Agenda Public Works and Transportation Committee MINUTES NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE PRESENTATION PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT DIVIS

Agenda

Public Works and Transportation Committee

Anderson Room, City Hall 6911 No. 3 Road Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:00 p.m.

Pg. # ITEM

MINUTES

PWT-5 Motion to adopt the minutes of the meeting of the Public Works and Transportation Committee held on February 21, 2018.

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

April 18, 2018, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

PRESENTATION

1. Leo Chan, Vice President, Canadian High-Speed Rail Research Institute, to present on the Richmond-Chilliwack High Speed Rail proposal.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

2. TRANSLINK SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN – FINAL PLAN (File Ref. No. 01-0154-04) (REDMS No. 5684886 v. 2; 5688976) PWT-81 See Page PWT-81 for full report

Designated Speaker: Victor Wei

PWT – 1 Public Works & Transportation Committee Agenda – Wednesday, March 21, 2018 Pg. # ITEM

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1) That TransLink’s Southwest Area Transport Plan, as attached to the report titled “TransLink Southwest Area Plan – Final Plan,” be endorsed for implementation; (2) That a copy of the report titled “TransLink Southwest Area Plan – Final Plan” be forwarded to the Richmond Council-School Board Liaison Committee for information; and (3) That Traffic Bylaw No. 5870, Amendment Bylaw No. 9816, to revise the posted speed limits on sections of Alderbridge Way and Garden City Road to support the planned transit improvements, be introduced and given first, second and third reading.

3. PUBLIC BIKE SHARE - PROPOSED PILOT PROJECT (File Ref. No. 10-6500-01) (REDMS No. 5754120 v. 4) PWT-113 See Page PWT-113 for full report

Designated Speaker: Victor Wei

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1) That staff be directed to issue a Request for Proposals for the development and operation of a public bike share system as a pilot project, as described in the staff report dated February 28, 2018, from the Director, Transportation; and (2) That staff report back on the responses to the above Request for Proposals with further recommendations prior to the award of any contract(s) and implementation of the pilot program.

ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION

4. WATER USE RESTRICTION BYLAW NO. 7784, AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 9774 (File Ref. No. 10-6060-03-01) (REDMS No. 5523527 v. 6; 5720988) PWT-122 See Page PWT-122 for full report

Designated Speaker: Lloyd Bie

PWT – 2 5775512 Public Works & Transportation Committee Agenda – Wednesday, March 21, 2018 Pg. # ITEM

STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784, Amendment Bylaw No. 9774 be introduced and given first, second and third readings.

5. 2018 CLOTHES WASHER REBATE PROGRAM (File Ref. No. 10-6650-02) (REDMS No. 5742106) PWT-162 See Page PWT-162 for full report

Designated Speaker: Lloyd Bie

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1) That the City of Richmond partner with BC Hydro to the end of 2018 to offer a combined rebate of $100 for the spring campaign and up to $400in the fall campaign, equally cost shared between BC Hydro and the City, for the replacement of inefficient clothes washers with new high efficiency clothes washers; (2) That the scope of the existing Toilet Rebate Program funding be expanded to include clothes washer rebates; and (3) That the Chief Administrative Officer and General Manager, Engineering and Public Works, be authorized to execute an agreement with BC Hydro to implement the Clothes Washer Rebate Program.

6. ODOUR REGULATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (File Ref. No. 10-6175-02-01) (REDMS No. 5760322 v. 4) PWT-166 See Page PWT-166 for full report

Designated Speaker: Peter Russell

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1) That a letter be sent to the BC Minister of Environment requesting that: (a) The definition of odour as an air contaminant be included in the BC Environmental Management Act and in the BC Organic Matter Recycling Regulation;

PWT – 3 5775512 Public Works & Transportation Committee Agenda – Wednesday, March 21, 2018 Pg. # ITEM

(b) The BC Organic Matter Recycling Regulation include a specific Odour Management Regulation establishing criteria and standards related to concentration and frequency of odorant emissions from composting facilities and define performance criteria for composting facility operations; and (c) They define a specific standard for how odours shall be measured, monitored, managed, treated, and discharged in a manner that minimizes impacts associated with odorous air contaminants; (2) That a letter be sent to Metro Vancouver requesting that: (a) Metro Vancouver update its bylaws and regulations related to composting facilities to establish criteria and standards with clear limits in terms of concentration and frequency for odorant emissions from composting facilities; and (b) Metro Vancouver appropriately resource its permit procedures with criteria and standards for composting facility permits to bring facilities into compliance with industry best practices for Composting Facilities.

7. MANAGER’S REPORT

(i) Referral from Community Safety Committee on traffic safety enhancement measures on River Road

ADJOURNMENT

PWT – 4 5775512 City of Richmond Minutes

Public Works and Transportation Committee

Date: Wednesday, February 21 , 2018 Place: Anderson Room Richmond City Hall Present: Councillor Chak Au, Chair Councillor Harold Steves Councillor Derek Dang Councillor Carol Day Councillor Alexa Loo Call to Order: The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00p.m.

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the meetings of the Public Works and Transportation Committee held on November 22, 2017 and January 24, 2018, be adopted as circulated. CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

March 21 , 2018, (tentative date) at 4:00p.m. in the Anderson Room

1. PWT - 5 Public Works & Transportation Committee Wednesday, February 21, 2018

ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION

1. FLOOD PROTECTION PROGRAMS UPDATE (File Ref. No. 10-6000-01) (REDMS No. 5722579 v.3) In reply to queries from Committee, Lloyd Bie, Manager, Engineering Planning, advised that (i) the east side of Lulu Island is protected by New Westminster dikes, (ii) staff are in constant communication with New Westminster regarding the condition of the dikes and ensuring they are moving in the same direction as the City, and (iii) should they fall behind or staff have any concerns, the City would consider separating from them. Mr. Bie then noted that the microbe based soil stabilization process is a process from Holland whereby chemicals are integrated into the soil to stabilize it and prevent liquefaction. John Irving, Director, Engineering advised that the current priority is the perimeter dike; however the existing flood management plan identifies a mid island dike as a future strategy. Mr. Irving stated that there have been many changes since the plan was brought forward in 2008 and he was of the opinion that the mid-island dike will be achieved through current development. It was moved and seconded That the process to update the 2008 - 2031 Richmond Flood Protection Management Strategy as identified in the report titled "Flood Protection Programs Update," dated January 22, 2018, from the Director, Engineering, be endorsed. CARRIED

2. 2018 ECOLOGICAL NETWORK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY UPDATE (File Ref. No. 10-6125-11-01) (REDMS No. 5682075 v.3) In reply to queries from Committee, Chad Paulin, Manager, Environment, advised that staff are working to manage the elodea plant invasion in Mariners Village while providing consistent updates to the Strata, and noted that staff will be providing Council with an update. Mr. Paulin stated that there is no current plan to ban the plant; however there are outreach programs to educate garden centres and pet stores on their products.

5755067 PWT - 6 Public Works & Transportation Committee Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Discussion took place on the Snow Goose Cover Crop Program, and in response to queries from Committee, Jamie Esko, Manager, Parks Planning, Design and Construction, advised that staff are working with YVR and the Farmers Trust to divert snow geese from the airport. She noted that the Nature Park Society has an outreach program to educate students and teachers on snow geese and that staff are working with the Richmond School District regarding the snow goose droppings on school grounds. Ms. Esko advised that more information regarding any monitoring measures can be provided to Committee. Committee requested that the 2018 Ecological Network Management Strategy Update report be forwarded to the Council/School Board Liaison Committee. It was moved and seconded That the staff report titled "2018 Ecological Network Management Strategy Update" dated January 25, 2018, from the Director, Engineering, be received for information. CARRIED

3. RICHMOND CARBON MARKET AND CARBON NEUTRALITY UPDATE (File Ref. No. 10-6125-05-01) (REDMS No. 5724399 v.9) In reply to queries from Committee, Levi Higgs, Corporate Energy Manager, advised that Pacific Gateway Hotels, Lafarge Canada and Paneva Services Ltd. came forward during the second call for projects. He noted that the Richmond Carbon Market Program posted a Notice of Opportunity on BC Bid, provided direct information to Richmond business through the City's Economic Development Office monthly newsletter and social media page, and solicited directly some ofthe participants that were involved in the City's original pilot program. It was moved and seconded (1) That the staff report titled, "Richmond Carbon Market and Carbon Neutrality Update," from the Director of Engineering, dated January 26, 2018 be receivedfor information; and (2) That the Chief Administrative Officer and the General Manager, Engineering and Public Works be authorized to negotiate and execute agreements to purchase carbon credits to maintain the City's corporate carbon neutrality status. CARRIED

5755067 PWT - 7 Public Works & Transportation Committee Wednesday, February 21, 2018

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

4. RICHMOND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE PROPOSED 2018 INITIATIVES (File Ref. No. 01-0100-20-RCYC1) (REDMS No. 5673705 v.2) Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, introduced Derek Williams, Co-Chair, Richmond Active Transportation Committee (RA TC). Mr. Williams thanked Council and staff for their support, noting that the Committee is made up of enthusiastic and dedicated people. Mr. Williams remarked that the bike share program will be a great addition and beneficial to the City. In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Wei advised that the pocketsize trail and cycling maps can be found at City Hall, and Richmond community centres, libraries, arenas and ice rinks. It was noted that maps can be distributed to the Richmond Oval. Lynda Parsons, 2491 No. 8 Road, expressed concern regarding cyclists along River Road. She noted that the Richmond Active Transportation Committee should be aware of all factors when considering road safety options on River Road. She advised that scientific studies state that, speed humps increase fuel consumption and emissions, and does not coincide with the City's emission reduction plans. It was moved and seconded (1) That the proposed 2018 initiatives of the Richmond Active Transportation Committee, as outlined in the staff report titled "Richmond Active Transportation Committee - Proposed 2018 Initiatives" dated January 24, 2018 from the Director, Transportation, be endorsed; and (2) That a copy of the report titled "Richmond Active Transportation Committee Proposed 2018 Initiatives" be forwarded to the Richmond Council-School Board Liaison Committee for information. CARRIED

5. RIVER ROAD - REVIEW OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE ROAD SAFETY ENHANCEMENT MEASURES (File Ref. No. 10-6450-09-01) (REDMS No. 5746643 v.2) Correspondence regarding Proposed River Road Safety Enhancement Measures was distributed (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 1). Fred Lin, Senior Transportation Engineer, distributed materials (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 2), and introduced Tom Baumgartner, Transportation Engineer, Watts Consulting Group.

5755067 PWT - 8 Public Works & Transportation Committee Wednesday, February 21, 2018

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Wei advised that are currently no speed cushions, which provide a softer vertical deflection compared to speed humps, installed in the City; however he noted that fire trucks are able to easily manoeuver over speed humps along Gilbert Road, which are more abrupt than the speed cushions proposed for River Road. Mr. Lin noted that there are various types of speed humps, depending on the designated speed, and advised that the proposed speed cushions for River Road are designated for a speed of 50km/h. He then stated that the recommended 20 speed cushions would be along the entire stretch of River Road. Mr. Lin noted that the public consultation would take place in April with two open houses and that all options would be considered. Discussion took place regarding the removal of speed cushions when dike improvements occur, and in response to queries from Committee, Mr. Lin advised that the speed humps are a short term measure and when dike upgrades occur, the speed humps would need to be removed. Mr. Irving further advised that the average life span of a paved asphalt road is 15 years, and as the raising of dikes would be within that time frame, road improvements would also be required. Trudy Haywood, 22160 River Road, read from her submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 3), and expressed concern regarding the (i) misleading and excessive signage along River Road, (ii) installment of speed cushions, and (iii) unsafe cycling on River Road. Dave Haywood, River Road resident, suggested limiting cyclists from riding on River Road. He noted that since RCMP Officers have been present, traffic has changed immeasurably and was of the opinion that speed cushions would not be necessary. Arline Trividic, 22600 River road, read from her submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 4), and expressed concern with regard to cyclists disobeying cycling regulations along River Road and provided some suggestions for increasing road safety along River Road. Joanne Fisher, 2420 No. 8 Road, read from her submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 5), and expressed concern regarding speed humps hindering emergency vehicle access in other municipalities. Lynda Parsons, 2491 No. 8 Road, read from her submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 6), and expressed concern with regard to the integrity of the consultant's report and requested that a public consultation not be endorsed and that speed cushions not be installed along River Road.

5755067 PWT - 9 Public Works & Transportation Committee Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Michael Hedigan, 21340 River Road, expressed concern with the proposed 76 speed cushions, noting that it would increase his travel time significantly. He was of the opinion that speed cushions would increase the traffic along River Road due to vehicles slowing down to travel over the speed cushions. He was of the opinion that (i) installing speed cushions will increase vehicle fuel consumption and mileage, and (ii) speed reduction will only occur with police presence. Mr. Hedigan suggested installing one bike lane along River Road for cyclists. Kelly Savage, 2571 No. 8 Road, commented on the proposed installation of speed cushions along River Road, noting that it would increase her travel time significantly each day and effect the farming business by hindering the tractors and trucks from travelling over speed cushions. Ms. Savage was of the opinion that only particular cyclists needed to be addressed regarding cycling protocol and that it could be achieved through more police enforcement in the area. Yves Trividic, 22600 River Road, read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 7), and expressed concern with the (i) statistics in the consultant's report, (ii) misleading signage, (iii) operating speeds, (iv) and improper cycling protocol. He was of the opinion that should speed cushions be installed, emergency response time would be hindered. Mr. Trividic was of the opinion that education and police enforcement is important. In reply to queries from Committee, Superintendent Ng, OIC, Richmond RCMP advised that RCMP officers have conducted four operations on River Road since February lih. He noted that 35 tickets of speeding violations were issued, one vehicle seizure for excessive speed, one ticket for use of electronic device, and three other violation tickets. He advised that Speed Watch volunteers have been out on River Road for three days since February li\ and have checked 200 licences and issued 30 warning letters. Superintendent Ng noted that the Integrated Road Safety Unit conducted enforcement on February 16th and issued 6 violation tickets. He then advised that the Richmond RCMP bike squad volunteers have met with the cycling community and begun their education campaign. He noted that the Integrated Road Safety Unit has been tasked with sustaining pressure on River Road. Discussion took place on cyclists on River Road, and in response to queries from Committee, Superintendent Ng noted that he believes there is a particular cycling group responsible for the unsafe riding practices and that efforts are being made to educate them on proper cycling protocol. In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Wei noted that staff considered installing pavement signs; however concluded that they would not be appropriate for River Road as the road is too narrow.

5755067 PWT - 10 Public Works & Transportation Committee Wednesday, February 21, 2018

In reply to queries from Committee, regarding sustainability of enforcement on River Road through the summer months, Superintendent Ng advised that as the weather becomes warmer, RCMP Officers will be busier with numerous events however sustained enforcement along River Road will continue. He noted that a privacy assessment is underway for the 175 Closed Circuit Television cameras approved by Council, and once all aspects have been approved by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, staff can examine the potential of installing cameras along River Road. In the interim, staff can explore the potential of a photo radar device to apprehend speeding vehicles when officers are not available. Committee noted that residents have expressed their concerns with regard to installing speed cushions along River Road and the negative impacts they may have on day to day operations for local business owners and residents of the area. As a result of the discussion the following referral motion was introduced: It was moved and seconded (1) That consideration of public consultation on road safety measures on River Road between No. 6 Road and Westminster Highway be deferred pending police enforcement through the end of the summer and staff report back on its effectiveness; and (2) That stafffurther examine safety measures other than speed cushions with funding options and report back. CARRIED

6. MANAGER'S REPORT

Snowfall Update Tom Stewart, Director, Public Works Operations, provided an update on snow preparations, noting that the City's primary and secondary roads have been primed. He remarked that due to the cold the roads will be slippery in the morning; therefore there will be a full crew out tonight to ensure commuter traffic can safely operate in the morning. He advised that the long-term forecast is cold; however no more snow is expected after this weekend. In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Stewart advised that staff can ensure that all the community centres parking lots and ramps are properly attended to.

5755067 PWT - 11 Public Works & Transportation Committee Wednesday, February 21, 2018

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded That the meeting adjourn (5:50p.m.). CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Public Works and Transportation Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Wednesday, February 21,2018.

Councillor Chak Au Sarah Kurian Chair Legislative Services Coordinator

5755067 PWT - 12 Schedule 1 to the Minutes of the ON TABLE ITEM Public Works & Transportation

Committee meeting of Richmond (J MayorandCouncillors City Council held on Wednesday, _ February 21, 2018. - From: MayorandCouncillors Sent: Monday, 19 February 2018 15:17 To: Wei, Victor Cc: Poweii,Jo Anne Subject: FW: Public Works and Transportation Committee Meeting - Feb, 21, 2018 Attachments: SpeedHumps_toMayor_Councillors3_Feb21.docx

Categories: -DISTRIBUTED ON TABLE,- TO: MAYOR & EACH COUNCILLOR/ FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

From: MayorandCouncillors Sent: Monday, 19 February 2018 15:17 To: Lynda Parsons ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Public Works and Transportation Committee Meeting - Feb, 21, 2018

Good afternoon Ms. Parsons,

This is to acknowledge and thank you for your email. Please be advised that copies of your email have been forwarded to the Mayor and each Councillor. In addition, copies will be available at the Wednesday, February 21st Public Works and Transportation Committee meeting.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with Richmond City Council.

Hanieh Berg I Legislative Services Coordinator / ·'II' ''I /\ )'1__ ,~~ I' City Clerk's Office I City of Richmond , / r ~ r1 ,_ ·""' , . 6911 No. 3 Road, Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1 I / iloJJI I, 1 l-. "'\ /, / \' 1 I \ \ I ! , \ :: c r: 2 0 ?018 ! FEB 2 0 2018 ) I I . \ I • .I '[1\ ) 1-i J !) /.:'

From: Lynda Parsons [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 19 February 2018 14:36 To: Loo,Aiexa; McNulty,Bill; Day,Carol; Au,Chak; Dang,Derek; Steves,Harold; Johnston,Ken; McPhaii,Linda; Brodie,Malcolm; MayorandCouncillors Subject: Public Works and Transportation Committee Meeting - Feb, 21, 2018

Dear Mayor Brodie and Council Members,

Please find enclosed details that I will present in a summarized form at the Meeting on Wednesday afternoon. I am sending this to you individually as well as through the City Clerk's office to ensure that you receive it, as this in a serious and important issue to the residents of this neighbourhood.

Because of the serious consequences to us, it is our hope that we will see many of you at this meeting

PWT1 - 13 Thank you.

Sincerely,

Lynda Parsons

PWT - 14 2 I would like to begin by stating that to date I have not received notification from Victor Wei, Director of Transportation that a report will be presented at the Public Works and Transportation Committee Meeting on February 21, 2018 as he was asked to do at the January 29, 2018 City Council Meeting. I located the report on the City of Richmond website, reviewed the report and offer the following: Observations and requests following review of the report:

1. There is no actual report- there is an "executive summary" with no indication as to who composed the report and performed the analyses. We would like this determined.

2. There is no hard data- the only actual number in the summary is that 8 cyclists were involved in accidents. We want to see the detailed data relating to the accident analysis- when, where, type of vehicle involved, cause of the accident, time of day etc.

3. There is no information on where they obtained the data on speed or traffic volume -we want to know when the data was collected, time period, number of vehicles, type of vehicles, speed of vehicles, time of day when speed was an issue etc.

4. There is no information on how installing speed humps would or would not affect our safety. We want to see their analysis on the impact of speed humps to the resident's safety.

5. We want to see the analysis on the impact to response times of emergency responders that speed humps would create.

6. We want to see where they recommend changing the double solid line configuration.

7. We would like to know why cyclists appear to be the main focus.

8. We are requesting that we receive a copy of the full report.

We have continuously stated that our safety- personal and that of our property- and how installing speed humps on River Road will impact our safety is our issue, yet the opening paragraph of the "Executive Summary" states: WATT Consulting Group was retained by the City of Richmond to undertake an independent traffic operations and safety review of the River Road corridor from No.6 Road to Westminster Highway. The study was commissioned in response to safety concerns raised by the public, particularly related to off-road crashes and to crashes involving cyclists. Speed hump installation and how this will impact our safety, was not the focus, rather cyclists were the main focus once again. In the Executive Summary by WATT Consulting Group, the word "cyclist or cyclists" appears 19 times "resident or residents" appears 0 times and "business or businesses" 0. Our concern, which resulted in the referral to Staff at the December 11, 2017 City Council Meeting, is the impact that the installation of speed humps will have on our safety. This has not even been considered by the independent traffic safety consultant, based on the summary that we received.

A Proposal to spend $1,147,000.000 to $1,430,000.00 of the City of Richmond's tax money to appease recreational cycling groups and put the residents' and business employees' safety at risk is unacceptable. To not even consider residentsPWT or business - 15 employees is deplorable In addition to receiving a copy of the full report produced by WATT Consulting Group, the following action from the City of Richmond Mayor and Council is requested:

1. That the Report to Committee from Victor Wei, P.Eng. Director of Transportation dated February 9, 2018 is NOT endorsed. This entire fiasco began with the referral to staff at the November 7, 2016 General Purpose Committee Meeting to "to examine the circumstances and the area around the accident that occurred on River Road on November 6, 2016 and report back". Report June 6, 2017:

"The Richmond RCMP investigation of the November 6, 2016 crash on River Road is substantially completed. The investigation concluded that roadway design did not play a factor in the crash and the likely cause is driver error."

This should have concluded the referral, but Staff grasped this opportunity to turn the only access to our property into an oversized cycling lane.

When this report was presented had Staff been advised that the report that they presented went beyond the scope of the referral, and that if cycling groups wish to turn River Road into a cycling lane by having speed humps installed then they would have to present this to Council, we would not be here time and again fighting for our right to be safe. Please, do not let this happen again by endorsing this report.

2. That any public consultation with respect to safety enhancements on River Road NOT be led by any of the current Transportation Department Staff, as they have shown that they are not able to accept our opinions as has been demonstrated in the past.

3. That the public consultation with respect to safety enhancements on River Road be spearheaded by one of our elected officials.

4. Acknowledge that the primary purpose of River Road is for residents and business employees to access their properties. Any non-resident traffic- either 2 or 4 wheel is using this road by choice. The residents and business employees are using River Road by necessity- it is the only access that we have to our property.

5. Ensure that ALL of the affected residents and Businesses are included in any discussions with respect to changes to River Road.

6. Place a moratorium on the installation of speed humps, speed cushions or other obstructions on River Road.

7. Deem the dangerous concrete sign bases unsafe and order that they be removed from River Road. There is already documented proof that these are indeed in an area where they can be hit. These sign bases are a danger to all who use River Road. They have been installed in excess and in a place where they can be hit. It is of utmost urgencyPWT - 16that these dangerous concrete sign bases are removed immediately. Two of the concrete bases and signs were struck between February 14 and February 18, 2018 which clearly indicates the necessity for the immediate removal. 8. Install only enough signs as are necessary and required to give notice to the users of the road. In accordance with the Manual of Standard Traffic Signs and Pavement markings- It is also most important to recognize that improper or excessive use of signs leads to disrespect and non compliance of the sign.

9. Repeal the June 26, 2017 resolution that approved "safety measures" on River Road which was: • Replace existing "Share the Road" signs with "Single File" signs at more frequent intervals • Paint the road with "Sharrow" markings which is a white bicycle with arrows • Install "Caution" signs to advise motorists to expect cyclists • Remove the remaining "eat's eye" road markers and replace with delineator posts mounted in the gravel shoulder • Conversion of the existing double solid centerline to a dashed single centerline at select locations More frequent intervals of signs is unnecessary and contrary to the requirements set out by the Province. The "sharrow" road markings would be a distraction for drivers and another total waste of taxpayers' money. "Caution" signs to alert motorists of cyclists is a waste of money- the cycling signs indicating "share the road" already advise that there are cyclists on the road. Removing the "eat's eye" road markers is the exact opposite of a safety enhancement- we need these to remain or to be replaced with another type of in-road marker. Delineator posts mounted in the gravel shoulder at the side of the road would be unacceptable, as these would be hit by vehicles, knocked down and rendered useless. We do want the centerline markings converted as indicated below.

10. Approve changing of the double solid centerline to a broken centerline on areas of River Road where it is safe for vehicles to pass. For years River Road had areas where there were broken centerline markings. It is unclear when and why these were converted to double solid lines.

11. Pass a by-law that promotes safe cycling through enforcement of the law and licencing of bicycles within the city. When I have lived in other Cities or Towns across Canada, every bicycle was required to have a licence issued by the City or Town. This was an actual licence plate with a unique number (like a miniature automobile licence plate). This made enforcement possible. The by-law could make it a requirement that, in order to ride a bicycle in the City of Richmond the bicycle must display a licence issued by and registered in the City of RichmondPWT or -registered 17 with another jurisdiction that issues bicycle licences. If the cyclist resides outside of Richmond and their home City does not issue bicycle licences they must register with Richmond and receive a licence prior to cycling in Richmond. Of course, latitude would be afforded to cyclists from outside of the GVRD. Fees for the licence should be minimal or free, however, the fine for not licencing the bicycle can be determined to cover the cost of enforcement. Having a licence on a bicycle also helps in returning lost/stolen bicycles to the owner. My initial thoughts on the cycling by-law was considered too harsh by some, but I would like to share it with you regardless:

As River Road has clearly been identified by cyclists as unsafe, and this view is supported by the Department of Transportation, the residents of this neighbourhood are requesting:

That the City of Richmond pass a by-law that restricts cycling on River Road by non resident cycling groups.

Our tax dollars have paid for multiple cycling lanes and these groups are welcome to use these, providing that they do so safely and with respect to Richmond residents. As the non-resident cycling groups have continually demonstrated that they are unwilling to be respectful in our neighbourhood they should not be welcome. This is a road that we require to access our properties -this is not a cycling lane. Cost to the taxpayers $0.00. Relief for neighbourhood taxpayers- priceless!

12. Ensure that RCMP Officers are present to enforce the motor vehicle act, including issuing tickets for illegal cycling as necessary- including on weekends.

13. Ensure that By-law Enforcement Officers are present to enforce City By-laws as necessary, and assist RCMP with enforcement - including on weekends

14. Monitor Staff to ensure that they are doing what is asked of them and not delving into projects that go beyond the scope of the referrals that lead to wasting of our tax dollars. Of course Staff members taking initiative and bringing forth ideas that enrich the City should be encouraged, however, these ideas should not be allowed to be slipped into reports and convoluted into the information that is to be approved by Council. 15. Listen to and act for the Voting Public. 60% of those allowed to participate opposed the installation of speed humps - to ignore this is unacceptable- why was the voting public's will dismissed? Canada is a democratic country and when we vote in our representatives, we expect that they will be our voice and not be swayed by the personal agenda of Staff members, 60% were against the installation of speed humps and had their concerns reduced to "perceptions" by City of Richmond Staff. For Staff to call their concerns perceptions in order to push through their personal agenda of speed humps is insulting and just wrong. Why are Staff allowed to waste our tax dollars to go against the will of the people who vote in this City?

PWT - 18 ON TABLE ITEM MayorandCouncillors

From: MayorandCouncillors Sent: Tuesday, 20 February 2018 07:13 To: Wei, Victor Cc: Poweii,Jo Anne Subject: FW: Public Works and Transportation Committee meeting on February 21, 2018

Categories: -DISTRIBUTED ON TABLE,- TO: MAYOR & EACH COUNCILLOR I FROM : CITY CLERK'S

OFFICE ...... , ,.,.., '\ 'I I / / . /y 0 . .,.._- ~

From: MayorandCouncillors ( \ FEB 2~ -l~:i Sent: Tuesday, 20 February 2018 07:13 .. ;. '. To: 'Steve Dee' "'./. Subject: RE: Public Works and Transportation Committee meeting on February 21, 2018

Good morning Mr. Dee,

This is to acknowledge and thank you for your email. Please be advised that copies of your email have been forwarded to the Mayor and each Councillor. In addition, copies will be avai lable at the W ednesday, February 21st Public Works and Transportation Committee meeting.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your views with Richmond City Council.

Hanieh Berg I Legislative Services Coordinator City Clerk's Office I City of Richmond 6911 No. 3 Road, Richmond, BC V6Y 2Cl

From: Steve Dee [.mailto:[email protected](:)] Sent: Monday, 19 February 2018 22:12 To: MayorandCouncillors Cc: [email protected] Subject: Public Works and Transportation Committee meeting on February 21, 2018

Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilors:

I am unable to attend this meeting in person and request that this email be read into the minutes of the meeting.

I live on our agricultural property on River Road where I operate a nursery for ornamental plants. I also lease another property on the road where we operate another farm . As part of our growing operation we use the road to make numerous trips between our 2 locations as well as deliveries. The installation of speed bumps would seriously inhibit our operations.

I was under the impression that it was a priority for the city to preserve agricultural land and promote local agriculture. I agree with the importance of safety but I do not agree with hindering the intended use of the road for the sake of

PWT1 - 19 recreation. It is too long to be restricted by speed bumps. I believe the current dyke reinforcing and widening which is happening will help make the road safer.

Thank you for your consideration,

Stephen Dee, 21200 River Road.

PWT2 - 20 ON TABLE ITEM

MayorandCouncillors

From: MayorandCouncillors Sent: Tuesday, 20 February 2018 07:11 To: Wei, Victor Cc: Poweii,Jo Anne Subject: FW: River Road speed humps proposal Attachments: River Road speed humps.docx

Categories: -DISTRIBUTED ON TABLE, - TO: MAYOR & EACH COUNCILLOR I FROM : CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

·. \ · FEB 2 0 lam \ From: MayorandCouncillors Sent: Tuesday, 20 February 2018 07:11 To: '[email protected]' Subject: FW: River Road speed humps proposal (

... .. 1...... t \. ~ ··-.... .:_.. Good morning Mr. Hobbs,

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with Richmond City Council.

Hanieh Berg I Legislative Services Coordinator City Clerk's Office I City of Richmond 6911 No . 3 Road, Richmond, BC V6Y 2Cl

From: Andy Hobbs [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 19 February 2018 20:54 To: MayorandCouncillors Subject: River Road speed humps proposal

Good evening,

Please find my comments regarding the speed humps on River Road attached.

Thank you,

Andy Hobbs

PWT1 - 21 Dear Mayor & Council:

Re: River Road Speed Hump Plan

Recently, I became aware of a plan to install about 54 speed humps along River Road between #6 Road and Westminster Hwy.

I can not attend the meeting this Wednesday due to a previous commitment so I am forwarding an email to express my opposition to this plan.

As a retired police officer, I've attended countless tragedies & numerous sudden death scenes including many gruesome traffic fatalities. I understand that River Road has been the location of some fatalities lately and, as a retired officer who had to investigate and notify family members, I'm more than familiar with the carnage and the human cost involved.

I have also been the officer in charge of a 90 member traffic section responsible for enforcement, education and engineering initiatives from a policing point of view and for working in close collaboration with our City and Provincial counterparts in improving road safety. In that role, I also served as the vice-chair of the B.C. Chiefs of Police Traffic Safety Committee.

I very much support road safety in our community.

However, it seems that this proposal places too much emphasis on the effectiveness of speed humps and that the City is listening to one particular interest group's agenda over all others.

First, the City seems to have a fixation with speed humps and seems to be willing to plunk them down on roads, in the middle of a neighbourhood, where they remain for decades. Once done, they will be there, effectively, forever.

Speed humps are not a panacea. They are a blunt, simplistic solution. Some concerns include:

• Speed humps are frequently too high & not deep enough (front to back). In my neighbourhood (Homma), the City installed two and if you slow down below 30 k, they are manageable. However, the speed limit is actually 50 kmh other then when school is in session. Although most people drive less than 50 kin the neighbourhood, even at 35 k or 40 k, a car gets rocked driving over them. They are too high and not deep enough. A speed bump is a different traffic device than a ·speed hump. Richmond tends to build big speed bumps and they are not desirable.

