MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

Notes from a Small Group Meeting for the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation PURPOSE held on June 4, 2013 at the Sapperton Pensioners Hall, New Westminster.

FACILITATOR Judy Kirk, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd.

John Ashdown Carla Jones Virginia Ayers Gunnar Jonsson Ben Birovchak Patrick Johnstone Bell Browne Alec Lambert Karl Brysch Christopher Longford Ruby Campbell Li Ma Linda Cooper Daphne MacDonell David Connor Barbara McGuire Dale Darychuk Jill Mountain ATTENDEES Sandy Del Grosso John Mountain Rita Delfing Adam Person Ken Dolphin Harpinder Sandhu Brad Dow Russell Sholberg Reena Meijer Drees Bart Slotman Monica Eyre Ivan Takagi Drew Ferrari Deanna Tan Morgan Haupt Shane Woolford Michael Hwang Bill Zander

Ian Fisher, TransLink Darren Woodworth, TransLink Jim Lowrie, City of New Westminster Eugene Wat, City of New Westminster PROJECT TEAM Ashleigh Young, City of New Westminster ATTENDEES Paul Lee, City of Surrey Derek Drummond, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (observer) Geoff Freer, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (observer) Karen Schroder, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd., Meeting Recorder

1. Welcome and Introductions AGENDA 2. Discussion 3. Closing Remarks

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 1 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

RECURRING THEMES

• Some participants asked whether trucks could be managed, to reduce truck traffic moving through New Westminster. • Some participants are concerned about the connections between the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the Port Mann Bridge. In particular, people expressed a desire for the provincial government to improve routes other than the Pattullo Bridge for truck and vehicle traffic. • Some participants questioned the cost of potential tolls and wondered whether rehabilitated alternatives would also have tolls. • Some participants requested additional information regarding road connections associated with the alternatives recommended for further consideration. • Some participants said that a higher capacity bridge could provide better opportunities to improve traffic flow and avoid diversion through New Westminster neighbourhoods.  Some participants said that Alternative 19 should be strongly considered and that the communities within Coquitlam should be consulted about this option.

The record notes that the meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.

DISCUSSION

(Abbreviations will be used and mean – Q: Question, A: Answer, C: Comment)

1. Welcome and Introductions – Judy Kirk Judy Kirk welcomed participants to the small group meeting, and explained the format of the meeting. Judy informed participants that the small group meeting was being recorded for accuracy, would include attribution, and that the meeting notes would form part of the consultation record. The Pattullo Bridge Review team members introduced themselves.

2. Discussion – Ian Fisher Ian Fisher reviewed key sections of the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Discussion Guide and answered questions from participants as he went through the Discussion Guide.

Q: Bill Zander: My concern is that ten years to put in a new facility is a long time to wait. Is it correct to say this seismic upgrade will take place in the interim? A: Ian Fisher: That’s right. It wouldn’t be to the same extent as what would happen if rehabilitation was chosen as the preferred long-term alternative; this would be to make sure it remains safe and useable for the next ten years or so.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 2 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Ben Birovchak: When we were at a meeting in this very room about a year ago, I was under the impression that they were hopeful to get under construction by 2016. Ten years is a long time to wait. Everyone knows that the bridge is crumbling. I’m not sure why we are talking about all the alternatives. The bridge has got to be replaced, so why is it taking so long to get underway? C: Judy Kirk: Let’s let Ian get into the alternatives but we have marked down the question about why so long and we can come back to it.

C: Al Lambert: We are all seniors and that bridge is four months older than me. But there is an immediate problem, my wife and I counted 15 18-wheeler trucks coming across the bridge. That is something that can be dealt with immediately. There is less than 8” between those truck tires and the curb. All that the driver has to do is sneeze, scratch or lose control and that truck is going to over. It will bust through the railing and there goes the bridge. That’s the real problem someone is going to get killed. Here’s the solution; put a one dollar charge on every bridge in B.C.

Q: Gunner Jonsson: I live in Surrey and have commuted across that bridge for over 20 years. It’s only since 2004 or 2005 that I’ve seen the trucks taking up two lanes, which is reducing the capacity. A: Ian Fisher: The way the trucks have to drive on the bridge does reduce the capacity and that is something we are looking at.

Q: Ben Birovchak: Has there been any discussion between TransLink and those responsible for dealing with regional growth and development? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, there has been a lot of discussion between Metro Vancouver, TransLink and the municipalities. The Regional Growth Strategy is agreed to by the municipalities and Metro Vancouver and then TransLink works with those assumptions.

Q: Ivan Takagi: Once the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR), is completed, could you restrict truck movement across the Pattullo Bridge? That bridge could be reserved for traffic moving between the communities. A: Ian Fisher: That suggestion has come up before. Of course anything is possible; it’s whether the outcome of that is desirable for the region and meeting the objectives of the regional plans. C: Judy Kirk: You should make a note of that in your feedback form. There are also two people from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure here – Derek Drummond and Geoff Freer – and they would be good people to speak to as well. C: Ivan Takagi: You can’t restrict truck movement, they have to get through. I was wondering if there was sufficient truck movement on the highway so goods can go where they have to go. C: Ian Fisher: As the SFPR is completed there will be more alternatives for trucks although some will still go through New Westminster – for example, those using the Queensborough Bridge. C: Ivan Takagi: Why would they have to go through New West if the SFPR was finished? Why couldn’t they go straight to 176th? C: Judy Kirk: It’s a good point sir. We will take it down and other people will have questions and comments about truck movement on the highway. C: Ben Birovchak: Everyone likes ganging up on trucks and no one likes driving with them but they are necessary for commerce. Not all the trucks are just passing through New Westminster; lots of them are coming in to the mills, shops and industries. It’s a fact of life that we need to live with them and make it as simple as possible.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 3 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Ivan Takagi: Is there a way to restrict trucks to allowing only those coming to New West as opposed to passing through? C: Judy Kirk: I don’t think Ian can answer that but we do have it noted as a suggestion. C: Ian Fisher: Just for information, we are doing some truck counts right now. We are taking pictures of trucks and tracking where they are going and their movements: an origin/destination survey we will have a better understanding of where trucks are going.

Q: Dale Darychuk: Objective 8 is cost effective? How are you measuring that? What about a cost- benefit analysis? How are you measuring neighbourhood livability? What value are you putting on that as opposed to the cost of the bridge? A: Ian Fisher: We will measure all those quantitatively or qualitatively if we can. We are using a multiple account analysis. It doesn’t get boiled down to a single number; it shows where an alternative is good for one aspect and not in another so decision makers can look at all the information. C: Judy Kirk: Also one of the reasons we are out here doing these meetings is to gather your input about what you think is most important. C: Dale Darychuk: The term “cost-effective” is meaningless to me. Q: Judy Kirk: Let’s get that answered, what do you mean by “cost-effective”? A: Ian Fisher: We have just looked at the affordability of this. We have to be able to afford the alternative that is preferred. Cost-benefit analysis looks at all the associated costs, road connections, emissions and property costs. Q: Reena Meijer Drees: So if I understand correctly, you have only looked at the affordability? A: Ian Fisher: At this stage, yes. Q: Reena Meijer Drees: So all that has gone into ‘not recommended’ is how expensive it is from a funding perspective? C: Ian Fisher: Yes, for this stage of evaluation. C: Judy Kirk: I just want to make sure the impression isn’t left that it was only a cost screen – the screening was against all the Objectives.

Q: Bill Zander: What about all the auxiliary roads that are connected to the bridge? You can’t talk about the bridge in isolation. That was one of the problems last year. You need to deal with where the traffic is going to go when it gets off the bridge. If we have a problem with building a bridge for a billion dollars then we’re finished because there will be a lot more costs than just those associated with the bridge. The roads that are going to connect to the bridge like the Stormont Connector will cost a lot if you are going to do them properly. A: Ian Fisher: The costs do include ramps on either end of the bridge but there could be other required road projects. Q: Judy Kirk: Is it correct that in the next round of consultation, when you have a shorter list of alternatives, you will look more fully at connections and come out with more information about connecting roads? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, because we have the long list of 25 options, it was difficult to complete all of the work on each one. We will be coming back with more information in later phases.

Q: Ivan Takagi: Are the three options about the same cost?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 4 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

A: Judy Kirk: There aren’t three options; there are 25 alternatives. The three areas that Ian pointed out are the three corridor locations where the alternatives are located. C: Ivan Takagi: I was thinking that the alternatives in the present corridor would be much cheaper than the other areas.

Q: Harpinder Sandhu: Just a quick question; could costs up to one billion dollars be recoverable through user fees exclusively? Would anything above that require senior government funding? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, if we had funding from the senior government than the tolls could be lower or we could pursue a higher cost alternative. Q: Harpinder Sandhu: Do you have to hit that billion dollar mark before senior government funding would come into play? A: Ian Fisher: We don’t know what would get senior government funding at this stage. C: Judy Kirk: But there is no threshold for senior government funding.

Q: Dale Darychuk: You want to increase the number of cycling and walking trips but your comments in the Objectives say that the bridge length is a deterrent to cycling. I don’t know why the length of the crossing has anything to do with that. If you look at the North Shore, lots of people use the Lions Gate for cycling as opposed to the Second Narrows because it is terrible for cycling. It’s the safety of the facilities, not the length of the crossing. A: Ian Fisher: Yes, that’s a good point. We looked at the average length of walking and cycling trips in the region. This bridge is on the longer side, especially given the land uses on the south side. We wouldn’t expect a big shift to walking but could be a different story for cycling.

C: Al Lambert: I hate to sound like a broken record but the Port Mann Bridge is the widest bridge in North America. I agree with this gentleman, truckers have a right to make a living and we can’t rely on an old bridge. To alleviate danger, why can’t they open up the full eight lanes of the Port Mann with a minimum charge until all these plans are done? There is going to be a disaster on the Pattullo Bridge.

C: Derek Drummond: I want to reinforce what Dale said. When you look at the bridge that goes into Richmond, people aren’t using it to go from that part of Vancouver to that part of Richmond; they are using it as part of longer trips and it is being used because it’s there. I think there is a high potential to increase bike trips in this area.

Q: John Mountain: Why have we opened up the SFPR to Pattullo Bridge and not directly to Highway 1? And why did we create a route for those who want to by-pass tolls? Until the South Fraser Perimeter Road is completed through to Delta… A: Ian Fisher: The South Fraser Perimeter Road will be opened to Delta later this year, I believe. The Port Mann Bridge and the SFPR are both provincial projects and the Province is talking to New Westminster right now about connections to the Port Mann. Q: Judy Kirk: This question that perhaps the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure representatives could help answer: why doesn’t SFPR connect to the new Port Mann Bridge? A: Geoff Freer: I am Geoff Freer, Project Director for the South Fraser Perimeter Road. We did take a look at various places to connect the SFPR to Highway 1/Port Mann and it was very difficult right on either side of the Port Mann Bridge as there are very steep grades at that location. I would

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 5 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

encourage you to try out the connection as it is now – going over to 176th Street. It is very efficient. To connect right at the Port Mann you would end up going through very steep grades, through residential neighbourhoods and it would be a complicated connection onto the bridge. But if you haven’t tried it yet, I would recommend you try the connection as it is today; it is quite easy and convenient. It was looked at, those are some of the reasons it didn’t happen but the Ministry, at the request of New Westminster, is continuing to look if anything else can be done.

Q: John Mountain: My wife just pointed out that the 4-lane Sapperton Bar crossing goes right through our townhouse. C: Judy Kirk: Well, that is definitely something to point out! A: Ian Fisher: There hasn’t been any detailed design drawings but that dotted line would be a bored tunnel that went underground. C: Judy Kirk: So, for Jill, John and everyone else in the room, there haven’t been detailed designs done for route or exact alignment.

Q: Ken Dolphin: The 4-lane tunnel with branch is not recommended but that is one of the few of the alternatives that direct the traffic through without impacting us. By tunneling under Royal Avenue and under McBride it takes traffic away from where we don’t want it. I am going to be noting that in my feedback form. C: Judy Kirk: That is exactly why we are here with all the alternatives and if you disagree with the screening then indeed you should note that. C: Ken Dolphin: There is nothing here that shows one level for cars and another level for bikes and walking protected so there’s no suicide risk. If you completely surround a walkway, then that’s better than just a high fence.

Q: Unknown: On the Sapperton crossing, you have the dotted line as a tunnel. Is that a cut and cover tunnel? A: Ian Fisher: No, I don’t think it would be cut and cover. I would think it would be a bored tunnel as it’s quite deep there. It would be subject to detailed design if we were to pursue that alternative. Q: Unknown: At the end of the dots, where does it go from there? I find that’s where I have a problem. A: Ian Fisher: It is assumed it would join McBride Boulevard.

Q: Morgan Haupt: What was the toll amount that this was based on? A: Ian Fisher: We assumed a similar toll to the Port Mann Bridge. Q: Carla Jones: So are all the options tolled? The rehabilitated options would also be tolled? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, there would be some sort of user fee for all options whether it be tolls or road pricing. C: Judy Kirk: It’s worth pointing out that once the Pattullo Bridge Review team has come to a preferred alternative or alternatives, it would go through a financial review as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. That plan would cover all the regional priorities. Q: Carla Jones: I would suspect that the cheaper alternatives would mean a lesser toll. In that case, would both bridges, the new one and the rehabilitated one, be tolled? A: Ian Fisher: Yes. It would be likely that the old bridge would help pay for the new bridge.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 6 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Patrick Johnstone: Has the City of Coquitlam been consulted about this in any way? A: Darren Woodworth: Yes, we have been in discussion with Coquitlam about the option that connects Coquitlam and Surrey. They have shown interest in seeing how this option develops in more detail. If this alternative goes forward they will be involved even more.

C: Sandy Del Grosso: A lot of the options are not recommended so we are basically stuck with the same location as we have now. Really we should focus on that and concentrate on the traffic that would come off the bridge and dealing with that.

Q: Li Ma: This bridge structure needs seismic upgrade, but the location is bad. If you build a new bridge in the same place you will still have the same traffic jams in New Westminster and it will impact the capacity. C: Judy Kirk: So you are saying the location has to change. C: Li Ma: Yes of course. Population is increasing; there are 20 new high-rises in Burnaby. We need new bridges.

Q: Unknown: If you do something to the Pattullo Bridge, the Queensborough Bridge then becomes a nightmare. It will have to be replaced if we put a bigger bid in for Pattullo. It’s bad enough now.

Q: Karl Brysch: Did I understand that it would be a 30-year lifespan for a rehabilitated bridge? What would be the plan after that? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, a 30-year life is assumed. A: Darren Woodsworth: When you compare it to a new bridge, that would have at least a 100-year lifespan. Then would you have rehabilitation on top of that; although you get to a point with a structure where you just can’t rehab anymore. So we can rehabilitate the current bridge but then we will have to make another decision on what to do after that 30-year period. C: Karl Brysch: If you go to the map on page 8, you should highlight exactly what New Westminster is. Anything above ground is going to go through residential neighbourhoods and we want to get away from that.

C: Bill Zander: So much of this is not recommended due to Objective 5, because there isn’t access to town centres. I thought we would want to by-pass the town centres, not go through them. I thought it should be like the freeway, where there’s Langley on one side and Aldergrove on the other but you have to exit the freeway. We don’t have a freeway from New Westminster; every other city has a freeway they can access. I don’t understand not recommending alternatives because of lack of connection to town centres. A: Ian Fisher: There are by-pass routes already; Highway 1 and Highway 9. There is always going to be a need for more local connections between highly developed areas, North Surrey, Burnaby and New Westminster are all highly developed areas and there is a lot of activity between them. You need to provide a multi-modal connection between them. The SkyBridge does a great job for transit and the Pattullo is what is serving vehicles, bikes and people. There is a local issue that needs to be addressed.

Q: Ruby Campbell: I have a question around Option 6, Objective 4. The last sentence mentions potential local mitigation measures; I was wondering if this statement would apply to Options 7

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 7 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

and 8 as well if there will be further development around those ones. What would those local changes and mitigations look like if Options 6, 7 or 8 were chosen? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, you can see for those options that more analysis around specific bridge connections is needed. If we provided connections in certain ways, we could remove the need for trucks to use certain streets, we could make it easier for traffic to take some streets over others, it depends how we work the connections. Right now the connection between Columbia Street and the bridge is awkward in both directions and is closed in the afternoon in the New Westminster to Surrey direction. So we would look at improvements and changes. Q: Ruby Campbell: Would there be local consultation around those changes? C: Judy Kirk: Here’s my understanding and Ian, correct me if I’m wrong, that next round of consultation will include further analysis that the Partnership will have done of the shorter list of alternatives and at that time you would have more information about connections that would be the subject of this kind of discussion and meeting.

Q: Deanna Tan: My question is about revenue. Have other avenues for revenue considered? Things like bridge climbs that they do in Australia and New Zealand. People pay $150 to climb across the bridge 24-7 and it pays for that bridge and other transportation and infrastructure. C: Judy Kirk: What a great idea. A: Ian Fisher: We have heard suggestions of restaurants under the bridge. It is something to note that in your feedback form because we haven’t considered those as of yet.

Q: Reena Meijer Drees: I had a question to follow-up on Bill’s about local capacity versus through traffic. The current capacity is 70,000 vehicles a day. So this isn’t really a local problem. Are most of those 70,000 vehicles going to Surrey or New Westminster or are most of them going through? I suspect it is the latter. The local capacity is much smaller; we don’t need a 6-lane bridge connecting New West to Surrey. We need a smaller bridge that serves the local needs and the other traffic can go around.

Q: Morgan Haupt: Why there is no tunnel-bridge combination? It would seem very expensive to tunnel under the Fraser when you use a bridge to cross the river and could tunnel under residential areas. A: Ian Fisher: The Sapperton Bar location does have a bridge-tunnel combination. Generally, the cost of tunneling is so much that you would quickly go over the realm of affordability. Q: Morgan Haupt: I just mean using the existing path and keeping the bridge where it is but going into tunnels on the New Westminster side, to limit expensive tunnel boring so you could use the bridge to cross the river. I am really hesitant to say a new 4-or 5-lane bridge is great because I remember the plans for dumping the traffic into New Westminster that were presented last time. I don’t want to say that I support a 4-lane bridge option because I don’t like what that option means for how traffic comes out in the residential areas. C: Judy Kirk: Thank you for raising that because that is why this Feedback Form is so important. You can see there is a 5-point scale so you can indicate your level of support and we would like you to provide comments as to why. That is really important. Q: Morgan Haupt: I understand that in order to meet the road guidelines there are only certain ways you can cut but those all go into residential neighbourhoods. There doesn’t seem to be any realistic

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 8 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

way to get traffic off the Pattullo Bridge that meets road guidelines without carving into residential areas. That’s why I was asking about the bridge into tunnel option which would cancel that out.

Q: Carla Jones: I have a question about the new bridge. Are all of the new bridge alternatives upstream of the current bridge? A: Ian Fisher: I think the New Westminster end of the bridge is upstream of the current bridge. It is a design detail that wasn’t looked at in this level of evaluation. But it is upstream to provide a more direct connection to McBride.

C: Unknown: When the final evaluation comes through, I would bet that 75% of the traffic on that bridge is travelling through from Surrey to Vancouver. Very little of the traffic starts or ends in New Westminster. C: Judy Kirk: An origin/destination traffic study is taking place right now. Darren, will you have that information for the next round of evaluation and consultation? A: Darren Woodsworth: Yes, we will have that for the next round. As Judy and Ian mentioned we need to come back and talk about connections, traffic patterns and pedestrian and cycling movements.

Q: John Mountain: Right now McBride Avenue ends at 10th and there is a mess there. For years, I’ve heard about the Stormont Connection that has never been built. Is that a Provincial responsibility? C: Unknown: That would keep you going on McBride and connect with the freeway. That would get rid of a lot of traffic problems. C: Judy Kirk: So you’re asking if that is on the books for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. A: Derek Drummond: It is not on the books for the Ministry of Transportation, it would be a municipal and TransLink priority.

Q: Karl Brysch: There is no mention of the HOV lanes on any of the options? A: Ian Fisher: We haven’t explicitly referenced HOV lanes in any of the alternatives. Usually buses are one of the biggest users of the HOV lane and the Sky Bridge is right there so it fulfills that need. There is still room for carpool or HOV queue jumpers that could be considered.

Q: Deanna Tan: Where does the Pattullo Bridge funding rank on priorities for TransLink as compared to the public transit? We are talking about a billion dollars and that’s money you don’t have first of all and it means it’s a billion less for transit. A: Ian Fisher: The assumption is that the bridge would be tolled or have some other form of user pay so it would not take funds away from transit. It is important and a priority of TransLink to replace or rehabilitate the bridge to ensure it is in good repair. A: Darren Woodsworth: TransLink needs to balance where we spend money. We are in the development phase of the Regional Transportation Strategy. That’s the place we are going to be identifying all the costs we have and hearing from the public about what the priorities should be. So this process fits into a larger process of developing the Regional Transportation Strategy that will guide TransLink over the next 30 years. It goes from now until 2045. It’s not an easy process but it involves looking at all our priorities and needs and getting public feedback about where we should put those resources.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 9 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Christopher Longford: About a year ago there was a list of options that were presented. I think it is hard to understand an option without seeing the bigger picture. It makes it difficult to judge which option is best without understanding how it fits into the picture. During that meeting a year ago I think people weren’t happy with the options – so I want to know what the difference is between the options that were presented then and now? A: Ian Fisher: TransLink’s consultation last year was centered around a 6-lane, new bridge option. So that option is still there but we have also included alternatives with lower capacity and rehabilitated alternatives at the current location. In addition, we have considered alternatives at Sapperton Bar and at Tree Island. Q: Judy Kirk: Were there rehabilitation options in the consultation last year? A: Ian Fisher: No, I don’t believe so. A: Darren Woodsworth: There were two consultations happening last year. New Westminster was doing a consultation to feed into their Master Transportation Plan and they presented eight options related to the Pattullo crossing. Then there was TransLink’s public consultation which focused more on the 4-and 6-lane new bridge alternatives. We heard loud and clear from the public that they wanted more options and information. That’s why we joined up with New Westminster and Surrey to take a fresh look at all the possible alternatives. C: Reena Meijer Drees: Thank you for that. You heard us loud and clear and that’s why we are here again tonight.

