seismic standard for new construction today is 1-in-2475-year, or about a 9.0 on the Richter scale.

Q: Will the tunnel be removed when the bridge construction if finished?

R: Yes.

Q: Why was the old Port Mann Bridge dismantled? For safety?

R: During the competitive selection process to select a contractor, more than one proponent recommended a new bridge to replace the existing rather than to twin it, primarily because of the expense of upgrading and maintaining it. Once the old bridge was not needed for traffic, its proximity to the new bridge then becomes a safety concern, so the contractor removed it at the contractor’s cost as part of the contract. Much of the old bridge was recycled.

Q: What is the source of traffic data and projections for the future?

R: The Ministry has undertaken extensive traffic modelling and collected detailed information about current traffic patterns. The modelling considers the presence of the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy and the Agricultural Land Reserve in predicting future population and employment, and the traffic model derives future traffic demand based on the transportation assumptions put into it. The Project Team consulted with TransLink planners and municipal staff to develop these assumptions.

Rotary Club of Steveston Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 19, 2016 Page 2 of 4

Q: When will rapid transit be added?

In the future, the transit/HOV lanes on the bridge would be converted for rapid transit.

Q: Will City improve adjacent roads?

R: The Ministry is not seeking municipal contribution for the improvements outlined in the Project Definition Report. However, there may be opportunities for additional municipal infrastructure 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: What will be the construction/traffic management process?

Q: Will construction happen at night?

R: 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 can be rerouted to the Alex Fraser Bridge.

Q: Are you getting feedback from the public about safety concerns?

R: Some. Safety was a big reason for looking at this project. The Project is expected to result in 35 per cent fewer collisions annually and will be much better from an emergency response perspective. Emergency responders have been strong proponents of a solution for the Tunnel. Safety was also a primary reason why people preferred a bridge to a tunnel during earlier phases of consultation.

Q: Are you building a counterflow system for opening day?

R: No, but will want the bridge design to allow for counterflow operations in the long-term, if necessary.

Q: Will you add Park & Ride at this location to access the exchange when rail comes along?

Rotary Club of Steveston Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 19, 2016 Page 3 of 4

R: It depends on what the final alignment is. Some have suggested the Vancouver landfill as a potential location, when it closes. There is no room for a Park & Ride at either of the new interchanges that will have transit stops (Highway 17A and Steveston). On the south side, there is no need because other exchanges, such as the Ladner exchange are so close. On the Richmond side, we’re working to make sure the pedestrian and cycling connections and the east-west Steveston bus connections to the integrated transit stop are convenient so that they can be easily accessed.

C: The internal safety features of transit car/buses should also be considered.

Q: How far does the highway widening extend?

R: From Bridgeport Road in Richmond to Highway 91 in Delta. On the Richmond side, one lane in each direction adds/drops 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 80th Street, and at Highway 91.

Q: What is the purpose of the two public open houses next week?

R: The consultation, including today’s meeting and the open houses next week, is an opportunity to identify what’s missing and consider if it can be incorporated.

Q: Will there be an interchange at Blundell Road?

R: Not now. Our analysis shows that it’s not needed for highway operations. It is in Richmond’s Official Community Plan and could be constructed if municipal cost sharing were available. The replacement overpass as part of the Project will be constructed to allow for a future interchange.

C: I understand that in the past, a design like the interchange at Bellis Fair Mall in Washington State or 32 Avenue/Highway 99.

C: You’ve convinced me! The bike lane on the bridge is a great idea.

Q: Will the Project include improved access to the airport?

R: Not at this time.

5. Closing Remarks/Next Steps

Rotary Club of Steveston Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 19, 2016 Page 4 of 4

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

RICHMOND FARMERS INSTITUTE STAKEHOLDER MEETING January 25, 2016

Summary of the Richmond Farmers Institute (RFI) Stakeholder Meeting for Phase 3 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project held Monday, January 25, 2016 at the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Office, 2030 – 11662 Steveston Highway, Richmond, B.C.

ATTENDEES Participants Project Team Representatives V.N. Carvalho Geoff Freer Bruce May Pam Ryan Scott May Erin Sept Laurie Sewell Bill Zylmans Linda Reid, MLA

Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses

Richmond Farmers Institute Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 25, 2016 Page 1 of 5

3. Discussion – Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange with the Project Team:

Q: What additional salt wedge analysis is the Project Team undertaking?

R: Additional in-river work, in coordination with the Delta Farmers Institute (DFI). Northwest Hydraulics is undertaking additional analysis to complement past work undertaken by EBA. The Project Team has provided all available information to DFI’s consultant.

C: The Project scope does not include construction of a Blundell interchange, but is being built to accommodate a potential future interchange, including land acquisition. RFI would like the interchange to be built as part of the Project.

Q: Why might the City of Richmond not want a Blundell interchange?

R: The Project Team understands, based on meetings with Richmond staff, that because analysis indicates that having the interchange does not marginally improve local traffic, there is no need. It is also not needed for Highway 99 traffic within the timeframe of the GMT Project. It would take pressure off of No. 5 Road and Steveston Highway as well as Westminster Highway, but would create increased pressure on other local routes.

Q: What are the agricultural land requirements for the Project?

R: In Richmond, a small strip of land on the west side of the Highway between Blundell Road and Steveston Highway.

C: The City of Richmond has sent letter to all west side property owners for back land farm road access.

Q: What are people saying about tolls?

R: We’re getting a range of feedback. There appears to be a lot of support, given the need for the Project. Many people are asking about tolls on all crossings. Some don’t support tolling for any reason.

Q: Has there been a change in truck volumes north and south of the river as a result of the South Fraser Perimeter Road?

R: It’s too soon to say and will be hard to measure, since truck volumes are expected to increase throughout the Lower Mainland as a result of growth and increasing trade.