PWT - 22 • Likewise, along #3 Rd south of Steveston Hwy leading to the south arm, the speed limit is 50 k, except for a short school zone, 30 k school days. The point is, you can't drive 50 k comfortably over those humps because they are too high & not deep enough. • Speed humps affect large and shorter vehicles differently. Farm equipment, trailers, bins, motorcycles and short axles all react differently. • Speed humps don't address the issue of congestion on River Road which is narrow and a necessary route for commercial vehicles including trucks, cars and cyclists and other road users. Primarily though, it is not a cycling route and the speed hump solution seems to be designed, almost exclusively, to address concerns of the cycling community. • Speed humps are a 24/7 blunt instrument that do not account for times of the day and days of the week where it's predictably busy. They are not an intelligence based solution. • Speed humps can aggravate congestion if there are too many and if they are too high. That is a likely outcome with this proposal. • This plan has far too many and Richmond has demonstrated that they make them too high & not deep enough. This can negatively impact the efficient flow of traffic.

Importantly, speed humps don't address distracted driving and driver inattention.

Generally, it's agreed that road traffic safety is improved through engineering, enforcement and education.

Engineering: There are many options. Although, on this stretch of road, there are limitations since it's a narrow road with not much room for affordable changes like widening. It's an area with a very mixed road use of commercial, agricultural, residential as well as being a minor commuter route.

One (engineering) technology solution would require the Province to allow for "radar" speed enforcement. Set the threshold at a reasonable limit and the minority of irresponsible drivers would be penalized and change their behaviour. This isn't in the City's ability to change but the City could advocate through the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM). High tech enforcement of traffic laws is widely used throughout the world and B.C. is lagging behind. The City should lead the municipal charge to have the Province make the legislative changes required for speed on green, new versions of photo radar, and far greater red light intersection enforcement.

Education is important through the use of media, social media and signage.

PWT - 23 Education is a constant. It can be timed to seasons like the spring & summer when cycling increases or the fall when it's darker and the weather worsens. Clearly, it applies to all roads as well but it can be focussed on a particular road locations too. Australia has some of the best road safety education awareness programs.

Enforcement is a key. Road users including drivers and cyclists have to believe that there's a reasonable chance that violations of the rules will have consequences. This doesn't mean police have to be there 24/7. This can be intelligence based and focused on days of the week, hours of the day and weather when the predictive analysis maximizes the impact of enforcement. Behaviour can be changed. Outliers will exist but you can change the norms. Richmond has a very hard working Traffic Enforcement Unit.

Enforcement can be augmented by volunteer speed watch members and the Integrated Road Safety Unit (IRSU).

Other Solutions & Options

Rather than 54(?) speed humps, engineering solutions could include less permanent, less intrusive and more affordable options including:

• Appropriate signs, alerting road users to the speed limit, share the road, pass when safe etc. • Electronic speed warning signs. • Better street lighting. • Rumple strips patterns (small bumps, in patterns, that alert drivers at key locations) that are easier to travel over with bikes, trailers etc. These can include speed limit changes. These are very effective tools. • Road/lane delineators (plastic dividers) at key spots (driveways, curves). • Road reflectors.

To reiterate the speed limit issue, I do not support the proposal to lower the speed limit to 30 k, 24/7.

Perhaps, trucks could be 40 k and cars could be 50 k.

There is no justification to have cars restricted to 30 k on a 24/7 basis. It's important to remember that laws (rules) should be seen to be legitimate and 30 k, 24/7, along the entire road, is not legitimate. It's overkill and enforcing it 24/7 would put police officers in unnecessary potential conflicts with the public who

PWT - 24 would not see receiving a ticket for going 53 k in a 30 k speed zone, at 9 pm, on a nice summer evening, as legitimate or fair.

50 k in a car is a completely safe, reasonable and legitimate speed limit on City Streets, including River Road.

A very limited use of speed humps, done properly (not too high and deep enough), can be effective but they seem to be the flavour of the day in Richmond. Speed humps seem like a solution and give the impression of having done something but this proposal is overkill.

This plan is extremely expensive and very permanent.

Speed humps are not magic bullets and I encourage Council to listen to Richmond residents who live in the area and to not proceed with this plan.

Thank you,

Andy Hobbs

PWT - 25 ON TABLE ITEM Date: f c.b · '2.1 , "lOt~ MayorandCouncillors Meeting: Pub he li.)(lY \::.s -1-IYMS£l:' f'\C\tt oY) Item: ':5 ~'Vtr ~CLd From: MayorandCouncillors Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2018 08:37 To: 'Alec Herrmann' Subject: RE: Richmond Public Works and Transportation Committee meeting on February 21, 2018

Categories: -TO: MAYOR & EACH COUNCILLOR I FROM : CITY CLERK'S OFFICE,- DISTRIBUTED ON TABLE

Good morning Mr. Hermann,

Thank you again for taking the time to share your views with Richmond City Council.

Regards, ·~ .. t ...... ,.1'~~ ,"!'- """~~ ': 7--•n Claudia .. ; ' ' I, '-. • -.; "' .,

Claudia Jesson Manager, Legislative Services City Clerk's Office City of Richmond, 6911 No.3 Road, Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1 Phone: 604-276-4006 I Email: [email protected]

From: Alec Herrmann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:05 To: MayorandCouncillors Cc: Wallie Sohl; .E'.9I~Qo_s60§.@_hot.I'Dl!jLcorn Subject: Richmond Public Works and Transportation Committee meeting on February 21, 2018

To the City of Richmond,

I am unable to attend the meeting in person and I request this email be read into the minutes of the meeting (in subject line).

I currently live at 23280 River Road (5 years) and previously lived at 23220 River Road (10 years).

23220 River Road just so happens to be the exact address where a fatal bicycle- car collision occurred on 2016 November 6- the very incident that is prompting the city to install up to 76 speed humps on River Road .

In the several months after this terrible incident I was in agreement with a small number speed humps and even answered a city-issued questionnaire with that opinion. Now, after thinking about it more, and hearing

PWT 1- 26 that there may be up to 76 speed humps installed, and realizing the various implications speed humps will have, I have changed my stance and am now very much OPPOSED to speed humps on River Road.

Speed humps will not only affect the cars driving on River Road- they will also affect the very bicycle riders we are trying to protect. Much better to have a dedicated bicycle lane on River Road than speed humps.

Speed humps will slow down the response time of emergency vehicles that are trying to get to residents on River Road. I hear a fire engine go by my house at least 6 times a year and that is just during evening hours and weekends.

Speed humps will greatly annoy drivers who already have to put up with frequent long lines on River Road during rush hour traffic.

If you want to reduce the speeds on River Road, making the road harder to drive at higher velocities is not a good answer and this is a road that is already considered to be a narrow road with only 2 lanes. River Road is already somewhat difficult to drive in various sections, and even more so during inclement weather, so we do not want to make it worse for drivers. A better answer is proper enforcement of a speed limit. Maybe even consider bringing back speed cameras as a possible enforcement method for River Road?

Thank you for your time in listening to my opinion.

Alec Herrmann 23280 River Road Richmond V6V1M4

PWT 2- 27 ON TABLE ITEM Date: 'feb. 7.1 '2-.0\~ Meeting: fv..\z"< h,\otl:-'?> '\ fo.ns l? o\·~~<*1 MayorandCouncillors Item: 5 -- {1. ' 'Vtf ~oM\ - From: MayorandCouncillors Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2018 08:40 To: 'Avtar Thandi' Subject: RE: Presentation on Feb 21 Transportation Committee

Categories: -TO: MAYOR & EACH COUNCILLOR I FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE,- DISTRIBUTED ON TABLE

Good morning Mr. Thandi,

Thank you again for taking the time to share your views with Richmond City Council.

f"·'~ '· ~ """' ~- - ....,,,"' ~ """" Regards, / ' -' Lo 'o. , • • ' f: ~ ,, ·_.: 't / Claudia

Claudia Jesson Manager, Legislative Services City Clerk's Office City of Richmond, 6911 No. 3 Road, Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1 Phone: 604-276-4006 I Email: [email protected]

From: Avtar Thandi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 20 February 2018 16:00 To: MayorandCouncillors Subject: FW: Presentation on Feb 21 Transportation Committee

To all,

I do have concerns that the speed bumps will cause further accidents especially drivers that are not familiar with river road.

The bumps must be engineered properly so cars do not get out of control especially in wet and snow conditions ... that saying it will further cause serious accidents then help relieve the problem.

I will not be able to make the meeting but will forward this message to mayor and council and hopefully someone will read my email and my concerns

Avtar Thandi

PWT 1- 28 Schedule 2 to the Minutes of the Public Works & Transportation Committee meeting of Richmond City Council held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018.

RIVE ROAD (NO. 6 TO WESTMINSTER IGH AY) CITY OF RICHMO D

Traffic Operations Safety Review

Prepared for: City of Richmond

Prepared by: Watt Consulting Group

Our File: 2331.801

Date: February 20, 2018

PWT - 29 • !WATT C o n s ult l n~ Grou1'

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... E-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Study Approach ...... 1 2.0 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ...... 1 2.1 Background Traffic Conditions ...... 2 3.0 COLLISION ANALYSIS ...... 3 3.1 Collision Distribution ...... 3 3.2 Collision Map ...... 7 4.0 MULTI-MODAL SAFETY ANALYSIS ...... ,...... 9 . ' 4.1 Geometry ...... 9 4.2 Operations ...... 10 4.2.1 Operating Speeds ...... 10 4.2.2 Signage ...... , .. , ...... 10 4.2.3 Night Conditions I Lighting ...... 11 5.0 COUNTERMEASURES ...... 12 5.1 Countermeasure Targets ...... 12 5.2 Evaluation of Full Countermeasure Roster ...... 13 5.3 Proposed Countermeasures ...... 13 6.0 RECOMMENDATION ...... 18

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Full Roster Of Suggested Countermeasures

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 30 • !WATT Cou sullln g: Group

S :tH... ~:, I I18.3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Study Area ...... 2 Figure 2: 2011-2016 Annual Collision Distribution ...... 3 Figure 3: 2011-2016 Monthly Collision Distribution ...... 4 Figure 4: 2011-2016 Daily Collision Distribution ...... 4 Figure 5: 2011-2016 Time-of-Day Collision Distribution ...... 5 Figure 6: 2011-2016 Collision Severity Distribution ...... 5 Figure 7: Collision Configuration Distribution ...... 6 Figure 8: Collision Map, 2011 -2016 Collisions ...... 8 Figure 9: Proposed Countermeasures ...... 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Proposed Countermeasures ...... 14

River Road (No.6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond ii Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 31 • !WATT Consulting GrOUJ)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following Executive Summary is updated from the February 6, 2018 version and Addendum No.1.

Study Purpose and Background

Watt Consulting Group was retained by the City of Richmond to undertake an independent traffic operations and safety review of the River Road corridor from No. 6 Road to Westminster Highway. The study was commissioned in response to safety concerns raised by the public, particularly related to off-road crashes and to crashes involving cyclists. The study is also supported by ICBC, who may contribute funding to the implementation of the proposed options.

Method Used

The review generally followed the method recommended in the Transportation Association of Canada's Canadian Guide to In-service Road Safety Reviews. This method clearly identifies a problem statement then identifies countermeasures to address the issues identified.

Site visits were conducted on January 17 and 18, 2018- both at night and in the daytime and by bike riding the corridor and driving the corridor. Crash records from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia were reviewed for the six years between 2011 and 2016 (inclusive). The predominant crash types were identified along with the higher-crash locations. Actual vehicle operational speed profiles were also reviewed.

This study considered a broad range of countermeasures to address the identified collision issues, including countermeasures previously proposed by City staff, ICBC staff, as well as several proposed by members of the public. Additional collision-reduction countermeasures were proposed by WATT, resulting in the evaluation of a total of 29 measures.

Findings

On average, 20 crashes were recorded annually along the corridor. The crash data indicated the highest number of crashes are at the following locations: • No. 6 Road and River Road (22 percent of total collisions), and • River Road and Westminster Highway cuNe and intersection (21 percent of total collisions).

Of known collision configuration types, 33 percent were single vehicle off-road crashes, 9 percent were single vehicle- damage by debris, 31 percent were side impact or side-swipe crashes, and eight crashes involved cyclists (11 percent). The remainder were rear-end (13 percent) or head-on (3 percent).

River Road (No.6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond E-1 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 32 • !WATT Cnn ::.u l!lng Gro up

In terms of severity, 37 percent of the crashes were injury collisions and one percent were fatal collisions, which is typical for urban two-lane arterial roads when compared to the British Columbia average. One fatal collision occurred in 2016 involving a cyclist, and a second fatal collision occurred more recently outside the crash record period, involving a single vehicle going off-road.

The analysis indicates that most of the crashes were occurring on weekdays in the daytime, with very few collisions at night. Seasonal patterns for collisions were not evident.

The roadway design consists generally narrow lanes of variable width. There is also limited or no road-side shoulder in most areas. There is a steep drop-off to a ditch on the south side of the road in many areas which would be non-recoverable should a vehicle leave the roadway. There are utility poles, fire hydrants, trees, and fences close to the road in many areas.

Cyclist "Single File" signage was clear and implemented at a high frequency, however the additional messaging sign to drivers to change lanes to pass are difficult to read and comprehend at-speed and are contradictory to the double yellow centreline used along most of the corridor. Staff has a plan to revise the double yellow centreline to single broken lines at select locations to allow passing where safe.

Speed data was reviewed and generally the 851h percentile of the speeds measured was over 70 kilometers per hour. These travel speeds are considered high as the posted speed is 50 kilometres per hour (or 30 kilometres per hour for trucks) and the geometry of the road is not well-able to accommodate such high speeds. The rural nature of the road and area nonetheless may encourage some motorists to drive faster than is safe for conditions. A significant contributing cause of the crashes (both frequency and severity) is likely that drivers are traveling driving faster than the speed best-suited for the physical conditions. The road has an Average Annual Daily Traffic volume (AADT) of approximately 3,000 vehicles per day.

The corridor was found to be well-lit at night even in wet and rainy conditions, with most pavement markings being quite visible.

Problem Statement

The review of crash records identified four distinct collision patterns. After discussion with staff, it was confirmed that these four collision patterns are the issues that should be addressed with any safety countermeasures: • single vehicle crashes- off-road; • single vehicle crashes - damage from debris; • side impact and sideswipe crashes; and • cyclist-involved crashes.

In addition, the high travel speeds along the corridor are a concern given the characteristics of the roadway.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond E-2 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 33 • IWATT Con$ultlng Gruup

Proposed Countermeasures

The proposed countermeasures were evaluated to assess whether they addressed the identified collision issues described above. In general, the proposed measures include: • a package of sign and pavement marking improvements that provide consistent messages to drivers and cyclists; • improved maintenance, particularly to remove debris; • improvements to reduce off-road crashes such as increasing the pavement friction (to help motorists maintain control) at the two 90 degree curves; • measures to guide drivers through the two 90-degree turns.

To reduce the frequency and severity of all of the four identified collision issues, solutions are proposed to better align the operating speeds with the road conditions. Changes would either: • improve the road conditions to accommodate the actual vehicles operating speeds, or • reduce operating speeds to a more appropriate level relative to the road conditions.

Improving Road Conditions The road is classified as a secondary arterial which suggests that the road surface should be widened to standard, shoulders installed, and roadside hazards located sufficiently far from the edge of road or protected. As well, given the nature of the road adjacent the River and the recreational use it attracts, pedestrian and cycling facilities (and possibly equestrian facilities) should be considered. It is acknowledged that these improvements would come at a high cost and likely be done when the dyke is re-built and therefore an interim option should be considered.

Reducing Operating Speeds Reducing the vehicle operating speeds through traffic calming , regulation, and enforcement can be a cost-effective option which can be implemented relatively quickly. Reducing speeds can be achieved through physical measures that require vehicles to slow down, but may also include other traffic control elements that better reflect conditions.

Speed humps are a proven effective means of maintaining a lower operational speed whilst other speed calming measures and techniques do not have reliable results. Speed humps are appropriate on local roads however the modification of speed humps to create a "speed cushion" are more appropriate on collector and arterial roads such as River Road, particularly to accommodate emergency vehicles such as fire and ambulance. Cushions provide a softer vertical deflection compared to speed humps, and are typically installed with gaps to allow wider wheelbase emergency vehicles more easy passage while still requiring passenger vehicles to ride over the hump. Cyclists are not typically bothered by speed humps or cushions and this is evident by the existing installation of speed humps on the corridor. With cyclists "taking the lane" by driving single file in the middle of the lane they will have the option of driving over the speed hump or using the gap in the cushion without adversely affecting other traffic.

River Road (No.6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond E-3 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 34 • !WATT

Speed reader boards can also be effective in reducing speeds and alerting drivers they are going too fast for conditions. However, their effectiveness is more when first installed and gradually reduces over time, suggesting that movable devices be installed and their location be changed from time to time.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the City develop a long-term plan to widen River Road to a 50 km/h design speed and to provide for shoulders, and separate recreational users from general traffic (cyclists, pedestrians, equestrians).

In the interim, it is recommended that the City implement measures to reduce operating speeds and mitigate the occurrence of the four key collision types. Proposed measures include the installation of a series of speed cushions to minimize excessive speeds and keep motorists within an appropriate speed to share the road single file with cyclists (40 km/h or less). Speeds should be reduced further at the No. 6 Road and the Westminster Highway 90-degree curves. The speed cushions should be accompanied with appropriate speed hump warning signs, regulatory 30 km/h signs for all (including trucks), 20 km/h advisory speeds should be posted on 90 degree curve ahead signs at the two 90 degree curves. Speed reader boards should be installed, and should be movable so that different areas along the corridor can be benefited. Additional measures listed below should also be implemented as part of the short term and/or interim approach.

ICBC is a project partner, and funding from ICBC is likely available fo r many of the recommended measures.

TABLE ES-1: Summary of Proposed Countermeasures Time Estimated Proposed Countermeasure Justification and Benefit Frame Cost

Sign and Pavement Marking To clarify shared use motorist- Short $67,000 to Updates (including conversion to cyclist nature of the road and Term $180,000 single broken yellow centreline, to create clear and consistent addition of sharrow stencils, and messaging along the corridor. signage improvements). High end Narrow (shared) road and high estimate assumed conversion of up motorists speeds create speed to 7000m of double yellow to single differential and safety risk. broken markings, sharrows spaced Target: Reduce cyclist at 75m for the entire corridor, and collisions. up to 40 new signs.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond E-4 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 35 • IWATT Cousulll ng Group

Time Estimated Proposed Countermeasure Justification and Benefit Frame Cost

S1;1eed Reader Boards (assuming Speed reader boards provide Short $50,000 to four boards). Recommend that the direct feedback to drivers vis- Term $60,000 boards be movable, to reduce a-vis posted speed limit and driver complacency and allow for road conditions and can flexibility in application at areas of reduce speeds. Observed concern. speeds are currently faster than are safe for road conditions.

Target: Reduce speed-related collisions.

Curve Treatments, including Provide enhanced warning Short $15,000 to chevron warning signs (possible and guidance through sharp Term $50,000 LED enhancements). These would curves where collision be installed at the 90 degree frequency is higher. Sharp curves. curves may be unexpected after long, relatively straight and unimpeded approach.

Target: Reduce off-road collisions.

Pavement Treatments -to Provide increased driver Short $425,000 to increase friction (assumed 800 control through sh;;1rp curves Term $500,000 lane-metres of application; where collision frequency is assumed 200m length per lane at higher. Sharp curves may be each curve) unexpected after a long, relatively straight and unimpeded approach.

Target: Reduce off-road collisions.

Education (for both drivers and May increase driver Short Not cyclists, regarding shared roads understanding and behaviour Term estimated and single file operations. Could toward cyclists, and cyclists include informational material or understanding towards driver presentations to cycling groups.) behaviour, regarding desirable single file and passing behaviour.

Target: Reduce cyclist collisions

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond E-5 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 36 • !WATT Co usullln tl (;ro 11 11

Time Estimated Proposed Countermeasure Justification and Benefit Frame Cost

Increase Maintenance (more Reduce potential for collisions Short Not frequent debris clearing I street involving debris, or off-road Term estimated sweeping, and/or re-striping of collisions in areas where pavement markings). markings may be faded or obscured. Debris was a noted factor in some single vehicle collisions.

Target: Reduce debris-related and off-road collisions.

Traffic Calming - S12eed Cushions This design will minimize Interim $325,000 to excessive speeds and keep $350,000 Reduce posted speed limit to 30 motorists within an appropriate for initial km/h for all vehicles with traffic speed to share the road with installation calming comprising 43 speed cyclists. Speed cushions have of 43 speed cushions: lesser response time impacts cushions. • 13 sets of 3 speed cushions to emergency vehicles than spaced at 1 00 m between speed humps. Narrow the curves with a minimum (shared) road and high $250,000 to of 400 m between each set motorists speeds create speed $275,000 • 1 set of 3 speed cushions differential and safety risk for for Phase 2 on No. 6 Road approaching cyclists. Observed motorist installation River Road, and speeds are currently faster of 33 speed • 1 speed cushion on River than are safe for road cushions (if Road approaching conditions. required). Westminster Highway. Target: Reduce cyclist If the above speed cushions do not collisions, reduce off-road achieve 40 km/h operating speeds, collisions, and reduce then 11 additional sets of 3 speed sideswipe collisions. cushions (33) can be installed between the gaps for a combined total of 76 speed cushions.

Re-Build Dyke and Road Design would match the Long Not secondary arterial roadway Term estimated classification, and accommodate all road users.

Target: Reduce all collisions.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond E-6 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 37 • !WATT Con sulti ng G1uup

Time Estimated Proposed Countermeasure Justification and Benefit Frame Cost

Enforcement Enforcing vehicle speeds and Short Not other rules of the road (e.g. and estimated passing behaviour) can Long improve safety. The benefits, Term however, lessen over time unless enforcement is frequent or continual (which may be prohibitive).

Target: Reduce all collisions.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond E-7 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 38 • !WATT Consulll nH Gt oup

1.0 INTRODUCTION Watt Consulting Group was retained by the City of Richmond to conduct a traffic operations safety review (TOSR) for the section of River Road between No. 6 Road and Westminster Highway. The study was commissioned in response to safety concerns raised by the public, particularly related to off-road crashes and to crashes involving cyclists. The study is also supported by ICBC, who may contribute funding to the implementation of the proposed options.

A traffic operations safety review is a structured review of existing road facilities that analyzes collision history, traffic operations, geometric characteristics, and an assessment of human factors, through in-field and analytical reviews. The TOSR is multi-modal in scope, and considers all road users, travel modes and the interactions between users. Based on the review of these categories, several countermeasures are proposed which may lower safety risk, and a recommendation is made regarding countermeasure implementation.

1.1 STUDY APPROACH The TAC Canadian Guide to In-service Road Safety Reviews was used as the basis for the study approach. This was complimented with consideration of other relevant guides, such as:

• FHWA Bikeway Safety Guide • T AC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads • TAC Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada

The assessment considered four key areas: collision analysis, operations analysis, geometric analysis, and human factors analysis. Included within these areas were considerations for asset condition I maintenance as related to road safety. The study process included input and general direction from City staff, including meetings, data provision, and feedback at key stages. This study considered a broad range of countermeasures to address the identified collision issues, including countermeasures previously proposed by City staff, ICBC staff, and members of the public, as well as additional collision-reduction countermeasures proposed by WATT.

2.0 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW The study area is shown in Figure 1. River Road is a two-lane secondary arterial road on a dyke bordering the Fraser River. It is rural in design and adjacent land uses, with no curbs or sidewalks. The posted speed limit is generally 50 km/h, except 30 km/h for trucks, although there is also section in the middle of the corridor that currently has speed humps installed, and in this area the posted speed limit is 30 km/h for all users. The road serves area residents and businesses (including commercial/industrial land uses along the western portion of River Road). The road also serves as a popular touring cyclist route on weekends. It is designated as an informal cycling route - shared lane facility per the City's Recreational Trails & Cycling Map. It is

River Road (No.6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 39 • IWATT Con sultin g Grou1•

also identified as an on-street connector segment for several of the City's scenic routes and trails (for cyclists and motorists alike)1.

Figure 1: Study Area

2.1 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic volumes and speeds were reviewed for the corridor. Data was provided by the City for two locations along the corridor (19000 block and 21000 block of River Road).

The road has an Average Annual Daily Traffic volume (AADT) of approximately 3,000 vehicles per day at both locations. This volume is in the range of a typical rural collector road per the Transportation Association of Canada (5 ,000 vehicles/day or less for rural collector roads). Classification data was not readily available from the traffic count data. Anecdotally there was a high volume of trucks near the west end of River Road, near No.6 Road. To the east there is a truck weight limit of 9 tonnes, which should restrict the number of heavy vehicles on this segment of road.

In terms of vehicle speeds, the 85th percentile of the speeds measured were generally over 70 kilometers per hour. These travel speeds are considered high as the posted speed is 50 kilometres per hour (or 30 kilometres per hour for trucks) and the geometry of the road is not well-able to accommodate such high speeds (see Section 4.1 ). The rural nature of the road and area nonetheless may encourage some motorists to drive faster than is safe for conditions. A

1 https ://www.ri chmond .ca/parks/trails/highlights/exploring.htm

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 2 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 40 • IWATT Cousullln g: GrOUil

significant contributing cause of the crashes (both frequency and severity) is likely that drivers are traveling driving faster than the speed best-suited for the physical conditions. In particular some vehicles were observed to drive and pass other motorists at excessive speeds during the site visits in the east portion of River Road.

This review did not focus on the capacity performance of the road nor its intersections, as volumes are relatively low and delay was not considered to be a relevant issue by the City.

3.0 COLLISION ANALYSIS Collision data for the study area were obtained via City of Richmond staff, and are based on ICBC-reported collisions, for the six-year period from 2011 to 2016. The dataset includes a number attributes that can be used to investigate characteristics, possible contributing factors, and trends.

3.1 COLLISION DISTRIBUTION The 2011-2016 annual collision distribution is shown in Figure 2. On average, 20 collisions per year were recorded for the study area over the six-year period (121 collisions in total over 6 years). Although the number varies each year, no discernable trend is apparent.

0 2011 201 2 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year

Figure 2: 2011-2016 Annual Collision Distribution

The 2011-2016 monthly collision distribution is shown in Figure 3. The highest number of crashes occurred in May, followed by December. The higher frequency for December crashes may be due to icy or snowy conditions.

River Road (No . 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 3 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 41 • !WATT

20 18 16 > ~ 14 ~ 12 0" tJ! 10 u.. ..c: 8 "'ro 6 u 4 2 0

Month

Figure 3: 2011-2016 Mo'nthly Collision Distribution

The 2011-2016 daily collision distribution is shown in Figure 4. The data indicates that the weekdays experienced the highest numbers of crashes.

c:G" 20 ::sIll 0" ~ 15 u.. ..c:.. !'!! 10 u

DayoftheWeek

Figure 4: 2011-2016 Daily Collision Distribution

The 2011 -2016 time-of-day distribution of the recorded collisions is shown in Figure 5. Higher collision frequencies occurred during the daytime, generally between 6:00 am and 6:00 pm.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 4 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 42 • IWATT Cn usullln g: Gro up

25 >u ~ 20 ::J 0'" ~ 15 u.. ...c: ...~ 10 u 5

0 II!Fdn !ght- 3:00-6:00 6:CG-9:00 9:00-12:00 12:00- 15:00- 18:CO- 2:!.:0()· 3:00 15:00 18:00 21:1)0 M•idn;ght Time Category

Figure 5: 2011-2016 Time-of-Day Collision Distribution

The 2011-2016 collision severity of the recorded crashes is illustrated in Figure 6. Slightly more than one-third of the crashes were injury or fatal collisions. This is consistent with the provincial average for similar roads (urban two-lane roads with AADT between 0 and 5,000 vehicles/day) and so collisions on River Road are not considered more severe than elsewhere in British Columbia. The data included one fatal collision that occurred in 2016 involving a cyclist. A second fatal collision occurred more recently outside the crash record period, involving a single vehicle going off-road.

Fatal 1%

Injury 37%

Property Damage 62%

Figure 6: 2011-2016 Collision Severity Distribution

The configuration of crashes as assessed by ICBC for the 2011-2016 collision dataset is illustrated in Figure 7. There were 51 collision records omitted from this analysis where the configuration was unclear and/or the reports of the reporting parties conflicted.

River Road (No.6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 5 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 43 • IWATT Con s u ll ln ~ Group S:tl&.."-' 1'18.3

Head On, 3%

Single Vehicle, 41%

Side Impact I Sid esw ipe, 31%

Rear End, 13%

Figure 7: Collision Configuration Distribution

Of known collision configuration types, the greatest proportion (41 percent) of crashes were single vehicle collisions. Approximately one-fifth of these were caused when a vehicle was damaged when driving over a rock or a concrete. The remaining were caused by a vehicle leaving the road (in some cases due to weather-related surface conditions, some due to debris such as sand that contributed to the vehicle departing the roadway).

The next-highest group of crashes involved a side impact or side-swipe configuration (31 percent). Several rear-end crashes occurred (13 percent), although this is a relatively low percentage when compared to a typical roadway, and many of these were side-street rear-ends at River Road (as opposed to rear-ends along River Road). Cyclists were involved in 11 percent of crashes where the configuration was known.

Heavy vehicles were involved in 17 percent of corridor crashes (of which 20 percent were injury collisions).

Summary

The analysis of the collision distributions indicates that most of the crashes occurred on weekdays in the daytime, with few collisions at night. Seasonal patterns for collisions were not evident. The severity of the collisions was found to be typical when compared to other provincial roads. The critical collision patterns were found to be: • single vehicle crashes- off-road; • single vehicle crashes- damage from debris; • side impact and sideswipe crashes; and • cyclist-involved crashes.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 6 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 44 • IWATT Cou sulll ng Gru u1'

3.2 COLLISION MAP Key collision locations are summarized below in terms of total collisions in six years and the collision frequency (collisions/year). Collision rate (collisions per million entering vehicles) was not estimated as complete intersection traffic data was unavailable.

Figure 8 shows the collision diagram.

In the study corridor, the locations with the highest frequency of collisions are:

• No. 6 Road and River Road (22 percent of total collisions), and • River Road and Westminster Highway curve and intersection (21 percent of total collisions).

Other than the curve locations, there are in general no other specific locations that are notably higher in collision frequency than others. There are, however, more collisions in the western half of the corridor than the eastern half.

Cyclist collisions occur at locations along the corridor, although there are more cyclist collisions in the vicinity of the curve at Westminster Highway than other areas of the corridor (two at or near the curve, as well as one at Westminster Highway itself).

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 7 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 45 Frequency of Reported Collisions, 2011-2016 River Road (No.6 Road to Westminster Highway), Richmond PWT -46

0 1-5 0 6-10

0 11-15

0 16-20 0>20

City of Richmond . D 1205- 789West Pender Street River Road Traffic Safety and Operational Review Vancouver, BC V6C 1H2 O D D IWATT (250) 388- 9877 Project No: 2331 I Date: February 14, 2018 I Drawn By: VN =:·' O Consulting Group www.wattconsultinggroup.com • IWATT Co nsullln g Group

4.0 MULTI-MODAL SAFETY ANALYSIS The operational, geometric, and human factor elements were considered for the corridor and key intersections for all travel modes. This was done via site visits, aerial photos and mapping, and data and reports as received from the City. For the site visits, daytime cond itions were observed by vehicle on January 17 and 18, 2018, and by bicycle on January 18, 2018. Evening conditions were observed by vehicle on January 17, 2018. Due to the time of year it was not possible to observe peak weekend cycling activity and conditions.