Q: Harpinder Sandhu: I am a commuter over the bridge from Surrey through New Westminster and my issue is that we have two high-density areas in New West and Surrey. Lots of people do what I do, when the trucks back up; take any road I can through neighbourhoods. If you replace the bridge with the same or more lanes then that problem will only increase. Q: Unknown: The percentage of traffic that goes straight through, if a high enough portion of the traffic was shown to go from Surrey to Vancouver without stopping in New West, would that even involve funding through the Ministry of Transportation? Last year, it was said it would be TransLink because it was local connection from Surrey to New West. It’s not. It’s Surrey to Vancouver or Burnaby and New West is in the middle. A: Ian Fisher: Well, TransLink owns the bridge so it is our responsibility to keep it in good condition and to find funding to do that. Initial results for the study show that a lot of the traffic on the bridge is from north Surrey going as far as downtown Vancouver. This is the most direct route so they are not going out of their way to take the Pattullo Bridge and it is also the best route for going from Burnaby to employment centres in south Surrey. C: Unknown: Yes, but I’m talking about the funding because it should be the Highways department.

Q: Gunner Jonsson: With 25 million trips a year across the bridge, it’s not a stretch to see how users could pay. I don’t care where they’re coming from or where they’re going. That is a viable option over the life of the bridge.

C: Morgan Haupt: I want to reinforce what I think was Chris’ point, which is my frustration that we are back at the table dealing with the same options. We have been told that all of the other options are being dismissed. C: Judy Kirk: The big distinction is that the 25 alternatives are in the Discussion Guide and people are being asked about all the options.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 10 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Bill Zander: Where is the money going to come from? A: Darren Woodsworth: That is a very important point. The Regional Transportation Strategy identifies the funds needed and how we are going to get it. I think we have all hear the discussion in the media about the different ways to try and get funding towards transit – road pricing, tolling and others. These are positive discussions that are continuing as we work towards this regional strategy.

Q: Gunner Jonsson: What’s the timing for the feedback form? A: Judy Kirk: The consultation runs until June 28, so you have until then to get your feedback in. You can leave it with us today or do it online. Q: Drew Ferrari: Can you tell me about the assumptions behind the 5-lane bridge? Would it be a lane reversal? A: Ian Fisher: We first thought of it as an alternative between the 4-and 6-lane alternatives. There were some issues with the grades coming up from south of the Fraser that it was thought an additional lane coming up would help with the truck travel. The extra lane could be a reversible lane but we haven’t decided what the final design would be if that alternative was preferred.

C: Morgan Haupt: In terms of traffic mitigation, when you’re talking about increased capacity and in particular a 6-lane bridge feeding on from Royal, with the new school there, the speed limit should be 30 kilometers per hour. I don’t know how the combination of increased capacity with a slower speed limit will work. I asked the City about it when they did the groundbreaking event. If you’re talking about being able to move traffic faster due to a 6-lane bridge Royal isn’t the place to do it.

Q: Deeana Tan: Is it a fair assumption that traffic congestion will reduce as a result of increasing capacity? Isn’t it true that if you increase capacity, it is only a matter of time before more traffic fill that bridge or road? People are not working on that assumption when they make the decisions. A: Darren Woodsworth: We are not trying to build our way out of congestion. TransLink is not just responsible for transit; they are responsible for the Major Road Network. We need to look at what is best for transportation in the entire region. We don’t look and say this is a congestion point, let’s build it bigger. Roads connecting to the bridge are important. And TransLink wants to encourage other modes. We want to look at things in a more holistic point of view. We need to look at the regional picture. In this process, we are lucky to have the Cities of New Westminster, Surrey, Metro Vancouver and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to work with us. A: Ian Fisher: If you look at the evaluation, we have looked at both sides of that issue. Also there is a lot of growth anticipated for New West and Surrey, so there may be a need for additional capacity just to keep travel times the same as they are today.

Q: Ruby Campbell: Alternative 19 at Sapperton Bar corridor wasn’t presented last year. Are you going to consult with Coquitlam and the communities around there to further develop this one? A: Judy Kirk: As Ian mentioned earlier, part of the development of that alternative would include discussions with Coquitlam. I can’t answer the part about the communities yet, but it is a good suggestion and we should think about that for the next round.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 11 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Tuesday, June 4, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Virginia Ayers: I do hear a lot about capacity and population growth, I am wondering how you talk among yourselves about reducing the Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) if you are increasing capacity? A: Ian Fisher: It is based on a share of rides as opposed to a direct number. Q: Virginia: But how do you get more people per vehicle? If that’s one of the Objectives, how do you think about that for the next 20 or 30 years? What incentives and options are you using? C: Judy Kirk: To clarify, how do municipalities and TransLink try to encourage alternatives to SOV? Darren, could you highlight some of the things that TransLink does? A: Darren Woodsworth: TransLink provides funding for cycling, Travel Smart programs, and we work with municipalities for improved and new cycling facilities. We are planning future service where it is needed most. C: Eugene Wat: From the city and the regional level, we are looking at travel demand management, pricing and supply of parking to encourage a behavioral change.

Q: Patrick Johnstone: In various options there is talk about the need for a center median. This is an urban bridge, the roads around it do not have center barriers and as long as there is adequate width and speed control then this is not an issue. We don’t need to move cars at 80 kilometers an hour across this bridge; the speed limit is 50 kilometers an hour. The trucks cause congestion because they are going the speed limit.

Q: Michael Hwang: The discussion about SOV, do the two-wheeled electric vehicles come into your planning? How can I bring these into focus? A: Ian Fisher: We have not looked at it in detail as a separate mode yet because the numbers aren’t there yet. We don’t say that cycling is the only option and we do look at a range of options.

C: Ben Birovchak: We are getting away from the original topic that the bridge has exceeded its life. It needs to be replaced. How we pay for it can be decided later.

Q: Harpinder Sandhu: Cycling is overemphasized. We are in the middle of a rainforest and very few people cycle. Has TransLink looked at bus service and network? A: Ian Fisher: The Sky Bridge is right there so it’s hard for us to provide a parallel bus service. If it was a different corridor we would definitely look at a bus service.

3. Closing Remarks – Judy Kirk Judy Kirk wrapped up the meeting, thanked participants for their time and encouraged participants to complete the feedback form and encourage friends and others to participate.

The record notes that the small group meeting ended at 8:00 p.m.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 4, 2013 Page 12 of 12 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

Notes from a Small Group Meeting for the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation PURPOSE held on June 5, 2013 at the City Centre Library, Surrey.

FACILITATOR Judy Kirk, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd.

Dan Mike Hoyer Kay Amber Joss Frank David Joss Bernard Abelson Katherine Keras Russ Alfreds Paul Larose Kim Ali Don McCuiston Val Bishop Mark McGaire ATTENDEES Phil Blanchette Kathleen Noonan Bonnie Burnside Sonia Nazar Bruce Cheng Allan Padgham Gordon Hall David Walters Randy Heilbron Stan Weismilles Dave Hesch Sylvia Weishuhn Peter Hourie Cristina Valentinuzzi

Ian Fisher, TransLink Darren Woodworth, TransLink Jerry Behl, City of New Westminster PROJECT TEAM Eugene Wat, City of New Westminster ATTENDEES Paul Lee, City of Surrey Patrick Livolsi, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (observer) Karen Schroder, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd, Meeting Recorder

1. Welcome and Introductions AGENDA 2. Discussion 3. Closing Remarks

RECURRING THEMES

 Some participants expressed mixed views regarding the potential for tolls on a rehabilitated or new Pattullo Bridge. o Many participants agreed that road pricing should be region-wide and not just on bridges going into and out of Surrey.  Some participants strongly recommended that the Pattullo Bridge Review analyze the connections to the bridge to manage traffic coming off the bridge, particularly into New Westminster.  Some participants expressed mixed views about cycling facilities.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 1 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

o Some said there should be better facilities for cycling on the Pattullo Bridge, while other participants said there is too much emphasis on providing cycling facilities.  Some participants said that trucks should be regulated in some way, such as restricting truck traffic to off-peak or night-time travel, and re-routing to other bridges.  Some participants were divided about the benefits of increasing bridge capacity. o Specifically, some thought there should be the same or less capacity on the bridge to encourage greater use of transit, cycling or other modes of transportation while others said more capacity was needed for better free flow of traffic and that capacity was needed in light of increasing population and to ensure economic growth.  Some participants suggested Alternative 19 was a good option, in particular because it would allow for the separation of car and truck traffic.  Some participants suggested that when considering alternatives for this and other road infrastructure, including by-pass options, decision-makers should look at the long term.

The record notes that the meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m.

DISCUSSION

(Abbreviations will be used and mean – Q: Question, A: Answer, C: Comment)

1. Welcome and Introductions – Judy Kirk Judy Kirk welcomed participants to the small group meeting, and explained the format of the meeting. Judy informed participants that the small group meeting was being recorded for accuracy, would include attribution, and that the meeting notes would form part of the consultation record. The Pattullo Bridge Review team members introduced themselves.

Q: Sonia Nazar: Why isn’t there an evening small group meeting in Surrey, like there is in New Westminster? A: Judy Kirk: That is a good point and perhaps we should have done that; we do have an additional meeting time in the evening held for Surrey if there is the demand for it.

2. Discussion – Ian Fisher Ian Fisher reviewed key sections of the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Discussion Guide and answered questions from participants as he went through the Discussion Guide.

Q: Frank: Can you explain what the phrase on page 4 ‘many components have surpassed their useful lives’ actually means? A: Ian Fisher: There is some more information on this on page 6. What it means is that maintaining components, like the bridge deck, is very challenging. The deck has reached the age that we can’t keep up with the maintenance; it is deteriorating at such a rate that you cannot fix it fast enough to keep it in a good state of repair. The re-bar inside the deck rusts and pops the concrete apart. Q: Frank: So the biggest component is the deck?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 2 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

A: Ian Fisher: It’s the deck, the railing, the bearings and the piers in the water that need to be reinforced against the action of the river. There are a lot of components that need attention.

Q: Kay: How old is the Lions Gate Bridge in relationship to the Pattullo? And how would any work on the Pattullo impact the rail bridge? A: Ian Fisher: Lions Gate is about the same age as the Pattullo but it has had a lot more work done on it then the Pattullo. The north approach was replaced in the 1970s and the entire deck was replaced in the mid-1990s or late 1990s. It’s basically all new except the towers and the cables. The Pattullo Bridge has not had that level of work. The rail bridge is even older. It was originally built in 1904. It was original and road and rail bridge and in 1937 when the Pattullo was completed the vehicle traffic moved over. In the past we’ve looked at alternatives to replace both of the bridges at the same time. However, the two bridges have different needs in terms of the ideal pier spacing and the rail companies and the federal government have not expressed a great interest in replacing that bridge at this time.

Q: Mark McGaire: The entire deck was replaced on the Second Narrows and the Lions Gate and that was done without tolls. Why isn’t that being done on Pattullo and not impacting us with tolls? A: Ian Fisher: When we come to the alternatives section of the Discussion Guide, you’ll see that rehab, like the Lions Gate, is one of the options being looked at Q: Mark McGaire: But I understand from the news that all alternatives have a toll on them, which didn’t happen for the other two bridges. A: Ian Fisher: That’s correct. TransLink owns the Pattullo Bridge, whereas the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure owns the other two bridges and TransLink’s funding sources are a bit more limited than the Province’s. Right now, the direction we received from our Board in 2008 was to consider a tolled bridge. TransLink is embarking on a long-range Regional Transportation Strategy over the next two years that will look at priorities and funding sources across the region so there is a potential that the funding source could change but our assumption right now is that it will be tolls.

Q: Peter Hourie: If TransLink owns the Pattullo Bridge does that mean that TransLink can unilaterally make decisions regarding traffic flow without having to get approval from the provincial government or other levels of government? A: Ian Fisher: Because the bridge connects to municipal streets we have to have the approval of municipalities to any changes to those connections. I don’t believe that we have to get the official approval of the Province but perhaps Darren has more background on that. A: Darren Woodsworth: We are working with the Province on this process. Ministry of Transportation is providing advice from a regional planning perspective. They are part of this partnership with New Westminster and Surrey. Q: Peter Hourie: I understand that but my question is can TransLink unilaterally make decisions regarding traffic flow on that bridge without the permission of the Province and the City of Vancouver? A: Judy Kirk: It sounds like yes but they would be reluctant to go that route. Q: Unidentified: Why would they be reluctant? A: Judy Kirk: These guys probably can’t answer that; that is much more of a political question than it is a staff question.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 3 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

Q: Kay: Does TransLink own the Pattullo Bridge? A: Judy Kirk: Yes, they do. A: Darren Woodsworth: TransLink owns four bridges – the Golden Ears Bridge, the Knight Street Bridge, the Westham Island Bridge and the Pattullo Bridge. Q: Kay: And the rest of the bridges in the region? A: Judy Kirk: Are owned by the Province and municipalities.

Q: Don McCuiston: I was interested in the rail bridge. Is there a possibility for whatever alternative is chosen to be built with the provisions to provide for future rail bridge? So you could reduce the number of bridges in that area? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, I guess you could extend it so you could put the rail bridge right next to it but it would still be almost a separate structure because the rail crossing is a low-level crossing and the Pattullo is a high-level crossing. C: Don McCuiston: Just somehow ‘future proofing’ so that some work can be avoided in the future when that rail bridge finally collapses. C: Judy Kirk: It’s a good comment, Don.

Q: Sylvia Weishuhn: When the Port Mann Bridge was re-built it was discussed as keeping a non-tolled option, along with the tunnel. Now both the bridge and the tunnel are being discussed as being tolled. Why is everything backward, when you knew the other two were much older than the Port Mann, yet that was replaced first and now slowly eating up the two remaining non-tolled options? A: Ian Fisher: Those are owned by different entities and the Province decided to build the Port Mann first and told the public that the Pattullo would be the free alternative but did not liaise closely with TransLink in that discussion. C: Mark McGaire: I think the feedback you are getting is that tolling is really a sore point south of the Fraser River. If TransLink can find funding in any other way other than tolling another bridge over the Fraser that’s what we want to see. Q: Judy Kirk: How do other people feel about that? About tolling? C: Unidentified: I think people avoid the Port Mann Bridge because of the tolls. C: Unidentified: I think we should all be tolled. Q: Kay: We feel like we are being financial hit south of the Fraser by paying these tolls. And our traffic grid is to get people in and out of Surrey, not a cross grid, and it creates a major financial hardship on families. C: Val Bishop: I feel that, rather than my tax dollars, I would rather see user-pay. If I’m not using these bridges, then why should my taxes go up? C: Frank: I am in favour of tolls for all bridges. Having some tolled and some not distorts the traffic flow so you end up with overloading on the bridges that are not tolled. C: Allan Padgham: If you go to other countries it is normal to toll. Every 20 km there is a toll booth for a new stretch of highway that’s been built. It’s nothing new. But taking money out of people’s pockets continually… there has to be another way to fund this. C: Judy Kirk: I would like to emphasize that you take the time to say what you think about tolling in your feedback form. It will be a key theme for today’s meetings but would encourage you to have your say in the feedback form as well. C: Phil Blanchette: I am in favour of tolls as long as you save time and money, as long as there is infrastructure in place that we can move freely around the Lower Mainland. $1.50 for the Port

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 4 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

Mann is nothing for us because we’re across there in a couple of minutes whereas before you were lined-up for hours. The media is reporting that traffic on the Pattullo is higher because of tolls on the Port Mann, which I find untrue, we’re located right beside the Patullo and I never sit in traffic anymore to get into my business. C: Unidentified: You don’t see 24/7 rush hour on the Pattullo? You are facing the wrong way. C: Unidentified: My kids go school in North Delta and I live in North Surrey and I own a business that’s under the Pattullo Bridge and the traffic has increased. I will sit in traffic to go from Scott Road to King George Highway for 25 minutes. The traffic is ridiculous and it’s added 25 minutes to take my kids to school each way. C: Judy Kirk: In the next phase of consultation in the fall, the partners will be bringing traffic information including origin and destination studies of current traffic patterns, so people can actually see the data. C: Dave Walters: 50 years ago the tunnel, the Lions Gate, and the Second Narrows Bridge, they all had tolls. C: Mark McGaire: Can I just add, if the tolls are fair, I would not be opposed. They are only going one direction and that’s to Surrey. There are no tolls to West Van or up the Sea-to-Sky Highway. If it was fair across the board, I would have no problem with it. The whole Highway Improvement Project cost $3 billion, Port Mann was only a portion of that, the rest of that highway improvement cost a lot more and it’s free to use until you get to the bridge. C: Judy Kirk: So you’re saying if you had road pricing across the region. Make sure you put that in your feedback form.

Q: Mark McGaire: With Objective 1, that most trips should be by walking, cycling or transit, are you saying that you don’t actually want cars over the bridge? A: Ian Fisher: Across the region we would like to move towards that goal, but it might apply less to some corridors over others. We want to make sure that whatever alternative is pursued for the Pattullo is not inconsistent with that goal. C: Judy Kirk: There is a question in the feedback form asking for feedback on these Objectives. Q: Don McCuiston: Objective 4 is the hardest, we haven’t heard about the roads that connect. I am biased because it’s more a New Westminster issue but whatever is done, is there infrastructure beyond he bridge that will deal with the traffic and local connections? A: Ian Fisher: That is something we will be looking at in the next phase. Right now with 25 alternatives that was difficult to do. Q: Don McCuiston: The roads cannot handle the traffic that’s here. Is there anything done to the road network at all? C: Judy Kirk: We have heard loud and clear that connections are critical with the six alternatives that are being recommended. C: Jerry Behl: As New Westminster, we are taking that very seriously and making sure those concerns are raised.

Q: Alex Milojkovic: Can you just override the objections of Richmond and Burnaby and go ahead with the Tree Island Alternative? A: Ian Fisher: No, we have to work in a consensus approach across the region and make sure the municipalities are on board.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 5 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

C: Katherine Keras: That option doesn’t make sense if it means more people have to use the Alex Fraser, it is already too small and congested. C: Judy Kirk: We should clarify this alternative is not recommended for further evaluation.

Q: Mark McGaire: If the toll is the same as the Port Mann but the cost is about a third of what the Port Mann was, how does that work? A: Ian Fisher: Traffic volumes are about two-thirds of what they are on the Port Mann C: Paul Lee: The entire Port Mann/Highway 1 project cost about $3 billion but the bridge itself cost less than that. C: Mark McGaire: Yes, I know but the tolls are paying for the entire project.

Q: Kay: Bridgeview is in a flood plain so it’s very unlikely it will ever be high density. My concern is that if you are looking at a walking and cycling bridge, I’m not sure who that would benefit, possibly New Westminster. But also you need to look at your demographics. Who would you anticipate would be riding or walking over this bridge, because south of it is industrial? A: Ian Fisher: On the distance side of it, we don’t expect a lot of people would walk over it but we know some people already cycling and with better facilities it is a reasonable distance to cycle from New Westminster to Surrey City Centre. It’s TransLink’s policy to build all new facilities with full cycling and walking facilities. Q: Alex Milojkovic: There have probably been three people who have cycled across the Pattullo, Queensborough and Port Mann bridges in the last five years. Why is TransLink even considering the cycling as a primary concern when building bridges when there is no bike traffic? No one is going to walk and no one is really going to go from Surrey to New Westminster. C: Judy Kirk: So you’re saying there is just too much emphasis on walking and cycling. C: Alex Milojkovic: Yes, absolutely. C: Katherine Keras: Too much. Q: Gordon Hall: I’m with HUB the cycling coalition, Surrey chapter. I just ran ‘Bike to Work Week’ stations in New Westminster, Surrey, Burnaby and Vancouver so we have very good data. As far as cycling goes, we had a Pattullo Bridge Station which we have every year, I’ve been doing it for six years, and everyone complains about the bridge. At the King George SkyTrain Station there are a lot of people using the bike lockers there or using folding bikes because they can’t take bikes on skyTrain. Cycling is a major component. They added the cycling lane, with our pushing, to the Canada Line Bridge and there are literally hundreds of cyclists coming across. As well, a lot of the bike routes downtown, and the Central Valley Greenway that goes in the SkyTrain system, are full of cyclists. When there is a quality, safe and secure route, people will use it. A good-quality bike route takes one lane of vehicle traffic away. There are people who are riding 15 or 20 kilometers no problem as long as they have somewhere safe to ride. One of the options I don’t see here is if you were to add one more SkyTrain per unit. SkyTrain runs in two trains to Surrey and then one to the Millennium Line. If you were able to add that third trip over the SkyTrain Bridge, maybe as an alternate, in the short-term anyway, and you were able to take your bike on the train in rush hour, I think you would see a significant increase in cyclists. There are good cycling routes in Surrey and New Westminster but there’s a missing component. Q: Katherine Keras: My concern is, we have these bike lanes going in everywhere but who is taxing them? I think bicycles, like vehicles, should be insured. There should be laws they should follow

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 6 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

and they should be paying a toll or a tax. I would love to ride a bike to work but it just isn’t going to work. Q: Russ Alfreds: Since the Port Mann has opened the traffic has increased by 25 or 30 percent and there are so many more trucks now due to the way it’s been set up to drive the trucks to the new South Fraser Perimeter Road, so when I see this alternative of going to three lanes that just wouldn’t work. Q: Mark McGaire: If people in the cars are paying for it, depending on what it costs to add an extra lane on, are we talking $10 million to add on a cycling lane, who is paying for that? If the cars are paying for it and the cyclists aren’t that would be a problem. If the cyclists are willing to pay for it, go for it. Q: Bernard Abelson: Have we looked at the option like on Canada Line where the cycling bridge was added, have you looked at adding pedestrian and cycling facilities to the existing Skybridge? Then you wouldn’t have to accommodate them on the actual Pattullo Bridge; those facilities would be part of the Skybridge. Q: Katherine Keras: That’s a great idea. A: Darren Woodsworth: We have not investigated that due primarily to the type of construction. It’s a cable suspension bridge, unlike the Canada Line Bridge. C: Judy Kirk: If you feel strongly about that I would say add it to your feedback form. Q: Frank: I would like to take this idea of cyclists not paying off the table. Cyclists are also drivers and so are paying the gas taxes; they are property owners so they are paying the TransLink levies; cyclists are paying for infrastructure. To say they are not paying is wrong. Q: Kay: If TransLink offered the option of allowing people to take bikes across the river, that would allow them to ride on both sides of the river and avoid biking across the bridge and the cost of building those facilities. Now I can see that someone might not want to pay $2.50 each way just to cross the bridge so that’s something that TransLink would have to take into consideration, how to accommodate that.