Q: What about tolling all bridges instead of only highways, or paying annually as part of insurance renewals to avoid the costs of managing the toll system?

R: These will be decisions for government. We will report out on the consultation results.

Richmond Farmers Institute Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 25, 2016 Page 2 of 5

Q: Is there any possibility to improve how to access Knight Street, such as a longer turn lane, as part of the Project?

R: The Project Team will follow up with our Ministry colleagues. Also, the City of Vancouver has announced plans to improve the off-ramp to Marine Drive.

C: The Oak Street bottleneck will be worse once all of the Oak and Cambie high- rise construction projects are complete.

R: Those projects are being designed close to Canada Line so that people can use transit for a lot of their travel needs.

C: SkyTrain needs more than two trains per station.

R: The stations were built so that the platforms can be extended if needed.

C: It’s hard for buses to get to the Bridgeport Canada Line.

R: That’s one of the reasons the Project includes dedicated ramps at Bridgeport. The expectation is that with improved, reliable bus connections, travel by transit will be more attractive for those who have an option.

C: With respect to plans for Rice Mill Road connections, RFI would like this as an alternate route for farm vehicles to cross Highway 99, such as from Triangle Road to No. 5 Road.

R: There is sufficient room to construct the access road with additional right-of- way. However, the City of Richmond would have to approve the connection and likely would need to make local road improvements to accommodate the new connection, which would be at the City’s cost.

C: RFI intends to follow up with the City in this regard. There is an upcoming Richmond Agricultural Advisory Committee meeting at which this could be raised.

C: The Measuring Success table in the PDR should include “improvements for agriculture”.

C: Blundell Road is a good connection for blueberry transport but Steveston Highway is for non-farming access.

Q: How much farmland will be lost or gained?

R: We don’t have exact numbers yet but anticipate a net gain in Richmond for sure and potentially also in Delta.

C: The drainage improvements that will be made on Highway 99 as part of this Project is also potentially very good for farming in Richmond. This would be a big benefit to farming.

Richmond Farmers Institute Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 25, 2016 Page 3 of 5

Q: Can you clarify the seismic risk issue with a new tunnel versus a new bridge? Tunnels are still being built in Europe, so why not here?

R: It’s really a factor of both our soil conditions and our seismic conditions in this area. There are lots of places in Europe that have our soil conditions, but they don’t have the same seismic conditions. This is a key consideration with respect to long-term operations as well as construction, because there is a greater risk of damage to the tunnel if a new tunnel is built beside it. To avoid this risk, we would need to construct further upstream or downstream, which would create significant land impacts.

Q: What work is being done at the tunnel now?

R: We’re drilling a test hole to confirm soil conditions – this builds on the information we already have and will help to confirm the size of the bridge towers needed to support the new structure.

Q: Will farm vehicles be permitted to use the new bridge (travel at a max speed of about 38 km/h)? Farmers farm on both sides of the river. We need access.

R: Yes, although likely with restrictions to time of day for over-wide or slow moving equipment.

C: Access for farm equipment like harvesters is key, but we would also like farm vehicles to be exempt from the toll.

Q: Given that Port Metro Vancouver has raised the possibility of deeper dredging, has the Ministry considered impacts on the salt wedge if the river is dredged deeper once the tunnel is removed? RFI is concerned about this. As far as we know, there was only once (in February when the river velocity is slower) where North Arm of the Fraser experienced salt issues, but the South Arm is more vulnerable. RFI supports a new bridge, but we need to understand the potential impacts. The Project Team should clearly demonstrate the “what if” scenario of dredging. What are the risks?

R: We are undertaking additional analysis. DFI has also raised this concern. However, it’s important to note that not only has Port Metro Vancouver indicated no current plans to dredge deeper, there are also several other underwater river crossings that would have to be addressed before additional dredging could even be considered, such as the Metro Vancouver water main.

C: More meetings are needed with Port Metro Vancouver to define how long is “long-term”. For farming, long-term means “for generations”.

C: RFI was pleased to hear that the Project scope includes plans for median barrier on Highway 99. RFI prefers supports this as an alternative to the City’s plans for a mid-island dike.

Richmond Farmers Institute Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 25, 2016 Page 4 of 5

Q: Will the new underpasses and overpasses be built to accommodate farm vehicles?

R: The reference concept calls for designs that meet the new, higher standard.

Q: Why does the City of Richmond want to construct a farm access road on the back lands of properties along Highway 99? This will take away viable farmland.

R: The City released a revised back land policy in December.

Q: Have you met with the farm property owners?

R: We have contacted all and met with most. We will continue meeting with individual farmers and look forward to continuing to work with RFI.

4. Report Out – Key Themes Pam Ryan reported on the key themes that were expressed during the meeting:

• RFI supports the new bridge and wants to ensure additional improvements for farming. • Potential benefits for farming include increased drainage on Highway 99, a net gain in agricultural land, improved access across Highway 99, and limited need for a future mid-island dike. • Importance of the salt wedge study, including potential effects of deeper dredging as a “what if” scenario. • Request for farm vehicle access across the bridge, construction of the Rice Mill Road access to accommodate farm vehicles, and consideration of toll exemptions for farm equipment.

5. Closing Remarks/Next Steps Geoff Freer thanked participants and reminded everyone to submit an online feedback form prior to the January 28, 2016 deadline. Pam Ryan encouraged participants to let other members of their respective organizations to do the same (the form is available online at www.masseytunnel.ca) and noted that written submissions are also welcome for those who wish to provide more comprehensive feedback about the Project.

Agreed to meet again in six months to discuss farm traffic access by the new bridge.

Richmond Farmers Institute Stakeholder Meeting – Summary held January 25, 2016 Page 5 of 5