4.1 GEOMETRY The roadway design is a two-lane rural road cross-section, with generally narrow lanes of variable width. There is also limited or no road-side shoulder in most areas. There is a steep drop-off to a ditch on the south side of the road in many areas which would be non-recoverable should a vehicle leave the roadway. There are utility poles, fire hydrants, trees, and fences close to the road in many areas (less than one metre away from edge of pavement in some cases).

River Road Looking East (west of No. 7 Road). River Road Looking East (near No.6 Road). Narrow Road, Minimal Shoulder, Steep Ditch to Utility pole close to edge of road. the Riaht. Fence near Road to the Left

The rural road cross section (with no sidewalks or curbs) along with rural and undeveloped nature of the area (particularly east of No. 7 Road) can inherently promote higher speeds, in particular as there is no traffic control to stop vehicles along the length of the 8.3km corridor nor are there many intersections. The speeds that result are, however, in excess of what is safe for motorists given the roadside hazards, and are in excess of what is safe for a single-file shared roadway with cyclists.

The geometry at the curves at No. 6 Road and near Westminster Highway is abrupt and sharp. These curves have Advisory Warning Speeds of 20 km/h which is appropriate given the sharp curve geometry. In consideration of a roadway designation of secondary arterial it is not desirable to have such sharp curves, however land acquisition would be required to provide larger radius curves with design speeds closer to that to the majority of the corridor. In addition, the abrupt curves can serve as a "gateway" transition onto the rural River Road from the more urban approach roads at either end of the corridor.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 9 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 47 • IWATT Consulting Group s*.. 'L j'1S.3

The geometry of specific intersections was not identified or apparent as a concern, and generally typical for rural intersections in Richmond and the lower mainland.

4.2 OPERATIONS

4.2.1 OPERATING SPEEDS

As noted in Section 2.1, 851h percentile speed are in excess of the posted speed limit for general vehicles (50km/h) and even moreso for the 30 km/h speed limit for trucks. The speed differential between high-speed motorists and cyclists is likely greater than between motorists-motorists or motorist-trucks. This speed differential can contribute not only to the occurrence of collisions but to the severity as well.

4.2 .2 SIGNAGE Cycling Signage The City has recently installed Share the Road -Single File signage at frequent inteNals along the corridor. The sign is the TAC version of the sign , and is appropriate given the lane widths of the road. In addition, the signs are accompanied with additional warning signs: one identifies "Single File- Change Lanes to Pass When Safe", and the other "Caution - High Cycling Activity on Weekends". The intent of these signs is to appropriately warn motorists and cyclists of proper roadway operations, however there are some potential safety concerns based on the current signage design: • The text is small and difficult to read , and the messages are long. This can make it very difficult for motorists to interpret the message while driving by at speed. This is exacerbated by combining multiple messages on the same pole. • The message to change lanes to pass when safe does not match the majority of the pavement markings along the corridor, which are (in most areas) double yellow. This prohibits lane changing, which is contradictory to the warning signage message.

It should also be noted that there are some cuNed areas of the road where passing sight distance may not be met at 50 km/h . Further work is necessary to identify all of these locations.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 10 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 48 D • IWATT Con su lting Group· Sio'"" 1 ~83

Cycling Single File Signage - Text Difficult to Signage Instructing to Change Lanes to Pass when Read and Interpret At-speed Safe, but Double Yellow Marking Contradicts This

In terms of cycling comfort, during the site visit ride-through, motorists were generally respectful when approaching and passing cyclists.

Truck Speed Limit Signage The truck speed limit signs were used in some locations but not consistently throughout the corridor. In particular they were not noticed at either end when entering the corridor

Other Signage Additional signage observations were noted that may not have a major safety implication but nonetheless be inconsistent or have impacts on driver comprehension and safety to some degree, as follows: • Horse Crossing warning signage; one isolated instance observed, and not particularly obvious why or to what extent this warning signage is applicable for. • Truck signage near No. 7 Rd (westbound) was confusing (overloaded pole included a green permitted truck sign, a turn restriction sign, and a weight restriction 9T sign), which is intended to restrict westbound trucks from using No.7 Rd. • A few relic "share the road -side by side" signs still installed. These appear to be lower reflectivity than the single file signs.

4.2.3 NIGHT CONDITIONS I LIGHTING During the evening visit, the road surface was wet, and there were periods of rain during the evening site visit. Key observations include:

• Signage was very reflective (specifically the Single File and Posted Speed Limit signs) • Centreline markings, edge line markings, and raised reflectors very visible for majority of corridor. There were a few pockets nearer to the west end where edgeline was not present or visible, or where centreline marking was worn.

River Road (No.6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 11 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 49 • IWATT

• Lighting was good and frequent for entire corridor. Approximately 5 lights were out (should be addressed) but the overall frequency and intensity of lighting provided coverage even in those locations. • The short section of centreline pickets- these pickets were not visible or reflective; did not see or notice until almost right beside them

Therefore, the corridor was found to be well-lit at night even in wet and rainy conditions, with most pavement markings being quite visible.

5.0 COUNTERMEASURES 5.1 COUNTERMEASURE TARGETS To reduce the frequency and severity of all of the four identified collision issues, solutions should better align the operating speeds with the road conditions. Changes would either:

• improve the road conditions to accommodate the actual vehicles operating speeds, or • reduce operating speeds to a more appropriate level relative to the road conditions.

Improving Road Conditions The road is classified as a secondary arterial which suggests that the road surface should be widened to standard, shoulders installed, and roadside hazards located sufficiently far from the edge of road or protected. As well, given the nature of the road adjacent the river and the recreational use it attracts, pedestrian and cycling facilities (and possibly equestrian facilities) should be considered. It is acknowledged that these improvements would come at a high cost and likely be done when the dyke is re-built and therefore an interim option should be considered.

Reducing Operating Speeds Reducing the vehicle operating speeds through traffic calming, regulation, and enforcement can be a cost-effective option which can be implemented relatively quickly. Reducing speeds can be achieved through physical measures that require vehicles to slow down, but may also include other traffic control elements that better reflect conditions and elicit appropriate driving speeds and behaviours.

River Road (No.6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 12 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 50 • IWATT Co usult ing Gro up

evident by the existing installation of speed humps on the corridor. With cyclists "taking the lane" by driving single file in the middle of the lane they will have the option of driving over the speed hump or using the gap in the cushion without adversely affecting other traffic.

5.2 EVALUATION OF FULL COUNTERMEASURE ROSTER The countermeasures that were proposed by the various groups were evaluated to asse-ss whether they addressed the identified four major collision issues identified in this review. An explanation was also provided as to why a measure may have been proposed or not. Based on this preliminary screening, a list of proposed measures is proposed. See Appendix A for the full list of countermeasures and evaluation results.

5.3 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES The proposed measures are summarized in Table 1 and shown conceptually in Figure 9 - Proposed Countermeasures. In general, the proposed measures include:

• a package of sign and pavement marking improvements that provide consistent messages to drivers and cyclists; • improved maintenance, particularly to remove debris; • improvements to reduce off-road crashes such as increasing the pavement friction (to help motorists maintain control) at the two 90 degree curves; • measures to guide drivers through the two 90-degree turns.

The summary table includes the general application details of the countermeasure, the justification and benefit of the countermeasure, the applicable implementation timeframe, and cost estimate.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 13 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 51 • IWATT Con sultln!! Group

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES Time Estimated Proposed Countermeasure Justification and Benefit Frame Cost

Speed Reader Boards (assuming Speed reader boards provide Short $50,000 to four boards). Recommend that the direct feedback to drivers vis- Term $60,000 boards be movable, to reduce a-vis posted speed limit and driver complacency and allow for road conditions and can flexibility in application at areas of reduce speeds. Observed concern. speeds are currently faster than are safe for road conditions.

Target: Reduce speed-related collisions.

Target: Reduce off-road collisions.

Pavement Treatments -to Provide increased driver Short $425,000 to increase friction (assumed 800 control through sharp curves Term $500,000 lane-metres of application; where collision frequency is assumed 200m length per lane at higher. Sharp curves may be each curve) unexpected after a long, relatively straight and unimpeded approach.

Target: Reduce off-road collisions.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 14 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 52 • IWATT Co usultlng Gro up

Time Estimated Proposed Countermeasure Justification and Benefit Frame Cost

Education (for both drivers and May increase driver Short Not cyclists, regarding shared roads understanding and behaviour Term estimated and single file operations. Could toward cyclists, and cyclists include informational material or understanding towards driver presentations to cycHng groups.) behaviour, regarding desirable single file and passing behaviour.

Target: Reduce cyclist coiHsions

Increase Maintenance (more Reduce potential for coiHsions Short Not frequent debris clearing I street involving debris, or off-road Term estimated sweeping, and/or re-striping of collisions in areas where pavement markings). markings may be faded or obscured. Debris was a noted factor in some single vehicle coiHsions.

Target: Reduce debris-related and off-road collisions.

Traffic Calming- SQeed Cushions This design will minimize Interim $325,000 to excessive speeds and keep $350,000 Reduce posted speed Hmit to 30 motorists within an appropriate for initial km/h for all vehicles with traffic speed to share the road with installation calming comprising 43 speed cyclists. Speed cushions have of 43 speed cushions: lesser response time impacts cushions. • 13 sets of 3 speed cushions to emergency vehicles than spaced at 100 m between speed humps. Narrow the curves with a minimum (shared) road and high $250,000 to of 400 m between each set motorists speeds create speed $275,000 • 1 set of 3 speed cushions differential and safety risk for for Phase 2 on No. 6 Road approaching cyclists. Observed motorist installation River Road, and speeds are currently faster of 33 speed • 1 speed cushion on River than are safe for road cushions (if Road approaching conditions. required). Westminster Highway. Target: Reduce cyclist If the above speed cushions do not collisions, reduce off-road achieve 40 km/h operating speeds, collisions, and reduce then 11 additional sets of 3 speed sideswipe collisions. cushions (33) can be installed between the gaps for a combined total of 76 speed cushions.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 15 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 53 • IWATT Cousulll n!:! Group

Time Estimated Proposed Countermeasure Justification and Benefit Frame Cost

Re-Build D~ke and Road Design would match the Long Not secondary arterial roadway Term estimated classification, and accommodate all road users.

Target: Reduce all collisions.

River Road (No.6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 16 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 54 River Road Traffic Operations Safety Review- City of Richmond Proposed Countermeasures

-l0 l Speed Cushions PWT -55

Cycling and Passing ~ ~ F~ ~a

Additional Countermeasures (Entire Corridor) Sign and marking updates for cycling and passing zones Education Increased Maintenance Enforcement

D IWATT • !WATT Cousullln g Gnw 1•

6.0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City develop a long-term plan to widen River Road to a 50 km/h per hour design speed and to provide for shoulders, and separate recreational users from general traffic (cyclists, pedestrians, equestrians).

In the interim, it is recommended that the City implement measures to reduce operating speeds and mitigate the occurrence of the four key collision types. Proposed measures include the installation of a series of speed cushions to minimize excessive speeds and keep motorists within an appropriate speed to share the road single file with cyclists (40 km/h or less). Speeds should be reduced further at the No. 6 Road and the Westminster Highway 90-degree curves. The speed cushions should be accompanied with appropriate speed hump warning signs, regulatory 30 km/h hour signs for all (including trucks), 20 km/h advisory speeds should be posted on 90 degree curve ahead signs at the two 90 degree curves. Speed reader boards should be installed, and should be movable so that different areas along the corridor can be benefited. Additional measures listed in the table above should also be implemented as part of the short term and/or interim approach.

ICBC is a project partner, and funding from ICBC is likely available for many of the recommended measures.

River Road (No. 6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 18 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 56 • IWATT Consulting Group

APPENDIX A: FULL ROSTER OF SUGGESTED COUNTERMEASURES

River Road (No.6 to Westminster Highway) City of Richmond 19 Traffic Operations Safety Review PWT - 57 Watt Consulting Group February 20, 201 B Our Project# 2331

LIST OF COUNTERMEASURES FOR EVALUATION

River Road Traffic Operations and Safety Review, No. 6 Road to Westminster Highway

Collision Issue Proposed for further consideration Proposed ../ =if the countermeasure may address # Countermeasure (safety review report short list) By Single Vehicle Cyclist Side Involved Off-Road Debris Impact Proposed Explanation Cost-effective approach to Speed Humps and/or City Staff, 1 ..; ..; ..; Yes lower speeds, helps all Cushions ICBC collisions, reduces severity.

2 "Single File" Signs City Staff ..; ..; Yes Low cost.

11Sharrow" Pavement 3 City Staff ..; Yes Relatively low cost. Markings Dashed Single Yellow Permits passing in designated 4 City Staff ..; ..; Yes Centreline locations. Limited impact, redundant, 5 "Expect Cyclist" Signs" City Staff ..; No non-standard signage. Remove Raised Pavement 6 City Staff ..; Maybe Minimal effect. Markers (Cal's Eyes) City Staff, Being installed by City now on 7 Shoulder Delineator Posts ..; Yes ICBC curves.

8 Guard Rails on Curves Resident ..; No Expect insufficient space.

Further research required, 9 Solarlite Edge Markers Resident ..; Maybe may be limited in winter. Reflective Markers on 10 Resident ..; Yes Low cost. Roadside Objects Increase Speed Limit to 60 11 Resident No No expected safety benefit. kph, with exceptions Reduce Speed Limit to 30 Will require measures to 12 Resident ..; ..; ..; Yes kph at Shipyard encourage compliance. Flashing Caution Signs at Low cost, but does not 13 Resident No Shipyard address issues. Relatively low cost. Lower 14 Speed Reader Board(s) Resident ..; ..; ..; Yes speeds helps all collision types. Provides short-term benefit, 15 Police Enforcement Resident ..; Yes but ineffective when police not present. Adds to sign clutter. Limited 16 "No Shoulder" Signs Resident ..; No impact. Educate Cyclists and Assumed by others, but 17 Resident ..; Yes Motorists expect limited effect. Encourage Other Cycling 18 Resident ..; No Expect limited effect. Routes Changes role of road (minor 19 "Local Traffic Only" signs Resident ..; No arterial). Encourage Other Driving 20 Resident ..; No Expect limited effect. Routes Visual Narrowing with 21 City Staff No Already narrow. Pavement Markings LED Chevron Curve Particularly for curve near 22 City Staff ..; ..; Yes Warning Signs Westminster Highway.

23 Improve Lighting ICBC ..; ..; No Roadway currently well lit.

Non-skid Pavement Consider on curves when re- 24 Watt ..; ..; Yes Treatment paving. Consistent & Standard 25 Watt ..; ..; Yes Low cost. Signs Re-Build Dyke and Road to Very expensive option, 26 Guidelines, with cycling All ..; ..; ..; ..; Yes consider when dyke re-built. facility Reduce posted speed to Include measures to 27 Watt ..; ..; ..; Yes 30 kph all corridor encourage compliance. Increase Maintenance: 28 sweeping to remove Watt ./ ..; ..; Yes debris, trim brush Disconnect east and May consider if other 29 Resident ..; ..; No westerns sections measures ineffective.

PWT - 58 #8 - 2483 Main Street West Kelowna, BC V4T 2E8 T 778.313. 101 4 • • • •IWATT E. [email protected] • Consulting Group wattconsultinggroup.com

S ir~c.. Q.. 1483 ADDENDUM To: Fred Lin- City of Richmond

From: Tom Baumgartner, M.Sc., P.Eng. Our File#: 2331.B01

Project: River Road TOSR

Date: February 19, 2018

RE: Executive Summary Addendum No.1

The following addendum provides a correction for the River Road Traffic Operations Safety Review Executive Summary dated February 6, 2018. Collision frequencies were incorrectly calculated for the period from 2012-2016 and have now been updated for the analyzed collision data period of 2011-2016. Changes to the report are as follows:

1. CHANGE FROM : Method Used Crash records from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia were reviewed for the five years between 2012 and 2016 (inclusive).

CHANGE TO: Method Used Crash records from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia were reviewed for the six years between 2011 and 2016 (inclusive).

2. CHANGE FROM: Findings On average, 24 crashes were recorded annually along the corridor.

CHANGE TO : Findings On average, 20 crashes were recorded annually along the corridor.

ENGINEERING. GEOMATICS.PWT - 59 TRANS ORTATION Schedule 3 to the Minutes of the Public Works & Transportation Committee meeting of Richmond City Council held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018. Public Works and Transportation Committee Wednesday, February 21, 2018

My name is Trudy Haywood and I live at 22160 River Road. Let me make this dear -I live on River Road full time, I drive the road every day, I pay tax to Richmond, which in turn pays your salary. I am not just a visitor to the road who in turn makes recommendations.

First of alii would like a yes or no answer to this question: Was it in the plans to put speed cushions on River Road before the cyclist was killed? If so, could you please advise me where I can read the minutes about the discussion.

Regarding the 44 signs along River Road which read Caution high cycling activity on weekends with a sign underneath which reads Single file change lanes to pass when safe and then a picture of a cyclist in front of a car

Those signs are incorrect. We saw only one cyclist go down our road last Sunday. On the Saturday there was two riding side by side on our road which is illegal under the Motor Vehicle Act. Large volumes of cyclists do not go down our road every weekend -it is sporadic. Most of these cyclists don't even live in Richmond so they don't pay taxes like we do. I feel that you listen to them (Hub Cycling, B.C Cycling, Velo Vets) and not the area residents.

1 fatal cyclist accident in the 40 years that I have lived on River Road should not change how we live on River Road. That accident was caused by driver inattention not speed.

Furthermore -I think everyone who has passed the B.C. drivers test knows to change lanes when safe- it's common sense. When you see signs that say change lanes when safe and the road is primarily double lines it makes you wonder who would have okayed putting these signs up? Even the consultant who did the report questioned the mixed message saying they were difficult to read and they are contradictory. Would it have not made more sense to first of all convert the

PWT - 60 solid double yellow centreline to a dashed single yellow centreline at select locations before you put these signs up?

Regarding the speed cushions. I asked Victor Wei where I could experience driving over speed cushions as he said they will be comfortable to go over. He is wrong. You can call them speed cushions, speed humps, speed bumps whatever you want but they are still big bumps on the road that are very uncomfortable to drive over especially for people with back problems, seniors, and anyone for that matter. I would like you all to experience what it is like. Please try driving over just 9 cushions on Gilbert Road south of Steveston Highway. Imagine going over up to 76 of these everyday of your life and that is just one way and then back over them all again to return home.

The independent consultant said speed cushions are deemed appropriate to accommodate emergency vehicles. He said that they are typically installed with gaps to allow wider wheelbase emergency vehicles more easy passage while still requiring passenger vehicles to ride over the hump. It was also stated that cyclists are not typically bothered by speed humps. With cyclists so called "taking the lane/1 by driving single file in the middle of the lane they will have the option of driving over the speed hump or using the gap in the cushion without adversely affecting other traffic. I think uta king the lane" on a narrow road with no shoulder is not safe. Furthermore if cyclists are going to be taking over our roads we need to incorporate a bike tax. Did the consultant even mention how the humps will affect the area residents?? No- we're peons.

The consultant's report regarding crash statistics said In terms of severity, 37% were injury collisions and 1% were fatal which is typical for urban 2 lane arterial roads. I ask if this is typical then why speed cushions? Did anyone do a crash analysis comparing ICBC crash data for River Road with other areas of Richmond? Before we spend all this money we need this analysis done.

Regarding signs along River Road.

I counted well over 102 signs along River Road between Westminster Highway and No 6 Road. Do we really need 44 new signs in cement blocks? River Road was such a beautiful stretch of road to drive along and now it is visual pollution. It is

PWT - 61 ineffective. I think if there is less signs then there is a greater chance that people will read them (both cyclists and motorists) and the road will be safer. If speed cushions go in then we will have up to 76 more signs going up . This is absolutely crazy. Having a possible count of at least 178 signs for a 7 kilometer stretch of road is ridiculous. Not to mention the noise pollution on top of the sign pollution when the residents hear the constant thump of cars going over them.

Get rid of the visual pollution- we don't need all those signs (most of us have common sense and I would hope you see my point) Like, Sydney, Australia, I declare war on unnecessary road signs. Sydney wants to restore visual amenity to their streets in the form of "legally required signage" to make their streets look nice, driving would be easier and the cost of maintenance reduced. I request we do the same.

I suggest we: Eliminate the cyclists from our road and that will in turn reduce 11% of the accidents. Instead channel the cyclists to Westminster Highway which is a safe designated cycling route - River Road is not.

22% of the accidents were at No 6 Road and River 21% of the accidents were at River and Westminster Highway This means that 43% of the accidents are at either end of River Road so why do we need speed cushions installed all along the road?

9% were damage by debris so cleaning up the debris efficiently will lower that rate- again speed cushions wouldn't help in this case

13% were rear enders which shouldn't be caused by speed but rather driver inattention.

24% were other (some from snowy, icy roads) so do we really need all these costly speed cushions? No!

Remember 60% surveyed were against speed humps.

Put in moveable speed reader boards to make drivers aware of their speed instead.

PWT - 62 We already deal with a road that has a narrow shoulder with utility poles, fire hydrants, trees and fences close by and then in the name of safety Richmond adds 44 cement blocks with cyclist signs for cars to launch off of- either into the ditch or river. Have we lost our common sense?

Please listen to those of us that are area residents and will be living this nightmare if speed cushions go through. We do not want them! Nor do we want all those signs!

Sincerely,

Trudy Haywood

PWT - 63 Schedule 4 to the Minutes of the ON TABLE ITEM Public Works & Transportation Committee meeting of Richmond MayorandCouncillors City Council held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018. - - From: MayorandCouncillors Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2018 13:50 To: Wei,Victor Subject: FW: Public Works and Transportation Committee Meeting feb 21 2018 Attachments: transportation meeting feb 21 2018 speech.docx

Categories: -TO: MAYOR & EACH COUNCILLOR I FROM : CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

From: MayorandCouncillors Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2018 13:49 To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Public Works and Transportation Committee Meeting feb 21 2018

Good Afternoon Ms. Trividic,

This is to acknowledge and thank you for your email. Please be advised that copies of your email have been forwarded to the Mayor and each Councillor. In addition, copies will be available at today's Public Works and Transportation Committee meeting.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with Richmond City Council.

Regards, Claudia

Claudia Jesson Manager, legislative Services City Clerk's Office City of Richmond, 6911 No . 3 Road, Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1 I Phone : 604-276-4006 I Email: [email protected] r FEB Z1 2018

\ ''f I', I' From: [email protected] [mail to :a [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2018 13:43 To: MayorandCouncillors Subject: RE: Public Works and Transportation Committee Meeting feb 21 2018 Importance: High

Please find attached a copy of my speaking notes for today's meeting- I apologize for it being all in CAPS but it makes it easier for me to read

Thank you so very much for your attention in this matter

Cheers

PWT 1- 64 Arline

I'Lb\SE LIKE LIS ON Fi\CEB()OI< AT: HTTP//Vv'WW.FACEBOOK.COM!SMELLTHISAROMA THERAPY

FOLLOW OUR BLOC: http://smellthis101.tumblr.com/

,'\RUNE TRIVIDIC Rt\ 1'1\.ESIDENl Tl\1 NATURAL MFC. (Si\1\ELL THIS! AI\Oi\·1/\THEfv\PY) !1130-15100 KNOX 'vV.A, Y 1\JU+v\OND BC V6V 3i\6 PHONE: 604-95'7-998+ F;\X: 604-95'7-98'75

PWT 2- 65 TRANSPORTATION MEETING WEDNESDAY FEB 212018 4PM ANDERSON ROOM

I AM SHOCKED AND APPALLED WITH THE LACK OF CONCERN SHOWN BY THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF FOR THE VOICE OF OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD.

MY PERCEPTION IS THAT THE STAFF IS TAKING THE SIDE OF A GROUP ROGUE CYCLISTS WHO DO NOT LIVE OR WORK ON OR NEAR RIVER ROAD. THEY ARE ONLY LISTENING TO A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP WHO ONLY USES THE ROAD 15% OF THE TIME INSTEAD OF LISTENING TO US THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE AND WORK HERE. 60% OF US SAID NO .. SO WHY WEREN'T WE HEARD !! !! AND LISTENED TO!

I OWN A BUSINESS JUST OFF RIVER ROAD AND SAVAGE ROAD .... I HAVE BEEN AT THIS LOCATION FOR 12 YEARS AND IN THE LAST 4 YEARS NOW LIVE ON RIVER ROAD AS WELL.

AT THE JAN 29 COUNSEL MEETING I PRESENTED THE VIDEO "CYCLIST BEHAVING BADLY" IT SHOWED YOU THE KIND OF DANGEROUS BEHAVIOUR AND DISREGARD FOR THE RULES OF THE ROAD THESE ROGUE CYCLIST PRESENT EVERY WEEKEND. FYI ... THIS VIDEO WAS TAKEN 2 YEARS AGO .. WHAT'S SAD AND APPALLING ABOUT THIS ... NOTHING HAS CHANGED ... THEY STILL EXHIBIT THE SAME DANGEROUS BEHAVIOUR AND DISRESPECT TODAY.

SO LETS LOOK AT SOME FACTS

MEDIA ATTENTION (NO CHANGE IN THEIR BEHAVIOUR) 38 NEW SIGNS -A LITTLE EXCESSIVE (NO CHANGE IN THEIR BE BEHAVIOUR)- JUST AS A SIDE NOTE THERE ARE ONLY 8 SPEED LIMIT SIGNS IN THE SAME STRETCH OF ROAD

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY STILL NO RESPECT OR CONSIDERATION FOR OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD BY THIS GROUP OF ROGUE CYCLIST

WHAT MORE AS A NEIGHBOURHOOD DO WE HAVE TO DO TO GET YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS SERIOUS MATTER ... WE HAVE PRESENTED YOU WITH:

A VIDEO PICTURES HARD FACTS

BUT OUR CONCERNS AND OPINIONS ALONG WITH OUR QUESTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENED TO, ANSWERED OR GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION

WE REQUESTED MORE POLICE PRESENCE AND WE HAVE SEEN SOME ACTIVITY OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS ... BUT!!! I HAVE ONLY WITNESSED THEM TARGETING MOTORISTS .. I HAVE NOT

PWT - 66 SEEN THEIR PRESENCE ON THE WEEKENDS BETWEEN 8 AM AND 4PM WHEN THAT GROUP OF ROGUE CYCLIST TERRORIZES OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD.

I HAVE A FEW SOLUTIONS TO OFFER:

FIRST

AGAIN I STATE MORE POLICE PRESENCE -BUT LET ME EMPHASIZE THIS POINT -I WANT TO SEE FAIR AND EQUAL TICKETING BY THE RCMP FOR BOTH CYCLIST AND MOTORISTS {WHEN WE USE ANY ROADWAY WHETHER IT IS 2 OR 4 WHEELED ... ARE WE NOT ALL !!!!! ACCOUNTABLE TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE ROAD AS STATED IN THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT ... I THINK SO ! ! !

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD WANTS AND NEEDS A SAFE SHARED ROAD

SECOND

CYCLISTS LISCENSING AND EDUCATION :

IT WOULD CREATE A VALUABLE DATABASE FOR OUR CITY {WHO, FROM WHERE, AND HOW MANY CYCLE HERE)

- ACCOUNTIBILTY FOR THE ROGUE CYCLIST WHO WISH TO VISIT OUR CITY WILL KNOW THAT BAD AND DANGEROUS BEHAVIOUR IS NOT ACCEPTABLE HERE

AND BE HELPFUL FOR ENFORCEMENT

IN CLOSING LET ME JUST SAY "THE CYCLISTS NEED TO MADE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR BEHAVOUR IN OUR NEIGHOURHOOD AND OUR CITY'- DON'T YOU AGREE ! THIS PICTURE SAYS IT ALL

PWT - 67 -lf ,IAllAinlI' rn.t .'· · . flAT tiRE. ~··

PWT - 68 Schedule 5 to the Minutes of the Public Works & Transportation Committee meeting of Richmond City Council held on Wednesday, Richmond Transportation Committee February 21, 2018.

I've read the Review of Proposed Alternative Road Safety Enhancement Measures and am left even more concerned about the speed hump proposal for River Road.

This project, when first proposed to council, assured it would go forward with the condition of agreement from residents. The majority were opposed. Had the survey been inclusive all all directly affected, I believe the results would have been even more conclusively against this project.

I have spent some time researching other jurisdictions in which speed humps were under consideration. All that I have found required community consensus, and none involved a remotely comparable number of speed humps.

This process has taken on an unnecessarily divisive dimension, polarizing residents against visiting weekend cyclists. This conflict has been driven in part by the exclusion of residents, but the inclusion of cyclists, at the developmental stages. This set the stage for the problem we now have.

The way in which this matter has been handled, and the tensions it has generated, should be reason enough to pause and reconsider this entire project.

I have written to one of the visiting cycling groups, the Gas town group, the group that lost a member in the terrible, non-speed related accident on River Road that set this entire scenario into motion. I asked, in good will, if they would consider engaging with us to find solutions mutually. I have yet to receive a reply. Just as we've seen that the road routinely isn't being shared, as evidenced by Arline Trividec's video, nor is the process that has gotten us into this mess.

PWT - 69 This process should have never favoured the interests of one group over another.

Let's compare how this issue compares to how speed humps are handled in other local jurisdictions:

Vancouver: The city policy states directly "We don't install speed humps on streets that are emergency response routes, or used by trucks in industrial areas. I would like to say that River Road is frequently the route taken by emergency vehicles, and is frequently the only point of access, depending on the location of the emergency. Unlike other parts of the city, we do not have a myriad of roads connecting to this street. Everyone has to travel for miles to to find another through street.

In addition, parts of River Road are zoned industrial and well used by trucks, thanks to the last major decision made for our community, namely truck parks.

When a citizen or group in Vancouver requests speed humps, it is a requirement that at least 30°/o of notified residents respond, with at least 50°/o support ... Consensus is key.

Abbotsford: In October 2016, City Council approved speed humps on three city streets, a process that saw the approval of residents and the up front inclusion of emergency services. As a result. 2 streets now have 5 speed humps, a third has 2.

Here in Richmond, the majority of residents reject the proposal for an additional 20 speed humps, on top of the existing 6, for total of 26. The most recent report, despite the knowledge that residents are opposed, ignores concerns as well as alternatives and recommends increasing the number to 76 or more, depending on how you interpret the report which in my view was poorly prepared. It also suggests decreasing the speed limit to 30km. As

PWT - 70 racing bikes can exceed this speed, would the proposed speed reduction apply to cyclists, and if so, how would it be enforced? This is just one of the numerous oversights of this report.

Please tell me if or where there is a precedent for the placement of 76 or more speed humps on any road in this province?

I previously submitted a letter from the B.C. Ambulance Service that confirmed response times are affected by speed humps. Let's compare how this fact is dealt with in other jurisdictions.

In July of last year, the City of Nanaimo, with the support of residents, moved to install speed humps along Ross Road to curb an area with a confirmed speeding problem.

However, when the city consulted with emergency services, they determined that Ross Road was a priority response route and concern was immediately raised that response times could be adversely affected.

The City of Nanaimo then decided to do a pilot with emergency services in order to determine if response times could be, as they stated, significantly affected.

Nanaimo's City Transportation Manager, Jamie Rose stated that "It's not a bad thing to trial traffic calming in any situation, but in this one in particular, it's even more warranted just to figure out what the impact on emergency services operations is."