Q: Sylvia Weishuhn: What constitutes rehabilitation? A: Ian Fisher: What TransLink will do in the short-term to address the seismic concerns is related to the piers and some of the deck joints but does not include a replacement of the entire bridge deck. The rehabilitation alternatives listed here do include a replacement of the entire bridge deck because it only has about ten years of life left in it. It is deteriorating at a rate we cannot keep up with. Q: Sylvia Weishuhn: So how long would the lifespan be of a rehabilitated bridge? A: Ian Fisher: It is assumed that there would be a 30-year lifespan for rehabilitated bridge. A new bridge is assumed to have a 100-year life and could also be rehabilitated after that. Q: Kim Ali: Can I just get a show of hands, how many people here support rehabilitation? How about brand new, from the ground up?

Q: Peter Hourie: There is a lot of discussion about pollution levels due to increased traffic. I am wondering if anyone has done any studies on how much pollution is coming for all these cars sitting there and going nowhere as opposed to traffic moving freely. A: Ian Fisher: We haven’t looked at it in that much detail, but if you build more capacity and it fills up then obviously there will be more pollution. So there’s a trade-off there.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 7 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

Q: Peter Hourie: I agree there is probably a “when” it fills up but still you’re looking a pollution relief we have from the Port Mann Bridge because traffic flows freely.

Q: Don McCuiston: Goes back to my question of future-proofing, are we spending a lot of money on what will be a Band-Aid solution for 20 years? In New Westminster, there is not a lot of land so there’s nowhere to build but up and you hope those people will be using SkyTrain. But especially in Surrey, there is extensive growth and I’ve been to the consultation on transit in Surrey. We have all these plans of getting everyone on SkyTrain or whatever but in reality there will be more vehicles. We’re spending all this money and tolling on a 4- to 6-lane bridge or whatever solution and it’s just a fix for two decades.

A: Ian Fisher: The whole approach here is not to develop a Band-Aid solution and to look at long-term. The results of this will be looked at along with our Regional Transportation Strategy, which is a long-term strategy for the whole region that also looks at the land use. As you point out, the land use is very connected to the transportation system. Q: Alex Milojkovic: I am wondering about the Regional Transportation Strategy. In a free market economy, where small businesses constitute the majority of traffic, how did it come to pass that you are trying to reduce vehicles? We depend on our vehicles. We are not a big industrial country where everyone works in one place, we depend on our vehicles. This is where I think TransLink and GVRD have made a major mistake, trying to get everyone out of their vehicles. Q: Kay: To state the obvious, we want TransLink and the Province to be fiscally responsible. We don’t want to see Band-Aid fixes, we’re going to repair the bridge and then rip it down. It comes to two issues for me: if there was another bridge other than the Pattullo, we still need the Pattullo because this is where City Surrey Centre is. We don’t want to be driving in either direction to cross over to New Westminster. So are there going to be two bridges, a repaired Pattullo and another bridge? Or are we going to be all the emphasis on building a new Pattullo Bridge?

Q: Sonia Nazar: When I was involved in the consultation last year, the 6-lane bridge was being pushed because they wanted to get trucks off the SFPR to go east on the north side. When the SFPR was started before the Port Mann, why didn’t they make a connection between SFPR to the Port Mann Bridge? Or why aren’t you pushing the trucks to the Golden Ears Bridge? A: Patrick Livolsi: It was looked at when we were doing design but the connection had serious impacts both from a construction perspective and from a property standpoint; it would have removed a chunk of the neighbourhood. So there were some of the reasons that we didn’t pursue it. There is a connection from SFPR to Highway 1 through 176 Street. That’s the interchange that also connects with Highway 15 and the border crossing. C: Katherine Keras: It works really well. I don’t know if anyone has taken it but I highly recommended it. I go from top of Scott Road, down 128th, and go over. It’s a little congested because they haven’t quite finished construction but it works really well. I can get to Abbotsford in 30 minutes, whereas it used to take me 45 minutes going through Surrey. C: Judy Kirk: We heard that yesterday as well. C: Bruce Cheng: There is a great cycling route there as well. You can go all the way along the river.

Q: Katherine Keras: if we’re building this bridge, you need to tie into the governments – all levels. Why aren’t we having bridge by-passes run along the river? My understanding is that New Westminster doesn’t want the traffic. They won’t widen 10th. We should build by-pass to go along the river and

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 8 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

just miss New Westminster altogether and go to Queensborough or Coquitlam. I think we should be tolling all the bridges a little bit – doesn’t matter where you commute. I am a small business owner; I have 10 vehicles that move everywhere. I want them moving and arriving on time. Why aren’t we regulating the truck movement? They are impeding us. The trucks used to stay in the right lane; now for some reason they need to take up two lanes. Limit them to travel away from the rush hour or at night. Q: Kay: Is now not the time to get those heavy rigs off the Pattullo if it’s causing more damage? Q: Unidentified: I thought that was the point of SFPR, was to get trucks off of the Pattullo. 104 and 108 in Surrey are now way less congested with heavy trucks but all the trucking yards are down in Bridgeview. C: Don McCuiston: I like the point of getting past New Westminster. Where is Burnaby in all this? A: Ian Fisher: Burnaby is part of our Regional Advisory Committee for the Pattullo Bridge Review.

Q: Kim Ali: How is it determined that these are not affordable? A: Ian Fisher: We did an affordability analysis, assuming we had the same level of tolling as the Port Mann Bridge, to determine what kind of capital expense could we afford. That is based on advice from the TransLink board in 2008. As there is a bigger discussion as part of the Regional Transportation Strategy there could be other funding sources identified. Q: Kim Ali: So strictly from the tolling perspective then? C: Judy Kirk: Correct.

Q: Phil Blanchette: Is North Fraser Perimeter Road still on the table? A: Ian Fisher: That was a road through New Westminster connecting Queensborough to Braid Interchange that TransLink was looking at a few years ago. It is not being looked at in its original form anymore. Q: Kay: Can we go back to page 18, for the Sapperton alternative, it seems impractical that there would be a T- intersection on a bridge. Q: Bernard Abelson: Is there a reason you didn’t consider a 4-lane rehabilitation of the Pattullo Bridge, along with the new crossing? Right now, if there is a crash on one bridge, everyone moves to the next bridge on the river. So if there was a crash on the Queensboro and everyone moved to a 3- lane rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge, there won’t be enough capacity. A: Ian Fisher: Well, one reason is if we have a new 4-lane crossing, plus a rehabilitated 4-lane Pattullo Bridge that would be a total of 8 lanes and that would add a lot of capacity. It could be too much capacity for the road network. Also there are some safety issues with the 4-lane rehab that we talked about in regards to lane width that would need to be addressed, so conservatively we’ve gone with the 2- or 3-lane rehabilitated bridge for pedestrians and cyclists. Q: Mark McGaire: Too much capacity? As in it’s too easy to get around? C: Judy Kirk: This is the same issue that came up earlier. If there is a feeling in the room that you want to see more capacity not less, you should say that in your feedback form. Q: Mark McGaire: It’s going to what that gentleman over there said about future proofing. If you just maintain the capacity, it makes no sense when it’s already in gridlock. Even when they built the Alex Fraser they only opened two lanes, there were two lanes blocked off; you could always do that here. C: Bruce Cheng: Option 18 shows a new 4-lane bridge, plus 2- or 3-lane rehab so you are increasing capacity.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 9 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

C: Jocelyn Smith: We have this notion that if you increase capacity you will move more freely, but that’s not necessarily the case, you could just end up with more cars and no one moving. That’s why you need to increase other modes of transport. I have chosen to live closer to transit in New Westminster. Other people have made the choice to live where there is more space and to drive, which is great, but now you’re driving through my neighbourhood. When you’re increasing capacity, remember you’re driving through people’s backyards.

C: Kay: I used to work in Burnaby for 8 years so I know what the challenges of the Pattullo Bridge are. In the bigger picture, if you have more industry or business in your area you hope that it will remove some of the people commuting out. But if you need to work in Vancouver, that’s where you need to be. Ideally, we would all work within three miles of our homes.

C: Don McCuiston: New Westminster is the oldest city and these roads were built at that time. All the housing there is right there on these main roads. New Westminster is directly impacted. It’s not a cakewalk when you get over the bridge but there isn’t housing right there when you come into Surrey. What is the plan for increasing transit and light rail in Surrey to help alleviate some traffic? A: Ian Fisher: The Surrey Rapid Transit Study recommended four rapid transit alternatives for Surrey to go into the Regional Transportation Strategy. C: Paul Lee: The study looked at three different technologies, in three different corridors. The recommendation from TransLink in March was for a combination of things. One of the alternatives would be Light Rail Transit (LRT) on all three corridors. City Council has endorsed that LRT option. The bridge is a regional transportation route and the Partnership is here to try and find an alternative that balances many different needs.

Q: Bernard Abelson: You have made an assumption on affordability of the tunnel based on tolling. What if we move to another funding option, like road pricing, and then the assumption that has rejected all the tunneling options is no longer valid? Are we rejecting those too soon based on the fact we don’t know what will happen with the funding? A: Ian Fisher: If we went to a regional road pricing strategy, it would have to fund projects beyond the Pattullo corridor so there could be a trade-off against other priorities.

Q: Sonia Nazar: Two comments: when you did the consultation last year you actually had more specific maps of what the roads would be and I think you threw Tree Island in there as a red herring. It’s really irrelevant to moving traffic from Surrey. C: Judy Kirk: I appreciate the comment. I am an independent facilitator in this process and observed the screening of the alternatives and from my perspective it wasn’t put in as a red herring. A: Jerry Behl: It was raised as an option at the open houses in New Westminster last year. If we hadn’t included it some people would be asking why it wasn’t included.

C: Alex Milojkovic: I have two final comments. In terms of transit, you should be looking 50 years ahead, not 20 or 30. Don’t decrease capacity, increase it, we need more bridges not less. And stop heavy truck traffic on the Pattullo Bridge immediately.

C: Mark McGaire: Two comments. The alternative that makes sense to me is the Sapperton crossing and keeping Pattullo. Having more bridges means there are not choke points. I think part of the problem is that TransLink only owns four bridges; you don’t have control over what you want to

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 10 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

do. Have you thought about kicking this bridge back to the provincial government? You can’t control your own destiny.

C: Dan: This has been a good discussion and seems there is agreement that there needs to be a regional solution. There is no silver bullet. One of the comments that keeps coming back is separating the truck traffic from the other traffic. If there was some way to do that you would improve the vehicle flow considerably. Alternative 19 is the one that will allow you do to that without forcing the SFPR and Port Mann connection. Port Metro Vancouver is a huge player in this that isn’t sitting at this table and I don’t know how much input they’ve had. They are going through their land use process right now. They are the ones that dump a lot of traffic on the road network.

C: Gordon Hall: On the truck traffic, has there been a push to see the large truck traffic move at night? And secondly, I think there was real disservice when the Province shut down BC Rail, the inter modal service. There are a lot of communities served by that rail service. Moving some of the goods by rail would go a long way towards reducing to the amount of trucks.

C: Kay: It’s my understanding that they are not doing proper dredging in the Fraser River right now which increases the silt levels so that might increase the risk of a collision with the bridge. I think we need to go the City regarding the density of Surrey. That’s the problem, you have between 1000 and 1200 people moving to Surrey every month and they are not all going to be employed here.

C: Russ Alfreds: When is a decision going to be made for this?

C: Judy Kirk: Thank you for that question. I should have included this in the introduction, please turn to page 10. Once this round of consultation is complete, the technical team and the Councils will review the input, and it will be available to you in a consultation summary report, and there will be further financial and technical evaluation done. We will come back out probably in the late fall for another round of consultation and then additional analysis will be done to reach a preferred alternative(s), which will go through the Regional Transportation Strategy. So you can see a decision would be 2014/2015 and then the construction period.

C: Don McCuiston: I think New Westminster is getting dumped on right now, not just with regards to the bridge, but also fighting the incinerator issue, fighting the Port and coal, we are a small community. We are getting a lot of traffic from those things. I really like Alternative 19.

C: Bruce Cheng: Last time TransLink came out for those meetings, there was only the 6-lane bridge option, so this is a lot better.

Q: Unknown: For the rehab options, after 30 year lifespan what would happen? A: Ian Fisher: You would have to keep rehabbing it. Q: Unknown: Would that change if it was just a cycling and pedestrian bridge? A: Ian Fisher: Probably not.

Q: Katherine Keras: If it is rehab will it still be tolled?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 11 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

A: Judy Kirk: Yes, it would be. Although what you’ve heard today is that although TransLink Board passed a motion in 2008 that said the bridge should be tolled there funding source has not been finalized.

Q: Katherine Keras: Vancouver is looking to be the second largest port in the world so we’re going to have a lot of truck traffic; it’s not going anywhere. The federal and provincial governments, the municipalities and TransLink need to look at moving that traffic away from congestion points. Maybe trucks need their own bridge. My preferred option would be an octopus that would bypass New Westminster and keeping New Westminster people happy. Most of those trucks crossing the bridge are bypassing New Westminster. Q: Kim Ali: I would agree; part of this is social engineering trying to change behavior and get people out of their cars. One of the problems is the aging infrastructure across the country. The current Port Mann bridge life is 75 years. We need to think: how long is something going to last; how are you going to fund it; what’s your exit strategy? Because we all know that things are going to change. The current model doesn’t work it just kicks the can down the road. Then people get upset when you talk about bike lanes or pedestrian traffic or tolls. We need to think beyond the life of the bridge.

C: Sylvia Weishuhn: Why is it in the last few years that we have heard about the issues with this bridge? Shouldn’t the oldest bridge have been done first? It seems like you are just moving down the river tolling. C: Don McCuiston: Seems like they are just tolling everything. C: Unidentified: Not everything, they didn’t toll the Sea to Sky Highway, just north of the river.

C: Bernard: I think it’s also that the seismic risk is coming to the fore as we become more aware of that. I just want to say that when the population is exploding in Surrey, it seems like not adding capacity is just the wrong thing to do, we can’t close our eyes to population increasing. The combination of a 4- lane rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge and a new 4-lane Sapperton Bar crossing with the provision that truck traffic should only use the new crossing, I think that option is very viable and it’s listed here.

Q: Unknown: Is there a mailing address to return this form? A: Judy Kirk: Yes, on the inside front cover.

C: Gordon Hall: Is there a bus connection planned for Sapperton? A: Ian Fisher: We have not got to that level of detail yet.

C: Jerry Behl: I’d like to thank TransLink. A year ago there was a consultation about two 6-lane options and we heard from New Westminster residents that a broader consultation was needed and as a result you see the 25 alternatives presented today. Please provide your feedback whether you are a New Westminster or Surrey resident. C: Frank: I would like to say I appreciate that TransLink seems willing to involve us in a much higher level of consultation than the Ministry ever has. C: Paul Lee: Please fill out your feedback forms and provide your input. We appreciate you coming today.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 12 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

3. Closing Remarks – Judy Kirk Judy Kirk wrapped up the meeting, thanked participants for their time and encouraged participants to complete the feedback form and encourage friends and others to participate.

The record notes that the small group meeting ended at 3:00 p.m.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 5, 2013 Page 13 of 13 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

Notes from a Small Group Meeting for the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation PURPOSE held on June 6, 2013 at the Sapperton Pensioners’ hall, New Westminster.

FACILITATOR Judy Kirk, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd.

PRESENTER Ian Fisher, TransLink

Barbara Pat Johnson Robert Ascroft Babar Khalid Harvey Barton James Kohnke Wilf Brodrick Kandi Kozler Carol Cantafio Maureen McCulloch James Crosty Marya McLellan Allen Domaas Gavin McLeod Daryl Edmunson Josie Muise Liz Edmunson Earl Noah ATTENDEES Joanne Folka Douglas Oldham Mark Fox Bill Orlikow Warren Fox Marion Orser Lorraine Geddes Doug Smith Nelson Geddes Cathy Sonnenburg Cori Lynn Germiquet Pamela Stern Edwin Grobler Alireza Taale Joanne Grobler Allison Taylor McBryde Katrin Habel Karon Trenaman Bill Harper Andrew Weir-Jones Deb Jack Gail Zuccolini

Ian Fisher, TransLink Eugene Wat, City of New Westminster Ashley Young, City of New Westminster PROJECT TEAM Paul Lee, City of Surrey ATTENDEES Laurel Johnston, TransLink Darren Woodworth, TransLink Patrick Coates, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (observer) Lisa Santos, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd., Meeting Recorder

1. Welcome and Introduction AGENDA 2. Discussion 3. Closing Remarks

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 1 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

RECURRING THEMES

 Some participants said that tolls should be applied to all bridges in the region.  Some participants said that the Pattullo Bridge Review Objectives put too much emphasis on liveability and not enough on additional capacity for the free movement of commercial vehicles.  Some participants said that truck traffic should not be allowed on the existing bridge.  Some participants said that increased bridge and road capacity is required to get traffic through New Westminster, and that connections to the bridge must provide a way for traffic to flow around the edges of the city.  Many participants said that spending money on rehabilitating alternatives would not be as effective or provide value for money.  Some participants expressed mixed views regarding increasing capacity on the bridge versus maintaining or reducing capacity to increase liveability.  Many people expressed a desire for TransLink or the Review partners to look at higher-cost, longer- term options, including tunnel options.

The record notes that the meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m.

DISCUSSION

(Abbreviations will be used and mean – Q: Question, A: Answer, C: Comment)

1. Welcome and Introductions – Judy Kirk Judy Kirk welcomed participants to the small group meeting, and explained the format of the meeting. Judy informed participants that the small group meeting was being recorded for accuracy, attributed and that the meeting notes would form part of consultation record. The Pattullo Bridge Review team members introduced themselves.

2. Discussion – Ian Fisher Ian Fisher reviewed key sections of the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Discussion Guide and answered questions from participants as he went through the Discussion Guide.

Q: Deb Jack: I particularly noticed this morning the condition of the bridge. It looks as if it ought to have had a paint job to protect the metal about 10 years ago. What are you intending to do with regards to that? Especially if one option is to continue with the bridge. C: Judy Kirk: Deb, do you mean what’s being done to paint it or what’s being done to improve it? C: Deb Jack: No, this is right now. It has to be maintained for a number of years before anything is determined. C: Ian Fisher: Darren is working on the rehabilitation for the interim steps.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 2 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

A: Darren Woodworth: We have a maintenance program in place where we identify areas that need to be upgraded or replaced. We have been doing some work on handrails, which as you notice look quite rusty and we are looking at a replacement program for that. This summer we will be looking at possible repairs to the deck itself to ensure it continues to remain safe for users. We continue with work as well as planning for seismic upgrades to ensure it continues to remain safe while we decide through this process what to do. C: Judy Kirk: I’m going to ask Ian to continue on and we will get more into rehab and other options.

Q: James Crosty: Would it extend the life of the bridge if you cut back on some of the heavy trucks or some of the heavy traffic going across the bridge? A: Ian Fisher: It wouldn’t affect the seismic or structural issues to a great extent.

Q: Mark Fox: One stat that I’m interested in and I don’t think it is listed here, is what percent of traffic is going through New Westminster to get to somewhere else? What percentage of the traffic is local and what does that do in terms of what the bridge options are? A: Ian Fisher: We did an origin/destination study, but the results weren’t ready so they couldn’t be included in this consultation. They will be included in the consultation later this year and we may be able to publish earlier. The initial take is that most of the traffic on the bridge is either starting or ending its trip in north Surrey, New Westminster or south Burnaby. Q: Mark Fox: You can’t tell how much is actually going to New Westminster? A: Ian Fisher: Not directly.

C: Unknown: I will challenge that south Burnaby number because I’m a sales rep and I travel at all times during the day. Traffic is coming along 10th Avenue since the tolls were instituted in the Port Mann right now off Canada Way and Great Northern Way. They are not stopping and I guarantee that. C: Daryl Edmunson: I would say that as well. My evidence is anecdotal.

C: Judy Kirk: I ask you to look at page 10 for a moment because the question of traffic data and origin destination is relevant here. You will see a triangle on the left side of page 10. You’ll notice that “we are here” is the orange part and that is the consultation that we are in right now. So policy and analysis work happened prior, and there have been prior consultations, many of you may recall last year for example. In the next phase, Public Input Fall 2013, there will be traffic data I’m told within the consultation. So you know that’s when it will be available.

C: Gavin McLeod: There has been some discussion of effects of tolling on the Port Mann Bridge increasing traffic. At the last transportation planning meeting, a husband and wife who own a trucking company were saying that it has increased truck traffic on the Pattullo. The reason they gave was that when they deliver the goods to the customer, on the invoice it’s listed the toll for the Port Mann Bridge and the customers says they won’t pay for it. So they say you have to find another way and the only other way is the Pattullo Bridge. That’s from them and they are in the trucking business.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 3 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

C: Nelson Geddes: I guess it’s now historical data but studies were done as to the traffic in New Westminster and if I remember correctly over 50% of traffic in the city neither originated nor terminated in New Westminster.