What a contrast in comparison to the approach being taken on River Road, given that the Nanaimo project involves 2 speed humps in comparison to the now-suggested of 76 or more for our community.

PWT - 71 The report that was recently released is appalling in its vague generalizations, simply stating that yes, ambulances may have to travel at a lower rate of speed, but providing neither any studies or hard data to measure the delay being created by this project, not even so far as a comparison between 6, 26, 76, or more speed humps.

How can 2 speed humps be a point of concern for one community, but the quantities under consideration for our community be acceptable? Exactly how much time will be lost with the varying number of speed humps proposed? What specific tests or measurements are planned or have been performed?

In closing, the most recent report is not an examination of alternatives as it is so self-titled, but rather, a document lacking critical analysis in favour of simply reinforcing the option preselected for us, against the will of the majority of residents.

Surely, we can do better. Thank you.

PWT - 72 ON TABLE ITEIVI Schedule 6 to the Minutes of the Public Works & Transportation .I...!..O...ILL!...I.---"'='.=..!::""---'-~!J.L..l!:.~r~to.~ · , ~, Committee meeting of Richmond City Council held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018. Good Afternoon= m"yname is Lynda Parsons. I live at 2491 No. 8 Road. December 11, 2017 City Council Meeting referral to staff- That staff review the potential solutions to traffic calming measures along River Road prior to the installation of speed humps.

January 29, 2018 City Council Meeting 5 delegates spoke and expressed concerns regarding the in stall ation of speed humps and how this would impact safety an d emergency re spon se. Cycl ists' behaviour was also discussed and Staff asked to address.

Mayor Brodie noted that a staff report on the matter is anticipated to be presented at the February 21, 2018 Public Works and Transportation Committee meeting and that area residents and business be notified of this.

In response to queries from Council , staff noted that all options, to improve traffic safety along River Road including enforcement, wi ll be examin ed and that staff will communicate with cycling groups to encourage safe cycling.

The Report to Committee dated February 9, 2018 is stated to address the December 11 , 2017 referral as well as the concerns raised January 29, 2018, and contain the report that Mayor Brodie noted. Subsequent to reviewing the report we offer the following observations and requests: 1. Where is the report from WATT Consulting Group? We are requesting that we receive a copy of the full report. The "Executive Summary" is not a report.

2. We would like to know who actually performed the analyses and wrote the report.

3. We want to see the detailed data relating to the accident analysis- when, where, type of vehicle involved, cause of the accident, time of day etc.

4. We want specifics on speed and traffic volume - when the data was collected, time period, number of vehicles, type of vehicles, speed of vehicles, time of day when speed was an issue etc.

5. We want to see the analysis on the impact that speed humps would have to the resident's safety.

6. We want to see the analysis on the impact that speed humps would have on response times of emergency responders. _ ~-lY1 •\q'_: 7. We would like to know where the cyclist behaviour has been addressed. DriV' i-n9'·.r or riding a bicycle down the road on a Wednesday (January 17) or a Thursday ._ \ (January 18) cannot possibly give any information on the weekend cyclist cR t" · it· "1 2078 ' PWT - 73 Staff is obviously aware that cycling volumes are noted on weekends as indicated by the signs, and so why was this time of the week not investigated?

8. Where is the review of potential solutions - Staff attended the December 11, 2017 City Council Meeting and knows that the discussion leading to the referral was to look at alternate methods to speed humps - not to hire a company that would promote more.

9. We want to see what options to improve safety have actually been examined following the January 29, 2018 City Council Meeting where Staff advised that all options would be examined.

1O.lf this report is endorsed potentially 102 speed humps could appear on River Road between No.6 Road and Westminster Highway- 6 existing+ 20 approved by council + 43 phase 1 + 33 phase 2 = 102. (Staff Report page PWT- 67)

11. We are requesting that the Report to Committee from Victor Wei, P. Eng. Director, Transportation dated February 9, 2018 and accompanying "Executive Summary" of WATT Consulting Group is NOT endorsed. It is incomplete and does not address the issue tasked which was: That staff review the potential solutions to traffic calming measures along River Road prior to the installation of speed humps. This report does nothing more than focus on Staff's original agenda of installing speed humps- 20 additional speed humps were approved by Council contrary to the majority of residents, please do not endorse an additional 76.

12. We are requesting that any public consultation with respect to safety enhancements on River Road be spearheaded by one of our elected officials and NOT be led by any of the current Transportation Department Staff, as they have demonstrated in the past that they are unwilling to accept our opinions.

13. We request that any public consultation begin first with the residents and business employees who must use River Road to access our properties.

14. That the installation of speed humps, speed cushions or other obstructions be prohibited on River Road. These road treatments are a safety concern for the residents and are scientifically proven to increase fuel consumption and emissions, and so go against the City of Richmond's sustainability goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33% by the year 2020.

PWT - 74 We propose the following safety enhancements: 1. Install Radar Speed Signs or a similar type of speed reader signs. Depending on the type of sign a lot of information can be gathered, and users of the road alerted to changing road conditions as well as speed.

2. Enforcement of the Motor Vehicle Act on all users of the road including cyclists

3. Remove the excessive and dangerous signs and concrete bases, and replace with only the number of signs required to alert the users of the road, mounted safely into the gravel shoulder

4. Discontinue the removal of "eat's eye" road markers, and replace those already removed, or replace all with another form of in road markers.

5. Do not proceed with the placement of the "sharrow" road markers.

6. Remove the double solid line and replace with a broken line in areas where passing is safe.

PWT - 75 Schedule 7 to the Minutes of the Public Works & Transportation ON TABLE ITEM Committee meeting of Richmond Date: fe\J. ?1 , 'ZQ\ l5 MayorandCouncillors City Council held on Wednesday, Meeting:\\· hhc ltJo(\:::s t lro.V) Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2018 15:00 To: MayorandCouncillors Cc: [email protected]; Maddog Subject: Public works and transportation committee meeting Feb 21 2018 notes from Yves Trividic Attachments: 20180221_144427jpg;20180221_142846jpg;20180221_142839jpg;20180221_ 145254jpg

Categories: -TO: MAYOR & EACH COUNCILLOR I FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE,- DISTRIBUTED ON TABLE

Hello please find attached speaking notes for Yves Trividic for today's meeting ... we apologize for it being hand written we will submit a typed one tomorrow via email Thank you Cheers Arline

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

PWT 1- 76 PWT - 77 - PWT

?57 ¥-·7;1/t.::t oj o.l C?C/0:1 -z!lt ""'ot~:J _·7 v'0-:> .~ ~,.,lit ~nr'~:/::1 .5'vfl/nll v :-;:-=?

7 (/ s "f/9 ;;;d .:7/?" L d b ~ v ..~7 £-r1 tt f/r7 til _.yr/ ;.~. ~7~:7n;

4 er' 0¥ (1 R (1 llf Q o ·.:ft,~ t~ tl ~ '1:f (1/ ~I (/In I'd- I ~ t ,[d PWT - 78 - PWT

, .~r~ ... '-.,"· .. ~ . ~ ·-.-.""···:~ .:,·~; :::·.·N·"4"'""'":~. ~,.__,_,~,.:.;~~,..~, .,.':';/;._~:-~~~~"~~·:~·:- ... ::::.,:-_.,,-.. ~ J'Jh'/¥i1f/W ~!i·.7?tyl/~ I ··" ·~ .. ~,i:.'"Y"/, ··· .Ji'::t 6- 5" 11 .// :~ (1..;.;;, a61~'·;z:jjj!~v:;;~z;Ji?'~1Jil?.7f:;~' 7 7 5i ~~7 ir ~.:Yif_l ] fllt.i .. c!="yif/1..5 ·f!i~;;,;..;..~~i,;;;~ -·~ljJi-:-7.t· !;7;/§;(IJ 711:.~~-~;~~ ~ ~, (t-~£Nf;/t'f;f-=J);), CJ)fJj;;;(;lf// jj/.//a,:7 j/id/Jtl??ft:J~i Ji/1/]~~i:'/MGIN

' ' ··. . .. " ,, .. ,, ' '...... ' ' •. " /!, .... ' _t'.?(;l ;7 77//1;7 fJ (fr?Lc?Pr .r?/(/: :/ <7 N 'J/J IY:Z/J (/?!'.../ IW/ ntl' :fl (If/ qJ?#!t _!.. (!)/£, .:1~fj('!}(j :7(/{/11/J7(1f/ ~~~n{ k9t.:S ..r7/IJ qj _tn/~t/ .tft¥'.1 /Y!~::> /:?;f'_t ..:7:>.11'/J' ;...t 517?;{!? ircezt ,f}!N~f/1#/ ;;.,/ .J.7lf'Si f/ 5;7jt1J7~/ o nfl .J,/ "j.?(/ :·7771/1 r,7p ? t?/!7W Jll(.£ -?/1'1iYOJ'I·91 ·-9ftf/.ie7WO~ / ;;l;!tl..l:S' fJ /;:::> t(jfrdfi .:7:1/..J -¥r7J?t/ (77MI/,/j5'1/.7~'? t/ r'J'OJ/ )o ,;vOI.itfJl?{l~"'{;z' :J',f_t "'9t"¥!?nfiJIJ> _If/ _!q'lfiJ'7LLI/ htl llfi/IL: :7/I(Jh/ ?Nit~..tf:1;v 5/ .r"l;>ft~17 lt'?.:t..Hrrp _! ?(:/ ..r77?11/~7/l ifOj t)~ /7-f..£, :('0 );lf:JI,t/l~r?(l C/(Y" h'i?r~ .fi'?i?~t'f I'll ~ I ' ::7/Y(j/"'(' "'7#_? /II? ..lJ iY_2M%7? (/f/,l1({ S I?'?.(.';;! (I f n?¥$""' :7?flt(ll' ,N/ .!J1<( /JIJ?'l7lf ) I ~tfllt /9,9(1.N91,S'.. ""',/71f/N'!i/.f • c: ·CJ ··,······ J J fv 1tJ RY ..f;~M c; //lt.l /Jt>IJ¢ tAl vN 1r /f'l}vc- ci/!iA~&c.r.t>, :• ./$ 1!!1(1 ..t:'/71rF so J£1J6t:rr<. ro P.t.~Ars- Rt.:.SIL>e-YTS' 7/141 ' . /}RL;~ /PtLL/'Vb 7~ .;Jt.·1f• P/lf>r /1-A!IJ _Lw.:,$6 wr'//-1 •~ SArt:r;J·

·. . 1 / '-' A>t'frl C~CL..I$tS '' 1/t~IA-1 6- /1/Lr ,t.~NG $~ .p;~tJJ:-If'. tJ.;C //IL/ L!JIVL: 7&.':!"~.·. tvt'L.~. . ~· ,#A VIE //fl:f dl-1'1/t) "( 2i/::: b~ 1 urN~ 0 t.JL:''A. 7 Jl L.:- ...("J"'cc4 Jlt.J~ p ~ ~· . ' ' ,·' ' . ' . . . . ' '. ·•· . & ~ ·. clt nt/6- '1?1 LF & /1 /~' /At' ''/It' t:?" ~ t.! .s 1-11 0 N tu I r -'1 ~ (.) r AA i/lfRSt: .J. :fl Ar)CbG7}N&. 6?7"-feR 71/Jf'~/c //

PWT - 79 PWT - 80 - PWT

' ~i;f?;._;:;ttt/!fk

······· .. ····.·· ·/··· ·.· /)···•··. . ·.·····.····· (j.~y.···.. ..--~7'~·.) /,~/.:? 14 :J'J ...L f)'oc-/;-7.. ¥' 5/#.£_. .JdJ'77Pi/ l(alV .J? 5 iY/::s~::::;?fl:::;.z'et~(l~;;;(T:; (';:;

''77.n7 07 S 17' .L .?t/ ---711,? --'?WN9/

To: Public Works and Transportation Committee Date: February 23, 2018 From: Victor Wei, P. Eng. File: 01-0154-04/2018-Vol Director, Transportation 01 Re: Translink Southwest Area Transport Plan - Final Plan

Staff Recommendation

1. That TransLink's Southwest Area Transport Plan, as attached to the report titled "TransLink Southwest Area Plan- Final Plan," be endorsed for implementation.

2. That a copy of the report titled "TransLink Southwest Area Plan- Final Plan" be forwarded to the Richmond Council-School Board Liaison Committee for information.

3. That Traffic Bylaw No. 5870, Amendment Bylaw No. 9816, to revise the posted speed limits on sections of Alderbridge Way and Garden City Road to support the planned transit improvements, be introduced and given first, second and third reading.

Victor Wei, P. Eng. Director, Transportation (604-276-4131)

Att. 2

REPORT CONCURRENCE

ROUTED TO: CONCURRENCE CONCURRENCE OF GENERAL MANAGER

Policy Planning g' ~r ~

REVIEWED BY STAFF REPORT I INITIALS: ~DBYCAO AGENDA REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE cj kJ ~ I

5684886 PWT - 81 February 23 , 2018 - 2 -

Staff Report

Origin

The development ofTransLink's Southwest Area Transport Plan was initiated in February 2015. Staff have provided regular updates on the progress of the Plan with the last report in November 2017 summarizing the Phase 2 consultation results and the next steps to prepare the draft final Plan. At that time, staff were directed to report back with the draft final Plan. This report presents the draft final Plan (Attachment 1).

This report supports Council's 2014-2018 Term Goal #3 A Well-Planned Community:

3. 3. Effective transportation and mobility networks.

This report supports Council's 2014-2018 Term Goal #5 Partnerships and Collaboration:

Continue development and utilization ofcollaborative approaches and partnerships with intergovernmental and other agencies to help meet the needs ofthe Richmond community.

Analysis

Southwest Area Transport Plan

The Southwest Area Transport Plan includes Richmond, South Delta (Ladner and Tsawwassen) and Tsawwassen First Nation and will encompass the entire multi-modal transportation network (as opposed to just transit) within the identified sub-area ofthe region. Based on the structure of TransLink' s Regional Transportation Strategy and the Mayors' Council 10-Year Plan, the Plan will identify priority strategies and actions related to the themes of invest, manage and partner. Figure 1 illustrates the Plan process; the Plan was finalized in early 2018.

...a.. We are here

Phase 2 Process Identifying Priorities

Advisory Committee and Stakeholder engagement Throughout ;fill* ... ---.... ,

I ,' ',\ / Draft Plan \ Public I Public Input ~ Input I I 1 November 2017 1 \ ·,,,.... ___ _.,..,~ ' Needs assessment: Proposed improvements: Implementing proposals: 1. Local land use plans 1. Changes to the network 1. Adjusting the network 2. Travel patterns 2. Proposals for expansion 2. Reallocating services 3. Transit and transportation 3. Evaluation of proposals 3. Expansion resources system performance 4. Identification of priorities 4. Customer feedback Figure 1: Southwest Area Plan Process PWT - 82 February 23,2018 - 3 -

Public Input on Draft Final Plan

Following the completion of the Phase 2 consultation in June 2017, a draft of the final Plan was developed and posted on the TransLink website on November 20, 2017. Given the comprehensive public engagement process undertaken in Phase 2, a comparable consultation process was not undertaken at this stage as no additional changes to transit services or other new initiatives were being proposed. Instead, the public was invited to provide comments via e-mail or telephone until December 10, 2017. Comments were received from 25 members of the public. Most of the public feedback included requests to make changes to specific bus routes or introduce new services in ways that were not discussed under previous rounds of public engagement. Examples include two requests to change the routing of the 301 (Surrey Newton Exchange-Richmond City Centre) and one request for a new peak hour only service on Westminster Highway east from No.3 Road. Given that these suggestions were made at the final phase of the planning process that did not include comprehensive public consultation, TransLink advises that these ideas would be explored further in the future if found to have merit when any network changes for these specific routes are advanced and additional public engagement takes place.

Comments on the draft Plan from the City, as discussed in the report considered by Council at its November 27, 2017 meeting, have been incorporated into the draft Plan (i.e., revise terminology for implementation of transit service recommendations to refer to tiers rather than priorities and include reference to the independent technical review of George Massey Tunnel crossing and future rapid transit south across the Fraser River). In response to feedback from Delta residents, including older adults, regarding a direct bus connection between Tsawwassen and downtown Vancouver, the Plan now includes an action to identify opportunities for innovative partnerships and solutions for seniors and youth travelling north of the Bridgeport Canada Line Station who may benefit from a more direct connection.

The Public Advisory Committee had a final meeting in early February 2018 to receive and offer feedback on the draft Plan, which has been incorporated (e.g., develop one-page executive summary, add text to describe how the Plan fits in with other TransLink policy documents). TransLink staff then circulated the draft final Plan in early March 2018 to the Senior Advisory Committee (which includes Councillor Au and the City's Director of Transportation) to advise of the revisions made in response to the most recent public and advisory committee feedback.

Plan Highlights for Richmond

Overall, the combined transit route proposals (see map on Page 14 of Attachment 1) effectively responded to all of the key requests put forward by the City and would significantly improve transit service in Richmond as well as support the goals and objectives of the Official Community Plan (OCP) to reduce car dependency and greenhouse gas emissions. The transit recommendations would provide:

• Improved service levels (e.g., upgrade of existing routes to Frequent Transit Network status such as the 401, 402 and 403); • Improved service reliability via splitting and/or realigning long routes (e.g., 407 and 410); • Improved service to industrial areas and business parks (e.g., Riverside, Crestwood, Fraserwood, Fraserport); and PWT - 83 February 23, 2018 - 4-

• New or improved service to neighbourhoods (e.g., new route along Blundell Road, extension of new service to London Landing and north Bridgeport).

The Plan also identifies transit facility and infrastructure initiatives identified in the Mayors' Council 10-Year Vision (e.g., Canada Line upgrades and new bus exchange/layover facility in Steveston) and through technical work and engagement specific to the Plan (e.g., opportunities to improve customer amenities at stations and exchanges).

Priorities for new, or improved, cycling facilities to provide high-quality connections to transit, urban centres and regional transportation gateways are identified (which align with the City's Major Street Cycling Network identified in the Official Community Plan) as well as other cycling-related initiatives (e.g., expand secure bike parking at transit stations and improve cycling conditions on the TransLink-owned Knight Street Bridge).

Consistent with the City's OCP, the Plan notes that improvements to support walking access to transit should be prioritized within urban and neighbourhood centres including around Canada Line stations. Finally, the Plan also identifies candidate roadways in Richmond for addition to the Major Road Network, based on input from staff.

Implementation of Final Plan

TransLink intends to post the draft final Plan on its website in mid-March 2018. Following the anticipated endorsement by all three jurisdictions (Richmond, Delta, Tsawwassen First Nation), the Plan will be revised to acknowledge these endorsements and a full release of the Plan will occur in mid-April2018 with a media announcement.

Recommended changes that can be implemented by reallocating existing resources will be put forward to be included in TransLink's quarterly service changes. Recommendations that require additional funding or further detailed planning and design will be considered for implementation based on demand and future funding conditions as part of future annual investment plans. Individual recommendations may be implemented incrementally over time or all at once (e.g., steadily improving service frequency until it reaches the level identified in this plan, or phasing in network changes). As noted above, additional public engagement would take place prior to the implementation of recommendations that might involve trade-offs or impacts for customers.

Regular monitoring of the Plan will occur to track the status of the Plan and report back on progress. Plan recommendations will be reviewed to ensure land use and transportation planning continue to be coordinated.

Proposed Complementary Amendments to Traffic Bylaw to Support Transit

Based on customer requests, the Plan identifies the implementation of two new bus stops on Alderbridge Way at May Drive to provide more convenient access to the existing commercial development on the north side of Alderbridge Way (i.e., Central at Garden City that includes Walmart) and, in the future, the Garden City Lands to the south. However, as the existing posted speed limit on Alderbridge Way between Shell Road and Garden City Road is 60 km/h, TransLink's Bus Infrastructure Design Guidelines recommend the use of bus bays (a recessed bus stop separated from the adjacent travel lane) rather than a typical bus stop.

PWT - 84 February 23, 2018 - 5 -

Given that Alderbridge Way west of No.4 Road is within the more urban City Centre and the developments on either side will generate more crossing trips, staff recommend that the posted speed limit be reduced from 60 km/h to 50 km/h between No.4 Road and Garden City Road, which would obviate the need for the costly pull-out bus bays. The posted speed limit would remain at 60 km/h between Shell Road and No.4 Road to serve as the transition area between the western end of Highway 91 (at 80 km/h) and the municipal road network (at 50 km/h).

Similarly, for consistency, staff also recommend that the existing posted speed limit of 60 km/h on Garden City Road between Westminster Highway and Sea Island Way1 be reduced to 50 km/h in recognition of existing bus services and stops as well as continued development along both sides of the corridor, with associated crossing movements, per the City Centre and West Cambie Area Plans.

Both proposed changes to the posted speed limits for Alderbridge Way and Garden City Road require the amendment ofTraffic Bylaw No. 5870. The proposed amendments are shown in Attachment 2.

Financial Impact

None.

Conclusion

Following a process that began in February 2015 and included two rounds of extensive public consultation as well as input from three advisory committees (i.e., Technical, Senior and Public Advisory Committees), TransLink has finalized the Southwest Area Transport Plan, which is the first sub-area plan for the region that is multi-modal (i.e., beyond transit and includes walking, cycling, driving, and goods movement). This Plan is the first update of the Richmond Area Transit Plan completed in September 2000.

Overall, implementation of the combined transit, cycling and walking proposals contained in the Plan would significantly improve and support transit service and active transportation in Richmond, which in turn would support the goals and objectives of the Official Community Plan to reduce car dependency and greenhouse gas emissions. The complementary recommended amendments to Traffic Bylaw would respond to customer requests and facilitate implementation of transit service improvements recommended by the Plan.

Joan Caravan Donna Chan, P.Eng., PTOE Transpmiation Planner Manager, Transportation Planning (604-276-4035) (604-276-4126) JC:jc Art. 1: Final Southwest Area Transport Plan Art. 2: Traffic Bylaw No. 5870, Amendment Bylaw No. 9816

1 Per the City's Traffic Bylaw, the existing 60 km/h speed limit on Garden City Road applies northbound between Westminster Highway and Sea Island Way, and southbound between Sea Island Way and 90 m north of Westminster Highway. PWT - 85 Southwest Area Transport Plan

(DRAFT- FEB 2018)

PWT - 86 SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFT FEBR UARY 20 13

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

DEVELOPING THE PLAN ...... 3

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 5

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ...... 7

EVALUATING RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 12

RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 13

Transit service and infrastructure ...... 13 Regionally-significant cycling corridors ...... 19 Walking access to transit ...... 21 Major Road Network ...... 22

NEXT STEPS ...... 23

translink.ca PWT - 87 SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFT FEBRUARY 70 13

I Introduction

As t he regiona l t ransport ation authority for Metro Vanco uver, Tr anslink is respo nsible fo r plann ing, develop ing and operatin g a transportation system that moves peop le and goods around t he region. Recogn izing t hat the Metro Vancouver region is large and d iverse, Trans link divides t he reg ion into sub regions in order to ensure loca l context and needs are understood and reflected in our planning. To plan for t ransit service and inf rastru cture , while also address ing aspects of cyc ling, wa lking, drivin g, and goods movement in Richmond, South De lta, Tsawwassen First Nation as we ll as important connections to North Delta and other nearby areas, Translink worked with mu ni cipa l pa rt ners, stakeholders and the pub lic to develop t he Southwest Area Transport Plan (SWATP).

The SWATP establishes a "blueprint" for how .. : resources could be used over the next 1-15 years improve transit and transportation in the - So ut hwest Area in a way th at is responsive to local needs and consistent wit h reg iona l objectives.

Area Tr ansport Plans (ATP s) support and inform key planning processes li ke Translink's Regional Transportation Strategy and t he Mayors' Counc il 10-Year Vision -whic h establi sh the region's long-term t ransportation vision, overall goa ls, targets, policy direction and investment priori t ies . ATPs also cons ider mun icipa l land use and tra nsport ation plans, to ensure t hat t he local transit network supports existing and expected land use and travel patterns. The plann ing process considers customer experience, cu rrent and projected land use and development, transportation and ridersh ip data, and feedback from t he public, stake holders and loca l governments.

Recommendations in th e SWATP ca lls for an with fund ing levels being set in in ve stment plans increase of approximately 35 pe r ce nt of tra nsit that must ba lance Tra nslink expenditures and service or about 180,000 annua l service hours revenues over a ten year period . Trans link's once fu lly mplemented. Plan recommendations legislation requ ires investment plans to be will be cons idered for imp lementation alongside updated every three years at a minimum. other regional priorities and as fun ding allows,

tran s li nk.c a PWT - 88 SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN D f~AFT FEBR UARY 2018

The plan will help to ensure that current and options (inc lud ing trans it, cycling and wa lking) future transportation investment decisions in for people who trave l in or through Richmond, the Southwest Area are informed by customer South Delta and Tsawwassen First Nation . needs, coord inated with municipal land use plans, and integrated with other modes and the transportation network to provide more travel

Major Regional Investments in Rail Rapid Transit

The Regional Transportation Strategy outlines the key policies and investments related to transportation for the region over the next 30-years. Among other things, this long-range plan identifies priorities for major investments in expanding rail transit (e.g. SkyTrain, light-rail transit).

Additionally, the Mayors' Council10-YearVision for Transit and Transportation identifies priority investments for rail transit expansion over the next decade, which include extending the Millennium Line along Broadway to Arbutus and building new rail transit in Surrey along l

Local government staff and elected officials expressed their interest in expanding rapid transit across the South Arm of the Fraser River to serve travel between Richmond and Delta, however identifying any additional rail transit expansion is beyond the scope of this Southwest Area Transport Plan . Decisions about these major investments are best considered through these other regional plans.

translink.ca PWT - 89 SOUTH WEST AREA TRAN SPORT PLAN DRAFf FEBRUARY 20 13

I Developing the plan

Th e planning process for the Sout hwes t Area Tr ansport Plan involved two phases of work, with sta keholde r and public engagement occ urring throughout t he plan deve lopment pro cess.

Spring 2016 Spring 2017 Ongoing Phase 1: Issues and Opportunities Phase 2: Recommendations Monitoring and Reporting

STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Phase 1 involve d a comprehensive an alysis of Phase 2 id ent ifie d reco mm end ations relat ed loca l t ransit se rvice and infras tructure, as well as to transit service and infrastructure, as we ll as as pec ts of cyclin g, wa lking, drivin g, and goo ds cyc lin g, wa lking, and th e Major Road Network, movement. Resea rch into travel patt ern s, land use in order to make the mo st of the opportunities and oth er loca l condit ion s was also con sid ered. id entified in Phase 1. In th is ph ase we so ught In th is phase we gathered perspec tives from th e pu blic and stakeho lder input on more th an 36 co mmunity on wh at's importan t and opportunit ies propose d ch anges to bus routes throughout to improve t he current transit and t ransportat ion t he sub· reg ion, and a propose d network of network. reg iona lly sign ifica nt cyc ling co rri dors. Our fina l reco mm endation s for t ransit and t ransportation Pub lic engage ment took place in April and May are base d on t he fee dbac k we receive d, alon g of 2016, the res ults of w hi ch are detailed in with tec hnica l analysis and input f ro m our loca l Appendix B. governm ent partn ers.

Public engagement took place in May and jun e of 2017, t he res ults of which are summ ari ze d in this plan doc ument, but also prese nted in more detail in Appendix C. In November and Dece mber 2017, a draft plan docu ment was made ava ilab le for pu blic rev iew and prese ntations on th e draft p lan were made to local elected officials of t he City of Delta, Tsawwassen Firs t Nation, and City of Richm ond. Followin g this, rev isions were made to the do cum ent based on feedbac k rece ive d.

translink.ca PWT - 90 SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFUE BRU AR Y 20 18

Several adv isory comm ittees were also formed in order to support the development of this plan . Th is included members of the public, loca l government staff, and elected officials from the City of Delta, City of Richmond, and Tsawwassen First Nation.

• Public Advisory Committee: Membership comprise d of individual citize ns with different Public Advisory Committee Members backgrounds and affi liations from across t he Anton Metaln ikov (Cha ir) Southwest Area. Ro les included supporting Un iversity Student, Delta public and stakeholder engagement process, Ruth Mary Adams helping interpret in put from broader publi c, Reti red Elde r, Tsawwassen Fi rst Nation and commenting on materials in advance of pub lic distri bution . This group met eight times Graeme Bone Richmond Active Transportation throughout the planning process. Committee • Technical Advisory Committee: Membership Michae l Chiu comprised of local government transportation Ric hmond Chinese Comm unity Society and land use planning staff. Ro les included Clara Chow providing review and guidance on tec hnica l Engaged Citizen, Richmond content and t he plan ning process. This group met te n times throughout t he plann ing Mark Fenwick Genera l Manage r, Tsawwassen Mills process . Louise Gaudry • Senior Advisory Committee: Membership Richmond Ce ntre for Disability com prised of loca l government elec t ed officials and senior-leve l staff. Roles included Louise McMahon Business Person, Delta providing overall strategic d irection, with a focus on the planning process. Th is group met Mark Sa kai th ree times thro ughout the planning process. Business Person, Richmond Kevi n Shac kle s A transportation stakeholder working group was Business Person, Richmond also established to seek input from a broad array of transportation -related organizations, including Patrick Thompson Ministry ofTransportation and Infrastructure, Bu si ness Person , De lta HUB Committee BC Ferries, Vancouver Airport Authority, Port of Vancouver, Insurance Corporation of BC, and HUB Cycl ing. This group met during each phase of the planning process, w ith meetings in Jun e 2016 and June 2017.

translink.ca PWT - 91 SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRA FT FE BRU AR Y 20 18

I Issues and opportunities

Ear ly in the planning process a lot of technica l work was done to understand current context, recent trends, and anticipated future developments that could influence transit and transportation demand in t he Southwest Area . Th e findings from this iss ues and opportunities work, along with public and stakeholder feedback, informed the development of SWATP recommendations.

Techn ical work included the following:

1. Land use analysis: Looked at historical, 4. Customer perceptions: Reviewed customer current, and planned patterns of development, feedback provided over the past several years as well as demographics, to understand where re lated to transit service in the Southwest the generators of transportation demand Area, as well as trends in quarterly customer are today and in the future. Translink's satisfaction and performance rev iews, to Trans it-Oriented Communities Des ign Pr imer better understand public perceptions and provides an overview of how land use and va lues related to transit and transportation. transportation are re lated, and served as a 5. Health and transportation analysis: Identified gu ide for this analysis. hea lth determinants that can be directly or 2. Travel market analysis: Examined the 2011 indirectly influenced by transportation (e.g. Tr ip Diary and other available sources of data active transportation, safety, air quality, soc ial to better understand travel patterns within, to cohesion and equ ity). Information on the built and from th e Southwest Area. This involved environment, demographics, travel behavior, looking at the origins and destinations of all air quality and em issions were also reviewed trips, and whether t hose trips are made by to identify issues and opportunities related to transit, driving, wa lking, or cycling. these hea lth determinants.

3. Transportation analysis: Analyzed the transit All of this techn ical work is available in the service for the Southwest Area at the network Appendices supporting this plan, and an overview level as opposed to divin g into the route-by of our findings is presented in the Is sues and route details. Translin k's Managing the Transit Opportunities Summary Map. Network Primer provides an overview of the key considerations used to ensure a transit network is in place that can support current " I have enjoyed meeting and working with both and future land use and travel patterns. Trans Link staff and citizen leaders from the Also conducted analysis re lated to walking, community. The process was well organized, cycling, driving and goods movement. engaging and insightful. Thank you for the opportunity. "

MAR l< FENWICI<, MEMBER, SWATP PUBLIC ADV ISORY COMMITTEE

• translink.ca PWT - 92 TRANS~K SOUTH WEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFT FEBRUARY 2018 6

Issues and Opportunities Summary Map

f) ~/:~~~'::~~ trowel Rlchmond-6r!JhotiSI! CD ~~~:!~~=~~d cytlir~a routes 1:\Uiah frequl!ntvbw. \J uHvice on R ~llw~ Aw.does notallsn wlt h Cityof RichmondOffldal CommuflltvPian ;":\ Stellfl!Qnhchange ,_, ca pacity and lo utlon lssues e ~~f::eu;:!~t !f ~amy lfti. Tulllll'l cou ld provlde ~ oppo rtu llitiH fo r newand 6) ~~~:!o~~:l :~ :Mit w lmproved u ansit connectlom.at the largest ma r ~ ! Intellectio n~ of Hwv 99 1 an dHwy 17A.llnd to S t ~tonHwy, exp a nded G) ~~~~:;,~ busooly lanes, and a new O reglonal tr.llnsit pedH trlanandcyclin& connection between Rich mond and Delta. • 0 Legend

(!}C)f)fl>0 Potential opponunlly 600CQ Po tential ch allenge •.. •.. •.. •• •.. : •• •• .., f uture potential travel demand

•.. •.. •• •• •.. •.. •.. •.. "',. Unmet travel demand • Park Agrlcu\lural Land Reserve Industrial l and

Issues and Opportunltu~s that apply generally throughout the Southwest area 41) CYCLI NG • Cycling safety an Issue • Gaps ln the network • Limited Inter-municipal connections, inc.luding ri ver crossings 0 WAlkiNG • limited sidewalks and stree t connections Q GOODS MOVEMENT • Vehicle trips are growing In Industri al and emplovrn entareas • Gaps In Ma jor Road Network and truc k routes DRIVING • Elt: plore Park and Ride options r••• _ ...... , ...... ,."" LAND USE """""' t"'..,._ • Future growth concentrate d In urban ce ntres. allgnlngwl th transit Investm en ts

* Note: In September 201 7, t he Pro vin ce ann ounced an ind epend ent te chnical review of t he George Ma ss ey Tunnel Cro ss ing, with a report includ ing fin din gs expected in spring 2018. The Mayors' Cou ncil and Tr an slink, co nsult in g wit h Metro Vancouver, will work co llaborative ly to provide input to t he provinc ial government's rev iew wit h a focus on how the projec t fits into long term reg ional t ransportation and land use plans.

translink.ca PWT - 93 SO UTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFT FEBRUARY 2013

I Public engagement

Public and stakeholder engagement is a fundamenta l aspect of developing an Area Transport Plan. Whether engaging w ith a res ident that re lies on publi c transit for their daily comm ute, or hearing from someone that occasionally travels through an area, understanding t he issues and concerns that face Metro Vancouver residents allows Translink to better understand the commun it ies we se rve .

What we did

We used a variety of methods to reac h out to the We then incorporated these ideas into spec ific public and stakeholders to make sure t hey were proposals that were shared with residents in aware of the planning process and opportunities order to ga in further feedback and better meet the to provide their feedback. Thro ugh in-person transportation needs of the Area. Engagements discussions, pop-up events, and surveys, we were were structured to allow people to speak directly ab le to engage with the public to better understand to the iss ues and concerns that mattered most to t heir t ransportation experience and needs . We t hem, including providing feedback specific to t he began by identifying issues and opportunit ies for ro utes t hey use and care about most. t ransportation in the Southwest Area, focusing on A summary of public and stakeholder outreach and what works and doesn't work for residents based engagement activities is provided below. on t heir feedback and our technical analysis.

Phase 1 (April-May 201 6) Phase 2 (May-June 2017)

4 StreetTeam Efforts distributing 5,500+ 10 Street Team Efforts distributing 13,500+ posters and postcards to community locations posters and postcards to community locations and trans it hubs (English and Traditional Chinese) and transit hubs (English and Traditional Chinese) 30 print advertisements on the transit system 225 print advertisements on the transit system 7 newspaper advertisements (English and 4 newspaper advertisements (English and Traditional Chinese) Traditiona l Chinese) 9 unique media stories in print, onlin e, and rad io 9 unique media stories in print 250+ recipients of eNews letter communication 480+ rec ipients of eNewsletter communication 3.1 million+ impressions of digital ads 1.5million+ impressions of digital ads 23,000+ impressions on social media 70,000+ impressions on social media 4,000+ project web page visits 15,000+ project web page visits

translink.ca PWT - 94 SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFT FEBR UARY 20 18 8

Outreach and engagement summary

Phase 1 {April-May 2016) Phase 2 {May-june 2017)

Online Survey (English) On li ne survey and discussion guid e (English)

Paper Survey at 10 community locations Paper survey and disc ussion guide (E nglish (Eng lish) and Trad it ional Ch inese) at 16 co llection sites

5 d rap-in information sessions 3 prese ntations to Tsa wwassen First Nations, De lta Pro Bus Club, and Richmond Chinese Meetings wit h public , technica l, and Comm unity Society (RCCS) govern ment advisory comm ittees Meetings with public, Elected officials forum technical and government advisory committees Tran sportation stakeholder workshop Transportation stakeholder workshop

Phase 1 {April-May 2016) Phase 2 {May-june 2017)

./ 2,923 online su rveys completed ./ 3,192 online surveys completed 96 paper su rveys completed (including ./ 114 paper surveys comp leted ./ 35 Chinese language surveys)

./ 2,600+ in-person in teractions ./ 1,800+ in-person discussions, including: in cluding: 600+ in-person discussions at Ladner May Days 800+ in -person discussions at 500+ in -pe rson discussions at Richmond- Br ighouse Station Bridgeport Station 550+ attendees at the Steveston 400+ in-person disc ussions Cannery Farmers' Market drop-in at th e Steveston Farmers information sess ion. and Artisa n Market 280+ in-person discussions at (Iii) communit y (; Ladner Leisure Centre ./ 10 co nsultation sessions hosted by Translink Pl anners ./ 11 pop-up community events to gather input fo r the proposed plan

translink.ca PWT - 95 SOUTHWEST AREA TRAN SP ORT PLAN DI~A FT FE BRU ARY 20 18 9

What we heard

What we heard in Phase 1 How we responded in Phase 1

In April and May 2016, we asked people for their Engagement with the public, elected officials, local opinion on ways to improve trans it, cyc lin g, government transportation and land use plann ing walking, and to motivate less driving for trips staff, and transportation-related stake ho lders, within, to, and from the Southwest Area. People along with th e technica l ana lysis described were also invited to provide speciAc fe edback on earlier, informed our understanding of the overa ll bus services that are most important to th em. The issues and opportunities re lated to transit and following is a summary of the general feedback transportation in the Southwest Are a. This and themes of what we heard, ranked by order information was then used to develop proposa ls of importance: that wou ld be consu lted on in Phase 2 of the planning process.

+ More reliable service Fewer tra nsfe rs during a journey

Faster trip time + Conven ient bus stop locations Straighter bus rou te Safe crosswa lks More transit service during weekdays Sidewa lks to my transit stop More transit service on weekends Well-maintained sidewalks Later end time for the last bus or train Better ame nities at bus stops More transit exchange amen ities - (e .g. seating, shelter, lighting) - Earlier start time for the first bus or train

b What's important in your decision to GY0 Ride a bicycle more often?

+ Better transit service + Bike paths are separated from vehicle traffic Better walking network Cycling routes on streets are signed More park and rides and marked I - Better cycling network Secure bicycle parking at transit exc hanges Straighter cycling routes to destinations I- More spaces for bicycles on transit

MORE IMPORTANT + ------LESS IMPORTANT

For more details on Phase 1 public engagement and what we heard, refer to Appendix B: Phase 1 Survey Results.

tran slink.ca PWT - 96 SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DllAFT FEBRUARY 20 18 10

What we heard in Phase 2

In May and June 2017, we shared proposa ls • Gene ral support for sp litting longer ro utes re lated to transit service and regionally-sign ificant in Richmond to improve se rvice re liability, cycl ing corridors wit h the public and asked for although some had conce rns about inc reased their feedback. Public and stake holder feedback transfers (e.g. 401, 405, 407, 410) in dica ted support for most proposals, wit h survey • Broad support for the regiona lly-s ign ificant respondents identifying t hat 26 of 36 proposals cycling corridors that were identified would make travel in the Area better overall t han today. For more details on Phase 2 pub li c engage ment and what we heard, refer to Appendix C: Phase 2 The fo llowing are some of the key themes from Survey Res ults. what we heard re lated to transit and cycl ing:

• Support was high for new services or How we responded in Phase 2 increased frequency to ex isting services (e.g. Feedback rece ived during the engagement period New A (B lundell Road), New B (Steveston was carefully considered, and ways were sought Highway/Th ree Road), New C (Tsawwassen Ferry Term in al), New D (Ladner to Langley) , in which to respond to areas of concern. Most proposals rece ived broad support and are be ing 301, 31 1, 388, 430, C76) advanced as originally proposed. Proposa ls • Concern was expressed about discontinuing that received the lowest leve ls of support were se rvices as pa rt of the overall network either modified or abandoned comp lete ly. redesign (e .g. 480, 602, C87, C92, C96) Where warranted, further refinements, based on • Concern about making significant changes feedback, were made to some proposals to create to existing ro utes in serving Tsawwassen, even stronger recommendations. Ladner, and Richmond (e.g. 404, 405, 603, The survey resu lts summary graph on the next 604, C8 8) page identifies which proposals were revised in response to pub lic feedback. These are indicated by the e symbol.

" Being a part of the Public Advisory Committee was a great experience as I got to be involved in such an important project for my community. It was a pleasure to work with the other volunteers, as we ll as the staff, to be part of the comprehensive public engagement process for th is plan. "

ANTON METALNII

translink.ca PWT - 97 SO UTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFT FEBRUARY 20 18 :11

What we heard in Phase 2, and how we responded

Be low is a grap hic which shows th e number of peop le who provided fee dback on proposals for eac h route, including w heth er they expressed support or concerns. Th e grap h is sorted based on a ratio of the number of people who sa id a proposa l wou ld re sult in better se rvice, as compared to t he number of people who said it wou ld result in worse se rvi ce.

Question: Compared to today, how would the proposed change generally work for you?

• Much worse Wors e About the same • Better • Much better e Proposals that were modified based on public feedback

New D (Lad ner Exchange to Langley Centre) 301 Richmond-B rig house Station/Newton Exc hange Express New A (R ichm ond-Brighouse Station to Blundell Road) 430 Richmond-B righouse Station/Metrotown Station 104 Annacis lsland/22nd Street Statio n 311 Bridgeport Station/Scottsdale For the project with the e C76 Scottsdale Exchange/Ladner Exchange most amou nt of support (New D), 388 Carvolth Exc hange/22nd Street Station 11 peop le sa id th e proposal e New C (Scott Road Station to Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal) N'\5 Downtown/Camb ie wo uld wo rk better than today, e 609 Tsawwassen First Nation/South De lta Exchange for every 1 perso n who 640 Scott Road Station/Ladner Exchange thought otherwise N10 Downtown/Richmond-Bri ghouse Station C93 Steveston/Riverport 401 One Road/Garden City 608 Ladner Ring 402 Two Roa d/Richmond-Brighouse Station C84 English Bluff/South De lta Exchange C94 Richmond Ova l/Richm ond-Brighouse Station 606 Ladner Ring e 403 Three Road/Bridgeport Station 410 22nd Street Station/Rai lway 6ot Bridgeport Station/South Delta/Boundary Bay e C98 22nd Street Station/Kingswood I Above this line, more peo ple sa id th e proposals e 404 Four Road / Richmond-Brighouse Station I wou ld work better than today e 407 Bridgeport/Gilbert •------e 405 Cambie/Five Road • Below this line, more peop le e C89 Boundary Bay/South De lta Exchange I I sa id the proposals would e C88 Ladner North/Ladner Exchange I I work worse than today e 604 Bridgeport Station/English Bluff • e 603 Bridgeport Station/Beach Grove e C87 East Ladner/Ladner Exchange •I I e C96 East Cambie/Richmond-Brighouse Station I I e C92 Sea Island South/Bridgeport Station l••• e 602 Bridgeport Stati on/Tsawwassen Heights J ~::;:~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~!---!~L--~ e 480 USC/Bridgeport Station j ~ 0 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600

translink.ca PWT - 98 SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFT FEBR UARY 2013 12

I Evaluating recommendations

Recommendations have been made for nearly every bus route in the Southwest Area. All recomme ndations we re eva luated using a Mu lt iple Accou nt Eva luation (MAE) process. The MAE process considers seven different "accounts" to identify the potential benefits and impacts for each recommended change to the transit network. Each account is re lated to something we ca re about as a region, with measurable criteria. This includes issues of specific interest to the sub -region - such as access to industrial emp loyment areas . All trans it recommendations were eva luated aga inst a Business as Usua l scenario, where the transit network remains the same as it is today. The eva luation he lped inform the grouping of recommendations into three different tiers that generally reflect their re lative overa ll benefits, and helps to set expectations regardin g the order in which recommendations might be implemented.

Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) criteria

The MAE is meant to be used as a decision-support tool, and it is not meant to represent the final word with regard to identifying priorities for the plan

ACCOUNT CRITERIA

Access to jobs ECON OMY D D Access to ind ustrial employment areas ".d· !!~=~' 0 ENVI RONMENT D Em issions reduction Capital costs FINA NCIAL D 0 D Operating costs Customer experience SOC IAL AND COMMU NITY D D Access to transit

Access to transit for seniors, youth, low income HEA LTH D 0 D Neighbourhood impacts Po licy alignment (regiona l, loca l) LAND USE D .., Demand areas ~·.••..... · D Ease of implementation DE LIV ER ABLI TY D e D Acceptab ility

translink.ca PWT - 99 SO UTH WEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DI~AFf FEBRUARY 2018 13

Recommendations

Ide nt ifyin g recommendations for tra nsit and t ransportation in t he Southwest Area is im portant fo r ensuring expectations are aligned for Translink, mun ic ipal partners, the publi c, and stakeholders with regard to how future regional investments may be made.

To th is end, recommendations have been identified for the following areas:

1. Transit service and infrastructure 2. Regionally-significant cycling corridors 3. Walking access to transit 4. Major Road Network

1. Transit service and infrastructure

The SWATP inc lu des transit network, service and The key ob jec tives for t ransit service in frastructure recom mend ations. Som e of t he recomme ndations are aimed at:

recommended transit network changes in clude • Improving Frequent Trans it Network (FTN) more than one service modification and have se rvice along key corridors been grouped together because the changes • Expanding bus service for growin g support eac h other and may be imp leme nted at comm unities and large areas of employme nt, the same time. Ma ny proposed network changes inc lud ing industrial areas were revised and re -eva luated based on feedback rece ived during publi c engagement and further • Provid ing more re liab le and conveni ent bus techn ica l analys is. se rvice

• Improving late night se rvice, includ ing making NightBus more direct for service to Richmond City Centre and YVR Airport

" Being a part of the PAC helped to connect me with other community members who care about the future of transit in the reg ion . Our different points of view resembled the public we were there to represent. The SWATP served as a great chance to learn from Trans Link, about TransLink - including the goals, the challenges, and the too ls used to ga in critical input into service plann ing. 'Adaptability' was one of my key takeaways from the SWATP. When the need for new engagement approaches was identified, it was gratifying to see th is put into action."

PATRICI< THOMPSON , MEMBER, SWATP PUBLI C ADV ISORY COMMITTEE

translink.ca PWT - 100 SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFT FEBRUARY /018 :1 4

Bus Service Recommendations: 1-15 year implementation

l egend

~ Tl e rl reg ui ;Jrse rv lce.

~ n e rllimlt e dserv i ce

...... Tier 2 regu\arservice

~ Tier211mlled service

~ Tl erl reg ular service

~ Ti e r lllmlted servlcr:

...... Oth er resularbus service

~ O t he r limited bu s service

frequ ent Transit Network (fTN) Onthesestreets,oneormore ~ busservlcescomblnedprovlde FTNsr.rvlte.

What do the Tiers refer to?

Bus service recom men dat ions are grou ped into three different tiers that shoul d gene rally be understood to reflec t the order in wh ich recomme ndations might be imp lemented. That is, Ti er 1 recommendations would be advanced first, as fund ing allows and alongside other reg ional priorities . Tier 2 and Tie r 3 recommendations wou ld be considered for implementation based on future fund ing co nditions, but also may require demand for services to grow or conditions to change (e .g. new development, changes to the road network). However, plan recommendations may be im plemented as opportunities prese nt t hems elves; th erefore it is conce iva ble th at some Tier 2 or eve n Tier 3 recommendations co uld be advanced before all Ti er 1 recommendations are imp lemented.

translink.ca PWT - 101 SO UH IWEST AREA TRANSPOR T PLAN DRAFT FEBR UAR Y 20 18 15

Bus Transit Service recommendations

LEGEND Frequent Transit Network service ~ (15 min or better frequency, all day, every day) Current Target :0 c:: .!!! frequency frequency .!:! - Increase to service frequency -:u (minutes) (minutes) Qj ~ 0. "' Reduction to service frequency .....0 .."' 0 .su "' . ~ > "CC u 0= c:: "' ..c:: "'~ ""'0 ..:::> ;: C' .."' ! !Ill 4: 4: Route(s) Description ~ ..0 c:: !Ill ~ !Ill c:: !Ill c:: ~ ~ ..> ·;; 0 .: ·;; .."' .."' 0 u "CC 0 ~ 0. 0. ;: ·;; .."' :t: ""'.."' :t: 0. .. 0 0. 0.. 0 0.. 0 .§ z 0:. .§

TIER 1

104 Expanded employment area coverage 12/15 30 12 30 X X X X 301 Add itional frequency 15 30/60 15 30 X 311 Additional frequency 20 / 30 1')/ 20 X 388 New off-peak service 30 30 60 X 401 Redesign the 401 to become two routes:

401e Maintain frequency 9 20/30 1 9 20/30 X Increase frequency to FTN level service (i.e. every 401w 15 minutes or better all-day, every day) 9 20/30 1 I 15 X X 403 Upgrade to FTN 15 15/20 15] l'i X 410, C98 Redesign the 410 to become two routes: I Connects Granville Ave to 22nd Street Sta tion 10 410e serving Westminster Highwa y for all trips 7 10 6 I X X Connects Richmond-Brighouse Station to 410w Steveston Villag e 7 10 10 X Extend service west on Blundell Road further into Kingswood Industrial Area, eventually connecting C98 to Riverport and Highway 99 at Ste veston 30 60 lS 3Cl X X X Highway when future development allows; also serve Fraserwood 430 Additional frequency 15/20 20/ 30 15 20/30 X Increase frequency to meet Frequent Transit Network levels (i.e. every 15 minutes or better, all 601 20 20/30 12 15 X X X X day, every day), and reroute to Sa lish Sea Drive when demand warrants N10,N15 More direct service: More direct connections ta Richmond N10 City Centre 30 30 X X N15 More direct connections to YVR Airport 30 30 X X

• translink.ca PWT - 102 TRANS,fGNK SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFT FEBRUARY 201 8 16

LEGEND Frequent Transit Network service ~ (15 min or better frequency, all day, every day) Current Target c: :0 .!: . ~ frequency frequency ;a - Increase to se rvice frequency (minutes) (minutes) Qj ~ c. "' 0 "'Cll Reduction to service frequency .... .5 0 u ~ . ~ ::> "0 u>- 0 c: "' .s:: t: Cll "' 0 ::> ~ cr ;: "'Cll ~ b/) Qj Qj ~ ..0 c: Route(s) Description b/) b/) c: "'Qj b/) c: ~ ~ > c: ·;: 0 ·;: "'Cll "'Cll 0 u 'ii 0 ~ c. -"' c. ·;: 0. ;: 0 0. Cll :s: Cll :s: Cll Q."' 0 Q."' 0 ..§ z 0:. ..§

TIER 2 RECOMMENDATIONS , .. .. I I .. I • • Connects Bridgeport Station to Knight Street- 20 30 I'J 30 X X X 407e Marine Drive via Bridgeport Road Connects Steveston Village to Bridgeport Station via 407w 20 30 1 ~ 20 X X X Gilbert Road, Lansdowne Road, and Garden City Road Transition the 480 service to be peak-period only, monitoring ridership and adjusting frequency and 480 span of service as other services connecting to UBC 12 20 12 X improve; re-invest resources to support Tier 1 bus im 401 to FTN) Add itional express trips during the 602 20/30 20/30 1'.0 X X midd period 606,608, More direct in Ladner: (86 Restructure service to serve South Ladner to X 606 im prove legibility and trave l time Restructure service to serve Nouth Ladner to X 608 im prove legibility and travel time CB6 No change 30 30/60 30 30/60 Adjust routing and increase service frequency on 609 to better serve growing TFN commun ity (exact 609, (89 routing to be confirmed) and join with the C89 to 60 60 3(1 10/ 60 X X X X also provide better service coverage for Boundary Bay neighbourhood Provide local service to Tilbury Industrial Area all 640 day, every day, increase frequency during evenings 15/20 30 20 30 X and extend an of service to later in the night New limited stop service between Scott Road New C St ation and Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal via SFPR, 60 60 X X Tilbu Ladner Exc and Tsawwassen Mills C76, C87 Better connections in to Ladner Village: Increase C76 service frequency all day, every day, 30 60 10 _,0 X X C76 and extend service into Ladner Village Discontinue due to very low ridership and improve street crossings at Ladn er Trunk Road and 66 Street CB7 for improved access to C76 stops; reinvest resources 30 30/60 into exte the C76 into Ladner

• translink.ca TRANS,K.NK PWT - 103 SO UTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFT FE BR UARY 7013 17

LEG END Frequent Transit Network service ..a~ (15 min or better frequency, all day, every day) Current Target c - ~ frequency frequency ·~ ""§ Increase to service frequency ~ (m inutes) (minutes) Ill "'0. --Ill Red uction to service frequency 0 "'c -0 -.... ~ ~ > :::> :;; .... Ill 0 c .r:. -"' "' 0 :::> "'~ "'0" ~ 3: Qj Qj ~ "' ..a c Route(s) Description ""~ -"' -"' c > c c ·;;"" "'0 "" ·;;"" "' "' .... :;; -"' "'0. -"' "'0. e ·;; e "' :t: :t: 0. 3: 0 0. Q."' 0 Q."' 0 .§ z"' 0:. .§ TIER 2 RECOMMENDATIONS continued

C84 Make service bi-directional 60 60 60 6n X X Expand service hours to include evenings and C92 weekends to make the service more useful for 20 30 20 30 X South Terminal employees and Burkeville res idents C94 Earlier AM service near Richmond Ova l 30 30 30 30 X New service, which would connect Richmond- NewB 30 30 X Brighouse Station to Steveston Village New service to Sunshine Hills neighbourhood of NewF North Delta, subject to further planning work and 30 60 X commun ity engagement North Improve service freq uency and hours of operation on TBD TBD X X Delta loca l routes in No rth Delta to meet expected demand

Increase frequ ency to FTN level service, and 402 12 10 15 X X X extend service along No . 2 Road 20/30 New service along Blunde ll Road, connecting to New A 30 j(J X X Richmond- Brighouse Station Maintain current routing that connects to Richmond-Brighouse Station, but have the 404 30 30 20 30 X south terminus of the service end at Riverside Industrial Area Reroute to connect Bridgeport Station to 405 Riverside Industrial Area via River Drive, Shell 30 30 .~0 30 X X X Road, Bridgeport Road and No. 5 Road Reroute if there is an opportunity for a new transit (88 30 30/ 60 30 30 / 60 X X connection at Hwy 99/Hwy 17A C93 Extend service to London Landing area 30 30/ 60 30 30 / 60 X X Reroute C96 to provide service along Westminster C96 Hwy between No.4 Road and Garden City Road, 30 30 X Cambie Road, Jack Bell Drive and McNeely Drive NewD New service connecting Ladner to Langley 60 60 X X New peak-period express service to connect NewE 30 X X X South lands an d Boundary Bay to Bridgeport Station • translink.ca PWT - 104 TRANS,foNK SO UTH WEST AREA TRANSPORT PlAN DRAFT FEBRUARY 20 13 18

Additional transit service, facility and infrastructure recommendations: Mayors' Council 10-Year Vision

• Improve park and ride by expandin g Transit service and infrastructure priorities have also been current faci lities or creating new facilities identified in the Mayors' Council10-Year Vision.

• Ide nt ify opportunities to improve These priorities include: custome r amen ities and accessibi lity at • Surrey Rapid Transit: New light rail transit (LRT) on stations, exchanges and major bus stops three corridors: 104 Avenue, King George Boulevard • Consider options for potential future and Fraser Highway applications of flexible I on-demand • Canada line: Upgrade capacity through the purchase transit services of new rail cars to provide more service, upgrades to stations, and expansion of facilities • Identify opportunit ies for innovative partnerships and transportation solut ion s • Richmond 8-line: New B-Line connecting Richmond City Centre to Metrotown for se niors and youth traveling north of Bridgeport Station to Vancouver who may • Scott Road B-line: New B-Line connecting Scott Road benefit from more direct connections Station to Newton Exchange

• Id en tify opportunities for transit priority • New and improved bus transfer opportunities at Hwy 99/Steveston Hwy and Hwy 99/Hwy17A to make services faster and more reli able, includin g for approaches to the • New bus exchange and layover facility in Steveston Queensborough Bridge

translink.ca PWT - 105 SO UTHWEST AREA TRAN SPORT PLAN DRAFT FEBRUARY 20 18 19

2. Regionally-significant cycling corridors

A number of reg ionally-s ignifica nt corrid ors are Hi ghway and Wes tm inste r Hi ghway in id entified as priorities For new, or improved, Richmond; Ladn er Trunk Ro ad and River cyc ling fac ilit ies. Improvement s will provide hi gh Ro ad in De lta) quality conn ec tions to transit , urban ce nt res and • Cyc li ng co nn ections betwee n Richmond and re gional transportation gateways . Delta, and to th e Ts awwasse n Ferry Term in al, The se corridors should provid e option s that are are important co nnections th at ne ed to be comfortable and accessible for most cyclists. im proved For these corridors, con sideration may be given Additional specific cyc ling-re lated toward implement ing off-s t ree t pat hs, on-stree t recommendations lanes physica lly se parated fro m traffic, stripe d bicyc le lanes, and neighbourhood street b ikeways • Explore opportunities For improving t he abi li ty with t raffic calm ing and cro ss in gs at major stree ts, For more customers to t ake bi cyc les on bu se s depending on vehicle tra ffic vo lum es. through t he George Massey Tun nel and to th e Tsawwa ssen Ferry Term inal What we heard • Explore opportun it ies fo r more se cure bike • Seven in te n (69%) sa id the re gionally park ing at t ransit station s and excha nges, significa nt cycling corridors identified For including Bridgeport Station and Richmond prioritization are t he right ones Brighouse Stat ion • One-quarter (25%) of t hose who choose to • Explore opportunit ies to improve cycling share comments sa id that cy cli ng co rridors cond it ions and infrastructure for bridge should be protec ted and/or separated from cross ings, inc lud ing t he Kn ight Street Bridge vehicle t raffic, es pecially on ro adways w ith and West ham Island Bridge hi gh traffic and hi gh spee ds (e.g. St eveston

" Thank you to hansLink for having given me the opportunity to participate in the SWATP PA C. I have been impressed by th e degree of effort that goes in to making plan s for our transit system. As a tra nsit user with a disability, I was pleased to be able to share my perspective in an inclusive, "not disa bility specifi c" environment. It was also interesting to hear from the many PAC members who co uld speak to the larger transit network concerns, for example, bike paths. "

LOU ISE GA UDRY, MEMBER , SWATP PUBLI C ADVI SORY COMM ITTEE

translink.ca PWT - 106 SO UTH WEST AREA TRAN SPOR T PLAN DRA FT FE BRU AR Y 20 18 20

Regionally-significant cycling corridors

Knight Street Marine Drive

100th Ave

~ ~ 9)ndAve g ~ 88th Ave ii:

84th Ave s u R REV

Will iams \ !; ~ f. ~ Stt veston 72ndAve " ~ ~ ~ Mcn c t a n S l

Steveston STEVESTON 64 th Ave -t.; ~c "o~<>&' ~~

WESTHAM I 5 LAN 0 .... Hwv99

LA 0 N E R Ladner Exchange Matlhews Exchange DELTA

OeltaportWay

281 AYe 28th Ave Legend

~ Recommended cycling corridors

0 SkyTrain station 0 Bus exchange Industrial Land

Agricultural Land Reserve TSAWWASS Parks

Urban Centres

translink.ca PWT - 107 SOUTH WEST AREA TRANSP ORT PLAN DRAFf FEHRUARY 20"18 21

3. Walking access to transit

Improve ments in wa lkin g access to transit unive rsa lly accessible stree t cro ss in gs, and should be pri oritize d within urban centres and oth er imp rove ments nee ded to support regional employ ment areas, includin g improving access conn ec t ivity for pe des trians. to Can ada Lin e st ations and bu s se rvic es t hat Additional specific walking-related op erate frequ ently throughout th e day. recommendat ions Translink should work with local gove rnm ent • Part ner with th e City of Delta to improve th e staff, st akeholde rs and the public to ide nt ify intersec tion of Lad ner Trunk Ro ad and 66 and address physica l barriers to accessing Street so th at res idents ca n access bu s stops transit for pedestrians, including t hose with mobility challenges. • Partner with th e City of Richm ond and t he Ministry of Tr ansportation and Infrastru cture Improve ments to walking infras tructure in th ese to ident ify op portunities for bu s stops and locat ions could include things such as new or street crossin gs along Wes tmin ste r Highwa y improve d sid ewa lks on both sid es of th e stree t, nea r Fr ase rwood

Pedes trians on No.3 Road Pedes trians accessing a bus stop in Ladn er Village

" I rea lly enjoyed th e opportunity to participate in the SWA TP Pu blic Advisory Co mmittee. I have enjoyed working with both staff and community leaders. I now appreciate and un derstand th e amo unt of hard work an d information gathering needed to deliver a viable tra nsportation system to satisfy our stakeho lders. "

MICHAEl CHIU, MEMB ER , SWATP PUBLIC ADVI SORY COMM ITTEE

translink.ca PWT - 108 SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN O f~ AFT FEBRUARY 20 18 22

4. Major Road Network

Th e Major Road Network (MRN) is a network of responsibility for the MRN rema in s w ith th e appro ximately 600 km of road th at fac ilitates th e respective local governments. Trans link and loca l safe and effic ient movement of peo ple and goods governm ents also share t he cost of minor cap ital across the re gion . It co nnects the provin cial hi ghway projects to improve MRN ro ads, to th e benefit of system with the loca l road network and so me drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. corridors also se rve cyc li sts and pedestrians. Th rough the SWATP process, Tr anslink has worked Translin k, in partnership with loca l gove rnm ents, with local governm ents to id entify road corridors to plans the region's MRN . Tr anslink provid es fu nding be co nsidered for poss ible in clusion in the MRN . Th e for the operation, maintenance and rehab ilitati on following map shows th ese corridors. These will be of the MRN, but ownership and operational co nsidered as ca ndidates for any fu tu re expansion.