Q: Bill Orlikow: Is this Pattullo Bridge going to be tolled? A: Ian Fisher: The funding sources for this project have not been determined. TransLink is going to be doing a Regional Transportation Plan over the next couple of years that will identify priorities across the region and funding sources. C: Bill Orlikow: I ask that because the existing situation which has just been discussed has resulted in a larger percentage of increased traffic through New Westminster composed primarily of people who do not wish to pay the Port Mann Bridge toll. If the Pattullo is tolled they will probably just give up and go the other way anyway and that should reduce some of the traffic. Unfortunately the bottom line is the bridge as it exists now does create a great deal of traffic in New Westminster. It is bumper to bumper down McBride and down various other streets with people who don’t even live in the city. So it will be interesting to see, if and when, the Pattullo is tolled how much of the Port Mann traffic will be reduced.

C: Barbara: I believe at some point we were told that there is supposed to be a free option for bridges. Another option is to go back to government and have them restructure it so every bridge gets tolled a small amount. Because there has to be a free option first and second it would be fair to remake the law to bring back so that everyone gets tolled just a little. Q: Unknown: Who says there has to be a free option? C: Judy Kirk: There is a provincial policy. Darren, perhaps you can explain what that is. A: Darren Woodworth: My understanding is that it is the Province’s policy that when there is a toll there needs to be a free alternative for people who do not want to pay the toll and still get to where they are going. C: Unknown: Well then that free option shouldn’t run through New Westminster. C: Judy Kirk: There is something I would like to point out. There is no specific question about tolling in the feedback form but there is space for additional comments and I encourage you to put that view under the additional comments section. Q: Deb Jack: I would like to ask a question about the wording in that policy. Is it a reasonable statement or is it realistic? Is it a reasonable or practical alternative, or do they just simply say alternative? C: Judy Kirk: Let’s find out from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. A: Patrick Coates: I’m not an expert in the language. C: Deb Jack: That makes a big different because if it doesn’t specify practical or reasonable then they could say go up and use the Mission Bridge. C: Judy Kirk: I think the policy is online.

Q: Babar Khalid: These are all are good comments but actually I’m here to listen to what you have to propose. If we can listen to the proposal and then stay away from what will and will not happen. If we don’t get to the proposal if defeats the purpose. A: Judy Kirk: This is a consultation program and Ian will get to the alternatives soon. But I want you to know that we are also here to hear what your questions and comments are. So I will be allowing all sorts of questions and comments.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 4 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Lorraine: I’m surprised that people haven’t said that there’s discrimination because the Lower Mainland doesn’t have all bridges either not paid or every region paying a small amount. C: Judy Kirk: Some people have.

C: Allen Domaas: I’m a little taken aback that of the ten or so items on page nine, common policies, there is a lot about improving livability and the environment. TransLink has a mandate for people and for cargo. Other than the quick comment about supporting the economy and a little piece about transportation demand, it’s not picked up. I hate to say there are more environmental friendly options, but it doesn’t address the issues of TransLink’s mandate to look at cargo and trying to know cargo’s locations. Most municipalities have tried to talk about it and tried to bring unity to it and TransLink is letting it slip again. It’s not very helpful. C: Judy Kirk: We have heard that a bit. It’s been interesting.

C: Marion Orser: On page eight, you mentioned the projected increase in population and it’s fairly obvious that with that increase in population that we can’t assume that everyone will be driving a vehicle or there is no place left to live, walk, cycle or take public transit. We really need to check priorities in what we are increasing. It has to be an overall plan as opposed to a bridge here, a tunnel there.

Q: James Crosty: I just want to comment and perhaps our Councillor Harper can shed some light on page nine regarding the local municipal plans. The last Long Range Transportation Study you are referring to is from New Westminster in 1998. We have a new one I understand that is being done; when do you propose it will be done? Could they use it? A: Bill Harper: The new one is being done and there is a committee. Maybe in a year or so, but I’m not sure of the exact deadlines. And I came here to listen, not answer questions. C: Judy Kirk: Fair enough.

Q: Babar Khalid: When do you say that most trips are by walking or cycling. How do you quantify that? Is it people living close to their workspace? A: Ian Fisher: It’s TransLink’s goal of 50% or more of trips across the entire region. So that could mean walking to the grocery store instead of driving. It’s a whole range of trips for all purposes, all day. Q: Babar Khalid: Based on what assumptions? A: Ian Fisher: It ties into the regional and local land use plans to build more complete mixed used communities so that there are destinations near where you live. You can use modes other than cars more than you use cars today. It is region-wide so some areas will do better than others. Vancouver and New Westminster are probably going to pull their weight quite well, whereas some other parts of the region may take a bit longer to get up to level. Q: Barbara: So that will be a personal choice, it will not be reprimanded at any point? A: Ian Fisher: Absolutely.

Q: Bill Harper: I have a question for TransLink regarding number four in the Objectives. What kinds of communications will TransLink initiate when talking with people who are immediately adjacent to the construction area? I’m talking about people in the area who would be required to move due to

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 5 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

construction or people living directly next to the construction. How will they be contacted to advise them with what’s going to be taking place? A: Darren Woodworth: Once the project has been identified, we move forward and work through the environmental review, we will implement another consultation process to talk with residents near or at construction zones and we would enter into discussions about how impacts will be mitigated and how they can be communicated. In some cases it means we have to look at buying property or looking at ways to minimize impacts if property is not required. A: Judy Kirk: But I think Bill was asking how would you communicate? If the project were approved, and we are talking a long ways down the road here through an Environmental Assessment, normally in British Columbia a condition of environmental certification is a communication plan and a force of law and if TransLink or whatever entity was building the bridge that was certified, it would be required to do that. C: Bill Harper: Can I add one question to that? Have the plans altered significantly for the bypass you’re thinking about off Royal Avenue going onto the bridge. C: Judy Kirk: We are going to hold on to that if there is time at the end. I’m not sure if we will. But I will let you ask that as a sidebar afterwards, we need to get back to the content.

Q: Deb Jack: I’m spatially challenged and I can’t see how or why this Tree Island thing is anywhere near being considered in connection with Pattullo? A: Judy Kirk: We will get into that.

Q: Pamela Stern: I think I may see it but I understood that there was a possibility for a bridge that connected from Surrey to King Edward in Coquitlam? A: Ian Fisher: That’s Sapperton Bar. C: Judy Kirk: These three magnifying glasses contain 25 alternatives. Ian is just showing you what the engineers call alignments.

C: Ian Fisher: I’m going to deal with Deb’s question now. Tree Island is on there because it was a subject in the consultation led by New Westminster last year and has been around for 10 or 20 years and we wanted to cover off. We wanted to look at all the alternatives that had been suggested regarding the Pattullo issue so that everyone is aware why things are in and why things are out. C: Deb Jack: I live at one end of the tunnel, so I need a better explanation as to why that crossing would provide any assistance to anyone in Surrey. C: Judy Kirk: It’s a good question and comment and you will see as Ian walks through these options how they will measure up to the objectives. Some of them do it well and some do not.

C: Ian Fisher: On page 13 there is a summary of what we did with the initial screening. Staff from all the Partners went through the alternatives and said that six alternatives warrant further consideration and 19 of them do not. At the bottom of the page we have done some very preliminary cost estimates for each alternative and to assess whether an alternative is affordable we have used the ability to generate revenues from tolls as a surrogate for what makes sense. C: Judy Kirk: Ian is not saying that tolling would be for sure, the answer earlier stands. But there was an assumption with respect to what kind of revenue could be gathered through tolling.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 6 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

C: Judy Kirk: Deb, that speaks to the issues you raised earlier about no bridge alternatives addressing the connections between those two.

Q: Barbara: So could that be on top of the bridge? There will be a new bridge built that will also see an environmental alternative? A: Judy Kirk: There is no assumption that a new bridge will be built. In all of these alternatives some are just rehabilitation and some are new. That’s why we are here to talk about what those are.

Q: Edwin Grobler: Three lanes, is the centre lane reversible? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, the centre lane is reversible.

C: Nelson Geddes: It has been my experience that the existing Pattullo Bridge is often two lanes because trucks take both lanes to avoid the toll of the Port Mann. This is also easily seen if you watch the morning news and they show the camera on the bridge, you see trucks coming down both lanes and you see cars stuck behind them. We effectively have a part-time two-lane bridge. Q: Unknown: Is that legal or can trucks get ticketed? A: Darren Woodworth: It’s a practice that the RCMP has been allowing because it ensures that the truck drivers are comfortable crossing and not causing unsafe situations with other vehicles trying to pass them in narrow areas. C: Unknown: So it’s a truck route that can’t handle trucks.

Q: Allen Domaas: I struggle with Alternative 8 and some conclusions that fewer lanes would attract fewer users. New Westminster has a policy for years of not improving or providing infrastructure for through traffic and volumes have increased. Given that data, I don’t know how you get to that conclusion.

C: Unknown: I don’t think that the bridge can handle large trucks period. They are too wide and not safe, and I don’t think it does anything for greenhouse gas emissions, slowing everything down. The biggest thing is if we continue with this corridor we have, our streets can’t accommodate the traffic coming through. Unless you plan on expropriating Queen’s Park and putting six lanes through there, we are congested in the morning going west and we are congested in the afternoon going east and it starts at 2:30pm in afternoon. It doesn’t matter how big the bridge is, we can’t handle it.

C: Barbara: I’ve noticed that now there isn’t enough room on Royal Avenue or Columbia Street, and now they are coming through our community. It’s turning into a freeway and our city is becoming a throughway. I went to the Gateway Project when they first started and they weren’t listening at all. They were telling us that it has nothing to do with New Westminster. And New Westminster is everything and I think that they need to be considerate, it’s our right and we are a small community and we will suffer for this.

C: Allen Domaas: I’m at a loss to figure this one out because if the four lanes and the distance of the arches don’t meet existing standards, then the bridge will be as unsafe, unpredictable and congested as it was previously and only seismically stronger.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 7 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

C: Ian Fisher: That’s a good comment for Alternative five. Alternative four is a three lane rehab as the next item down under Objective seven is if you reduce it to three lanes they would be wider lanes but reduced capacity. C: Allen Domaas: Both of these are non-starters.

Q: Edwin Grobler: Those would not be legal in any case, three lanes. A: Ian Fisher: Three lanes would meet the standard guidelines today. Currently the guidelines would be met with three wider lanes through the existing arches. C: Edwin Grobler: If you don’t make them wider you can’t use them. It might be two lanes eventually. C: Judy Kirk: So the point you’re making is that if it was three lanes, trucks would still take up two lanes. Although the lanes would be wider and presumably they wouldn’t do that, but I hear your comment.

C: Wilf Brodrick: I’m not sure what the best alternative is, but I think rehabilitating an existing bridge is pouring any good money. It’s already 35 years past its ‘best before’ date and it gets to a point where you can’t afford to be spending money to fix it. Lots of people spend money to fix antique cars, but drive in parades once or twice a year. C: Wilf Brodrick: These two don’t do anything for me. One thing I hear over and over is the issue raised by the gentleman beside me that the cities had a policy that if you don’t build it they won’t come, and it doesn’t work. Unfortunately, the big problem is getting to and from any new bridge. There’s a lot of traffic from the freeway to the Marine Way industrial area and the only way to get there is New Westminster if they are coming over the bridge. There are real issues there. Whatever decision is finally reached there has to be a way for traffic to easily flow around the edges of the city rather than through the residential areas in the middle. Because right now it’s so jammed up on what is supposed to be the arterial roads that traffic squeaks out into the different areas. Whatever solution we come up with won’t work unless there’s an equal commitment to improve access to it. I have to say that Royal Avenue is not viable alternative. The hills on either end are way too steep.

C: Nelson Geddes: What’s happening is on all alternatives there has to be the beginning and end of the project. How far from the bridge is TransLink going to look at dissipating the traffic on both ends? It’s no good to build a new bridge or do anything with the existing one if it ends when it touches ground, it has to go beyond that and move traffic through.

C: Robert Ascroft: It seems to me that we are approaching this from the wrong end. We should be asking what the City of New Westminster is willing to do in terms of infrastructure and then build a bridge to suit that. We are trying to build the bridge first and then trying to cram the infrastructure into the existing infrastructure.

C: Marion Orser: The Pattullo Bridge is an iconic bridge and is similar to the Stanley Park bridge (Lion’s Gate) which the Province saw so fit to maintain and keep. It has three lanes and is between two major municipalities and I don’t see why we want to get rid of an iconic bridge. Often when I see a picture of New Westminster I see the Pattullo Bridge and it’s beautiful. In terms of crossing it and the fact that we can’t reduce traffic, they have done it successfully in Vancouver. There are less

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 8 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

people driving in Vancouver than there were ten years ago. There’s no reason that can’t happen in a major metropolitan area like New Westminster with great town centres in my opinion.

C: Warren Fox: I’m not quite sure if the population of Surrey has been addressed. I understand Whalley has quite a large population and that’s right at our doorstep. What is being addressed in the Surrey side to mitigate impacts in New Westminster? Is there a freeway planned, anything in terms of an Arthur Lang bridge, are they good neighbours with us? It’s their needs that we feel the impact on. C: Judy Kirk: Paul Lee is here from the City of Surrey, maybe he can comment. A: Paul Lee: There are no freeways planned to accommodate the growth. We are growing and have 1,200 people per month arriving in Surrey and we have done analysis and we know need that we need to rely heavily on transit to accommodate the growth. At the same time, we can’t ignore growth of vehicular traffic even with the healthy shift in more people taking transit. We are still looking at one million people in this region. There will be a lot more people driving and we have to look at strategy that is well balanced, with transit and driving. C: Warren Fox: I just want to point out that it’s a long-term strategy and I don’t know if TransLink has the finances to do that. Are we cutting off expensive alternatives, and we are looking at a 100 year strategy, not a 50 year strategy or is it a ten year bandage? I have no idea. C: Judy Kirk: Longer term plans are 30 or 40 years. C: Ian Fisher: 45 years. C: Warren Fox: I just want to bring up fact that Surrey is growing and they are at our foresteps, we need something from that.

C: Barbara: I’m young and obviously don’t know a lot, but I do know the population is increasing rapidly and they usually build two lane roads for the future and they don’t think about the future and now they are building more and it’s costing more. Sometimes there isn’t enough room and the point is that you are going to need at least six to eight lanes to accommodate for the next 10 to 20 years, forget 30 or 50 years.

C: James Crosty: I concur with some of the people regarding rehabilitation and wonder if I can bring things into play. Was there any modeling done when the bridge was closed for almost a month? We noticed that the traffic dramatically dissipated and they found a way. I would like to see something about that because it’s not good enough for me to listen and say no bridge. The other thing is what value are you placing on the truck volume when it comes to the options you are presenting? With the South Fraser Perimeter Road connecting to the Queensborough Bridge, and the new Port Mann, I don’t think New Westminster needs a truck bridge and I think that might facilitate an opportunity to look at just vehicular traffic. I don’t see that in here. Also, the connections on the South Fraser Perimeter Road have not been discussed or dealt with as well. We know the North Fraser Perimeter Road is a no go through New Westminster but the fact that it’s being used as that, the truck traffic has unbelievably grown in the past six months. Local trucks could be serviced well by the Queensborough Bridge and the Port Mann, because New Westminster extends to Brunette and it extends to Stewardson and those are ways to get into the city. I would like to see that as well as an opportunity to ban trucks over a certain weight and strictly go with vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 9 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

C: Deb Jack: Are you aware that when they opened the Port Mann Bridge, which I consider the most revoltingly disgusting waste of money, that in order to save trucking money they made sure that the South Fraser Perimeter Road was operative from Highway 1 going down through the back side of Surrey to connect with the Pattullo Bridge. There’s a sign that says, take this to the Pattullo Bridge. C: James: That’s the big worry for me is why are we not addressing that here. I travelled the South Fraser Perimeter Road and if you haven’t done it, it’s an amazing connection, despite all the angst we went through to get that. Once it’s complete there’s no need to connect to the Pattullo Bridge and I don’t hear that at this discussion.

C: Allen Domaas: James raised the issue and it’s a piece that troubles me. Back to TransLink’s bridge mandate, they got thrown the North Fraser Perimeter Road after the Province built the nice piece off the east. It seems very disconnected that we are looking at the Pattullo Bridge without talking about the North Fraser Perimeter Road. New Westminster is terrified that we are going to see TransLink come in and knock off an intersection and then the North Fraser Perimeter Road will arrive. I think TransLink was very candid about where it could go and how this bridge connects to it. You would see a lot of angst fall out of this room.

Q: Katrin Habel: For rehabilitation, how long are we looking into the future? C: Judy Kirk: How long would it last? A: Ian Fisher: It would last about 30 years. You could spend a bit more money and make it last longer otherwise you could be coming back in about 30 years. The new bridges are assumed to last about 100 years.

C: Edwin Grobler: If we were to vote on the five objectives, I would say none of the above. C: Judy Kirk: That’s great. We are not going to vote, but appreciate it.

C: Allen Domaas: When I look at the region it’s disappointing. It’s a 30 year planning horizon. Looking at the region, even the Golden Ears Bridge between two undeveloped municipalities is six lanes. Why TransLink would consider an alternative with less than six lanes seems like its filling space to pacify people.

C: Warren Fox: The objective of me being here is the liveability of this city. Asking questions about what happened when the bridge went down and the ramifications and that’s not being answered. A 6-lane bridge facilitates regional development. I mean we could have a freeway running along the waterfront but many cities have taken them away because it’s not in the objective of liveability. If the objective is to run goods through here then that’s one thing but if it’s to find what the liveability is then that’s a discussion. Then building the new bridge may be an option for transports not through New Westminster.

C: Marion Orser: There’s currently a five lane bridge within a short distance and it is going to become a ten lane bridge. Because it’s tolled, people have chosen to increase traffic on the Pattullo Bridge and travel through congested lanes. Decreasing the traffic on the Pattullo Bridge and getting them over to where there is capacity is what we should look at rather than trying to increase traffic here.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 10 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

That basically means a toll, probably now, on the bridge and find out what happens with traffic and take counts.

C: Nelson Geddes: My experience is that there is little pedestrian and cycling traffic now on the Pattullo Bridge. C: Marion Orser: It’s not safe.

C: James Crosty: I want to point out in Alternative 6, the new 4-lane, you thought the travel times would remain unchanged if it was a new bridge hopefully the trucks won’t occupy two lanes. But the challenge here is that you’re not addressing the way to access the bridge. I think you’re wrong to say that it wouldn’t help to alleviate the traffic. Would it increase over time? Not with tools. So this option here is more viable when you take trucks off it.

C: Allison Taylor McBryde: This week there was a gas leak at Royal Avenue and police had to block that corridor off. There were semi-trucks trying to turn around in residential streets. It was a gridlock. It was the first time I heard birds in my backyard because traffic was stopped on Royal Avenue. The streets can’t deal with a crisis or accident that could happen and there is nowhere for trucks to go. I wonder who is paying for the infrastructure in New Westminster to maintain the potholes that are coming up on Royal Avenue. There is a need to maintain the police force and that means more cost to us because of the people who are going through the city and are not stopping.

C: Unknown: I agree with you. It’s about liveability and lifestyle and the World Health Organization has deemed diesel emissions a carcinogenic and we have 7,500 trucks going through our city every day on the streets. They are going by schools and I see the trucks idling and kids can’t cross at John Robson after 2:30pm because the trucks take up the sideway. The same thing happens when they come in from Canada Way and go onto 10th avenue. I totally agree if we should get the trucks off that bridge until the new one is built. Do truckers a favour and give them a reduced toll on the Port Mann so they can use it and keep them out of New Westminster so the bridge will last longer. Our tiny city can’t grow like Surrey and it’s not fair.

C: Unknown: I would suggest that we can’t ban trucks because they are essential for the goods and services to the city. Trucks are essential to make deliveries to New Westminster as an example. C: Deb Jack: You may not be aware but the Ministry of Health in their Environmental Assessment of the South Fraser Perimeter Road in regards to particulates impacting the health of BC people simply said, while it will impact children, it will result in more jobs in the healthcare sector.

C: Pat Johnson: I have the sense that we are putting the cart before horse as others have brought up. It’s not just about the bridge, but concerns from all directions. How much money was spent on South Fraser Perimeter Road? Who’s using it and why are those trucks being encouraged to turn off South Fraser Perimeter Roand and come over Pattullo Bridge? Or when coming from the other end, the incomplete South Fraser Perimeter Road, coming over the Pattullo Bridge and then going to the freeway. They should be travelling directly to Highway 1 and staying off Pattullo Bridge.

Q: Judy Kirk: How much did the South Fraser Perimeter Road cost? A: Patrick Coates: $1 billion.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 11 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Judy Kirk: What toll do trucks pay on Port Mann? A: Patrick Coates: Off the top of my head I couldn’t tell you, but I know it’s higher. C: Unknown: I believe it is nine dollars.

C: Ian Fisher: Because we have 25 alternatives, we didn’t look in detail to what roads they would connect too. We need to narrow the options down and then talk with the City of New Westminster and Surrey to look at connections and keep trucks off residential streets by giving them better routes if that’s an available option. The work hasn’t started yet but we can’t do it with 25 alternatives. Q: Judy Kirk: In the next round would you be bringing more information around connections? A: Ian Fisher: Yes.

Q: Alison Taylor McBryde: Is that a tunnel under the river? Or is it a bridge over the river and a tunnel under the city? A: Ian Fisher: If you look at the map of the crossing alternatives in the existing corridor on page 14, at the bottom right there is a dark line that more or less that represents where a tunnel would need to be to get under the river and surface. We are showing a portal a ways up from King George Boulevard and McBride, closer to 10th Avenue, and then one in downtown New Westminster near Stewardson Way and Royal Avenue. That gives you an idea how long that tunnel would be.

Q: Lorraine Geddes: I’m wondering about when you say it’s too expensive when Surrey is growing so quickly and you can afford to put them in Vancouver? Why is that? C: Judy Kirk: Afford to put tunnels in Vancouver? Q: Lorraine Geddes: The SkyTrain is underground; they are talking about a new one now. Why does Vancouver get it? A: Ian Fisher: Transit has somewhat different needs than road vehicles. It’s cheaper to build a tunnel for electric trains than it is to build a tunnel for road vehicles. C: Lorraine Geddes: They did it going up North Road. C: Ian Fisher: I wasn’t involved in the Evergreen Line planning but I know that Vancouver pushed very hard for it in the approval in the Canada Line. It’s a constrained corridor on Cambie as well. Q: Lorraine Geddes: They could have used the train tracks through there. C: Nelson Geddes: The existing railway through Kerrisdale.