Candidates for addition to the Major Road Network (MRN)

96th Ave

V> 0

~ "~ 881 Ave su RR y ~"'· ~ ~ ~ N w N ~ N ~ 5' ~ ~ ~ V> " V> ~ ~ ~

WESTHAM ISlAND ~s1-1 ~-?)4-t Ql90'.fQ'

l egend - Provincial or Federal Road

- Major Road Network - Current

- Major Ro ad Network- Candidates for addition Industrial Land

TSAWWA S SE Agricultural Land Reserve

Parks

Urban Centres

translink.ca PWT - 109 SO UTHWEST AREA TRANSPORT PLAN DRAFT FEBR UARY 20 18 23

I Next steps

The Southwest Area Transport Plan has identified recommendations re lated to transit se rvice and infrastructure, regionally-significant cyc ling corridors, wa lking access to transit and the Ma jor Road Network. Thi s is a li ving document and Tra nslink will conti nu e to work co llaborative ly w ith loca l government partners to determ in e if we are on track or need to ad just co urse to de liver the recommendations in th is Plan.

Implementation

There are number of different ways by wh ich construct new or improved cycling and walking recommendations contained in this plan infrastru cture . Additionally, roadway corridors might be implemented. For examp le, transit identified by loca l governments as priorities for recomme ndations that ca n be impleme nted by moving people and goods in t he Southwest Area rea llocating ex isting reso urces may be advanced will be co nside red for any fu t ure ex pansion of t he t hroug h ou r qua rterly transit service changes. Ma jor Road Network. Recommendations that requ ire additiona l funding Tracking progress or further detailed plann ing and des ign will be considered for imp lementation based on demand Fo llowing the completion of an Area Tra nsport and future fund ing cond itions. Add it ionally, Plan, regular monitoring takes place to t rack the ind ividual recommendations may be imp lemented status of the plan and report back on progress. all at once or incrementally over time (e.g. steadily Plan recommendations wi ll be reviewed to ensure imp rov in g service freq uency until it reaches land use and t ransportation plann ing continue to the leve l identified in this plan, or phas ing in be coo rdin ated . network changes). Further public engagement Thank you wou ld take place prior to the impleme ntation of recommendations that might invo lve trade-offs or Tha nk you to everyone who participated in impacts for customers. this process by getting engaged and sharing t heir feedback to improve t he future of transit Recommendations related to cycling and wa lking and transportation in Richmond, Delta and might be implemented through cost-share Tsawwassen First Nation. funding programs offered by Trans l ink to which loca l governments can app ly for fu ndi ng to

translink.ca PWT - 110 City of Richmond Bylaw 9816

Traffic Bylaw No. 5870 Amendment Bylaw No. 9816

The Council ofthe City of Richmond enacts as follows:

1. Traffic Bylaw No. 5870, as amended, is amended further by deleting Schedule C and replacing it with Schedule A attached hereto as the new Schedule C to Bylaw No. 5870.

2. This Bylaw is cited as "Traffic Bylaw No. 5870, Amendment Bylaw No. 9816".

CITY OF FIRST READING RICHMOND APPROVED for content by SECOND READING originating

THIRD READING vW" APPROVED for legality ADOPTED by Solicitor ~R..~

MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER

PWT - 111 5688976 SCHEDULE A to AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 9816

SCHEDULE C to BYLAW NO. 5870

SPEED ZONES

Highways On Which Traffic Is Limited To 60 Kilometres (37.28 Miles) Per Hour

1. Westminster Highway between No. 4 Road and No. 6 Road.

2. Westminster Highway between Nelson Road and Highway 91.

3. No. 6 Road between Cambie Road and Westminster Highway.

4. Vulcan Way from No. 6 Road to a point 46 metres (50.31 yards) east of the Bath Slough Bridge.

5. Alderbridge Way between No. 4 Road and Shell Road.

PWT - 112 5688976 City of Report to Committee Richmond

To: Public Works and Transportation Committee Date: February 28, 2018 From: Victor Wei, P. Eng. File: 10-6500-01 /2018-Vol Director, Transportation 01 Re: Public Bike Share - Proposed Pilot Project

Staff Recommendation

1. That staff be directed to issue a Request for Proposals for the development and operation of a public bike share system as a pilot project, as described in the staff report dated February 28, 2018, from the Director, Transportation; and

2. That staff report back on the responses to the above Request for Proposals with further recommendations prior to the award of any contract(s) and implementation of the pilot program.

Victor Wei, P. Eng. Director, Transportation (604-276-4131)

Att. 1

REPORT CONCURRENCE

ROUTED TO: CONCURRENCE CONCURRENCE OF GENERAL MANAGER

Administration & Compliance Gf""" Economic Development uv- 4)¥ ?iff ~~~ Engineering ~ Law ~ Parks if Business Licences ~ Community Bylaws 13"'

INITIALS: REVIEWED BY STAFF REPORT I ~DBYCAO AGENDA REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE (}) 'v~ .... •

5754120 PWT - 113 February 28, 2018 - 2 -

Staff Report

Origin

The City has been approached by representatives of several different operators of public bike share systems expressing interest in launching operations in Richmond. This report discusses the opportunity and presents a proposed process to facilitate the introduction of a public bike share system in Richmond.

This report supports Council's 2014-2018 Term Goal #3 A Well-Planned Community:

Adhere to effective planning and growth management practices to maintain and enhance the livability, sustainability and desirability of our City and its neighbourhoods, and to ensure the results match the intentions ofour policies and bylaws.

3. 3. Effective transportation and mobility networks.

Findings of Fact

Public Bike Share Systems

Public bike share (PBS) systems involve companies that provide bicycles in various locations in a city for shared use by individuals on a short-term basis. Via digital technology, users can pick up a bicycle in one location and return it to another location within a defined service area. PBS systems have been around for a number of years in many cities around the world, including London, Paris, Washington DC, and several cities in China. In Canada, PBS systems have been operating in Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, and Vancouver. The Mobi by ShawGO system operating in the City of Vancouver, which is currently the region's only PBS system, launched in Summer 2016.

There are two main models for PBS systems with the difference essentially being the form of technology for locking and unlocking a bike:

• Docked Systems: Require relatively expensive and fixed docking stations that can be difficult to re-site and substantial amounts of space to locate the stations in the public realm (e.g., street right-of-way, sidewalks, parks, parking areas). These systems are digitally accessed by cellular phone or swiping of a credit card at the station and the locking and unlocking technology most typically occurs in the docking station. While this system is Figure 1: Mobi Docking Station in Vancouver visually easy to recognize, the costs for the infrastructure can require government subsidy. The cost to install a docking station is approximately $3,500 per bike.

PWT - 114 5754120 February 28,2018 - 3 -

The Mobi system in Vancouver is a station-based model (Figure 1). The City ofVancouver administers a private contract with Vancouver Bike Share Inc., a subsidiary of CycleHop, which is North America's largest "smart bike" bike share operator. The City supp01ied CycleHop with a $5 million fee for the launch and operation of the PBS system for five years plus in-kind support, including docking station sites. In December 2016, Shaw Communications became the system's presenting sponsor as part of a multi-year partnership that is intended to help ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the service.

• Dockless Systems: The bicycles are accessed via a mobile app and equipped with GPS and digital locks so that they can be parked anywhere. Using the mobile app, would-be riders locate a bike near them and then scan a barcode attached to a locking mechanism on the rear tire to release the lock, thereby eliminating the need for a physical bike rack or docking station. At the end ofa trip, the bike can be parked where legally permitted to do so or at a designated bike parking area that can be marked both on the app and physically at the parking location. As a result, dockless bike share systems have the potential to be less expensive to implement in a broader range of urban conditions, typically at no cost to cities, and to be more convenient for customers.

Regional Interest in Public Bike Share Systems

Within the past year, several jurisdictions in BC have either implemented or are in the process of seeking implementation of a PBS system including:

• City of Victoria: Through a letter of intent with the City of Victoria, China-based U-Bicycle launched a fleet of 150 dockless bicycles in Victoria on September 30, 2017 for a one-year pilot project at no cost to the City. Up to 500 bicycles are planned to be made available by Spring 2018. Bicycles can be parked in public areas wherever it is legal to do so without impeding vehicle traffic or blocking pedestrians on sidewalks. Penalties may be charged for improperly parked bicycles.

• City o[Kelowna: In January 2018, the City of Kelowna Council approved that the City enter into an agreement with Ontario-based Dropbike for an 18-month PBS pilot project. Staff were directed to bring forward an agreement for the purpose of licensing use of the public right-of way for a PBS service for Council consideration with the launch of the pilot project anticipated in Spring 2018. Initially, 500 bikes (and up to 1,500 bikes) will be deployed at no cost to the City. Dropbike utilizes dockless bikes that will be parked in "havens" that are virtually defined by GPS to delineate geographical boundaries and visually defined by pavement markings as well as approved by the City to ensure that Figure 2: Dropbike Parking Haven parked bikes do not impede circulation or accessibility of the public right-of-way (Figure 2).

PWT - 115 5754120 February 28, 2018 - 4-

• University o[British Columbia: In early February 2018, UBC issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a provider of a PBS system for an 18-month pilot (to the end of 20 19) with roll-out of the bikes anticipated in Summer 2018. Key elements of the RFP include no capital or operating costs for the University, a minimum of200 bikes and up to 2,000 bikes, and a service area encompassing the campus plus the surrounding neighbourhood areas.

In addition, as a number of municipalities across the region have been approached by docldess PBS operators, TransLink is collaborating with municipal partners to produce sometime in Spring 2018 regional guidance for the introduction of dockless public bike sharing that would include:

• Regulations: restatement or interpretation of existing legal requirements including helmet use, bicycle safety standards, and personal data security; • Common Standards: agreed practices for operating in the region including data sharing, pricing and concessions, minimum operational standards, and requirements for equitable access; and • Areas for Exploration: matters for local determination or requiring testing to increase shared knowledge and inform policy including local bylaw and permit review, parking and public realm management, caps on the numbers of bicycles, readiness of cycling infrastructure, and payment systems (including integration with Compass).

Consultation with Stakeholders

As part of the preparation of this report, staff requested feedback from three local bike shops (Cap's/Krusty's Bikes, Village Bikes, and Steveston Bicycle & Mobility) that also rent bikes as well as Tourism Richmond on any potential impacts should a pilot PBS project be implemented in Richmond. No responses were received from the three bike shops by the requested deadline.

Staff met with a representative from Tourism Richmond who indicated that the agency is supportive of a PBS system that is easily accessible by tourists as the service would help linlc local tourist attractions (e.g., between hotels and Britannia Shipyard) and align with its planned initiatives to promote cycle tourism in Richmond (e.g., develop themed bike routes for tourists). Tourism Richmond offered a number of suggestions to make a PBS system attractive for visitors.

The concept was also discussed with the Richmond Active Transportation Committee, which is an informal advisory committee to Council that provides input and feedback to the City on projects related to cycling, in-line skating, skateboarding, and low-speed scooters. The Committee is supportive of a PBS service in Richmond provided adequate time is taken to ensure that a launch is successful and the system is sustainable over the long-term. Members also supported designating specific parking areas for PBS bikes only, particularly in the City Centre where there is relatively limited public space and more demand for existing bike racks from non-PBS users.

PWT - 116 5754120 February 28, 2018 - 5 -

Analysis

Opportunity for Public Bike Share in Richmond

The Mobility & Access section of the City's Official Community Plan (OCP) recognizes the potential for a PBS service to increase local cycling trips and mode share with the following policy: i) support the implementation of a public bike-share system as part ofa regional program that integrates with transit service.

The Canada Line provides a strong anchor for generating bicycle trips within the City Centre and Richmond's flat topography further complements cycling as a convenient mode of transportation. To this end, the key objectives of a PBS service in Richmond are:

1. Support alternate modes of transportation by complementing transit and walking trips; 2. Support and generate renewed interest in cycling; 3. Be affordable and easy to use; 4. Incur no financial costs (capital or operating) to the City; 5. Provide safe and well-maintained bicycles complete with helmets that meet all applicable safety standards in the Province of BC; 6. Provide adequate supply, coverage, locations, and redistribution of bicycles to support the program's viability; 7. Minimize disruption to and maintain accessibility of the public right-of-way; 8. Be able to address issues common to other dockless PBS systems experienced in other cities (e.g., bicycles illegally parked, abandoned or vandalized); and 9. Be able to integrate with existing and future regional public bike share and transit systems.

Proposed Public Bike Share Pilot Project

As the public bike share industry has evolved towards docldess systems that have allowed operators to significantly decrease costs and thereby deploy systems at no cost to the host city and as the City has been approached by multiple dockless PBS operators, staff recommend seeking a single provider through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to operate a PBS service in Richmond for 12 to 18 months at no cost to the City. The intent ofthe RFP would be to secure a single operator in the interests of maximizing the success of a pilot program by minimizing the dilution of potential market uptake across multiple providers, better managing the competition for space within the public realm, and minimizing potential impacts to staff resources. Notwithstanding, staff may consider multiple operators pending the calibre of the RFP responses.

A pilot program would allow staff to monitor and assess the long-term feasibility of a PBS program in Richmond. The key considerations of the RFP evaluation framework would be based on the extent of meeting the nine program objectives stated above as well as the following that incorporate suggestions from Tourism Richmond as noted above (see Attachment 1 for more details):

• Operations: Potential usage patterns, coverage and the effects on pedestrian and cyclist safety and comfort. Establishment of a local operations and maintenance centre that monitors and

5754120 PWT - 117 February 28, 2018 - 6-

responds to, within an acceptable time period, bikes that are left or moved to unsuitable locations so that this task does not fall to City staff. • Public Realm: Creation of virtual stations as designated bike parking areas, particularly in the City Centre, to help avoid potential obstructions in the public realm by improperly parked bicycles (Figure 3). These virtual spaces also have the advantage of being easily relocated if required. Station locations should prioritize access to transit and designated cycling routes. All locations would be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Figure 3: Potential PBS Parking Station at Intersection Corner Clearance (Saba Road at No. 3 Road) Transportation. • Distribution: All bikes to be equipped with GPS tracking devices so that they can be located at all times. • Safety: All bikes to meet applicable safety standards and legislative requirements including the provision of a helmet with each bike. • Costs: Pricing models, user accessibility and affordability, cost recovery for the City, and long-term financial sustainability of the service. • Data: Security and privacy of user data, and City access to real-time information on bicycle locations and usage/condition status as well as trip data. • Risk Management: Operator to indemnify the City and have commercial general liability insurance that names the City as an additional insured.

For the proposed pilot project, staff recommend that the service area be limited to predominantly the City Centre and potentially Steveston as typically, PBS programs have started in urban centres where trip density and traffic congestion make the service an attractive alternative travel mode that also complements transit use.

To reduce any impacts on existing public bike parking, the provider could also identify areas for additional bike racks in the city. Although a dockless PBS system does not require a fixed object such as a bike rack to lock the bike as the wheels are self-locking, a bike rack would better identify PBS bicycles and ensure unrented bikes are parked in an orderly manner.

With respect to potential impacts to local bike shops that also rent bikes, staff note that rental bikes are not their core business. PBS systems and bike shops with rental bikes also have different business models somewhat analogous to those of rental car companies and car-share operators: PBS is typically for very short-term and short distance trips as opposed to rentals for several hours or daily, and PBS typically supports commuter or personal business trips rather than leisure or recreational trips.

PWT - 118 5754 120 February 28, 2018 - 7 -

Financial Impact

None.

Conclusion

The establislunent of a public bike share system that allows residents and visitors to access affordable and convenient bicycles for short distance trips would provide a number of community benefits that support the City's mobility, carbon reduction and economic development goals consistent with the OCP. Staff recommend that a Request for Proposals be issued to secure a provider of a public bike share pilot program for 12 to 18 months at no cost to the City. Following the receipt and evaluation of any proposals, staff would report back with a recommendation. ~ - ' .S onal'H' 1 mgoram, ~ P .Eng. Joan Ca1:avan Transportation Engineer Transportation Planner (604-276-4049) (604-276-4035)

SH:jc

Att. 1: Request for Proposal Evaluation Considerations

PWT - 119 5754120 Attachment 1

RFP Evaluation Considerations for Public Bike Share Pilot Program

The evaluation of any proposals received will be based on but not limited to the following criteria.

Business Considerations

• Quality ofbusiness plan. Provide financial projections to demonstrate long-term system sustainability. • Alignment with City's program objectives. • Applicable experience in other cities. • Provision of potential revenue stream for use of City property, resources and cost recovery. • Acknowledgement that no duty, responsibility or obligation is required by the City. • Third party advertising is not permitted.

System Requirements

• Demonstrate rationale for minimum and maximum number of bikes for deployment including phasing strategy. • System to be compliant with all Province ofBC applicable safety standards and legislative requirements. • System to provide one bicycle helmet per bicycle and address bicycle helmet hygiene. • All system component specifications and photographs are to be provided including features of bicycles, IT infrastructure, bike parking systems, etc. • Identify location of designated bicycle parking areas for umented bikes and potential locations to create bike parking areas without disrupting public realm and pedestrian areas. Parking not permitted on sidewalks, on-street parking spaces, driveways, ramps, or boulevards in undesignated areas. • System deployment limited to the coverage area identified in RFP. Contact information for public bike share service provider to be clearly shown on all bikes. • Based on the service area, provide a conceptual layout of bike parking locations and estimated number of bicycles at each location. • Bicycles to be equipped with GPS tracking system. Details to be provided regarding how bikes are tracked during origin, destination, route, and completion of the trip. • Identify accuracy of GPS system for bikes and geo-fencing grids. • Responsive and timely solutions to redistribution ofbicycles and/or other issues that anse. • Provide security deposit to the City to cover potential costs for City crews to be deployed for bike redistribution. • Indemnity provided to the City and insurance requirements met and documented. • Provide detail operational plan of how public realm will be managed. • Operator to address how equitable access to bike share is provided with their system (e.g., how is access provided to people without smartphones). • Ability to accommodate multiple rentals per app so that one individual can rent multiple bikes (e.g., for family members). • Where possible, bicycle parking areas to be located where free WiFi is available to accommodate visitors from outside of Canada who may not have data on their phone to use the bike share app. PWT - 120 5754120 Attachment 1 Cont'd

RFP Evaluation Considerations for Public Bike Share Pilot Program

• Clear directional signage and maps be placed near bike parking areas to allow visitors to easily find the nearest designated bike route and city attractions and destinations.

Maintenance and Operation Standards

• Bikes are to be maintained in a safe and fully functional state of operation at all times (frequency of inspection by provider). • Any bike that is unsafe or damaged or in need of repair is to be removed in a timely manner. • Provide redistribution of bike fleet and remove bikes parked at improper locations. • Establishment of a local operations and maintenance centre that monitors and responds to, within an acceptable time period, bikes that are left or moved to unsuitable locations so that this task does not fall to City staff. • Reduce use of public bike racks. Supplemental bike rack locations for designated bike share parking to be identified by provider. • Unrented bikes are not to create any obstruction or hazards within the public right-of-way and keep all pedestrian areas clear and accessible. • Bikes are to be parked such that they are not likely to tip over. • All infrastructure installed by the provider to be removed at the end of the trial period and the existing surface condition to be reinstated. • Provision to end the pilot program should commitments not be kept in a condition acceptable to the City.

Data Security and Sharing

• Details to be provided to the City regarding data sharing of bike trip information. • Privacy of customer information to be addressed. Respect and protect all user personal and financial information. • Company to be registered in the Province of British Columbia. Demonstrate compliance with the BC Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents.

5754120 PWT - 121 City of Report to Committee Richmond

To: Public Works and Transportation Committee Date: February 23, 2018 From: John Irving, P.Eng. MPA File: 10-6060-03-01/2018- Director, Engineering Vol 01 Re: Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784, Amendment Bylaw No. 9774

Staff Recommendation

That the Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784, Amendment Bylaw No. 9774 be introduced and given first, second and third readings. Q{ John Irving, P .Eng. MP Director, Engineering (604-276-4140)

Att. 2

REPORT CONCURRENCE

ROUTED TO: CONCURRENCE CONCURRENCE OF GENERAL MANAGER Corporate Communications Law ~ Water Services cJ_/ ======Parks Services ~ Community Bylaws v(

REVIEWED BY STAFF REPORT I INITIALS: AGENDA REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE (~ ~ B~ -..

PWT - 122 5523527 February 23,2018 - 2 -

Staff Report

Origin

The Drinking Water Conservation Plan (the "Plan") was originally prepared by Metro Vancouver in 2004 as the Water Shortage Response Plan and was adopted by the City of Richmond through the Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784. The Plan and bylaw identify staged water use restrictions that manage discretionary uses of water while minimizing impacts on residents and avoiding unnecessary hardships on businesses during periods of high demand, water shortages and emergencies.

In 2016, Metro Vancouver completed a review of the Plan. Proposed changes were presented to member municipalities and were reviewed by City staff. At the January 23, 2017 Regular Council Meeting, Council adopted the following motion:

That the comments on Metro Vancouver's proposed changes to the Water Shortage Response Plan, as summarized in the staffreport titled "Water Shortage Response Plan Proposed Changes, "dated January 3, 2017, ji-om the Director, Engineering be submitted to Metro Vancouver.

The City's comments were submitted to Metro Vancouver and the Plan has been revised based on comments submitted by member municipalities. The updated Drinking Water Conservation Plan has been finalized by Metro Vancouver. This report proposes amendments to the City of Richmond's Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7884 to reflect changes in the Plan.

This report supports Council's 2014-2018 Term Goal #4 Leadership in Sustainability:

Continue advancement ofthe City's sustainability ji-amework and initiatives to improve the short and long term livability ofour City, and that maintain Richmond's position as a leader in sustainable programs, practices and innovations.

4.1. Continued implementation ofthe sustainability ji-amework.

4.2. Innovative projects and initiatives to advance sustainability.

This repmi supports Council's 2014-2018 Term Goal #6 Quality Infrastructure Networks:

Continue diligence towards the development of inji-astructure networks that are safe, sustainable, and address the challenges associated with aging systems, population growth, and environmental impact.

6.1. Safe and sustainable inji-astructure.

6. 2. Infrastructure is reflective of and keeping pace with community need.

5523527 PWT - 123 February 23, 2018 - 3 -

Analysis

Metro Vancouver's Drinking Water Conservation Plan

The Plan identifies four stages of watering restrictions. Stage 1 is activated each year during the summer months. Higher stages, each with more stringent restrictions for outdoor water use, are activated by Metro Vancouver in response to more critical water supply conditions. Stages 2 and 3 are likely to be activated during unusually hot and dry conditions, while Stage 4 may be activated during an emergency to limit water use to essential needs only.

The unprecedented hot and dry summer of 2015 together with a low winter snowpack resulted in record-low storage levels in Metro Vancouver's reservoirs and the activation of Stage 3 of watering restrictions. This was the most significant activation of the Plan to date and the challenges experienced during the summer of 2015 prompted Metro Vancouver to review and update the Plan in 2016 and 2017.

The Plan was updated to align with four key principles:

1. To recognize drinking water as a precious resource that must be conserved; 2. To maintain the environmental, economic vitality and health and safety of the region to the extent possible in the face of a water shortage; 3. To optimize available water supplies and reduce water use; and 4. To minimize adverse impacts to public activity and quality oflife for the region's residents.

The revised Plan (Attachment 1) was approved by the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) Board in June 2017 and took effect in November 2017.

Proposed Changes to the Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784

Proposed changes to the City of Richmond's Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784 generally align with Metro Vancouver's revisions to the Plan. One exception is proposed for the watering of City lawns, parks and boulevards and the additional provision proposed is further detailed below.

Proposed Changes to Align with Updates to the Plan The following changes to Bylaw No. 7784 are proposed to align with updates made to the Plan: • The activation date for Stage 1 Restriction is revised from May 15 to May 1 annually;

• New general restrictions that apply throughout all restriction stages: o All hoses must have an automatic shut-off device; o Water must not be unnecessarily run off on impermeable surfaces such as driveways, curbs, pathways and gutters when watering lawns and plants; o Artificial playing turf and outdoor tracks must not be watered except for a health or safety reason; o Hoses and taps must not run unnecessarily; and o Irrigation systems must not be faulty, leaking or misdirected.

5523527 PWT - 124 February 23,2018 - 4-

• An exemption that allows the City to use water outside of water restrictions for the purpose of protecting public health and safety;

• Lawn sprinkling: o Lawn sprinkling during Stage 1 is reduced from 3 mornings per week to 2 mornings per week; and o The designated lawn sprinkling day for residential properties with even-numbered addresses during Stage 2 has been changed from Monday to Wednesday.

• The sprinkling of trees, shrubs and flowers (excluding edible plants) which was previously unrestricted during Stages 1 and 2 is restricted to the hours below during Stages 1 and 2: o Residential lots: Permitted only from 4:00am to 9:00 am; and o Non-residential and public lots: Permitted only from 1 :00 am to 9:00 am.

• Watering of soil-based and sand-based playing fields, which was previously unrestricted, is proposed to be restricted as follows, except when operating in accordance with an approved Water Management Plan or when operating under a local government permit for newly seeded fields: o Stage 1: Watering permitted from 7:00pm to 9:00am on any day; o Stage 2: Watering of soil-based playing fields permitted between 7:00pm and 9:00am on any day for no more than 4 days in a 7-day period; watering of sand based playing fields permitted between 7:00pm and 9:00am on any day; and o Stage 3: Watering of soil-based playing fields permitted between 7:00pm and 9:00am on any day for no more than 3 days in a 7-day period; watering of sand based playing fields permitted between 7:00pm and 9:00am on any day for no more than 5 days in a 7 -day period.

• Provisions have been added to allow owners and operators of golf courses and playing fields to apply to the City to operate under approved Water Management Plans;

• Restrictions prohibiting the topping up of ornamental fountains during Stage 2 and Stage 3 have been extended to all aesthetic water features;

• Restrictions for commercial car washing during Stage 3 are introduced to encourage adoption of efficient technologies that reduces water use;

• The use of water to fill or re-fill commercial pools and hot-tubs which was previously prohibited during Stage 3 is proposed to be permitted if operating in accordance with a permit issued by an authorized health authority; and

• Restrictions for the operation of water play parks and pools during Stage 2 and Stage 3 have been introduced.

5523527 PWT - 125 February 23 , 2018 - 5 -

Proposed Changes for Watering of City Lawns, Parks and Boulevards The Plan restricts watering of City lawns, parks and boulevards to the same time periods as non residential properties. The restricted watering times create operational issues for large parks and remotely controlled sprinkling systems throughout the City. These systems were exempt from restrictions in previous versions of the Plan.

Staff recommend pe1mitting the watering of City lawns and boulevards outside of prescribed hours when operating under an approved Water Management Plan in Stages 1 and 2, similar to provisions provided for golf courses and playing fields. The Water Management Plan ensures that watering operations are designed to align with the key principles of the Plan by optimizing available water supplies, reducing water use and minimizing adverse impacts to public activity. Similar provisions are being proposed for the City of Suney.

Public Communication and Next Steps

If Amendment Bylaw No. 9774 is adopted, Stage 1 watering restrictions will take effect on May 1, 2018. Staffwill develop and implement a comprehensive communication strategy prior to May 2018 to ensure that residents and business owners are aware ofthe proposed changes. The strategy will include aspects of Metro Vancouver' s regional communication pieces and will include social media, news releases and the City's website.

Financial Impact

None.

Conclusion

The Drinking Water Conservation Plan and the City' s Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784 have been effective tools for managing water demand during times of shortages or emergencies. Metro Vancouver's amendments to the Plan will further improve demand management and promote water conservation. Staff recommend that the City's Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784 be amended to be consistent with regional initiatives with one additional provision introduced for the watering of City lawns, parks and boulevards.

c=__ ~t. Lloy'cl- 1e, P.Eng. J3_eataNg~ Manager, Engineering Planning Project Engineer (604-276-4075) (604-276-4257)

Att 1: Drinking Water Conservation Plan Att 2: Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784, Amendment Bylaw No. 8774

5523527 PWT - 126 Attachment 1 metrovancouver

a SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGIONPWT - 127 ~ Published date: This Plan is to come into force and take effect on November 1, 2017

PWT - 128 Table of Contents

1 Overview of the Drinking Water Conservation Plan ...... 1

2 Metro Vancouver's role in ensuring the sustainable use of water resources ...... 2

2.1 Managing the region's drinking water responsibly ...... 2

2.2 Water conservation in Metro Vancouver ...... 2

3 Drinking Water Conservation Plan- Stages 1 through 4 ...... 3

3.1 Stage 1 Water Restrictions ...... 4

3.2 Stage 2 Water Restrictions ...... 6

3.3 Stage 3 Water Restrictions ...... 8

3.4 Stage 4 Water Restrictions ...... 11

3.5 Stage activation ...... 12

3.6 Public notification ...... 13

3.7 Monitoring and enforcement ...... 13

3.8 Updating the Drinking Water Conservation Plan ...... 13

4 Exemption for local governments for health and safety reasons ...... 14

5 Members of the Greater Vancouver Water District ...... 14

6 Glossary and terms ...... 15

PWT - 129 1 Overview of the Drinking Water Conservation Plan

The Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) was created and constituted under the provincial statute the Greater Vancouver Water District Act, to supply drinking water to the Metro Vancouver region. The GVWD is governed by an Administration Board (the Board) consisting of representatives from the local government members of the GVWD. The Board appoints a Commissioner (the GVWD Commissioner) who provides management and oversight of the activities of the GVWD . The GVWD operates under the name "Metro Vancouver".

Metro Vancouver, working together with the local government members of the GVWD, provides clean, safe drinking water to the region's population of 2.5 million. Metro Vancouver's Drinking Water Conservation Plan (DWCP) is a regional policy developed with local governments and other stakeholders to manage the use of drinking water during periods of high demand, mostly during late spring to early fall, and during periods of water shortages and emergencies. The DWCP helps ensure our collective needs for drinking water are met affordably and sustainably now, and in the future.

There are two complementary documents to the DWCP. One is the Board's Drinking Water Conservation Policy which describes: 1) the GVWD Commissioner's decision-making process for activating and deactivating Stages of the DWCP; and 2) the implementation process for local governments.

The second complementary document is Metro Vancouver's Drinking Water Management Plan, which sets out the following three goals:

1. Provide clean, safe drinking water.

2. Ensure the sustainable use of water resources.

3. Ensure the efficient supply of water.

The water restrictions, as outlined in the DWCP, provide regional direction for meeting Goal 2- Ensuring the sustainable use of water resources.

The DWCP applies only to local government members of the GVWD and the use of drinking water from the GVWD's water system. Jurisdictions that are not local government members of the GVWD are encouraged to follow the restrictions in the plan to help conserve drinking water and demonstrate leadership and consistency to water users across the region. The DWCP restrictions do not apply to the use of rain water, grey water, any forms of recycled water, or water from sources outside the GVWD water system. If water is supplied from an alternative source other than the GVWD water system, such users are encouraged to display signs indicating the alternative water source.

Underlying the development and implementation of the DWCP are the following four principles:

1. Recognize drinking water as a precious resource that must be conserved. 2. Maintain the environmental, economic vitality and health and safety of the region to the extent possible in the face of a water shortage. 3. Optimize available water supplies and reduce water use. 4. Minimize adverse impacts to public activity and quality of life for the region's residents.

1 PWT - 130 2 Metro Vancouver's role in ensuring the sustainable use of water resources

2.1 Managing the region's drinking water responsibly

Metro Vancouver is responsible for storing, treating and delivering clean, safe drinking water through its local governments to over 2.5 million people in the Metro Vancouver region of British Columbia.

Metro Vancouver's water system includes three watersheds and associated dams and reservoirs, treatment facilities, an extensive transmission system, plus the performance of related operational and maintenance tasks to manage this infrastructure. 1 I Metro Vancouver distributes water to local government members on a BOARD cost recovery basis. STRATEGIC PLAN

Local governments then deliver drinking water, through their infrastructure, directly to individual properties. All individual billing and I enforcement of water use restrictions is undertaken by each respective r DRINKING WATER local government. MANAGEMENT PLAN

Metro Vancouver manages the region's water system in accordance with Provincial regulations and Federal guidelines. In addition to meeting those regulations and guidelines, Metro Vancouver is responsible for developing \ long-range plans for managing the region's drinking water and operating DRINKING WATER CONSERVATION PLAN the water system. The system is operated in alignment with priorities identified in Metro Vancouver's Board Strategic Plan, under the region's Drinking Water Management Plan and in consideration of the principles of sustainability through decision making that considers social, economic, and environmental values.

2.2 Water conservation in Metro Vancouver

Water conservation is a major component of Metro Vancouver's planning to ensure the sustainable use of water resources. Helping water users such as residents, businesses, schools, and local governments to use only what they need helps ensure an efficient and relatively cost effective water system.

Most precipitation in Metro Vancouver occurs between November and April. Dry summer months lead to an increase in water use, particularly for the outdoor uses described in the DWCP. Assisting water users to develop sustainable water use habits year round makes a significant difference in lowering daily demand and sustaining reservoir levels during dry months. Lowering demand through water conservation practices also defers the need to invest in expanding the infrastructure, even as the region's population grows by approximately 35,000 residents annually.

The DWCP describes the staged restrictions related to outdoor water use that water users should follow to:

• Prevent water from being wasted;

2 PWT - 131 • Prepare for and respond to drought and emergency conditions;

• Ensure drinking water can be delivered to all users during the summer when rainfall levels are lowest and the demand for water is highest;

• Adapt to a changing climate;

• Support fish habitat and ecosystems;

• Minimize the costly expansion of the water system infrastructure; and

• Maintain adequate water pressure to keep the system operating safely and effectively.

More information on Metro Vancouver's water conservation initiatives, improvements and expansion to the delivery system, and planning for future water supply can be found at metrovancouver.org.

3 Drinking Water Conservation Plan- Stages 1 through 4

Each stage of the DWCP is designed to reduce demand for drinking water through specific water restrictions which become more restrictive with higher stages. The following general restrictions apply to all stages of the plan in addition to the specific water restrictions contained in each stage:

• All hoses must have an automatic shut-off device • Water must not unnecessarily run off on impermeable surfaces such as driveways, curbs, pathways, or gutters when watering lawns and plants • Artificial playing turf and outdoor tracks must not be watered except for a health or safety reason • Hoses and taps must not run unnecessarily • Irrigation systems must not be faulty, leaking, or misdirected

In most cases, the stages of the plan will be activated in successive order, but they can also be activated immediately in any order.

Stage 1 reduces demand in summer months, and is automatically in effect on May 1 until October 15.

Stages 2 and 3, activated and deactivated by the GVWD Commissioner, are likely to be activated during unusually hot and dry conditions to maximize conservation.

Stage 4, activated and deactivated by the GVWD Commissioner during an emergency to immediately limit water use to essential needs only.

The decision to activate more restrictive stages of the DWCP is based on measured facts, reasoned predictions, and historical patterns, with a goal of ensuring the sufficient supply of water until the concerns that caused the more restrictive stages are over, typically in the early fall with the return of seasonal rainfall.

3 PWT - 132 3.1 Stage 1 Water Restrictions

Stage 1 comes into effect automatically each year- on May 1 until October 15-to prevent drinking water wastage and ensure water users employ efficient and effective watering practices.

User Water Use Restriction

Watering lawns Even-numbered civic addresses: on Wednesdays and Saturdays from 4 am to 9 am Odd-numbered civic addresses: on Thursdays and Sundays _. from 4 am to 9 am

Watering lawns Even-numbered civic addresses: on Mondays from (mixed-use buildings e.g. 1 am to 6 am and on Fridays from 4 am to 9 am residential and commercial should Odd-numbered civic addresses: on Tuesdays from _.

Vl Watering lawns and grass Even-numbered civic addresses: on Mondays from :..:: 0:::

Vl being treated for the European local government permit f- -z Chafer Beetle UJ ~ z Watering trees, shrubs, and On any day from 1 am to 9 am if using a sprinkler 0::: UJ > flowers excluding edible plants On any day at any time if using a handheld hose, soaker hose, 0 l!J water container, or drip irrigation

4 PWT - 133 User Water Use Restriction

Watering soil-based playing fields On any day from 7 pm to 9 am, except if:

V') - Watering newly over-seeded fields if in compliance with a ::.::: ex:: <( local government permit c.. V') - Operating under an approved local government water -1 -0 management plan 0 :c u V') Watering sand-based playing On any day from 7 pm to 9 am, except if: V') fields - Watering newly over-seeded fields if in compliance with a -1-z w local government permit ~ z - Operating under an approved local government water ex:: w > management plan 0 \!) Flushing water mains Prohibited

5 PWT - 134 3.2 Stage 2 Water Restrictions

Stage 2 restrictions conserve drinking water to ensure the existing supply will last until the return of seasonal rainfall or until the water shortage situation is over. These restrictions are designed to conserve enough drinking water to avoid or delay moving to Stage 3 as long as possible.

User Water Use Restriction

Watering lawns Even-numbered civic addresses: on Wednesdays from 4 am to 9 am Odd-numbered civic addresses: on Thursdays from 4 am to 9 am

Watering new lawns or lawns Outside restricted lawn watering times if in compliance with a being treated for the European local government permit Chafer Beetle ...J <( t= z Watering trees, shrubs, and On any day from 4 am to 9 am if using a sprinkler L.U Cl flowers excluding edible plants On any day at any time if using a handheld hose, soaker hose, Vi L.U 0::: water container, or drip irrigation

Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if: - For a health or safety reason - Preparing a surface for painting or similar treatment - Aesthetic cleaning by a commercial cleaning operation Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features

Watering lawns (mixed-use Even-numbered civic addresses: on Mondays from buildings e.g. residential and 1 am to 6 am commercial should follow Non- Odd-numbered civic addresses: on Tuesdays from residential watering times) 1 am to 6 am

...J <( Watering new lawns or lawns Outside restricted lawn watering times if in compliance with a t= z being treated for the European local government permit L.U Cl Chafer Beetle Vi L.U 0::: I Watering trees, shrubs, and On any day from 1 am to 9 am if using a sprinkler z 0 z flowers excluding edible plants On any day at any time if using a handheld hose, soaker hose, water container, or drip irrigation

Watering golf courses Fairways watering anytime on any one day in a 7-day period, except if operating under an approved local government water management plan

6 PWT - 135 User Water Use Restriction

_J Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if: <( - For a health or safety reason zF UJ Preparing a surface for painting or similar treatment 0 - Vi UJ - Aesthetic cleaning by a commercial cleaning operation cr: I z Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited 0 z water features

Watering lawns and grass Even-numbered civic addresses: on Mondays from boulevards 1 am to 6 am Odd-numbered civic addresses: on Tuesdays from 1 am to 6 am

Watering new lawns or lawns Outside restricted lawn watering times if in compliance with a being treated for the European local government permit Chafer Beetle

Watering trees, shrubs, and On any day from 1 am to 9 am if using a sprinkler flowers excluding edible plants Vl On any day at any time if using a handheld hose, soaker hose, cr:~ <( water container, or drip irrigation c.. Vl Watering soil-based playing fields No more than 4 days in a 7-day period from 7 pm to 9 am, -_J 0 0 except if: I u Watering newly over-seeded fields if in compliance with a Vl - Vl local government permit -1-z UJ - Operating under an approved local government water ~ z management plan cr: UJ > Watering sand-based playing On any day from 7 pm to 9 am, except if: 0 (.9 fields - Watering newly over-seeded fields if in compliance with a local government permit - Operating under an approved local government water management plan

Flushing water mains Prohibited

Operating water play parks and Prohibited except water play parks with user-activated pools switches

Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features

7 PWT - 136 3.3 Stage 3 Water Restrictions

Stage 3 restrictions respond to serious drought conditions, or other water shortage, and achieve further reductions in drinking water use by implementing a lawn watering ban and additional stricter measures.

User Water Use Restriction

Watering lawns Prohibited

Watering new lawns or lawns Local government permits iss ued in Stages 1 or 2 remain in being treated for the European effect until permit expires Chafer Beetle No new permits issued or renewed

Watering trees, shrubs, and Prohibited if using a sprinkler or soaker hose flowers excluding edible plants On any day at any time if using a handheld hose, water container, or drip irrigation ....J <( Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if: zf= UJ Cl - For a health or safety reason Vi UJ - Preparing a surface for painting or similar treatment by a 0:: commercial cleaning operation

Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features

Topping up or filling pools and hot Prohibited tubs

Washing vehicles and boats Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, mirrors, licence plates, and boat engines for safety

Watering lawns (mixed-use Prohibited buildings e.g. residential and commercial should follow Non- residential watering times)

Watering new lawns or lawns Local government permits issued in Stages 1 or 2 remain in ....J <( being treated for the European effect until permit expires zf= UJ Chafer Beetle No new permits issued or renewed 0 -Vl UJ Watering trees, shrubs, and Prohibited if using a sprinkler or soaker hose 0:: I z flowers excluding edible plants On any day at any time if using a handheld hose, water 0 z container, or drip irrigation

Watering golf courses Fairways watering prohibited except if operating under an approved local government water management plan

Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if: - For a health or safety reason

8 PWT - 137 User Water Use Restriction - Preparing a surface for painting or similar treatment by a commercial cleaning operation

Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features

...J Topping up or filling pools and hot Prohibited except for pools and hot tubs with a permit to <( f= tubs operate in accordance with health authorities having z UJ jurisdiction over pool and hot tub regulation Cl Vi UJ 0::: Washing vehicles and boats Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, mirrors, licence I z plates, and boat engines for safety 0 z Commercial vehicle washing Prohibited except if: - A facility that installed an automatic vehicle wash system before November 1, 2017, is operating on a basic wash and rinse cycle only - A facility that installed an automatic vehicle wash system after November 1, 2017, is operating using a water recycling system that achieves a minimum 60% water recovery rate over the full wash cycle - A hand wash and self-service facility, is operating using high-pressure wands or brushes that achieve a maximum flow rate of 11.4 litres per minute

Watering lawns and grass Prohibited boulevards

Watering new lawns or lawns Local government permits issued in Stages 1 or 2 remain in being treated for the European effect until permit expires ::.::Vl 0::: Chafer Beetle <( No new permits issued or renewed c.. Vl ...J Watering trees, shrubs, and Prohibited if using a sprinkler or soaker hose -0 0 flowers On any day at any time if using a handheld hose, water I u Vl container, or drip irrigation Vl -1-z Watering soil-based playing fields No more than 3 days in a 7-day period from 7 pm to 9 am UJ except if: z~ 0::: - Watering newly over-seeded fields if in compliance with a UJ > 0 local government permit l'J - Operating under an approved local government water management plan

Watering sand-based playing No more than 5 days in a 7-day period from 7 pm to 9 am, fields except if:

9 PWT - 138 User Water Use Restriction - Watering newly over-seeded fields if in compliance with a

U') local government permit ~ 0:: <( - Operating under an approved local government water a.. U') management plan _J -0 0 Flushing water mains Prohibited :c u U') Operating water play parks Prohibited except water play parks with user-activated U') switches -zf- LJ.J ~ Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited z 0:: water features LJ.J > 0 Topping up or filling pools and hot Prohibited except for pools and hot tubs with a permit to (..!) tubs operate in accordance with health authorities having jurisdiction over pool and hot tub regulation

Washing vehicles and boats Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, mirrors, licence plates, and boat engines for safety

10 PWT - 139 3.4 Stage 4 Water Restrictions

Stage 4 is an emergency stage that limits both indoor and outdoor water uses as much as possible to ensure an adequate supply of drinking water for human consumption, use in firefighting and to protect the quality of drinking water within the water system for public health.

Stage 4 is activated based on the rare occurrence of a significant emergency, such as an earthquake, flood, wild land and interface fire, severe weather, or a prolonged regional power outage that causes significant impacts to the water system infrastructure (e.g. damage to major water transmission lines, pump stations, or treatment plants).

In addition to the following outdoor water restrictions, Metro Vancouver could request that industrial water users implement voluntary reductions or reschedule production processes that consume large amounts of water until Stage 4 is deactivated.

User Water Use Restriction

Watering lawns Prohibited

Watering new lawns or lawns All local government permits issued for lawn watering are being treated for the European invalidated Chafer Beetle

Watering trees, shrubs, flowers and Prohibited

-J edible plants <( f= z Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited UJ 0 water features Vi UJ 0::: Topping up or filling pools and hot Prohibited tubs

Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if ordered by a regulatory authority having jurisdiction for a health or safety reason

Washing vehicles and boats Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, mirrors, licence plates, and boat engines for safety

Watering lawns (mixed-use Prohibited buildings e.g. residential and -J <( commercial should follow Non- f=z residential watering times) UJ 0 Vi Watering new lawns or lawns All local government permits issued for lawn watering are UJ 0::: being treated for the European invalidated zI 0 Chafer Beetle z Watering trees, shrubs, flowers and Prohibited edible plants

11 PWT - 140 Watering golf courses Prohibited

....J Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if ordered by a regulatory authority having

Washing vehicles and boats Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, mirrors, licence plates, and boat engines for safety

Commercial vehicle washing Prohibited

Watering lawns and grass Prohibited boulevards

Watering new lawns or lawns All local government permits issued for lawn watering are being treated for European invalidated Chafer Beetle Vl c::::~ Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited 0 l9 water features

Topping up or filling pools and hot Prohibited tubs

Washing vehicles and boats Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, mirrors, licence plates, and boat engines for safety

3.5 Stage activation

Stage 1 comes into effect automatically on May 1 until October 15 each year.

Stages 2, 3 and 4 are activated and deactivated by the GVWD Commissioner.

The following factors guide the GVWD Commissioner's decision to activate or deactivate stages of the DWCP:

• Available storage capacity of the Capilano and Seymour Reservoirs and alpine lakes;

12 PWT - 141 • Water allocated to Metro Vancouver by BC Hydro from the Coquitlam Reservoir;

• Hydrologic forecasting parameters including temperature, rainfall, snowpack, and snowmelt;

• Seasonal water demand trends (measured and charted daily);

• User compliance with the restrictions; and

• Water transmission system performance and ability to deliver water during periods of high demand.

Once the GVWD Commissioner makes the decision to activate or deactivate a stage, all local governments are alerted within 24 hours, which triggers public notification and enforcement.

The GVWD Commissioner has the authority to activate, extend or deactivate stages at any time.

3.6 Public notification

Metro Vancouver and local governments are responsible for communicating information to water users about the restrictions in clear and plain language including:

• Providing public access to the restrictions in both a full and abbreviated version;

• Distributing communications materials;

• Promoting the annual start date of the restrictions;

• Notification of activation or deactivation of stages;

• Responding to queries; and

• Recording feedback for consideration in future reviews.

3.7 Monitoring and enforcement

Local governments incorporate the DWCP restrictions into local government bylaws, where each local government is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the restrictions in their communities. Local governments will ensure that their respective enforcement and penalties for violations of the water restrictions increase with each successive stage of the DWCP to reflect the severity of the situation requiring the activation of an advanced stage .

Local governments may use a variety of tools to promote and ensure bylaw compliance including educational materials, using verbal and written warnings, issuing tickets and imposing fines.

3.8 Updating the Drinking Water Conservation Plan

The DWCP is reviewed periodically to reflect population growth, climate change, new technologies and changes in water system infrastructure. Proposed changes are discussed with local governments responsible for plan implementation and enforcement, and with stakeholders. All updates are reviewed and approved by the Board.

13 PWT - 142 4 Exemption for local governments for health and safety reasons

Metro Vancouver encourages all local governments to follow the watering restrictions in the DWCP to conserve water and demonstrate leadership. However, Metro Vancouver recognizes that local governments have important decisions to make regarding protecting public health and safety, and that certain circumstances may require the use of drinking water in a manner that is not consistent with the DWCP restrictions. Therefore, local governments have the authority to use water during any stage and are exempt from the restrictions in the DWCP for activities that are necessary for the purpose of protecting public health and safety. Examples include:

• Flushing water mains where a significant health or safety concern is identified;

• Washing down public spaces where significant health concerns are raised, or on the recommendation of the local health authority;

• Wetting forest and park perimeters or boulevards as part of a fire prevention strategy during extreme hot and dry weather, or on the recommendation of the local fire authority; and

• Protection of publicly funded infrastructure such as community playing fields or swimming facilities, on the recommendation of the city manager of the local government having jurisdiction.

5 Members of the Greater Vancouver Water District

The following are the members of the GVWD:

Village of Anmore City of Maple Ridge City of Port Moody

Village of Belcarra City of New Westminster City of Richmond

City of Burnaby City of North Vancouver City of Surrey

City of Coquitlam District of North Vancouver Tsawwassen First Nation

Corporation of Delta City of Pitt Meadows City of Vancouver

City of Langley City of Port Coquitlam District of West Vancouver

Township of Langley

The Director representing Electoral Area A on the Metro Vancouver Regional District is a member of the GVWD Administration Board.

14 PWT - 143 6 Glossary and terms

In the DWCP:

Aesthetic cleaning- means the use of water for cleaning when it is not for a health or safety reason.

Aesthetic water feature - means a fountain, pond, or other water feature that primarily serves an aesthetic purpose. It does not include ponds that contain fish .

Automatic shut-off device- means a device attached to a water hose that shuts off the supply of water automatically unless hand pressure is applied to operate the device.

Automatic vehicle wash system- includes:

- Conveyor vehicle wash- a commercial vehicle washing facility where the customer's vehicle moves through an enclosed conveyance mechanism during the wash. - In-bay vehicle wash - a commercial vehicle washing facility where the customer parks the vehicle inside a bay, and the vehicle remains stationary while a spray mechanism moves over the vehicle to clean it.

Basic wash and rinse cycle - means a process sequence in an automatic vehicle wash system that consists of a single wash stage followed by a single rinse stage and no additional processes or optional stages; typically this is the minimum level of service that a customer can select, where total water usage is less than 200 litres per vehicle.

Board- means the Administration Board of the GVWD.

Commercial cleaning operation- means a company, partnership, or person that offers commercial cleaning services, including pressure washing, window cleaning, and other similar building cleaning services, to the public for a fee.

Commercial vehicle washing - means commercial vehicle washing services offered to the public for a fee, but excludes car dealerships, fleet vehicle washing facilities, and charity car washes.

Drip Irrigation- means an irrigation system that delivers water directly to the root zone of the plant at a low flow rate through individual emission points (emitters) using droplets of water and excludes sprinkler irrigation systems, micro-spray systems, misting systems, and soaker hoses.

Edible plant- means a plant grown for the purpose of human consumption.

European Chafer Beetle - means an invasive insect pest whose larvae feed on the roots of grasses, causing serious damage to lawns. The Chafer Beetle larvae can be treated naturally using nematodes, which typically requires a moist lawn for a period of 2 to 3 weeks from the day of application.

Flushing water main - discharging water from a water main for routine maintenance such as water quality management and measurement of firefighting flow capacity.

Golf course- means the greens, tee areas, and fairways that are designed and maintained as playing surfaces for golf, but does not include rough areas or lawns that are not maintained as playing surfaces.

Governments/Schools/Parks- includes property zoned for local government, provincial, or federal uses including road rights of way, and school, college, and university uses.

15 PWT - 144 GVWD- means the Greater Vancouver Water District.

GVWD Commissioner - the person that the Administration Board of the GVWD appoints as its Commissioner.

Hand wash and self-service facility - a commercial vehicle washing facility where the facility's staff wash the customer's vehicle, or the customer wash their own vehicles with spray wands and brushes.

Health and safety reason - means a precaution necessary to protect health and safety, including the removal of contaminants, bodily fluids, slip and fall hazards, controlling pests, and suppressing and controlling dust.

Impermeable surface - means a material added to the surface of the ground, or on the exterior of a building or structure that is impermeable to water, including but not limited to glass, wood, concrete, asphalt, paving stones, and other similar materials.

Lawn- means a cultivated area surrounding or adjacent to a building that is covered by grass, turf, or a ground cover plant such as clover, including areas such as boulevards, parks, school yards and cemeteries, but excluding golf courses, soil-based playing fields, and sand-based playing fields.

Local government- means the local government members of the GVWD.

New lawn- means a lawn that is newly established either by seeding or the laying of new sod or turf.

Non-residential - includes properties zoned for a permitted use other than a residential use, including commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, and including a property zoned for mixed residential and non-residential uses, but excluding governments/schools/parks.

Non-residential pool and hot tub - means a pool or hot tub permitted to be operated in accordance with health authorities having jurisdiction over pool and hot tub regulation, including pools and hot tubs operated by government agencies, hotels, multi-family strata corporations, and private clubs.

Odd-numbered civic address or Even-numbered civic address - means the numerical portion of the street address of a property, and in the case of multi-unit commercial or residential complex such as townhouses, condominiums or other strata-titled properties, means the numerical portion of the street address that is assigned to the entire complex, and not the individual unit number.

Over-seeded - means the application of grass seed on existing turf, typically in early fall or spring and may also include associated processes such as aeration, weeding, dethatching and fertilization, for the purpose of mitigating against grass thinning.

Residential- means a property zoned for single-family or multi-family residential use.

Residential pool and hot tub- means a residential pool or hot tub installed for the use of the occupants and guests of one single family dwelling or duplex and does not require a permit in accordance with health authorities having jurisdiction over pool and hot tub regulation.

Sand-based playing field- means a playing field that is constructed with a highly permeable sand-based root zone typically 30 to 40 centimetres deep over a drainage system with drain pipes bedded in gravel, and is designed and maintained to be playable year-round.

16 PWT - 145 Soaker hose- means a garden hose or pipe with small holes that allow water to seep into the ground, to the roots of plants, discharging water through the entire length of its porous surface.

Soil-based playing field - means a playing field that is covered with grass, sod or turf that is designed and maintained to be played upon, or that is used for sporting or other community events and activities, but does not include lawns, golf courses, or sand-based playing fields.

Vehicle- a device in, on or by which a person or item is or may be transported or drawn on a highway or other roadway.

Water management plan - a plan proposed by the owner or operator of a golf course, soil-based playing field, and sand-based playing field operators and approved by the local government having jurisdiction. The plan sets out terms such as water use targets during the different stages of the DWCP, restrictions to reduce water use, and reporting requirements for the owner or operator.

Water play park- a recreational facility that is primarily outdoors, including spray pools and wading pools, spray parks, splash pads, and water slides.

Watering lawn - means applying water to a lawn with any device or tool including but not limited to a sprinkler, hose, mister, or drip irrigation.

Orbit #21616303

17 PWT - 146 Attachment 2

City of Richmond Bylaw 9774

Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784, Amendment Bylaw No. 977 4

The Council ofthe City of Richmond enacts as follows:

1. The Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784, as amended, is further amended by:

a) deleting subsection 1.1.4 and replacing it with the following:

"1.1.4 If no restriction stage is in force on May 1st of any year, Stage 1 Restrictions come into force on that date without prior declaration of the Commissioner or announcement under subsection 1.1.2.";

b) deleting Section 2.1 to Section 2. 7, replacing it with the following and renumbering the remaining sections:

"2.1 General Restrictions

2.1.1 All persons must comply with the following general restrictions when Stage 1 Restrictions, Stage 2 Restrictions, Stage 3 Restrictions or Stage 4 Restrictions are in force, in addition to the specific water restrictions set out for each individual restriction stage:

a) all hoses must have an automatic shut-off device;

b) water must not be unnecessarily run off on impermeable surfaces such as driveways, curbs, pathways, gutters when watering lawns and plants;

c) artificial playing turf and outdoor tracks must not be watered except for a health or safety reason;

d) hoses and taps must not run unnecessarily; and

e) irrigation systems must not be faulty, leaking, or misdirected.

2.2 Stage 1 to Stage 4 Restrictions

2.2.1 When Stage 1 Restrictions are in force, all persons must comply with the watering restrictions specified in Schedule A of this bylaw.

2.2.2 When Stage 2 Restrictions are in force, all persons must comply with the watering restrictions specified in Schedule B of this bylaw.

5720988 PWT - 147 Bylaw 9774 Page 2

2.2.3 When Stage 3 Restrictions are in force, all persons must comply with the watering restrictions specified in Schedule C of this bylaw.

2.2.4 When Stage 4 Restrictions are in force, all persons must comply with the watering restrictions specified in ScheduleD of this bylaw.

2.3 Exceptions to Water Use Restrictions

2.3.1 Notwithstanding the activation of any restriction stage, the City may use water and is exempt from the water restrictions applicable to that stage, where use of the water is needed to carry out activities required for the purpose of protecting public health and safety, including but not limited to:

a) flushing water mains where a significant health or safety concern is identified;

b) washing down public spaces where significant health concerns are raised, or on the recommendation of the local health authority;

c) wetting forest and park perimeters or boulevards as part of a fire prevention strategy during extreme hot and dry weather, or on the recommendation of the local fire authority; and

d) protection of publicly funded infrastructure such as community playing fields or swimming facilities, on the recommendation of the General Manager, Engineering & Public Works.";

c) deleting Section heading PART THREE: PERMITS and replacing it with PART THREE: PERMITS AND WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS;

d) inserting the following new subsection 3.1.2 and renumbering the remmmng subsections:

"3 .1.2 The owner or operator of a newly over-seeded soil-based playing field or sand-based playing field may, when Stage 1 Restrictions or Stage 2 Restrictions are in force, apply to the General Manager, Engineering & Public Works for a permit to water in accordance with the terms and conditions ofthe permit;";

e) deleting newly renumbered subsection 3 .1.4 and replacing it with the following:

"3.1.4 The General Manager, Engineering & Public Works, upon being satisfied that an applicant qualifies under subsection 3 .1.1 or 3 .1.2 and has complied with subsection 3.1.3, may issue a permit to the applicant and include terms and conditions in respect to the permit.";

f) deleting newly renumbered subsection 3.1.9 and replacing it with the following:

5720988 PWT - 148 Bylaw 9774 Page 3

"3.1.9 When Stage 1 Restrictions or Stage 2 Restrictions are in force, a permit holder may apply for an extension of a permit issued for the purpose of subsection 3.1.1(a) or 3.1.2, but such extension must end on or before 42 days from the original date of issue under Section 3.1. A permit issued for the purpose of subsection 3 .1.1 (b) cannot be extended. When Stage 3 Restrictions or Stage 4 Restrictions are in force, a permit holder may not apply for an extension.";

g) inserting the following new Section 3.2:

"3.2 Water Management Plans

3.2.1 When Stage 1 Restrictions, Stage 2 Restrictions or Stage 3 Restrictions are in force, a person who is the owner or operator of lawns or grass boulevards on public lots, golf courses, soil-based playing fields, or sand-based playing fields may apply to the General Manager, Engineering & Public Works for approval of a Water Management Plan.

3.2.2 Applications for approval of a Water Management Plan must be accompanied by supporting documents and information as required by the General Manager, Engineering & Public Works.

3.2.3 The General Manager, Engineering & Public Works, upon being satisfied that an applicant has complied with subsection 3.2.2, may:

a) approve the Water Management Plan in whole or in part;

b) amend the Water Management Plan; or

c) impose additional commitments, conditions and restrictions as part of the Water Management Plan.

3.2.4 Notwithstanding Stage 1 Restrictions or Stage 2 Restrictions or Stage 3 Restrictions, the holder of an approved Water Management Plan is authorized to water in accordance with the terms and conditions of the approved Water Management Plan. Approved Water Management Plans do not exempt holders from Stage 4 Restrictions.

3.2.5 Termination or suspension ofWater Management Plans:

a) The holder of an approved Water Management Plan may terminate such plan by notifying the General Manager, Engineering & Public Works in writing. Such termination shall be effective on the date specified in the notice or, if no date is specified in the notice, on the date on which the General Manager, Engineering & Public Works receives the notice.

5720988 PWT - 149 Bylaw 9774 Page4

b) The General Manager, Engineering & Public Works may terminate or suspend a Water Management Plan for noncompliance with any terms and conditions contained within the Water Management Plan by notifying the holder of the plan in writing. Such termination or suspension shall be effective at the time such notification is given to the holder of the Water Management Plan.

c) The General Manager, Engineering & Public Works may terminate or suspend a Water Management Plan for any reason by notifying the owner or operator in writing at least seven (7) days before the termination or suspension date.

d) In the event of termination or suspension of the Water Management Plan, the requirements of the restriction stage currently in place shall apply.";

h) inserting the following definitions in alphabetical order:

"AESTHETIC WATER means a fountain, pond, or other water feature that FEATURE primarily serves an aesthetic purpose, but does not include ponds that contain fish.

AUTOMATIC VEHICLE means either a conveyor vehicle wash or in-bay WASH SYSTEM vehicle wash.

BASIC WASH AND RINSE means a process sequence in an automatic vehicle CYCLE wash system that consists of a single wash stage followed by a single rinse stage and no additional processes or optional stages, with total water usage being less than 200 litres per vehicle.

CONVEYOR VEHICLE means a commercial vehicle washing facility where WASH the customer's vehicle moves through an enclosed conveyance mechanism during the wash.

EDIBLE PLANT means a plant grown for the purpose of human consumption.

FAIRWAYS means the part of a golf course between a tee and the corresponding green, but does not include tee areas and greens.

GOLF COURSE means the greens, tee areas, and fairways that are designed and maintained as playing surfaces for golf, but does not include rough areas or lawns that are not maintained as playing surfaces.

HAND WASH AND SELF- means a commercial vehicle washing facility where

5720988 PWT - 150 Bylaw 9774 Page 5

SERVICE FACILITY the facility's staff wash the customer's vehicle using spray wands and brushes, or the customer washes their own vehicles with spray wands and brushes.

IN-BAYVEIDCLE WASH means a commercial vehicle washing facility where the customer parks the vehicle inside a bay, and the vehicle remains stationary while a spray mechanism moves over the vehicle to clean it.

PUBLIC LOT means a property zoned for local government, provincial, federal or regional district uses including, but not limited to, dedicated highways, road rights-of way, park land, schools, college and university uses.

SAND-BASED PLAYING means a playing field that is constructed with a highly FIELD permeable sand-based root zone, typically 30 to 40 centimetres deep, over a drainage system with drain pipes bedded in gravel, and is designed and maintained to be playable year-round.

SOAKER HOSE means a garden hose or pipe with small holes that allow water to seep into the ground, to the roots of plants, discharging water through the entire length of its porous surface.

SOIL-BASED PLAYING means a playing field that is covered with grass, sod FIELD or turf that is designed and maintained to be played upon, or that is used for sporting or other community events and activities, but does not include lawns, golf courses or sand-based playing fields.

SPRINKLER means any device that sprays water in the absence of constant human control, which is attached to a hose or pipe located upon or under the surface of the ground, and excludes drip irrigation and soaker hoses.

WATER MANAGEMENT means a plan proposed by the owner or operator of a PLAN lawn or grass boulevard on public lots, golf course, soil-based playing field or sand-based playing field to establish terms for watering during the different restriction stages to reduce water use and is submitted to and approved by the General Manager, Engineering & Public Works according to Part 3 of this bylaw.";

5720988 PWT - 151 Bylaw9774 Page 6

i) deleting the definitions for PERSON, STAGE 1 RESTRICTIONS, STAGE 2 RESTRICTIONS, STAGE 3 RESTRICTIONS and STAGE 4 RESTRICTIONS and replacing them with the following defillitions:

"PERSON means any individual but does not include a regional district, the provincial government, or any body appointed or created under an enactment of Canada or British Columbia.

STAGE 1 RESTRICTIONS means the restrictions on water use specified ill Schedule A of this bylaw.

STAGE 2 RESTRICTIONS means the restrictions on water use specified ill Schedule B of this bylaw.

STAGE 3 RESTRICTIONS means the restrictions on water use specified ill Schedule C of this bylaw.

STAGE 4 RESTRICTIONS means the restrictions on water use specified ill ScheduleD of this bylaw."; and

j) By adding Schedules A through D attached to and forming part of this bylaw as new Schedules A through D of Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784.