Q: Babar Khalid: On page 17, are all options are not considered because of cost? A: Ian Fisher: The main reason is for cost. There are some other issues raised above, but really the cost would be a show stopper. Q: Babar Khalid: Would any of them make a good alternative if looking at a 100 year plan, instead of saying after 30 years that they should have done it at that time? A: Ian Fisher: We use standard financing methods that are also used by the province and they are mandated that we use the discount rate and financial figures. Based on those figures we would have to look at a 30 year amortization period. C: Judy Kirk: I would like to reinforce that I’m hearing comments that some of you are questioning that tunnel options are not recommended. That’s why we are here; we have asked a question in

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 12 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

the feedback form and are noting what you’re saying in the meeting. If you think that some options should be further considered then make sure you fill out the feedback form in that manner.

C: Allen Domaas: I want to reiterate the comment about the 30 year amortization period being great for accountants. This is a long run project and with a 50 or 60 year amortization period that three billion dollars looks much more doable. They are all weighted to liveability and improving quality of life.

C: Unknown: You still get to the same point where you don’t get the 40 year mortgage, then when you starting having 100 year mortgages then there is more money than you can afford.

C: James Crosty: I’m a little disappointed that we don’t have another option here with tunnels. It is $400 million to rehabilitate the bridge on the previous page but you’re not costing out the opportunity for New Westminster to have a tunnel from the bridge to the Storemont Connector which is not being discussed as well. We would bring our city back together, we could recover costs of that by selling air rights above it and we have topography that allows us to bring that bridge to the underground whereas Surrey doesn’t have that. It’s frustrating to see that you have a tunnel that starts in Surrey when you come down the King George Highway and can’t build that from there. I would like to see that proposal and cost. Q: Deb Jack: Where is that? A: James: It would start on our side of the bridge. The bridge would be there and it would go into a tunnel. The topography allows us to offer that as a discussion. It seems to be that anything over $1 billion is not acceptable. Why is that? C: Judy Kirk: Why does $1 billion seem to be the threshold? C: James Crosty: There are 400,000 cars going through New Westminster a day, as far as we have been told. I would like that confirmed as well. If that’s the case, the bridge could be paid for in a short order.

C: Harvey Barton: I appreciate the comments about billions of dollars in tunnels being ridiculous, but how did the people in Boston, Massachusetts end up having to build a tunnel-highway system? They started off with an elevated highway which they deemed unsustainable in their community and the only solution was a tunnel. If we put in a 4-lane bridge in ten to 20 years traffic will exceed that and we will be left with a tunnel option. So how is it that the city of London, England maintains without highways every which way? Do we model after Boston or London, England?

C: Barbara: As I’ve said, it should be eight lanes. I think that tunnels are unhealthy and it looks like people are travelling from a substantial distance. People will have toxicity and that will be an issue and it’s unsafe and if something happens people will be stuck in the tunnel and it’s a long distance. C: Unknown: They put air scrubbers.

C: Nelson Geddes: I keep hearing about alternatives to a tunnel. There is an alternative to tunnels; it’s called a cut and cover. It’s what they did for the Cassiar Connector going to the new Iron Workers Memorial Bridge. They dig a trench, cover it and then it becomes a tunnel. It’s less expensive.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 13 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Daryl Edmunson: What James said about the Stormont Connector, there was a five year plan when I moved here and it’s still not built and it never seems to be on the radar. A: Ian Fisher: There’s some discussion with the City of Burnaby about whether that connector should be in the regional network plan. A: Darren Woodworth: The Stormont and McBride connector was considered a connection from McBride Boulevard to Gaglardi Way. There was then further talk of having it possibly underground via construction of cut and cover. Burnaby has had some official community planning now but they are reconsidering if they want to have it in plans and there are discussions and possibility of having it taken out of the plan. C: Daryl Edmunson: They have purchased all the property required for that connection I can’t believe that they want to remove it. I think the connector to New Westminster will get traffic out of city rather than connecting roads to Canada Way.

C: Ian Fisher: Any alternatives that have a 6-lane bridge in this corridor are not recommended for further consideration because they have too much capacity. It’s too many lanes across the river, in particular with the combination with the rehabilitated tunnel bridge that would be nine lanes. That’s considered to be too much of an increase on vehicular capacity and that would be detrimental to other transportation objectives. C: James Crosty: But it’s only a billion dollars.

Q: Nelson Geddes: One consideration is upstream from the Pattullo Bridge, with the disappearance of the Fraser Mills as a major exporter and ocean-going ships not going there anymore, why would that bridge need to be high enough and what would the reduction cost to make it lower for pleasure craft rather than ocean going boats? A: Darren Woodworth: Port Metro Vancouver has the regulative responsibility to control the air and water rights along the Fraser River. There are guidelines in place that all the municipalities and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure have to follow. They are looking at future opportunities up river and they require all future bridges to allow certain vessels to travel. C: Nelson Geddes: So they are going to increase our costs tremendously because of a possibility of some future opportunities.

C: James Crosty: Further to Darren’s comment, when I spoke to Councillors there, Burnaby was more enthusiastic about the Stormont Connector as a result of an action by people dealing with the Pattullo Bridge because they are facing backups now within their city. Maybe check with Councillors and not staff. Would there be offset costs with the possible Sapperton Bar Connection regarding Port Metro Vancouver’s ability to potentially use the Sapperton Bar as container drop- off? It would take a lot of trucks off our roads. I know there would be environmental impacts and studies would have to be done, but for the most part it’s pretty much silted in.

Q: Barbara: You’re talking that it’s good for downtown New Westminster. The Business Improvement Association already suffers trying to get businesses working downtown. We don’t get business from traffic. The Stormont Connector could maybe be an alternative, but it should not be the main one. I grew up there; it’s a community and there are houses all over. Also, I’m wondering what you meant by the nine lanes?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 14 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

A: Ian Fisher: If we combine a 6-lane bridge at a new location, plus the rehabilitated bridge in the existing location that has three lanes we get nine lanes in total. C: Judy Kirk: I want to make sure everyone understands that the alternatives that Ian has gone through would include new bridge and retention of rehabilitated existing Pattullo Bridge. Q: Barbara: That’s Alternative 20? A: Ian Fisher: It’s Alternative 22 that has up to nine lanes. But also 16, 19 and 22 have a rehabilitated bridge for all modes of travel.

Q: Deb Jack: Why in this area are we concerned with establishing another link to Coquitlam, when there’s supposed to be two dedicated lanes on the Port Mann Bridge for Surrey and Coquitlam? A: Ian Fisher: Well Surrey is a pretty big municipality and it’s quite a ways upstream from the Port Mann. That’s one reason why it’s here. It’s quite a dog leg to go around to the Port Mann Bridge if you’re in the Fraser Docks area. This would be a more direct connection. Q: Deb Jack: But they have the South Fraser Perimeter Road. A: Ian Fisher: They do, but it still takes a bit of out of direction travel to use that road. C: James Crosty: There is no connection from the Port Mann to the South Fraser Perimeter Road yet. C: Allen Domaas: 176th street is a connection. Q: Deb Jack: I don’t believe you heard what you just said. In effect you’re saying the connection from Surrey to Coquitlam would relieve the Port Mann Bridge. C: Judy Kirk: I don’t think that’s what he said. A: Ian Fisher: I’m saying that Surrey is large municipality, so it’s wide enough that it might need additional bridges. But what the Surrey/Coquitlam Bridge would do is take a lot of through traffic from New Westminster because it would take a lot of through traffic towards Highway 1 and Coquitlam. We believe that’s where the truck traffic is going and we are doing more work to analyze where the trucks are going. We don’t have all the details, but that is why this alternative is shown as a benefit to get trucks off the streets in New Westminster.

Q: Babar Khalid: From what I have heard there are reasons for determining alternatives to choose. It seems that any alternatives that are more than $1 billion are going to go away and we will end up with a 6-lane or 8-lane alternative bridge. All of the alternatives that are recommended don’t have enough information for us. A: Ian Fisher: No alternative is recommended. The six that you see are recommended for further evaluation. To do that evaluation we would have to do more work to identify what the designs of those alternatives would be, including the connections to and from them and we are working with New Westminster and Surrey to ensure that the connections meet the needs of the municipalities and the cost is included. C: Judy Kirk: Babar, your point is well taken. I think I have heard it from a few people in different ways. Some of you are saying why the billion dollar threshold? Why not spend more money for a longer-term solution? C: Babar Khalid: Thank you for summarizing that

Q: Mark Fox: What do you mean by bridge? You come here and are doing the Pattullo Bridge Review and a lot of comments here are asking how you get on and off the bridge. How are you catering to the traffic that just wants to go through the area? I want to reiterate that as someone who has lived here, I come to this consultation wanting to make sure that you know the bridge is important,

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 15 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

but what’s important is how that bridge fits into the community we live in. There are many creative options. People talk about a cut-and-cover; why not do an 8-lane or 6-lane bridge under McBride to Burnaby. We could reclaim bits of Queen’s Park, there are lots of creative ways to do this. So my question is; in the dance between TransLink, the bridge people and the municipalities, who leads the dance? I’m just a citizen and resident and I think that’s the critical issue. You can build a great bridge but who is leading the dance, because as a resident that’s my critical concern. Otherwise we have this beautiful bridge that doesn’t work. A: Judy Kirk: Good question. This review is brought to you by Partnership and it’s one of the first ones I’ve seen in the Lower Mainland. Translink, Surrey and New Westminster in Partnership and this isn’t a definitive answer, but I also think that you were making a comment.

Q: Wilf Brodrick: I think any replacement on the existing location for Pattullo needs the Stormont Connector to properly connect the traffic with the freeway and avoid side streets in New Westminster. All of the right-of-way is there and it would solve a lot of issues with truck traffic getting through New Westminster to the industrial area off Marine Drive as well. It would require a rethink of what 10th Avenue should be with the South Fraser Perimeter Road. I have to use it all the time when I get to 10th Avenue because it’s a bottle neck. I don’t have a problem in some respects with a Coquitlam-Surrey bridge, but it would ruin my view of the river. I worry about traffic noise and I have an opposite view of Port Metro Vancouver and don’t trust them at all. Rather than them having offset revenue generation, I can see them putting a container port there, filling the river and having huge truck traffic in and out of that area. That scares me. The other thing is has any consideration been given to what Coquitlam would think? They want high-rises around that area of the river. A 4-lane bridge into their high-rise area would not go over particularly well. A: Ian Fisher: Coquitlam is involved in our Regional Advisory Committee for this project. They are aware of this, but they haven’t expressed an opinion yet. They want more information, but I think they see it could be beneficial to them.

Q: Andrew Weir-Jones: The municipal bodies are involved but what is the role of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure? A: Patrick Coates: The role of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is to support the Partnership, which is the City of Surrey, New Westminster and TransLink. We are in an advising role supporting them.

C: Josie Muise: I’m speaking as a resident and I’m not sure who represents who around here. I live in an awful place at Royal Avenue and 10th Street. I can tell you a great idea for income would be to fine each truck that uses J-breaks down that hill $1,000 and that would be $50,000 this morning alone. We shouldn’t have to dedicate our police to that, although we could easily pay their salary. The livability is impossible along that corridor. They stop at the intersection and they blast their horns. My condo wraps around and it’s high but all you do is take a paper towel and there’s black pollution. Our strata fees are huge because we try to keep it clean. It’s getting more impossible to live and I know other residents in that corridor and it’s awful.

C: Allison Taylor McBryde: Regarding the connection between downtown Surrey and downtown New Westminster, we have perfectly good side streets and it is right by the Pattullo Bridge. Why aren’t people taking it? I don’t shop in downtown New Westminster anymore during rush hour. The

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 16 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

connection via the Sapperton Bar is connected to huge infrastructure. All the lane ways connecting to Highway 1 are incredible, they are efficient and fast. Why aren’t we connected to the most efficient vehicle moving corridor down the perimeter roads and Highway 1 when there was money spent on that infrastructure?

Q: Joanne Grobler: I’m looking at the 4-lane Sapperton Bar crossing with the rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge. It’s on page 19 in blue. I’m looking at the pictures and trying to figure out how this will be better for New Westminster. I see a 3-lane bridge still carrying cars along McBride. I see a new bridge into Sapperton so you will need to move homes. I see a connector coming out and coming all the way across Columbia Street and Cumberland and that’s all a residential area. I’m looking at all these displaced homes and how will it be better for New Westminster? I’m really at a loss for how it will be better for New Westminster. A: Ian Fisher: Just to clarify the connection under Cumberland up to McBride is a tunnel. Q: Joanne Grobler: Is that for sure? A: Judy Kirk: Let’s be clear, nothing is for sure. C: Joanne: It still goes up to 10th Avenue.

C: Bill Orlikow: This will address the questions that have been raised here and I agree that traffic will reduce only if there is no Pattullo Bridge. If there is a Pattullo Bridge, refurbished, brand new, toll or no toll, traffic will get worse and you have seen what has happened in the past several months with the Port Mann toll. That traffic is going to get worse and unless we, the City, TransLink or the Province does something to divert part of that traffic away from the city on the way to the bridge, this city is in big trouble.

Q: Babar Khalid: I work around that area and it makes sense that they should have a bridge there. I’m interested why Richmond and Burnaby say they aren’t in agreement? What would be the reason, I hope it’s not cost? A: Ian Fisher: They have some land use agreements that don’t assume plans for a crossing there. In the past they have looked at a crossing at Boundary Road. But the Tree Island options never officially gained traction in municipal plans. Burnaby has extensively developed on the north side of the river with business and other uses. There are some agricultural lands that they would like to preserve and I’m sure that Vancouver would like to ensure that the agricultural land is preserved. There are many policy reasons why this hasn’t gone forward. This also doesn’t directly address any issues related to the Pattullo crossing. It addresses some issues related to Queensborough and Alex Fraser. C: Babar Khalid: It will help the traffic on the Queensborough Bridge and the Knight Street Bridge. C: Judy Kirk: Ian started with the problem being the Pattullo Bridge. This process and the alternatives presented are not looking to solve Knight Street. C: Babar Khalid: I’m talking about reason. The Pattullo Bridge is just part of that picture and not the complete picture.

C: Nelson Geddes: My experience as an occasional user of the Queensborough Bridge is that most traffic south of the river originates upstream. You go around the corner from Stewardson Way or 10th Avenue, 20th Street or 6th Avenue and the cars coming are at least five to one. The same thing

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 17 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

is happening as they come off the Queensborough in the opposite direction. A majority of the traffic heads upstream. That particular alternative is going to solve a non-problem.

C: Lorraine Geddes: Personally I like that one; it would take a lot of traffic off the Pattullo Bridge.

Q: Barbara: What will happen to Richmond if there’s a huge earthquake? If so, how will people get out of Richmond? It’s like with the Gateway saying to New Westminster that this is not our problem. I think it’s funny that for some strange reason New Westminster always gets the brunt of this, but we are told that it’s not important. There’s a lack of communication. I know that in the past, the City hasn’t always communicated with TransLink and it’s funny that they are now, even though the relationship has not always been good, I just want to put it out there that at least they have one now.

Q: Robert Ascroft: It seems to me that the conundrum is that we are trying to find one solution to a multi-faceted problem. We want an urban bridge that connects the centres of Surrey and New Westminster, which is a smaller capacity bridge. We also want a high capacity commuter bridge for people whose destination isn’t New Westminster. Have you considered twinning the Queensborough Bridge and moving the traffic out along with Southeast Marine Drive? A: Ian Fisher: We haven’t considered twinning the Queensborough because any traffic that comes from the south side of the river has to cross the Alex Fraser to get to the Queensborough bridge and the Alex Fraser is already heavily congested. C: Robert Ashcroft: The problem is you have eight lanes on the Alex Fraser going to two lanes on the Queensborough. If you doubled the capacity there you wouldn’t have that problem. C: Judy Kirk: Robert that’s a perfect segway to remind people to put it in the additional comments section.

C: James Crosty: I’m excited that if we do the math and we take Alternatives 5, 19 and 25 it comes to $3.2 billion. If you subtract $800 million, and the cost to build three bridges is $2.4 billion; imagine the tolling. Right now you could build three bridges for $2.4 billion and solve huge traffic congestion.

C: Warren Fox: I concur and it looks like Alternative 19 satisfies many needs. It puts in bridges, and takes regional traffic away from the city. Like you said, if you throw in the other bridge in terms of long-term effects, I think it’s an answer.

Q: Josie Muise: I would like a clarification on the dance part in terms of who’s making the decisions. In the newspaper the decision about whether or not to take away the Bailey Bridge that connects Coquitlam and New Westminster. It’s gone to mediation and arbitration. So who’s the leader there? A: Judy Kirk: Whether we like it or not there are across Canada, multijurisdictional issues associated with land use and transportation. That is the environment we live in and in the case of bridges and roads there are some that are controlled and owned by TransLink, some by the province and some by local communities. Sometimes they come up against each other. It is part of what makes it difficult to plan and resolve issues.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 18 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

C: Pamela Stern: I think we need to remember that one thing Surrey has asked for is better transit and if we want to help get Surrey traffic off our roads we need to support better transit for Surrey.

C: Gavin McLeod: From what I see, increasing any bridge or roadway only moves the problem along. An example would be to increase capacity at Queensborough Bridge you would only move the problem to the north end of the bridge. I’m the secretary-treasurer for an association and the biggest complaint is 20th and how it’s jam-packed with people. I talked this morning to a resident complaining about increasing traffic including buses heading out of 18th Street which can’t handle a full-sized bus, especially when it’s around school with kids being dropped off and on both sides of the street there are parked cars; buses can’t get through. There are accidents on 8th and people are being killed and kids crossing from the west side and they have to cross the crazy traffic. We need a comprehensive regional plan.

Q: Babar Khalid: Is there a timeline of when you will finish the consultation and the project will happen? A: Judy Kirk: June 28th is the end of the consultation period. Q: Babar Khalid: When will the project be finalized? A: Ian Fisher: If everything goes well we hope to have the final approved alternative in fall 2014.

C: Wilf Brodrick: For the next set of meetings is it possible to get side view of Alternative 19. I think it’s important, I don’t think they know how tall that bridge will be and what the effect will be on the houses and residences that overlook the river. We are not talking about the London Bridge, a little low bridge over the river. I would like to see what that bridge would look like as you’re at Sapperton looking at the bridge. C: Judy Kirk: But it won’t be for next meeting, you mean for the next round of consultation.

Q: Deb Jack: It’s about the $1 billion dollars. From quotes in the newspaper it seems that there is some hesitation or concern about asking the feds for money. Is that the limitation? That it’s desirable on your part to do things without federal government money? A: Ian Fisher: At this point we haven’t assumed federal money, but there are often programs available. When we get to that stage with an alternative we will look at what programs are available for federal funding. I don’t think TransLink is shy about asking for money from senior governments. C: Deb Jack: That’s the way it’s come across.

C: Paul Lee: It’s great to see public discourse. It is a partnership process where City of Surrey, City of New Westminster and TransLink have come together to find a solution. From Surrey, we recognize the problems you have identified on your side of river. On our side we have similar issues but not in terms of magnitude. We do have a lot of common problems we have to resolve but on the other hand we each know that developments are also important. We hope that it’s a process that will lead us to a solution.

C: Eugene Wat: We thank everyone for coming out and participating in this process. It’s the first stage of consultation we are asking for feedback. On page three a reminder that the purpose of consultation is the three bullets. They are the key areas we want to hear the feedback. That input

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 19 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Sapperton Pensioners’ Hall 318 Keary Street, New Westminster, B.C.

will help us as we engage and we can work with shorter and manageable lists. A reminder that the City is involved in the Master Transportation Planning Process. We have been doing a lot of work in last year and we are at a pause to look at this Pattullo Bridge issue. Once we have some direction on that we will ramp up on the Master Transportation Plan. I encourage you to also get involved in that.

3. Closing Remarks – Judy Kirk Judy Kirk wrapped up the meeting, thanked participants for their time and encouraged participants to complete the feedback form and encourage friends and others to participate.

The record notes that the small group meeting ended at 3:00 p.m.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 6, 2013 Page 20 of 20 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

Notes from a Small Group Meeting for the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation PURPOSE held on June 12, 2013 at the City Centre Library, Surrey.

FACILITATOR Nancy Spooner, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd.

David Amero John Kearns Donna Andrews Jim Kohnke Arash Askarian Robert Kolpin Rob Bedard Heather MacKenzie Ernie Fleischer Catherine Mohoruk Anita Huberman David Pel ATTENDEES David Hill Garry Romanetz Ray Hudson Gary Smith Jim Jiang Merlin Wick Jaclyn Johnston Lori Walker Jenni Lynnea Valerie Watson Nures Kara

Ian Fisher, TransLink Darren Woodworth, TransLink PROJECT TEAM Eugene Wat, City of New Westminster ATTENDEES Paul Lee, City of Surrey Karen Schroder, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd., Meeting Recorder

1. Welcome and Introductions AGENDA 2. Discussion 3. Closing Remarks

RECURRING THEMES

 Some participants expressed an interest in the origin/destination truck studies and wondered when they will be made available.  Some participants encouraged the Pattullo Bridge Review team to ensure that the long-range projections for growth and density in Surrey are considered in determining the number of lanes in a new bridge.  Some participants encouraged the Pattullo Bridge Review team to ensure that the regional context is integrated in further work.  Some participants expressed a strong interest in receiving more detail around costs, including road connections, in the next phase of consultation.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 12, 2013 Page 1 of 11 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

The record notes that the meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m.

DISCUSSION

(Abbreviations will be used and mean – Q: Question, A: Answer, C: Comment)

1. Welcome and Introductions – Nancy Spooner Nancy Spooner welcomed participants to the small group meeting and explained the format of the meeting. Nancy informed participants that the small group meeting was being recorded for accuracy, would include attribution, and that the meeting notes would form part of the consultation record. The Pattullo Bridge Review team members introduced themselves.

2. Discussion – Ian Fisher Ian Fisher reviewed key sections of the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Discussion Guide and answered questions from participants as he went through the Discussion Guide.

Q: David: Didn’t traffic volumes change when the Alex Fraser Bridge opened? A: Ian Fisher: You can see the volumes went up in the 1984 to 1994 period and the Alex Fraser was opened during that time. C: David: The traffic used to queue up all the way to 10th and it doesn’t do that anymore. C: Ian Fisher: Perhaps that’s due to roadway or traffic flow changes, I’m not sure.

Q: Ernie Fleischer: I’ve noticed a lot of people with cameras at congestion points from Queensborough to my business at 128th. Are they part of this traffic study? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, there has been a lot of interest in truck traffic, volumes and where they are going and coming from. So in addition to the traffic counters, which is where this information is from, we’ve had a consulting firm taking pictures of trucks to track where they are coming from and going to.

Q: Ernie Fleischer: I notice there is a tunnel option here. Our business is located on about 60 metres of bog; is a tunnel option feasible with all that soft ground in the area? A: Ian Fisher: There has been some technical work done to say it would be feasible but more work would be needed. We can talk more about the alternatives shortly.

Q: Nures Kara: Were the objectives developed by the City of Surrey, City of New Westminster and TransLink working group? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, they were developed by the working group and they were also sent up to Councils and Transportation Committees and the External Advisory Committee for the Pattullo Bridge Review. Q: Nures Kara: So Metro Vancouver, the Port and Transport Canada were part of the External Advisory Committee? A: Ian Fisher: Metro Vancouver was but not the Port. Q: Nures Kara: Why wouldn’t Port Metro Vancouver and Transport Canada be a part of this review?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 12, 2013 Page 2 of 11 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

A: Ian Fisher: We will be consulting them as we move through the process and we will be liaising with them to make sure any alternative is compatible with their plans and operations.

Q: Donna Andrews: Has there ever been a ship that has hit the bridge? A: Ian Fisher: It is unlikely that a ship would hit the bridge, as very few large ships go that far up the Fraser and also the rail bridge beside the Pattullo has a very narrow navigation channel so few ships go past that. It is still something we have to consider.

Q: Gary Smith: How long would tolling on the bridge last? A: Ian Fisher: A 30-year amortization was assumed. As I mentioned, the funding source for the bridge has not been confirmed. There could be regional road pricing put in place, as I’m sure lots of people in Surrey are familiar with the debate about whether you have project-specific tolls or a more general regional road pricing scheme.

Q: Ernie Fleischer: Are you only looking at one crossing? A: Ian Fisher: One of the alternatives that is recommended for further evaluation does have two crossings.

Q: Merlin Wick: Out of the traffic study, where is most of the traffic going over the Pattullo going to and coming from? A: Ian Fisher: We don’t have a complete picture of that yet. We have a survey that was done in November and we are now analyzing the results of that so we will have more details on the results later. The initial results show that a lot of the traffic is to New Westminster and South Burnaby and vice versa. As well as longer trips that start near the bridge, either in North Surrey or South Burnaby. C: Merlin Wick: I would think that would be a critical component of considering which option and try to eliminate traffic through New West and Bridgeview. A: Ian Fisher: Yes, it is an important consideration and we will be doing traffic modeling/computer stimulation in the next stage. That will look at optimal routes for people to take between origin and destination. We will repeat that survey this fall and the following fall as the landscape changes with the full tolls on the Port Mann and the completion of the South Fraser Perimeter Road and other traffic changes. Q: Robert: Is the North Fraser Perimeter Road (NFPR) off the table as an option? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, TransLink has stopped work on the NFPR as we did not reach an agreement with New Westminster on it. However, there could be roadway changes as part of these alternatives that would resemble parts of the NFPR but those have not been determined yet. That will be done in the next phase when we have fewer than 25 alternatives.

Q: Donna Andrews: Who considered and rejected or accepted these alternatives? A: Ian Fisher: It was a consensus decision among the working group, so representatives of New Westminster, Surrey and TranLink, with the review and input of the External Advisory Group.

Q: Val Watson: One of the alternatives does not use the current bridge for the cycling and walking; why go to the expense of dismantling the bridge when it could be used for bikes and pedestrians?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 12, 2013 Page 3 of 11 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

A: Ian Fisher: That is a good lead in to the screening, so maybe we can talk about that when we look at that alternative? C: Nancy Spooner: Val, please keep that in mind and if you don’t feel it was addressed once we’re gone through the screening we can go back to it.

Q: Jim Kohnke: I recall that there was a possibility of a combined road and rail bridge, but there were complications and it was discounted. I think it should be included for future discussion, as the rail bridge is even older than the Pattullo. Its replacement has been studied and this issue might cause renewed interest in this. A: Ian Fisher: Possibly yes. You’re right, the previous analysis suggested that there might be a minor cost savings from combining the two bridges. The two need quite different infrastructure so there is limited ability to share bridge structures. Also the liability was an issue; if something happened on one bridge that impacted the other. Those were some of the concerns that were raised previously. As you mentioned, there might be an opportunity to look at that again if the preferred alternative is a new bridge in the existing corridor and the other parties came to the table. Q: Jim Kohnke: The corridor is an important route for both passenger and rail freight.

Q: Nures Kara: On page 14, are you assuming the new bridge, if that’s what’s decided on, would be upriver from the existing bridge? A: Ian Fisher: The previous work suggested the upstream location was more favourable but no final decision has been made on that.

Q: Ernie Fleischer: We have been seeing ads from the federal government regarding the “Action Plan?” Are they prepared to kick in any money for this infrastructure work? A: Ian Fisher: Nothing at this stage. TransLink is pretty aggressive about going to the senior levels of government for funding on projects so I am sure that will happen. Q: Jim Kohnke: Federal money certainly would be involved if the rail bridge was to be replaced.

Q: Garry Romanetz: Why are there so many options for the number of lanes? The traffic volume associated with those different lane numbers is huge, not to mention the impact on the local roadways that potentially connect to the bridge. A: Ian Fisher: The number of lanes really does affect the traffic volumes and flow on the local roads so that’s why we have a range of alternatives so we can look at the implications of the different number of lanes on the local areas as well as transportation overall in the region. C: Darren Woodworth: I’ll just add that in our previous consultation we heard a lot of questions about different number of lanes and so the Partners wanted to provide some information about those options. A: Garry Romanetz: But what is our traffic forecast for these different options? Would you consider an 8-lane bridge? A: Ian Fisher: Well, we have considered in this initial screening but it is not recommended. There is a limit to what the connecting streets can handle. Q: Val Watson: lf one of the objectives is to reduce greenhouse gases, how would an 8-lane bridge fit in with that?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 12, 2013 Page 4 of 11 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

A: Ian Fisher: It wouldn’t and that is seen in the screening; it is counter to that objective. The 8-lane bridge failed on that objective. We will see that when we get into the screening. I think we should go to that section now. C: Nancy Spooner: Yes, let’s go to that section as a lot of questions will be answered as we go into the evaluation.

Q: Catherine Mohoruk: Is the 3-lane rehabilitated bridge assumed to be a counter-flow operation? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, a counter-flow lane as is seen on the Lions Gate.

C: Jim Kohnke: Just reflecting on the statement by the provincial government that there should be the free alternative to the Port Mann and of course at the moment, the Pattullo is that free alternative. As the costs are minimal in this alternative, perhaps that could be maintained. A: Ian Fisher: Yes the Ministry did identify the Pattullo as a free alternative but without consultation with TransLink. As I mentioned, no decision has been made regarding the funding source for the bridge as of yet. Q: Donna Andrews: Is there going to be a toll no matter what option is chosen? A: Ian Fisher: No decision has been made on the funding yet. If there is a regional funding source that is agreed to through discussions with the Province in the short-term to fund various transportation projects, there might not be project specific tolls. A toll similar to the Port Mann was assumed for the initial affordability screening. Q: Merlin Wick: So all these alternatives, whether they are cost effective or not, isn’t really determined because you not sure whether it will be tolled or there could be any funding source. To discount any of the alternatives based solely on Objective 8 isn’t realistic. A: Ian Fisher: We gave a fairly broad margin as you will see with one of the later alternatives, in case an alternative looked like it was favourable but might be somewhat beyond the range of affordability. We haven’t ruled anything out that was on the verge of being affordable. However, you’re correct that at this stage we don’t have enough information to do a full cost effectiveness analysis. Q: Val Watson: These figures are based on today’s costs, so if there isn’t a new bridge another ten years the costs could increase. The cost of living doesn’t stay static so these might not be very accurate. A: Ian Fisher: Yes, that would apply to incomes and costs. It is reasonable to think that if something is affordable today, it will be in affordable in ten years.

Q: Ernie Fleischer: I live in Vancouver and have been commuting to here close to 50 years and I have taken all the different routes. Now I take the 91 and over the Queensborough Bridge. Have you considered that one of the oldest bridges is the Queensborough? Even though it’s been revamped and the approaches changed, the traffic is backed up Stewardson Way again. The Queensborough is going to have to be dealt with; has that been looked at if this is going to take ten years? I know you’re looking at the traffic from there because I’ve seen the traffic cameras there. A: Ian Fisher: We haven’t looked at Queensboro in much detail in this as it is owned by Province and it’s serving a different a different corridor. C: Ernie Fleischer: I hate to argue with you, but if you go through New West at 4:30 in the afternoon that line-up is down Royal Avenue, down Stewardson and all the way back to the Queensborough Bridge. The traffic is coming from that direction.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 12, 2013 Page 5 of 11 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

C: Darren Woodworth: You are right, the bridge works as part of the entire transportation network and it’s great that have the Ministry of Transportation in an advisory perspective as part of this Review because they look after the regional perspective and they have plans about what they are going to do with the region in general. They have been giving us advice through this process, which takes into account some of these questions. C: Paul Lee: In response to what Ernie is saying, I would think that the traffic modeling will take into account all the traffic on all the bridges and that will be part of the analysis going forward. When we decrease or increase the capacity on the Pattullo we will be looking at what that means for traffic all around. C: Ernie Fleischer: It’s the limited on and off access on the Burnaby/New West side as opposed to the capacity on the Queensborough Bridge. When that backs up everything behind it backs up; it’s tied in with the Pattullo and then if there’s a stall on the Port Mann it’s total chaos.

Q: Jim Kohnke: For Alternative 5, how would you maintain four lanes when they are already too narrow? A: Ian Fisher: What you’re saying is reflected in the cell for Objective 7. Although the approaches could be widened, the width of the lanes between the main arches would have to remain narrow. The width between the arches is 12 metres, meaning the lanes are about three metres, which doesn’t meet guidelines. That is flagged as an issue for this alternative. The walkway is already on the outside of the structure on the west side, there isn’t the option of moving it to the outside to increase width like on the Lions Gate. Q: Merlin Wick: What is the standard for road lanes? A: Ian Fisher: The current guidelines indicate 3.5 - 3.7 metres per lane and right now there are about three metres. The lanes are the same width across the bridge, so on the south end with the curve trucks often end up taking two lanes. Q: Ray Hudson: Why does it require further consideration if it doesn’t reach current standards? A: Ian Fisher: The Partners haven’t reached a consensus on this one yet. We put it out for further consultation and consideration. Q: Merlin Wick: You are suggesting that the three metre width would be adequate due to the straighter line? A: Ian Fisher: Well, we did have a safe auditor in and they were still not terribly comfortable with that lane width. C: Nancy Spooner: Just to draw your attention to the feedback form and on pages 27 and 28 there are questions around the alternatives that are recommended and not recommended. We encourage you to complete these and fill in any addition comments. We are capturing your comments in the notes but should be in the feedback forms as well.

Q: Rob Bedard: Are these the costs for the bridge itself? A: Ian Fisher: It’s the bridge and the on-and-off ramps. Q: Rob Bedard: The infrastructure to help out New West isn’t included? A: Ian Fisher: Not at this stage, but we will be discussing the connections and how they will be made to work best with the municipalities as we go forward with the evaluation. We want to do that with a more manageable number of alternatives. Right now the rehab alternatives have assumed a 30 year life and then there would be additional costs for more rehab work, and a new bridge would be 100 years.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 12, 2013 Page 6 of 11 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

Q: Val Watson: If a 4- or 5- or 6-lane bridge was built in the same location, how would that impact the Bridgeview community? A: Ian Fisher: The width of the bridge wouldn’t make too much of a difference but if it attracted a different level of use that would have an impact. So that is one of the things we are looking at as part of the evaluation – traffic flows and proximity to neighbourhoods. Q: Val Watson: So would the access the bridge go through Bridgeview? A: Ian Fisher: Again, we have not determined what the connections would be at this point. We will be working with Surrey and TransLink to flesh out the connections for the alternatives that will be going forward. It is a concern on the part of all regarding how traffic gets to the bridge and avoiding residential areas.

Q: Jenni Lynnea: I think there are two different questions on the table and I’m not clear if we’ve separated them. We are talking about a new or rehabilitated bridge and we are asking about the location; is that correct? A: Ian Fisher: We are asking one question for each of the alternatives. We are looking at the corridors as a key part of the evaluation, as some of the corridors do not perform as well as others. We are asking for feedback on both of those aspects but one alternative at a time. Q: Jenni Lynnea: So you’re asking about bridge placement, including neighbourhood impacts and connections, and the type of bridge: rehab or new in the existing location, or new in the other locations? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, that’s correct. C: Nancy Spooner: People have been generally happy with the amount of information and have wanted to provide feedback on all the alternatives. Q: Jenni Lynnea: Can I also add in my feedback form that I support road pricing? A: Nancy Spooner: Absolutely, that is the type of comment we want to see.

Q: Dave Pel: Has any thought about tolling the existing Pattullo and pooling the funds to mitigate the effects of the bridge on the communities? The impact on Bridgeview and other communities now is mind-boggling. As a cyclist it is very dangerous; I was nearly run over on Sunday by a large truck in front of a park in a residential neighbourhood. A: Ian Fisher: As for immediately tolling, the legislation doesn’t allow TransLink to toll the existing facility. We can only levy a toll for an approved project. Q: Dave Pel: Can you levy a toll for a future project? A: Ian Fisher: No, we can’t do that right now. Discussions with the Province over the next year might result in a different outcome. Q: David Hill: You mentioned there was a safety audit, would that be available to the public? A: Darren Woodworth: I believe the technical work will be posted online but I am not sure when that will be.

Q: Catherine Mohoruk: I noticed under Objective 5, where it talks about supporting local, regional land use plans for the 4-, 5- and 6-lane options, it seemed there were more questions to be answered than evaluation results. The question I have is around growth. Land use plans go out 30 years and this would be a 100 year facility. I know you’re bringing these options forward to the next phase of consultation, but are the regional plans and the regional growth strategy included?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 12, 2013 Page 7 of 11 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

The information is clear on what the growth targets are; they are in the document. It just seems a little light on reporting the growth that is proposed in the region. A: Ian Fisher: Good comment. At this stage, we didn’t have the ability to do modeling for all the alternatives to come to firm conclusions. The alternatives that go forward will be put through the transportation model, which includes the land use predictions out to 2045 that are based on the regional growth strategy. This was more of a ‘does it meet the policy’ as opposed to growth strategy.

Q: Arash Askarian: Wouldn’t that have been a concern when they built the Pattullo Bridge or any of the other bridges that have been in use for 60 or 70 years? They would have had too much capacity at the time and now they are congested. You are saying the 8-lane bridge will be too big now, but 50 years down the line it will be too small, especially if Surrey is going to be the new downtown and there are high-rises going up all over the place. A: Ian Fisher: That is a concern that is really picked up in Objective 6: providing reliable travel times. However, the team recognizes there is some tension in regional policy between adding capacity and encouraging vehicle use, and shifting transportation modes. We have to find the balance. Q: Arash Askarian: The costs are about the same. The extra lane could be used for walking or cycling until it is needed for capacity. You talk about emissions, but the car companies are improving exhaust emissions, so I don’t think that will be as much of a concern in 10 or 20 years. Q: Val Watson: Transportation is a big issue and the transportation system in this area is pretty poor. The real issue is lack of transit. If you want people to get out of their cars, then you have to make it convenient for people. A: Ian Fisher: That’s why TransLink is developing its Regional Transportation Plan to identify areas that need transportation infrastructure, what bus services should be provided and funding for those.

C: Darren Woodworth: Just to address Ernie’s comments from earlier, the consultant we brought in to look at tunneling options did look at the feasibility of tunnels with the soft soil conditions that are there. C: Ernie Fleischer: They would have to go way down I think the bedrock when we installed our scale was at about 140 feet.

Q: Garry Romanetz: Was there was a threshold established for when an alternative becomes unaffordable? A: Ian Fisher: Our affordability analysis was based on the revenue we would get if we tolled the existing crossing with the current traffic volumes, assuming a toll similar to that on the Port Mann Bridge. It’s about $1 billion, but to allow leeway we allowed alternatives that were up to $1.5 billion. Q: Jim Kohnke: Are these not recommended because you haven’t had consultation with New West and Coquitlam on the road connections? A: Ian Fisher: Well we have had discussions with both New West and Coquitlam. The consensus was these wouldn’t be taken forward due to costs.

Q: Nures Kara: Does the initial cost include potential habitat compensation for the Coquitlam-Surrey options? I know that the Sapperton Bar is an environmentally sensitive area.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 12, 2013 Page 8 of 11 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

A: Ian Fisher: We have flagged the environmental concerns of working in an area of the river that isn’t currently affected. A: Darren Woodworth: We have included an allowance to address that type of thing but obviously more work is needed to assess that.

Q: Laurie Walker: I understand that a lot of traffic is just flowing through the New West, not terminating there, so isn’t there too much emphasis on the connection between the town centres? A: Ian Fisher: We are doing more analysis on what the traffic patterns are so we will have a better idea about that, but we do know a reasonable share of trips start or end on either end of the bridge. This option addresses that by providing a link to New West and another to Coquitlam if trips were going that direction.

C: Catherine Mohoruk: I guess part of this is to understand the connections on either end of the bridge and it does talk about how further analysis is needed. From a preliminary perspective, while Coquitlam is open to entertaining this and going to the next level of evaluation. There is concern about lane balance and how this would integrate the current system. Those that are familiar with the United Boulevard corridor know there are limited connections to the west heading into New West and to Highway 1. So while part of this is indicated under Objective 6, that it would provide good connections, I think that there are opportunities to provide good connections but there are some real questions that need to be answered. Coquitlam will be responding in a more formal way to this consultation but we wanted to come and listen today and in general say that Coquitlam is open to opportunities but has concerns about the Brunette Interchange, the United Boulevard and the lack of North Fraser Perimeter route and the system impacts related to this bridge, so Coquitlam would be asking for these things to be considered in the next level of evaluation. A: Ian Fisher: These initial cost estimates are based on basic connections on either end of the bridge so these will likely be revised as we move forward. C: Catherine Mohoruk: We would hope there would be partnership opportunities with the provincial and federal governments. C: Nancy Spooner: Thanks Catherine. And City of Coquitlam will be doing a formal submission? Great. Q: Nures Kara: For this alternative, is there any idea where the connection would be located on the Surrey side? A: Ian Fisher: No, we haven’t done any detailed designs on where those connections would be. C: Jim Kohnke: It is essential that there would be adequate connections between the North Fraser and South Fraser Perimeter roads. Q: Robert Kolpin: For Alternative 19, under Objective 6 why does it say pedestrian and cyclists would be unaffected? A: Ian Fisher: It is really referring to those that would be crossing in the existing corridor because we are maintain the existing crossing with a rehabilitated bridge, pedestrian and cyclist travel times would not change. Probably better really. Q: Robert Kolpin: I would assume that the facilities would be improved. You wouldn’t have the same narrow sidewalk. A: Ian Fisher: No, it would be wider. That is a good point. C: Darren Woodworth: I was just agreeing with Robert. It would improve the time for cyclists. Q: Dave Pel: It would be a huge safety improvement if there was just a barrier between the traffic and the sidewalk.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 12, 2013 Page 9 of 11 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

C: Jenni Lynnea: Looking at the timeline on page 10, what kind of timeline are we looking at for new or rehabilitated bridge? A: Ian Fisher: For a new bridge, it would be 8-10 years and for rehab it would be more like 4-6 years. Q: Jenni Lynnea: As a former cyclist on the Pattullo Bridge, that sidewalk doesn’t have any separation from traffic. In the short-term rehab is there any consideration of improving that? A: Ian Fisher: The scope of the temporary rehab is just getting started so that is something that could be considered.

Q: Merlin Wick: The taxpayer is concerned for all costs. We need to know what the entire cost would be once the list of alternatives has been narrowed down. The costs need to include all connections. That is one really critical point. Second thing, there seems to be a lot of emphasis on doing something in the existing locations. You should spread the traffic out rather than focusing it all to one point. How does the traffic get there? Have you looked at where the trips start and end? They don’t end in New West or Bridgeview. That needs to be addressed before you can go any further. Q: Jim Kohnke: It is crucial that the bridge is looked at in the regional content. In addition, some consideration should be given to the prospect of a combined rail/road bridge. That is used extensively around the world; the Sydney Harbour Bridge is a good example of that.

C: Robert Kolpin: For Alternatives 6 to 8, where there would be a new bridge is the same location, how would the construction work? A: Ian Fisher: It is assumed that the construction of new bridge would be built not quite on the same alignment so it could be built and then the traffic shifted over. C: Robert Kolpin: And that would be possible given the amount of area on both sides? A: Ian Fisher: Based on previous work, it would be feasible. It would be more aligned with McBride to take out that S-curve there.

C: Jim Jiang: The funding should be regional and there should be a holistic approach.

C: Garry Romanetz: What’s the timing of this additional traffic modeling? I thought there would be a lot of support for that based on all the projects ongoing. A: Ian Fisher: First we needed fewer alternatives, as 25 was too many to do the modeling for. There was trip diary work done in 2011 to recalibrate our model and make it a lot more accurate. That work is just wrapping up now, so this project will be one of the first to benefit from that improved model. Q: Garry Romanetz: Will that take into account a potential LRT or SkyTrain extension to Surrey? A: Ian Fisher: It will have assumptions out into the future, yes. C: Nancy Spooner: That’s a good segway to review where we are at the planning and what will happen next. If we just look at page 10 you can see where we are and the input received will be considered along with technical and financial information to refine the list of alternatives. Then we’ll be coming back out in the fall of 2013 with more detailed information including road connections that we have been discussing today.