2. This Bylaw is cited as "Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784, Amendment Bylaw No. 9774".

CITY OF FIRST READING RICHMOND APPROVED for content by SECOND READING originating dept. THIRD READING \57 APPROVED for legality ADOPTED by Solicitor ~

MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER

5720988 PWT - 152 Bylaw 9774 Page 7

SCHEDULE A to BYLAW NO. 9774

SCHEDULE A to BYLAW NO. 7784

STAGE 1 RESTRICTIONS

Lot Water Use Restriction Watering lawns A person may only water at the following times: -Even-numbered civic addresses: on Wednesdays and Saturdays from 4 am to 9 am -Odd-numbered civic addresses: on Thursdays and ...... ,_, 0 Sundays from 4 am to 9 am ~ Watering new lawns or lawns A permit holder may water outside restricted lawn .....~ -...... being treated for the European watering days if in compliance with a permit. ~ "t::= Chafer Beetle ...... ,_, ~ Watering trees, shrubs, decorative A person may only water from 4 am to 9 am if using a planters, and flowers excluding sprinkler. edible plants A person may water on any day at any time if using a handheld hose, soaker hose, water container, or drip irrigation. Watering lawns A person may only water at the following times: - Even-numbered civic addresses: on Mondays from 1 am to 6 am and on Fridays from 4 am to 9 am ..,_, ...... 0 - Odd-numbered civic addresses: on Tuesdays from 1 ~ am to 6 am and on Fridays from 4 am to 9 am .....~ -...... Watering new lawns or lawns A permit holder may water outside restricted lawn ~ "t::= being treated for European watering days if in compliance with a permit...... ,_, ~ Chafer Beetle ~ I Watering trees, shrubs, decorative A person may only water from 1 am to 9 am if using a z=0 planters, and flowers (excluding sprinkler. edible plants and turf at turf farms) A person may water on any day at any time if using a handheld hose, soaker hose, water container, or drip irrigation. Watering lawns and grass Watering is only allowed at the following times, boulevards except when watering in accordance with an approved water management plan: ..,_, ...... - Even-numbered civic addresses: on Mondays from 1 0 ~ am to 6 am and on Fridays from 4 am to 9 am u ..... -Odd-numbered civic addresses: on Tuesdays from 1 ,.Q -= am to 6 am and on Fridays from 4 am to 9 am =-- Watering new lawns or lawns A permit holder may water outside restricted lawn being treated for the European watering days if in compliance with a permit. Chafer Beetle

5720988 PWT - 153 Bylaw 9774 Page 8

Watering trees, shrubs, decorative Watering is only allowed from 1 am to 9 am if using a planters, and sprinkler. flowers excluding edible plants Watering is allowed on any day at any time if using a handheld hose, soaker hose, water container, or drip irrigation. Watering soil-based playing Watering is only allowed from 7 pm to 9 am except: fields - watering newly over-seeded fields in compliance with a permit; or - watering in accordance with an approved water management plan Watering sand-based playing Watering is only allowed from 7 pm to 9 am except: fields - watering newly over-seeded fields in compliance with a permit; or - watering in accordance with an approved water management plan Flushing water mains Prohibited

5720988 PWT - 154 Bylaw 9774 Page 9

SCHEDULE B to BYLAW NO. 9774

SCHEDULE B to BYLAW NO. 7784

STAGE 2 RESTRICTIONS

Lot Water Use Restriction Watering lawns A person may only water at the following times: -Even-numbered civic addresses: on Wednesdays from 4 am to 9 am -Odd-numbered civic addresses: on Thursdays from 4 am to 9 am Watering new lawns or lawns being A permit holder may water outside restricted lawn treated for the European Chafer watering days if in compliance with a permit Beetle ...... "' ¢ Watering trees, shrubs, decorative A person may only water from 4 am to 9 am if using ~ planters, and a sprinkler...... ~ -...... flowers excluding edible plants A person may water on any day at any time if using a =Q,;j "'C...... handheld hose, soaker hose, water container, or drip "'Q,;j irrigation. ~ Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if: (sidewalks, driveways, fences, - For the health or safety of any person; walls, roofs, or other outdoor - To prepare the surface for painting, sealing, or surfaces) similar treatment; - To prevent or control fires; or - For aesthetic cleaning. Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features Watering lawns A person may only water at the following times: - Even-numbered civic addresses: on Mondays from 1 am to 6 am -Odd-numbered civic addresses: on Tuesdays from 1 ...... am to 6 am "'¢ ~ Watering new lawns or lawns A permit holder may water outside restricted lawn ~ -...... being treated for European watering days if in compliance with a permit =Q,;j Chafer Beetle ...... "'C "'Q,;j Watering trees, shrubs, decorative A person may only water from 1 am to 9 am if using ~ I planters, and a sprinkler. z¢= flowers excluding edible plants and A person may water on any day at any time if using a turf at turf farms handheld hose, soaker hose, water container, or drip irrigation. Watering golf courses Watering of fairways is allowed on no more than one day in a seven-day period, except if operating under an

5720988 PWT - 155 Bylaw 9774 Page 10

approved water management plan. Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if: (sidewalks, driveways, fences, - For the health or safety of any person; walls, roofs, or other outdoor - To prepare the surface for painting, sealing, or surfaces) similar treatment; - To prevent or control fires; or - For aesthetic cleaning. Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features Watering lawns and grass Watering is only allowed at the following times, boulevards except when watering in accordance with an approved water management plan: -Even-numbered civic addresses: on Mondays from 1 am to 6 am - Odd-numbered civic addresses: on Tuesdays from 1 am to 6 am Watering new lawns or lawns A permit holder may water outside restricted lawn being treated for the European watering days if in compliance with a permit. Chafer Beetle Watering trees, shrubs, decorative Watering is only allowed from 1 am to 9 am if using planters, and a sprinkler. flowers excluding edible plants Watering is allowed on any day at any time if using a handheld hose, soaker hose, water container, or drip irrigation. ....<'-) 0 Watering soil-based playing fields Watering is allowed on no more than four days in a ~ .....~ seven-day period and only from 7 pm to 9 am, except -,.t::; if: ~= - watering newly over-seeded fields if in compliance with a permit; or - watering in accordance with an approved water management plan Watering sand-based playing Watering is only allowed from 7 pm to 9 am, except fields if: - watering newly over-seeded fields if in compliance with a permit; or - watering in accordance with an approved water management plan Flushing water mains Prohibited Operating water play parks and Prohibited except water play parks with user- pools activated switches. Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features

5720988 PWT - 156 Bylaw 9774 Page 11

SCHEDULE C to BYLAW NO. 9774

SCHEDULE C to BYLAW NO. 7784

STAGE 3 RESTRICTIONS

Lot Water Use Restriction Watering lawns Prohibited Watering new lawns or lawns A permit holder may water outside lawn watering being treated for the European restrictions if in compliance with a issued in Stage 1 Chafer Beetle or Stage 2. No new permits shall be issued or renewed. Watering trees, shrubs, decorative Prohibited if using a sprinkler or soaker hose. ... planters, and A person may water on any day at any time if using a "'~ flowers excluding edible plants handheld hose, water container, or drip irrigation. ~ Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if: -...... I:"J ... (sidewalks, driveways, fences, - For the health or safety of any person; =~ ...... '"d walls, roofs, or other outdoor - To prepare the surface for painting, sealing, or "'~ surfaces) similar treatment; or ~ - To prevent or control fires. Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features Topping up or filling pools and hot Prohibited tubs Washing vehicles, boats, trailers Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, murors, and other motive equipment licence plates, and boat engines for safety. Watering lawns Prohibited Watering new lawns or lawns A permit holder may water outside lawn watering being treated for European restrictions if in compliance with a permit issued in Chafer Beetle Stage 1 or Stage 2. ... No new permits shall be issued or renewed . "'~ ~ Watering trees, shrubs, decorative Prohibited ifusing a sprinkler or soaker hose...... I:"J -... planters, and A person may water on any day at any time if using a =~ ...... '"d flowers excluding edible plants handheld hose, water container, or drip irrigation. and turf at turf farms "'~ ~ I Watering golf courses Watering of fairways lS prohibited except if z=~ operating under an approved water management plan Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if: (sidewalks, driveways, fences, - For the health or safety of any person; walls, roofs, or other outdoor - To prepare the surface for painting, sealing, or

5720988 PWT - 157 Bylaw 9774 Page 12

surfaces) similar treatment; or - To prevent or control fires. Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features Topping up or filling pools and hot Prohibited except for pools and hot tubs operating in tubs accordance with written permission issued by an authorized health authority.

Washing vehicles, boats, trailers Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, mirrors, and other motive equipment licence plates, and boat engines for safety.

Commercial vehicle washing Prohibited except if operating under the following conditions: - Facilities that installed an automatic vehicle wash system before November 1, 2017: operating on a basic wash and rinse cycle only; - Facilities that installed an automatic vehicle wash system after November 1, 2017: operating using a water recycling system that achieves a minimum 60% water recovery rate over the full wash cycle; and - Hand wash and self-service facilities: operating using high-pressure wands or brushes that achieve a maximum flow rate of 11.4 litres per minute. Watering lawns and grass Prohibited boulevards Watering new lawns or lawns A permit holder may water outside lawn watering being treated for the European restrictions if in compliance with a permit issued in Chafer Beetle Stage 1 or Stage 2. No new permits shall be issued or renewed. Watering trees, shrubs, decorative Prohibited if using a sprinkler or a soaker hose planters, and Watering is allowed on any day at any time if using a flowers excluding edible plants handheld hose, water container, or drip irrigation Watering soil-based playing Watering is allowed on no more than 3 days in a 7- fields day period and only from 7 pm to 9 am, except if: -Watering newly over-seeded fields if in compliance with a permit; or - Operating under an approved water management plan Watering sand-based playing Watering is allowed on no more than 5 days in a 7- fields day period and only from 7 pm to 9 am, except if: - Watering newly over-seeded fields if in compliance with a permit; or - Operating under an approved water management

5720988 PWT - 158 Bylaw 9774 Page 13

plan. Flushing water mains Prohibited Operating water play parks and Prohibited except water play parks with user-activated pools switches. Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features Topping up or filling pools and hot Prohibited except for pools and hot tubs operating in tubs accordance with written permission issued by an authorized health authority.

Washing vehicles, boats, trailers Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, mirrors, and other motive equipment licence plates, and boat engines for safety.

5720988 PWT - 159 Bylaw 9774 Page 14

SCHEDULED to BYLAW NO. 9774

SCHEDULED to BYLAW NO. 7784

STAGE 4 RESTRICTIONS

Lot Water Use Restriction Watering lawns Prohibited Watering new lawns or lawns All permits issued for lawn watering are revoked. being treated for the European Chafer Beetle Watering trees, shrubs, decorative Prohibited planters, and flowers and edible ...... "'0 plants ,...;] -.....e<: Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if ordered by a regulatory authority ...... (sidewalks, driveways, fences, having jurisdiction, for a health or safety reason. =Q,) ....."t:: walls, roofs, or other outdoor "'Q,) surfaces) ~ Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features Topping up or filling pools and hot Prohibited tubs Washing vehicles, boats, trailers Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, murors, and other motive equipment licence plates, and boat engines for safety. Watering lawns (mixed-use Prohibited buildings should follow non- residential lot watering times) Watering new lawns or lawns All permits issued for lawn watering are revoked. being treated for European ...... "'0 Chafer Beetle ,...;] e<: Watering trees, shrubs, decorative Prohibited -;:: planters, and =Q,) "t::..... flowers and edible plants "'Q,) ~ Watering golf courses Prohibited I z0= Washing impermeable surfaces Prohibited except if ordered by a regulatory authority (sidewalks, driveways, fences, having jurisdiction, for a health or safety reason. walls, roofs, or other outdoor surfaces) Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features

5720988 PWT - 160 Bylaw 9774 Page 15

Topping up or filling pools and hot Prohibited tubs Washing vehicles, boats, trailers Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, murors, and other motive equipment licence plates, and boat engines for safety. Commercial vehicle washing Prohibited

Watering turf at turf farms Prohibited Watering lawns and grass Prohibited boulevards Watering new lawns or lawns All permits issued for lawn watering are revoked. being treated for the European Chafer Beetle Watering trees, shrubs, decorative Prohibited planters, and flowers including edible plants Watering soil-based playing Prohibited fields ...... Vi Q Watering sand-based playing Prohibited ...:1 fields .....eJ -,.Q Watering miificial turf and Prohibited ~= outdoor race tracks Flushing water mains Prohibited Operating water play parks and Prohibited pools Topping up or filling aesthetic Prohibited water features Topping up or filling pools and hot Prohibited tubs Washing vehicles, boats, trailers Prohibited except to clean windows, lights, mirrors, and other motive equipment licence plates, and boat engines for safety.

5720988 PWT - 161 City of Report to Committee Richmond

To: Public Works and Transportation Committee Date: February 14, 2018 From: John Irving, P.Eng . MPA File: 10-6650-02/2018-Vol Director, Engineering 01 Re: 2018 Clothes Washer Rebate Program

Staff Recommendation

1. That the City of Richmond partner with BC Hydro to the end of 2018 to offer a combined rebate of $100 for the spring campaign and up to $400in the fall campaign, equally cost shared between BC Hydro and the City, for the replacement of inefficient clothes washers with new high efficiency clothes washers;

2. That the scope of the existing Toilet Rebate Program funding be expanded to include clothes washer rebates; and

3. That the Chief Administrative Officer and General Manager, Engineering and Public Works, be authorized to execute an agreement with BC Hydro to implement the Clothes Washer Rebate Program.

John Irving, P.Eng. MP Director, Engineering (604-276-4140)

REPORT CONCURRENCE

ROUTED TO: CONCURRENCE CONCURRENCE OF GENERAL MANAGER g Finance Department c:z;_c ------==-, Water Services ~

REVIEWED BY STAFF REPORT I INITIALS: AGENDA REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE rA ~ys:~ } --...___

5742106 PWT - 162 February 14, 2018 - 2-

Staff Report

Origin

BC Hydro and local governments have an interest in encouraging the conservation of water and energy. Through PowerS mart, BC Hydro offers a variety of incentive programs that encourage uptake of energy-efficient technologies, including energy-efficient appliances.

Since 2014, the City has partnered with BC Hydro to implement the Clothes Washer Rebate Program. The program offered a rebate of up to $200, which was equally cost shared between BC Hydro and the City.

BC Hydro is offering the Clothes Washer Rebate Program again in 2018 and is requesting that the City continue its participation.

This program supports Council's 2014-2018 Term Goal #4 Leadership in Sustainability:

Continue advancement of the City's sustainability ji·amework and initiatives to improve the short and long term livability ofour City, and that maintain Richmond's position as a leader in sustainable programs, practices and innovations.

4.2. Innovative projects and initiatives to advance sustainability.

This program supports Council's 2014-2018 Term Goal #5 Partnerships and Collaboration:

Continue development and utilization of collaborative approaches and partnerships with intergovernmental and other agencies to help meet the needs ofthe Richmond community.

5.2. Strengthened strategic partnerships that help advance City priorities.

This program also supports the 2041 Official Community Plan (OCP), the Corporate Sustainability Framework, as well as the Community Energy and Emissions Plan, which includes "promoting building efficiency through outreach and education and providing incentives for building retrofit action."

Analysis

Clothes Washer Rebate Program

To date, the Clothes Washer Rebate Program has issued 765 rebates at a total cost of$54,700 to the City resulting in an annual savings in water and energy of3,114,000 liters per year and 73,750 kilowatt hours per year, respectively. Eleven municipalities, including the City of Abbotsford and the City of Vancouver, participated in the partnership program with BC Hydro in 2017.

PWT - 163 February 14,2018 - 3-

2017 Clothes Washer Rebate Program

The proposed 2018 Clothes Washer Rebate Program offered by BC Hydro will run during the spring and fall of this year. It is anticipated that all eleven municipalities that partook last year will participate in this year's partnership program with BC Hydro.

BC Hydro will also partner with Samsung and Home Depot, with each of these organizations offering to match BC Hydro's rebate. The Samsung rebate will apply to eligible Samsung models, and the Home Depot rebate will apply to eligible models purchased at Home Depot. Including recommended City participation, the rebate for an eligible Samsung clothes washer purchased at Home Depot will be up to $400.

This year's program details are as follows: • The City partners with BC Hydro to offer a combined Clothes Washer Rebate Program. BC Hydro will offer a $50 rebate and the City will match this rebate to provide a combined rebate of $100, for the replacement of an inefficient clothes washer with a new high efficiency clothes washer in the 2018 spring campaign.

• In the 2017 spring campaign, BC Hydro offered two tiers of rebates, $50 and $100, which totaled to $100 and $200 when combined with the City's rebate. However, the rebate was reduced to $50 in the fall campaign due to high participation in the spring. BC Hydro is anticipating a large uptake in the 2018 spring campaign and has set the rebate at $50 per qualifying clothes washer.

• The 2018 fall campaign rebate amount will be determined by BC Hydro at a later date based on participation for the spring campaign. The combined rebate will range from $100 to $400, equally cost shared between BC Hydro and the City.

• The proposed spring and fall campaign will run from May 1 to June 30, 2018 and October 1 to November 30, 2018 respectively.

Staff recommend that the City partner with BC Hydro to match rebate offers on high efficiency washing machines for the proposed dates and any future extensions that may be requested.

Roles and Responsibilities

The City and BC Hydro roles and responsibilities are outlined in Table 1. BC Hydro will be responsible for carrying out program administration and associated activities, and the City will be responsible for providing matching funding to supplement the BC Hydro rebate and advertising the rebate program within Richmond.

PWT - 164 February 14, 2018 - 4-

Table 1: City and BC Hydro Roles and Responsibilities

City of Richmond BC Hydro • Provide funding to supplement the BC • Answer email and phone inquiries about the Hydro rebate program • Advertise the rebate offer locally • Receive and process online applications • Provide rebate directly to applicants, and invoice the City for its portion • Provide post campaign reporting to the City

Financial Impact

Staff recommend that the rebates be funded from the approved Toilet Rebate Program. The Toilet Rebate Program has an annual budget of$100,000, with $92,200 remaining in 2018. The uptake on toilet and washing machine rebates has a high degree of variability. Staff will monitor participation and report back to Council if there is higher than anticipated participation. BC Hydro will be responsible for all costs associated with program administration.

Conclusion

The City has an opportunity to continue partnering with BC Hydro to provide rebate incentives to residents for purchasing efficient clothes washers through the Clothes Washer Rebate Program. Staff recommend that the City continue to participate in this rebate program which provides a combined rebate of $1 00 for the spring campaign and up to $400 in the fall campaign, equally shared between BC Hydro and the City, and that rebates be funded from the Toilet Rebate Program. )c-' J~ ~r;/Lloyd Bie, P.Eng. Pratima Milaire, P .Eng. Manager, Engineering Planning Project Engineer (4075) (4039)

LB:pm

PWT - 165 City of Report to Committee Richmond

To: Public Works and Transportation Committee Date: February 15, 2018 From: John Irving, P.Eng. MPA File: 10-6175-02-01/2018- Director, Engineering Vol 01 Re: Odour Regulation in British Columbia

Staff Recommendation 1. That a letter be sent to the BC Minister of Environment requesting that: a) The definition of odour as an air contaminant be included in the BC Environmental Management Act and in the BC Organic Matter Recycling Regulation; b) The BC Organic Matter Recycling Regulation include a specific Odour Management Regulation establishing criteria and standards related to concentration and frequency of odorant emissions from composting facilities and define performance criteria for composting facility operations; c) They define a specific standard for how odours shall be measured, monitored, managed, treated, and discharged in a manner that minimizes impacts associated with odorous air contaminants. 2. That a letter be sent to Metro Vancouver requesting that: a) Metro Vancouver update its bylaws and regulations related to composting facilities to establish criteria and standards with clear limits in terms of concentration and frequency for odorant emissions from composting facilities; b) Metro Vancouver appropriately resource its permit procedures with criteria and standards for composting facility permits to bring facilities into compliance with industry best practices for Composting Facilities. ~g,~A Director, Engineering (604-276-4140)

REPORT CONCURRENCE

ROUTED TO: CONCURRENCE CONCURRENCE OF GENERAL MANAGER

Law ul m- "":::::> REVIEWED BY STAFF REPORT I INITIALS: AGENDA REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE a cy:szs ~

5760322 PWT - 166 February 15,2018 - 3 -

Staff Report

Origin

The City of Richmond has taken actions to address ongoing odour issues from Harvest Power's organics recycling facility in east Richmond since November 2015. Richmond's work contributed to the following outcomes: provincial changes to the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation; more public input opportunities during the petmit renewal process; stringent requirements in the new permit; and, increased community awareness regarding the source of odours in Richmond and who to contact to share concerns.

This report is being brought forward for Council's consideration as it relates to the status of odour regulation in Metro Vancouver and across British Columbia.

This report supports Council's 2014-2018 Term Goal #6 Quality Infrastructure Networks:

Continue diligence towards the development of infrastructure networks that are safe, sustainable, and address the challenges associated with aging systems, population growth, and environmental impact.

6.1. Safe and sustainable infrastructure.

Background

The BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy regulates air quality in British Columbia through the BC Environmental Management Act. Regionally, the Province delegated this authority to Metro Vancouver within its regional district boundaries. Metro Vancouver uses the Air Quality Management Bylaw 1082 to regulate air quality and issue air emission permits.

Metro Vancouver receives more complaints about odour than any other type of air emission. Between 2011 and 2015, Metro Vancouver received an average of 1,700 odour complaints per year, which accounted for approximately 80% of all air quality complaints. This amount rose to 3,800 odour complaints in 2016 and 3, 725 complaints in 2017.

In 2016, the City sent a letter to the Ministry of Environment requesting that odours be regulated. To date, odour in British Columbia remain unregulated.

Analysis

The following is a summary of recent actions to address odour emissions in regulations.The below discussion also includes an overview of the best practices and measures adopted in other jurisdictions with highly positive results.

Metro Vancouver

The BC Environmental Management Act authorizes Metro Vancouver to establish prohibitions, regulations, fees, conditions, requirements and exemptions for operations, activities, industries, trades, businesses generating air contaminants through operations or works.

PWT - 167 5760322 February 15,2018 - 4-

Metro Vancouver currently has an Odour Management Framework that includes plans (e.g. Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan), guidelines (e.g. Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Guideline BC) and recommendations. The framework also includes the GVRD Air Quality Management Bylaw 1082, 2008 (the Bylaw).

The Bylaw currently does not explicitly define odour and does not stipulate odour in the definition for air contaminants. The Bylaw also does not currently require specific standards for composting facility odours. Rather, it prohibits the discharge of air contaminants by an industry, trade or business, unless the discharge is conducted in accordance with a Metro Vancouver emission regulation or air quality permit. Bylaw 1082 further prohibits any person from discharging, or allowing or causing the discharge of any air contaminant so as to cause pollution. Metro Vancouver has also not established sectorial regulations to address specific odorous air contaminants.

Stating that "managing odours has become an important priority for the region as the number of odour complaints from the public has increased," Metro Vancouver has begun working with stakeholders to improve its framework for managing odorous air contaminants. Metro Vancouver's Climate Action Committee recently received a report with recommendations for how odours can be addressed from a wide range of sources.

Metro Vancouver recently published a Discussion Paper titled, "Regulating Emissions of Odorous Air Contaminants," which includes issues related to odour from composting facilities. The paper also identified that best management practices, emission control works, enclosures and proactive strategies can be implemented during the design, construction and operation of composting facilities to reduce the generation of odorous air contaminants. For existing facilities, improvements to operating procedures and/or the introduction of pollution prevention and control works, may all assist in reducing the impacts of odorous air contaminant emissions.

Metro Vancouver is seeking preliminary input from stakeholders representing different perspectives on potential regulatory options to improve the management of odorous air contaminants. These options are not mutually exclusive, meaning one or more could be implemented. The options include the establishment of:

• Outcome-based criteria: Potential changes could include ambient air quality criteria for odorous air contaminants, complaint criteria, and criteria for on-site field observations for facilities with high odour potential that have been linked to recurring complaints. • Performance-based criteria: Specific air contaminant emission limits at the source. Potential changes could include quantitative emission limits, and quantitative emission limits on individual odorous air contaminants. • Technology requirements: Specify required equipment or control works for odour treatment, or best management practices for new or existing facilities. • Economic instruments: incentives for reducing emissions and tools to recover administrative costs. Potential changes could include fees for the discharge of odorous air contaminants, and increasing existing fees for emissions of total reduced sulphur compounds and ammonia.

PWT - 168 5760322 February 15, 2018 - 5 -

• Bylaws: Potential changes could include the addition of definitions to Bylaw 1082 and Bylaw 1083 to clarifY provisions for regulating odorous air contaminants.

Metro Vancouver is planning workshops and meetings in the coming months to gather feedback on the odour management strategies discussed above. Industry stakeholders and member jurisdictions will be engaged.

The Province of British Columbia

To date, British Columbia does not have a province-wide regulation specific to odour. Odorous air contaminants may be regulated under various regulations and codes or site-specific authorizations such as permits. Current regulations include the Environmental Management Act (EMA), the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) and the Waste Discharge Regulation (WDR), which are the principal pieces of legislation for air quality in BC. These regulations set conditions on how certain classes of activities may be undertaken, but they do not include specific air quality criteria for waste management or composting facility operations. The EMA currently does not include a specific odour definition. However, it is possible to surmise that odour is an air contaminant under paragraph "e" in the definition of "air contaminants," which states "causes or is capable of causing material physical discomfort to a person."

The Province manages odours from composting facilities outside Metro Vancouver's jurisdiction under the BC OMRR, which was enacted in 2002 and amended in November of2017 (BC Reg 243/2016). The OMRR currently does not include definitions of odour or air contaminants. In Part 5 of the OMRR titled "Composting Facility Requirements," there are general requirements which include performance and emission criteria for composting facilities. The OMRR section 24, paragraph 2.d states that plans and specifications must include "an odour management plan which stipulates how air contaminants from the composting facility will be discharged in a manner that does not cause pollution," but there are no specific outcome-based requirements or criteria for odour management in the facilities.

From 2005 through to 2017, the Province undertook reviews of the OMRR and issued Intention Papers (2006, 2011, 20 16) with the intention of amending the OMRR to include criteria for Odour Management. However, the amendments of the OMRR have not included any standards or criteria for odour. Similarly, the Province received a report titled "Final Report Odour Management in British Columbia: Review and Recommendations" in 2005 to inform odour management approaches that would be effective in British Columbia, based on a review of successful odour management programs in other jurisdictions. It was found that there are ten different approaches that are used to manage odour, that include: • Odour Management Regulation; • Ambient concentration criteria for individual chemicals; • Ambient concentration criteria for odour; • Episode duration-frequency; • Minimum separation distances; • Odour intensity scales; • Odour index; • Complaint criteria;

PWT - 169 5760322 February 15,2018 - 6 -

• Quantitative emission criteria; • Technology criteria.

To date and despite the Province's reviews developed in the last 13 years, the Province still has not directly regulated odour with clear criteria and standards.

Other Jurisdictions

In 2017, Alberta Health released a report summarizing over 500 peer-reviewed epidemiology and experimental studies assessing odour and health outcomes in humans. The physiological responses reported in scientific papers include watering eyes, headaches, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, upset stomach, and throat irritation. Sleeplessness, stress and anxiety are also reported effects and if experienced for prolonged periods, can result in chronic health impacts. The main outcomes include health symptoms, physiological responses, annoyance, mood and psychological health, quality of life, cognition (task performance), athletic performance, and brain activity. In addition to these effects, residents are sometimes unable to enjoy their own property and outdoor activities, such as gardening and barbeques, and report having to close their windows and doors during hot weather.

As it relates to regulations, in different jurisdictions across Canada and internationally, odour issues are addressed through a range of mechanisms, including odour regulations, policies, and guidance documents. Most provinces define air contaminants in their legislation, and some provinces explicitly include odour within the definition (Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador). Other odour management frameworks from across the United States, Europe, Australia, and Germany describe the approaches taken to address odour management in those jurisdictions.

Highlights include:

• Ontario included odour as a contaminant in the Interpretation (definition) of the Environmental Protection Act. Ontario also uses "Best Management Practices for Industrial Sources of Odour" that include procedures to prevent odours. • Alberta included "Environmental protection orders re odour" in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. • Quebec has defined odour as a contaminant in the Environmental Definition Act. • Ontario and the cities of Montreal and Boucherville in Quebec use odour concentration guidelines measured in odour units. • Manitoba and Saskatchewan use odour units to assess potential impacts from new facilities during the design phase, but not as an enforcement tool to verify compliance when the facility is operating. • In the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California, USA, the BAAQMD odour management framework consists of a nuisance law, quantitative ambient concentration limits for individual chemicals and odour, complaint criteria, and quantitative emission criteria.

5760322 PWT - 170 February 15, 2018 - 7 -

• King County, Washington, USA: The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division has an Odour Prevention Policy that defines odour prevention levels and includes recommendations for retrofitting existing facilities and for designing new facilities. • New South Wales, Australia has a very comprehensive policy for assessing and managing odour from stationary sources. It includes an over-arching nuisance law, odour performance criteria, a three-level system of odour impact assessment, avoidance and mitigation strategies, negotiation between stakeholders, performance monitoring and complaint management, and regulation and enforcement options. • Germany has a unique approach to managing odours that incorporates all of the Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Location (FIDOL) factors. Several other approaches are also used to manage odours in Germany including an odour nuisance law, minimum separation distances (used primarily for agricultural and waste sources), an odour intensity scale, and quantitative emission criteria. The German odour management program is considered to be successful. • Canada's Ministry of Environment published Environment Canada's "Technical Document on Municipal Solid Waste Organics Processing" report. The document covers a wide range of topics on composting processes including processing technologies, facility design, odour control, and compost quality.

The best practices of odour management adopted in other jurisdictions have common elements that have contributed to the highly positive results throughout the last 13 years:

• Environmental legislation includes the definition of odour as an air contaminant; • Specific guidelines or standards exist for odour management with specific emission limits including gases and odorants from composting facilities; • There is specified criteria regarding how odours and odorous air contaminants can be monitored, managed, treated, and discharged; • There are technical standards and best practices of operation of composting plants and/or waste management plants.

Based on the findings above, staff believe there are opportunities to request that new or amended legislation be introduced regionally and provincially to address odours from composting facilities. The following recommendations are offered for Council's endorsement:

1. That a letter be sent to the BC Minister of Environment requesting that:

• The definition of odour as an air contaminant be included in the Environmental Management Act and in the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation; • The Organic Matter Recycling Regulation include a specific Odour Management Regulation establishing criteria and standards with clear limits in terms of concentration and frequency for odorant emissions from composting facilities and define performance criteria for composting facility operations; • They define specific standards for how odours shall be monitored, managed, treated, and discharged in a manner that minimizes the impacts associated with odorous air contaminants.

5760322 PWT - 171 February 15,2018 - 8 -

2. That a letter be sent to Metro Vancouver expressing the City's expectations that:

• Metro Vancouver update its Odour Management Bylaw for composting facilities establishing criteria and standards with clear limits in terms of concentration and frequency for odorant emissions by composting facilities; • Metro Vancouver appropriately resource its permit procedures with criteria and standards for composting facility permits to bring facilities into compliance with industry best practices for Composting Facilities.

The recommendations will contribute to the City's objective of eliminating odour issues from composting facilities.

Financial Impact

None.

Conclusion

This report highlights key regulatory actions that can be undertaken to support the City's objective to eliminate odours from composting facilities in Richmond and Metro Vancouver.

Peter Russell Senior Manager, Sustainability and District Energy (604-276-4130)

5760322 PWT - 172