3. Closing Remarks – Nancy Spooner Nancy Spooner wrapped up the meeting, thanked participants for their time and encouraged participants to complete the feedback form and encourage friends and others to participate.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 12, 2013 Page 10 of 11 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 12, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

The record notes that the small group meeting ended at 3:00 p.m.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 12, 2013 Page 11 of 11 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

Notes from a Small Group Meeting for the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation PURPOSE held on June 19, 2013 at the Inn at the Quay, New Westminster.

FACILITATOR Nancy Spooner, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd.

William Andrew Dan Leslie Norah Andrew Christie Man Andrew Baker Derek Man Todd Beernink Melinda Michael Richard Berrow Marek Mitera Luc Bouliane Manjinder Moore Ken Driediger John Mowat Alix Cote Marco Murrillo ATTENDEES Jane Day Ann Nielsen Andrew Feltham Inge Nielsen Errol Fraser Larry Ripplinger Steve Flynn Angela Sealy Tom Gibson Barry Slocombe Sanjay Gulati Kathy Slocombe Deane Gurney Brittany Zenger Fred Herfst

Jerry Behl, City of New Westminster Ashleigh Young, City of New Westminster PROJECT TEAM Paul Lee, City of Surrey ATTENDEES Renee Mounteney, Ministry of Transportation (observer) Ian Fisher, TransLink Laura Abbott, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd, Meeting Recorder

1. Welcome and Introduction AGENDA 2. Discussion 3. Closing Remarks

RECURRING THEMES

 Some participants expressed concerns that the materials are focused on New Westminster and Surrey only, and urged the Pattullo Bridge Review team to consider broader regional transportation planning in making its decision about replacing or rehabilitating the Pattullo Bridge.  Some participants supported the idea of tolling a new bridge, along with other existing bridges, to encourage people to make choices and naturally reduce vehicle traffic.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 1 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

 Some participants were very concerned that a 6-lane bridge would encourage more traffic in their neighbourhoods, which they noted are already congested and often unsafe.

The record notes that the meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.

DISCUSSION

(Abbreviations will be used and mean – Q: Question, A: Answer, C: Comment)

1. Welcome and Introductions – Nancy Spooner Nancy Spooner welcomed participants to the small group meeting and explained the format of the meeting. Nancy informed participants that the small group meeting was being recorded for accuracy, would include attribution, and that the meeting notes would form part of the consultation record. The Pattullo Bridge Review team members introduced themselves.

2. Discussion – Ian Fisher Ian Fisher reviewed key sections of the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Discussion Guide and answered questions from participants as he went through the Discussion Guide.

Q: Marco Murrillo: My question is if the previous consultation has dealt with the other two bridges on the map inset on page 8: the Queensborough Bridge and the Port Mann Bridge. There’s a heavy bottleneck for traffic on the Queensborough Bridge. Does that have connections to the Pattullo Bridge process? A: Ian Fisher: It’s related, but not key to this process, because the key issue here is a bridge that is 76- years-old and needs to be rebuilt or refurbished soon. We’ve been looking at the other corridors; it might be clearer once we get further into the analysis. Q: Nancy Spooner: Are there other questions on the process?

Q: John Mowat: On your bar graph you show changes in traffic 1994 to 2004, which are in fairly small increments. But the last one, for 2013, is for only four months, which would suggest an extrapolation of over 200,000. Am I reading this right? A: Ian Fisher: It’s the average volume per day. There is some seasonality and we can’t control for that, because we don’t have enough quality data. Q: Tom Gibson: Your data for the first months since the new Port Mann Bridge opened makes it look like there’s not a significant increase. However, I cross the bridge mid-day a couple of times a week, and I can tell you that the bridge is now really crowded at that time. There aren’t back-ups getting on to the Pattullo Bridge, but there’s a lot more traffic. It’s mostly heavy truck traffic. A: Ian Fisher: We are applying to Council to have more details on traffic counts early in the summer or in the fall. C: Tom Gibson: At peak travel times, there isn’t increase because the bridge is already overloaded. Traffic is now filling in mid-day.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 2 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Christie Man: You have said that you will be collecting more data, will there be more opportunities for feedback before the fall? C: Nancy Spooner: Is there going to be more information available before the next round of consultation in the fall? A: Ian Fisher: Yes. We expect a process similar to this to take place in the fall. A: Nancy Spooner: In the fall there will be more detail, including more specifics around traffic studies, and there will be another consultation with more small group meetings and open houses.

Q: Barry Slocombe: Back to Tom’s comment on truck traffic: when is it anticipated that the South Fraser Perimeter Road will open? A: Ian Fisher: December, I believe. A: Renee Mounteney: Yes, as far as I know. A: Barry Slocombe: That should alleviate a fair amount of traffic on the Port Mann Bridge. A: Ian Fisher: It may, but we don’t have detailed ways of modeling that move in traffic. It’s possible that it may shift trucks to other routes.

C: Brittany Zenger: I commute daily from New Westminster to Surrey. I wonder about the effect that the recent traffic study had on vehicle traffic. There were warnings on traffic radio about the counts, and the cameras were stationed on the south side of the bridge where the Surrey RCMP usually sit, so traffic was slowing down. Could you make the traffic study more discrete, so that you don’t end up influencing the traffic flow? A: Ian Fisher: They tried to find locations where they could get a really good view of the trucks, so they could photograph and identify that truck and then see where it showed up later. There are probably limited opportunities for discretion. A: Jerry Behl: The surveys were to get an idea of the origin and destination of truck traffic. Speeding wasn’t an issue and volume wasn’t an issue, so it shouldn’t have had a noticeable effect on the data.

Q: Marco Murrillo: Why not build another bridge somewhere else, instead of refurbishing this one? To what extent have you thought of that option? A: Nancy Spooner: Please hold that question until Ian gets to the part where he talks about the alternatives. Right now we’re talking about current traffic.

C: John Mowat: With the traffic statistics you’ve been collecting, the methodology is more important than the final result. Residents of New Westminster know just from observation that there’s a lot of traffic. For myself I don’t care about the statistics, I know there’s more traffic going across the Pattullo Bridge. C: Richard Berrow: I’d like to endorse what John has said about the value of observation. I’m glad to hear Ian being cautious about predictions. I live in the West End and I’ve observed the massive increases of southbound traffic on 20th Street that have greatly affected livability. I’d like to believe they weren’t predicted by the provincial ministry when they planned that. They also weren’t spotted by the city. They have a tremendous negative effect on livability in the West End for reasons that are very obvious in retrospect. A: Ian Fisher: One of the things that may be behind some of these observations is that the bridge was already close to capacity before. If you add just a few more vehicles it causes a large increase in

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 3 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

congestion. It’s more visible than it might be otherwise. That’s one reason the numbers might not reflect your perception. For anyone who wants to look at the numbers for the bridge, they’re on TransLink’s website under the section for traffic cameras. We’ve been posting traffic volumes for the Pattullo Bridge on a weekly basis for a few months now.

C: Tom Gibson: Going back to the fact that Translink was given the bridge by the provincial government in 1997, it wasn’t a very nice gift to receive, if the bridge was about to fall down.

Q: Dan Leslie: You stated that some of these goals are at odds with each other, and your example was less congestion is at odds with more people taking transit, walking and cycling. I don’t understand what you mean. A: Ian Fisher: It’s really the mantra that “you can’t build your way out of congestion.” If you go to Seattle they have tonnes of freeways, yet they still have extreme congestion. Q: Dan Leslie: But the goal is to encourage people to use alternatives to the freeway, and not build these freeways. How is that at odds? You’re reducing the number of people on the road, therefore there would be less congestion. A: Ian Fisher: True, but reducing congestion is a value of stakeholders. We would like to ensure that congestion is not maximized. Objective 6 says “provides reliable access and predictable travel times for all modes.” We’re not saying there won’t be any congestion, we’re saying there will be a reliable travel time at the same time of day most days of the week. It’s a balancing act. If we make driving too attractive, people won’t want to take transit or walk/cycle. We must maintain goods movement and economic activity in the region and provide road space for those who must drive because there aren’t good alternatives for them.

Q: Jane Day: I’d just like to go back page 9, where it says “changes in capacity on the Pattullo Bridge, or changes to its existing role, have not been identified in local, regional or provincial plans.” What exactly does that mean? A: Ian Fisher: There aren’t any plans that specify what should be done with the Pattullo Bridge. Transport 2021 is the last solid transportation plan on a regional scale. It assumes that this bridge remains in place, and recommended adding the Golden Ears Bridge, for example. Planning was based on maintaining a crossing at the current location. It’s not to say that’s something that can’t be changed, but it’s worth noting. C: Jane Day: It’s very open. To me it says you can do anything, whenever you want to do it, without consideration. New Westminster is getting squeezed. A: Nancy Spooner: It might just be a misinterpretation. I think Ian’s comment was meant to note that there is no plan that indicates there will be a change in the Pattullo Bridge crossing, but it doesn’t mean that can’t change. Integrated Regional Transportation Planning is ongoing now. At this point, there is an assumption in existing plans that there is a crossing.

C: Andrew Feltham: I want to echo Dan’s point that I don’t think that a lot of these objectives are inconsistent. We must look beyond scope of the bridge. We’ve got to look at getting people on transit to reduce congestion.

Q: John Mowat: If the municipalities oppose an alternative, does that mean it’s not going to happen?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 4 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

A: Ian: We need the consent of municipalities to do work in their jurisdictions, so their opinions are important. Coquitlam, for example, has not expressed an opinion about Sapperton Bar at this stage. They’re interested in seeing how the consultation goes and how that alternative is designed, but at this stage they’re open to considering it. C: Tom Gibson: As I recall, when the Alex Fraser Bridge was built, it was planned that the crossing would continue at Tree Island. When there wasn’t enough money, they refurbished the Queensborough Bridge somewhat inadequately, creating a bottleneck that’s still there today. It’s interesting that Richmond no longer wants that. A: Ian Fisher: Richmond and Burnaby have ideas about a corridor further west; it’s that particular Tree Island corridor that’s not supported by them. Q: Steve Flynn: If Surrey and Coquitlam don’t agree to the Sapperton Bar option, then New Westminster has to put up and shut up with whatever we’re forced to do with the Pattullo Bridge? Is that our scenario? A: Ian Fisher: New Westminster must also agree to any solution for the Pattullo Bridge. C: Steve Flynn: We’re only going to choose the Sapperton Bar option; I can’t imagine any other choice for New Westminster. A: Paul Lee: I’m not sure where you’re getting the impression that Surrey is opposing the Sapperton Bar crossing. Surrey is not opposing the Sapperton Bar crossing. C: Dan Leslie: I’d just like to point out that a similar situation has happened in the past, where municipalities have not gotten along, and that’s the Bailey Street Bridge. Keep that in mind. The solution doesn’t necessarily have to be enforced discipline, but disagreeing is not an optimal situation.

C: Barry Slocombe: I’d like to speak to rehabilitated Pattullo Bridge for pedestrians and cyclists only. I travel the bridge 30-35 times a week, and I see maybe one pedestrian or cyclist a day. That option is absolutely out of the question. C: Brittany Zenger: I commute regularly across that bridge by car. In the last bike-to-work week, I got up the courage to use the current death-trap sidewalk. It is four feet wide and there is no barrier between sidewalk and traffic. There is also frequently road debris on that sidewalk. That is the reason that there aren’t more cyclists and pedestrians. There are people who would like to bike over that bridge, but it is not a viable or safe option right now. I don’t advocate using it only for bikes, but cycling must be considered. Cycling must be allowed and it must be safe.

C: Marco Murrillo: I have experience in the transportation of goods to and from other cities. Burnaby, Vancouver, Coquitlam and Port Moody have industrial areas. The transportation of goods and people flows from high-density industrial zones into less populated zones, probably including Richmond, Delta and Surrey. There’s a big bottleneck at the Queensborough Bridge that drives traffic from Burnaby, East Vancouver, Coquitlam and Port Moody, toward Richmond and Delta. During the peak afternoon hours from 2:00-5:30 p.m. there’s heavy traffic going from Richmond into New Westminster. A: Nancy Spooner: We’re looking at the alternatives. We will talk about those that are being considered and not considered. We need to focus on the material for this consultation.

C: Tom Gibson: It appears that the studies that are being done are focusing on, or their terms of references are set, to look at transportation from one side of the river to the other, not at the

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 5 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

whole regional transportation network. There are going to be problems with any crossing alternative if the connections aren’t considered. A: Nancy Spooner: This process does fit in with the Regional Transportation Planning that is happening across Metro Vancouver. Because of the urgency, it’s moving a little bit more quickly than the regional plan. A: Ian Fisher: Another issue there is that the nature of the traffic using the bridge is not too well understood. We did a survey – we don’t have the final results yet – but most trips appear to end in Surrey, New Westminster, or South Burnaby. There’s a lot of local traffic because it’s the most direct connection across the river and going to the Alex Fraser or the Port Mann is quite a significant detour. That’s why there’s emphasis on maintaining the connection between downtown New Westminster and downtown Surrey, because there’s a lot of activity between those two points, and that’s going to continue to grow as Surrey and New Westminster continue to develop. Q: John Mowat: What happens to the traffic when it leaves the bridge? On the New Westminster side, that’s an issue. On the Surrey side, it’s really not an issue; they have the King George Boulevard. We’re having the same problem with Bailey Bridge. You can’t just talk about the location of the bridge, you have to incorporate what happens to traffic. Is that part of the plan? A: Ian Fisher: Yes. A: Jerry Behl: This process is about New Westminster, Surrey and TransLink looking at all of the alternatives, and getting you to see some of the analysis we’ve done to narrow it down to six that need more work. From New Westminster’s perspective, we want analysis done on traffic and connections, including where the traffic is coming in and going out. We have concerns about McBride, Royal and Brunette. They’re all congested, and so we need to talk about volume and connections, and the future. We will be doing that in the next stage. Q: John Mowat: Don’t you have to do that together? How can you consider one bridge location versus another, unless you know where that traffic is going? A: Jerry Behl: We’re doing that here: Surrey, New Westminster and TransLink, with help from Metro Vancouver and the Ministry of Transport. We are also involved in consultation with all of the other municipalities. A: Ian Fisher: We couldn’t do that level of detailed work with 25 alternatives. We need to identify the alternatives that aren’t supported, so we can focus on the ones that are more likely to be implemented and do more detailed work on those.

Q: Deane Gurney: Are you going to consider opening up other corridors, like the corridor at McBride and 10th that connects to the freeway? Alternatively, are you thinking of cutting off areas where bottlenecks happen, including 6th and 8th, with underpasses for example, so traffic will flow? A: Ian Fisher: We’re working with Burnaby as well. Burnaby is on our External Advisory Committee because some of the traffic is related to Burnaby. That Stormont-McBride connector that you were just referring to – the extension of McBride toward the highway – is within Burnaby. It is currently part of their Official Community Plan, so we’re liaising with them on that issue. C: Deane Gurney: That was the original corridor when the Pattullo Bridge was built.

C: Norah Andrew: The only concern that I have about some of the alternatives being presented is that the more attractive the Pattullo Bridge becomes, the more problematic the traffic. Although it may not be a focus for this project, it would be nice to think that the solutions make sense. I understand between traffic back and forth between New Westminster and Surrey. We live close to the Pattullo

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 6 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

Bridge and it’s not safe. People are so desperate to get off the Pattullo Bridge that they’re disobeying the few restrictions there are. It is quite desperate, because it’s hard to find a safe route at certain times of the day. The 3:00-7:00 p.m. “no left turns” doesn’t mean anything. Although I’d like to see the bridge being safer to cross than it is now, once the bridge is safer to cross, it will attract more traffic. I think it’s going to become a serious issue. A: Jerry Behl: The City of New Westminster shares your concerns. If you look at the objectives, livability and community impact are key. We must make sure it’s not just about moving traffic. We’ve got to get that balance right. If that’s not clear, make your comments in the feedback form. From a year ago, when TransLink offered only one 6-lane option, TransLink has listened and expanded the options. Keep having your say. Neighbourhood livability is crucial.

C: Fred Herfst: I appreciate the work that has been done in terms of offering options, but laying out options implies that there’s a choice between them. That’s where I run into difficulty. I’m from Burnaby, and what struck me is the last paragraph on page 5: “most of the crossing alternatives would only affect New Westminster and Surrey,” with a throwaway line after that says it might affect some of the rest. I would like to state most strongly: that is inaccurate. It will not mostly affect New Westminster and Surrey. I know because I live about five houses up from 10th Avenue and I see where the traffic is going. For me, to suggest an option depends entirely on what you’re saying is outside this review, and that’s the wider traffic patterns. That is absolutely crucial. I appreciate what’s here, but without the other piece, what are you going to do about putting McBride through to the freeway, for example? Or reconfiguring Burnett in relation to the freeway? Or the new bridge connection in relation to the freeway? What do those configurations do? They are germane considerations as to where you put this bridge and what you do with it. I would really like to see a lot more information in that regard, because the bridge will impact traffic patterns 15- 20 kilometres out. The review is only looking at the one or two kilometres closest to the bridge. That is a shortcoming in the report. A: Ian Fisher: The transportation analysis for the project will cover a much larger area, including the interaction of traffic with other bridges, because some people may shift from bridge to bridge depending on which alternative is pursued. Traffic movement patterns are going to be identified for the next round. You’re right: most of the alternatives only touch New Westminster and Surrey, but have regional implications for traffic in other municipalities. That’s why we have the External Advisory Committee. C: Fred Herfst: The implication is: focus on New Westminster and Surrey. That’s the part that, coming from Burnaby, really bothered me.

C: Richard Berrow: I’m glad to hear that livability is key. Looking at the matrix of options for what to do with the Pattullo, I don’t see that. I felt these options had been drafted with willful ignorance. It’s not until you get to the 8-lane crossing that there’s any acknowledgement of a potential effect on livability in New Westminster. I wonder if the 8-lane bridge has been added so that we have something to make a show of rejecting. When you come to the 6-lane bridge, it says that more analysis is required in order to evaluate the impact on livability. Is there anybody in this room that believes that you can’t tell, without doing more analysis, that going from the existing bridge to a 6- lane bridge is not going to impact livability in New Westminster? If you go to the new 4-lane bridge, you see the statement that that’s not going to have any effect on livability, because what we’ve got is a 4-lane bridge now. Everybody knows that we’ve got a narrow 4-lane bridge that many people

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 7 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

avoid using because they don’t like driving it and it can’t be driven fast. If you replace that with a 4- lane bridge with wide lanes that are attractive to trucks, of course it’s going to increase the volume of traffic going into New Westminster. It’s astonishing that that is not acknowledged here. There is a potentially substantial increase in traffic flow, and in truck traffic flow, and the invitation to avoid the toll on the Port Mann by coming here, unless this bridge is tolled. If you combine that with a complete absence of funding for traffic flow in Vancouver it is a significant livability concern, even at the 4-, 5-, and 6-lane bridge level. You don’t have to get to the 8-lane bridge to allow yourself to acknowledge a livability concern. It leaves me with a great deal of skepticism about the way this document was prepared, and I find it impossible to place any confidence in the analysis that I see here.

C: Marek Mitera: I am from Europe and I have travelled the whole world, and what we are doing with traffic in Vancouver and New Westminster is insane. I travelled to Germany right after reunification, when Germany decided to rebuild the highway to the Polish border. It was 350 kilometres of highway rebuilt in three years. There was probably 50-100,000 pieces of heavy machinery, probably 100 bridges, and they moved cities and buildings. They didn’t have the time to have a discussion about everything; they were just doing what was logical. Travelling in New Westminster on McBride toward the Pattullo Bridge, when you are approaching the bridge you don’t see it because the bridge is on the right side of the road. Seventy years ago somebody decided to build the bridge on the side of the road and build 50 curves toward it. Now you travel to the Port Mann Bridge, which was just completed, and you go a kilometer to the left to go a kilometer to the right to Coquitlam Centre. Nothing changed. My point is that we must start by employing logic: let’s build a new bridge on the extension of McBride, because when you’re driving on McBride you can see the other side of the river, so why is the bridge on the side? Do something with the dead end of McBride on 10th Street. I hear about the difficulty with building tunnels, because it has to be very deep. Vancouver is the perfect place to build tunnels, because every time you build, one end is on the river, where you can load things from the tunnel and use the barge. It’s very easy. It’s the cheapest way of building tunnels, and they have to be very deep because there’s technology… A: Nancy Spooner: I would ask you to leave your comments in the feedback form.

Q: Andrew Feltham: I have a question about Objective 8 in these 2- and 3-lane options: are you going to be tolling that bridge? How would that impact the number of people using it? A: Ian Fisher: Funding for all of these alternatives has not been identified. Project-specific tolling is possible, but TransLink is just starting work on a Regional Transportation Strategy that is exploring funding for all kinds of projects across the region. We’ve heard a lot of concern, particularly from south of the Fraser, that people in one area are having to pay tolls, while people in other parts of the region aren’t. TransLink is trying to see if there’s a more equitable way to generate funding, and that could involve a broader road pricing scheme, as opposed to project-specific tolls. Right now we don’t have any conclusions on that. For the analysis we’ve done here we’ve assumed that we would only be able to afford bridges that could be recovered from tolls set at a level comparable to those on the Port Mann Bridge. C: Andrew Feltham: Traffic volumes would likely go down.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 8 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

A: Ian Fisher: Yes, but not that much. These alternatives are substantially below the maximum cost we could afford based on tolls. We think up to $1-1.5 billion is the maximum we could afford based on tolls. The options with fewer lanes are much less expensive. C: Tom Gibson: I thought the provincial government had repeatedly said that they wouldn’t toll a crossing unless there were untolled alternative crossings. If you toll your crossing, you’re going to have to deal with the provincial government’s often-stated policy. A: Ian Fisher: That’s part of the discussion that’s going to happen in the next year-and-a-half, because there’s recognition that the funding sources for transportation in this region are inadequate. Q: Melinda Michael: Could you repeat that? I didn’t understand what was said. C: Tom Gibson: Christy Clark said, when the Port Mann was going to be tolled, that there was another crossing, the Pattullo, that wasn’t tolled. It was their policy that they would never toll a new crossing unless there were untolled alternatives. A: Nancy Spooner: That’s been a policy for at least 8 years. C: John Mowat: A toll is obviously a political issue; it’s not financial or engineering. It doesn’t matter who was Premier, they’d say the same thing. It takes political will to do that.

Q: Steve Flynn: We’ve been here an hour, and we’re only down to six options. Why are we not only focusing on the six, and instead talking about things that are not going to happen? This is going to take forever. A: Nancy Spooner: In the consultation last year the team heard loud and clear that they were not happy with only being presented with the alternatives that the team thought should move forward. They wanted to see all of the alternatives, all of the work. They wanted to see why certain options weren’t considered. That’s why you see this number of alternatives being put forward in the matrix. In the meetings that I’ve been at, most people have appreciated seeing it all. It’s more than we would normally do in a consultation, but the opposition last spring to only showing the options going forward was loud and clear. Q: Steve Flynn: We have the data here for the ones that are not going forward, if we want to look at it for reference. Why can’t we only discuss the six recommended for further consideration? A: Nancy Spooner: We have to at least reference the ones that are not being recommended so people can know why they’re not being recommended, and have the opportunity to ask questions on that. That is why we have a meeting, as opposed to just providing information online.

C: Andrew Baker: Have you considered things like banning trucks from the Pattullo Bridge, which would help the flow of traffic? In a 3-lane alternative, not allowing trucks on the bridge in the counter-flow period would greatly improve the capacity of the bridge. I’ve been stuck behind trucks that are straddling lanes. Three widened lanes would allow for more flow, because with narrow lanes you can’t go as fast. I question the assumption that three lanes would be less capacity; three widened lanes would have more capacity than four narrow lanes, especially if you do something like ban trucks of a certain size. A: Ian Fisher: We’ve done some analysis of that, and your maximum capacity on the road is usually around 60 kilometres an hour, which is probably pretty close to the speed that most people are driving the bridge, despite a 50 kilometre an hour speed limit. Once you make it easier to drive faster than that, the capacity is likely to increase.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 9 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Marco Murrillo: Does the process being followed have a points system, to evaluate the different options? A: Ian Fisher: No, there’s no points system. We do a “Multiple Account Evaluation,” where we provide information on a range of objectives and decision-makers weigh those objectives. We’re not going to give each objective a numerical weighting and add them up. That’s a heavily value-based judgment.

Q: Alix Cote: With the issue with the width of the bridge, would you still be able to expand the width of the sidewalk for cycling and pedestrians? A: Ian Fisher: Yes, we could easily expand the width of the sidewalk, because it could be cantilevered on the outside of the bridge. C: Steve Flynn: I don’t think that any New Westminster resident should be supporting any version of an improved Pattullo Bridge. All it does it make it easier for through traffic. I think the worst choice it to make the Pattullo wider, or stronger, or faster, or better. C: Brittany Zenger: While there are people who are driving through New Westminster using that bridge, there are people who live in New Westminster who use it. I work in a company of about 100 employees, and about 20 employees commute from New Westminster. About half take transit and half drive. It’s not just people driving through New Westminster using that bridge; people who live in New Westminster appreciate that bridge. C: Steve Flynn: Alternative 19 or nothing.

Q: Alix Cote: Was a new 3-lane bridge considered? It looks like a new 4-lane bridge is the smallest option. A: Ian Fisher: Correct. A 4-lane bridge is the smallest, because we could do a 3-lane bridge quite easily with the rehabilitation of the existing bridge.

Q: John Mowat: What’s the legal status of the McBride and 10th Avenue corridors? Are they owned by the City or by the Province? Who has jurisdiction? If we can’t increase the road size, and entrances and exits, then we might have to change the whole landscape, at least in New Westminster. A: Jerry Behl: Those are major road networks. The City controls them; TransLink assists by providing funding for maintenance. We are constrained with the people-moving capacity of those road networks. C: John Mowat: Let’s say the TransLink decides that there’s going to be a 6-lane bridge, but New Westminster says no, we’re not going to expand McBride Avenue to accommodate 6-lanes of traffic. Does that mean it doesn’t happen, or is there a mechanism whereby it’s going to happen? A: Jerry Behl: This is the mechanism whereby TransLink, Surrey and New Westminster are trying to work this out. Q: John Mowat: So it’s not something that will be forced down our throats? A: Jerry Behl: We’re trying to work nicely with each other. That’s what this is about. C: John Mowat: I absolutely agree that we should, I’m just trying to understand more about the process.

C: Tom Gibson: John brought up the topic of 10th Avenue. For five years, I commuted home by turning off of Marine, going up Burn Road, and then getting on 10th Avenue and sitting and waiting 30 minutes to get to Cumberland. That stretch just before McBride, where there’s on-street parking

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 10 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

allowed, is particularly frustrating. It’s understandable, because the houses there don’t have lanes to park in. All that traffic on 10th has to narrow down to one lane. When I didn’t want to get on the Pattullo Bridge, but keep on going to Cumberland, it was always particularly frustrating. That’s an example of what will get considerably worse if there’s six or eight lanes on the Pattullo Bridge without those connectors being redone, without 10th becoming four lanes.

C: Errol Flynn: What you must consider when looking at any alternative is the anticipated growth in Surrey. That’s going to impact the whole situation; you must plan for that. A: Ian Fisher: It’s something that we’re considering. The upside is that as Surrey gains more jobs, there would be more capability for people to live and work in Surrey. It might be more people from New Westminster living and working in Surrey, as we’re already hearing from some people. It may balance out. It’s something that’s considered in this process.

C: Andrew Feltham: I’d like to go back to the question of tolls. The question of how many lanes you build on a bridge needs to be driven by how much you pay to use it. If it’s free, lots of people will want to use it and you will need lots of lanes, and I think most people here would agree that’s unacceptable for New Westminster. If you do toll it, as we’ve seen with the Golden Ears Bridge, you may not need as many lanes as anticipated. I think the question of tolls must be answered before deciding on the number of lanes. A: Ian Fisher: There’s a lot of financial analysis that’s done, and traffic analysis, to see people’s response to tolls and what kind of traffic volumes you’d get. With the Golden Ears Bridge, it’s an area that had a poor connection before with the Albion Ferry. With the Pattullo Bridge corridor, there’s a history of getting across the river, so there’s probably more certainty about the traffic volumes. C: Brittany Zenger: People get jobs where they get jobs, and frequently live in family units where there’s more than one person working. My husband and I live in New Westminster. He works downtown, so he takes transit to work because it’s easy. I work in an industrial area in Surrey, so I drive. There will be more jobs in Surrey, there will be more traffic going both ways. The reality of having multiple centres of employment is that there are people who have to travel longer distances. People can’t move right next to their job because there is someone else who works 30 kilometres away and lives in the same household. There will be traffic generated. You can’t simply live where you work.

Q: Christie Man: Will feeder roads and infrastructure change be part of the project budget? A: Nancy Spooner: When the options going forward are being considered, will the cost of connector roads be considered in the budget? A: Jerry Behl: They must be.

C: Nancy Spooner: Ian, do you want explain the reason for the cost and depth of the tunnels? Marek said they were the cheapest option. C: Ian Fisher: We had our engineers look at the ground conditions under the river. At this location, there’s a deep layer of sediment that’s quite loose, so the expectation is that the tunnel would have to be quite deep to get under the sediment for safe tunneling. These cost estimates are the best guess of our engineers.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 11 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

C: Angela Sealy: Considering we have about 100 earthquakes a year, a tunnel might not be the safest thing. I’m glad it’s not recommended. Q: John Mowat: The Massey Tunnel, further down the river, surely has more sediment? A: Ian Fisher: The Massey Tunnel was built by sinking sections into the river. With the slope on the New West side, the tunnel must be bored. I suppose you could do some sort of compromise in which it was sunk in the middle and bored under the city. We’ve heard people suggest at previous events that we build a bridge, but have a tunnel on the New West side. Q: Richard Berrow: How does the cost of the tunnel compare to the cost of the Canada Line tunnel under False Creek? A: Ian Fisher: SkyTrain tunnels are a much smaller diameter, so it’s cheaper to do that than the large bored tunnels you need to handle road traffic. Q: Richard Berrow: They were bored? A: Ian Fisher: Yes. Bored and quite short. They tunneled under downtown Vancouver using the same technique. C: John Mowat: The federal government contributed to the Canada Line tunnel. Q: Richard Berrow: Is it TransLink’s expectation that we won’t have similar tunnels built in the future, to benefit other communities? A: Ian Fisher: The Evergreen Line has a 2.5 kilometre tunnel to get through the escarpment above Port Moody. It’s being bored because it’s so deep under the escarpment that they have to bore it. It’s essentially cutting off the corner of the escarpment. Q: Richard Berrow: Is the cost similar to the tunnel options here? A: Ian Fisher: No, it’s a fair bit cheaper, but it’s also a bit shorter than these would be, and can have a smaller diameter. It’s a lot easier to ventilate a tunnel for electrical trains than it is for a road tunnel. A: Jerry Behl: With the cost of tunneling, would New Westminster residents rather see that money spent on mitigation? For example, cut-and-cover on McBride or Royal. C: Steve Flynn: Aren’t we still going to have all this traffic coming through, and it’s going to be stuck on 8th and 10th? So we make a nice tunnel, and it’s cut and cover until McBride and 6th. At a certain point, when the traffic surfaces, we’re going to have that traffic backed up, and it will be backed up in a tunnel. C: Nancy Spooner: The details on the connections will be in the next round. C: Andrew Feltham: If we’re talking about spending billions of dollars, that money should be spent on transit in Surrey, not on tunnels that will just get plugged up again. That’s too much money to spend on road infrastructure.

Q: Steve Flynn: If the Surrey-Coquitlam bridge was chosen, would the Surrey connection to the bridge be from the South Fraser Perimeter Road? A: Ian Fisher: The detailed connections aren’t established yet, but connecting from the SFPR is certainly a consideration. Q: Steve Flynn: At the next meeting, that information will be provided to us? How realistic that is? A: Ian Fisher: Yes. If we don’t provide a direct connection, traffic is going to find its way through neighbourhoods in Surrey, potentially causing impacts there. C: Steve Flynn: That will also resolve the Bailey Bridge issue for New Westminster and Coquitlam.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 12 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

A: Ian Fisher: One of Coquitlam’s interests is making sure that all of the issues with the Bailey Bridge and Highway 1 and Burnett and Braid are all resolved, otherwise they probably aren’t going to be very enthusiastic about this alternative. C: Steve Flynn: They could maybe ban trucks on the Pattullo Bridge at the same time. A: Ian Fisher: It’s been suggested before. Q: Andrew Feltham: Is the intention to connect that to Highway 1 or United Boulevard? A: Ian Fisher: Definitely to United Boulevard, that’s what the cost is based on. Connections to Highway 1 or Lougheed Highway would be additional. C: Andrew Feltham: Aren’t you going to have the same capacity questions as on the other side there? A: Ian Fisher: If it ends on United Boulevard. C: Andrew Feltham: If you don’t go to Highway 1 you don’t have the cost of the new interchange. A: Ian Fisher: Correct, but it may not be meeting the objectives because it wouldn’t be that useful a crossing. We’ll be discussing that in the next few months.

Q: Richard Berrow: Is there currently traffic that goes from Coquitlam to downtown Surrey? A: Ian Fisher: There isn’t a direct link, but there’s traffic between every part of the region. C: Richard Berrow: In rejecting that alternative, you mention the New Westminster traffic bound for downtown Surrey. You don’t have to go to Coquitlam to access that bridge. It seems obvious that it would eliminate traffic that has to come to New Westminster to get to downtown Surrey. A: Ian Fisher: The through traffic. It would inconvenience some more local trips, and benefit some of the through trips. Q: Richard Berrow: Why evaluate the alternative and emphasize one stream of traffic and not the other? A: Ian Fisher: At the moment, we’re trying to ensure that existing users of this crossing have a good crossing in the future. If we can provide additional connections that benefit the region, that’s good, but we want to focus on replacing or rehabilitating the existing bridge, and meeting the demand that it currently serves. C: Richard Berrow: If the bridge is currently carrying any significant volume of traffic from Coquitlam that’s coming to New West then that traffic would find it was needed to have a Coquitlam connection. A: Ian Fisher: That’s why we want to evaluate it further. C: Richard: This matrix just talks about the aspect that favours keeping Pattullo, and seems avoid aspects of that that might favour other alternatives. A: Ian Fisher: It’s in the evaluation, under Alternative 19. The benefits of having two corridors are there, including increasing accessibility for both New Westminster and Coquitlam. C: Richard Berrow: I’m talking about the single alternative. You reject the single alternative, saying that it’s going to move traffic from New Westminster to Coquitlam, but you don’t say that it will facilitate traffic from Coquitlam to Surrey, without coming through New Westminster. I think that there’s a reason that’s omitted.

Q: John Mowat: Clarification of Alternative 19: the plan currently goes as far as the United Boulevard, but not the freeway? The freeway is only a few hundred yards away. A: Ian Fisher: The property requirements to build that connection and resolve that whole Brunette- Braid interchange, because they’re all so close together, would require a comprehensive redo of

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 13 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

that interchange that would be quite expensive. With the old dump and a few other constraints it’s quite a challenging area to deal with. C: John Mowat: Otherwise, keep the 2-lane Pattullo Bridge with bike lanes and pedestrian lanes, but also have the Sapperton crossing.

Q: Manjinder Moore: Question on the 10th Avenue and McBride and the Bailey Bridge: Is the North Fraser Perimeter Road part of this analysis? Should we include this in our comments and feedback? A: Ian Fisher: We’re not consulting on the North Fraser Perimeter Road. It’s not being pursued in the form that it was presented in before, with the United Boulevard extension. Elements of it may be seen as good ways of mitigating some of the impacts of the Pattullo Bridge traffic, so some of that may reenter the discussion. C: Nancy Spooner: I would encourage you to include comments on it in your feedback form.

C: Steve Flynn: If we’re worried about keeping that Highway 1 connection trying to go into the Fraser Valley, you would just stay on the South Fraser Perimetre Road and get on it at 176th. There would be no point in getting on the Pattullo to get back to Highway 1 if going east. Heading west, they would presumably head north to Deltaport and the United States. I don’t think the Highway 1 connection at Coquitlam would be necessary.

C: Fred Herfst: I have a comment on the costs for the project. General taxation: we know intellectually that we must all pay for what we use. Emotionally we don’t make the connection, so things appear to be free. I would recommend that, although it’s politically problematic, you press senior levels of government for a toll on all bridge crossings, to avoid this business of trying to run from one free spot to another. You begin to achieve the objective of reducing unnecessary traffic. Have a rational plan for all bridge crossings in the Lower Mainland, for replacement in relation to revenues generated.

C: Dan Leslie: I’m used to having user fees for transit services, and it’s about time that people who use roads start paying for what they actually cost. I also pay for those, and you hear all the time about transit users being freeloaders; I’m not, I’m a tax payer like the rest of you. These options talk about walking and cycling, but there isn’t much in these plans for transit expansion, like a 3-lane bridge where the middle lane is devoted to transit or increased routes over the Pattullo, and servicing the area south of Fraser, which is currently underserved. I’m sure there are people commuting south of the Fraser, who would like to do so by transit, but don’t because there isn’t enough capacity. SkyTrain is an awful experience that is underserved; I’m noticing this report is continuing to underserve it. Please alleviate my concerns by telling me that you have looked into this. C: Ian Fisher: We assume that the Skybridge is the transit link in this corridor, and running busses over the Pattullo Bridge is not absolutely essential. Given travel times, it’s more desirable to use SkyTrain. On the issue of crowding and comfort, TransLink does have other projects underway looking at upgrading the Expo Line with more capacity and better trains and facilities. That’s likely to be part and parcel of the Regional Transportation Strategy that people will likely be voting on next November.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 14 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

Q: Marco Murrillo: Tree Island is a great option. If there is a way to assess the impact of having more options, versus increasing capacity, apply that methodology. The more options there are to cross, the better the traffic will be on each one. C: Nancy Spooner: So more crossings, with less capacity on each one. C: Marco Murrillo: Yes, that will probably happen. And diverting the traffic from the industrial area of Burnaby – Marine Drive – to Richmond and Delta, using the multiple connector in that corner of Richmond. A: Nancy Spooner: You know that the Tree Island option is not being recommended for further study, because it hasn’t been endorsed by Richmond. C: Marco Murrillo: I wouldn’t recommend that. C: Nancy Spooner: Make sure you put that in your feedback form.

Q: John Mowat: There’s a trend in recommendations: there’s five possible options for the Pattullo crossings, and one other crossing that’s recommended for further evaluation. Are all recommendations equal? A: Ian Fisher: They’re all equal at this point. All of them include a crossing at the existing location. Other than that, there’s no leading contender. C: John Mowat: It looks like we will probably always have some sort of Pattullo Bridge option, whether it’s two lanes, or a pedestrian crossing, as much as some of us might like to see the bridge go. If you look at other things that have been done in Vancouver, back in the late ‘50s, they destroyed the Marpole community by building the Oak Street Bridge. That was the wrong way to do it. If you go back to the early ’70s, when the decision was made in Vancouver not to put the freeway through downtown, like in Seattle, that has led to an unusually livable downtown core, which is known around the world as Vancouverism. Whatever you do, it’s about livability. If just a bridge that gets plunked down, it won’t work for anybody.

C: Angela Sealy: I’d like to thank Fred for mentioning what he just said about tolling all the bridges. Let’s just toll it and be done with it. I would like to add a marquee, so when you pay your toll you see the price coming down. When the Coquihalla was tolled, everyone said it would never go away. Now it has gone away because it’s essentially been paid for. I’m not sure if we need a bus going across the bridge. In keeping with trying to reduce the commuters, because now you’re talking about behavior change, which is very hard, why not add a high-occupancy vehicle lane? The high- occupancy vehicle lane could be used by trucks and vehicles with more than one passenger. That might help to expedite the movement of people, as they go across the bridge. It would be better than having the parking lot situation that we experience. A: Ian Fisher: A common thing to do is a “queue jumper,” where you have a short HOV lane before the congestion. That’s challenging with this bridge, because there are so many approaches.

C: Andrew Feltham: I was part of this process a year ago, and I was very frustrated with the options that were presented. Thank you for this current process. It’s much better.

C: Melinda Michael: What I’m hearing is “if we build it, they will come.” I don’t want that. I live on Royal and 8th, so I know the traffic patterns, and traffic is getting worse even from December, when the Port Mann Bridge opened, to now. If the objective is livability and encouraging alternative

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 15 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Inn at the Quay 900 Quayside Drive , New Westminster, B.C.

modes of transport, a new bridge isn’t the answer. You must toll all the bridges; if not, you’re favouring certain areas and people will shift their traffic patterns accordingly.

Q: Barry Slocombe: What’s the provincial government’s appetite for tolling? A: Renee Mounteney: Currently, the policy is that tolling gets put in place to pay for the cost of new construction. I couldn’t speak for the new government, so as far as I know the policy in place ensures that there is still free access. Q: Barry Slocombe: So it primarily focuses on new construction? A: Renee Mounteney: That’s primarily been the case so far. As far as I know there’s no specific policy on new versus rehabilitated structures. C: Nancy Spooner: The only policy that exists is that there can only be a toll if there’s another alternative that’s free.

C: Angela Sealy: Rehabilitating a structure often costs more than a new build, and it’s seldom as secure. I would never vote for rehabilitating something as old as the Pattullo Bridge.

C: Todd Beernink: I’m a daily bike commuter over the Pattullo Bridge. I have a suggestion: could you hire someone to sweep the sidewalk? I’m just afraid I’m going to hit something and fall into a truck.

3. Closing Remarks – Nancy Spooner Nancy Spooner wrapped up the meeting, thanked participants for their time and encouraged participants to complete the feedback form and encourage friends and others to participate.

The record notes that the small group meeting ended at 8:02 p.m.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation New Westminster Small Group Meeting – June 19, 2013 Page 16 of 16 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

Notes from a Small Group Meeting for the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation PURPOSE held on June 25, 2013 at the City Centre Library, Surrey.

FACILITATOR Judy Kirk, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd.

Tim Binnema Grant Crawford Doug Hagglund Sigrid Hagglund Bernadette Keenan ATTENDEES Rick McAlary Rob McCurdy Andrea Mears Sonia Nazar Gary Robinson Maya Russell Kevin Vanderleek Brian Woudstra

Geoff Cross, TransLink Laurel Johnston, TransLink PROJECT TEAM Eugene Wat, City of New Westminster ATTENDEES Paul Lee, City of Surrey Geoff Freer, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Observer) Laura Abbott, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd., Meeting Recorder

1. Welcome and Introduction AGENDA 2. Discussion 3. Closing Remarks

RECURRING THEMES

 Some participants said the only way to move people sensibly is to increase public transit: more SkyTrains and more busses.  Some participants said that the regional goal of having most trips by walking, cycling and transit is questionable.  Some participants said that all levels of government are not building appropriate infrastructure to manage transportation demand in the longer term.  Some participants questioned whether North Fraser Perimeter Road was still being considered.  Some participants were concerned that there are not sufficient connecting roads to handle more capacity than a rehabilitated or new 4-lane bridge.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 1 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

 Some participants agreed that Alternative 19 should be recommended for further evaluation.  Some participants suggested a direct link between South Fraser Perimeter Road and the new Port Mann would take trucks off of the Pattullo Bridge.

The record notes that the meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m.

DISCUSSION

(Abbreviations will be used and mean – Q: Question, A: Answer, C: Comment)

1. Welcome and Introduction – Judy Kirk Judy Kirk welcomed participants to the small group meeting and explained the format of the meeting. Judy informed participants that the small group meeting was being recorded for accuracy, would include attribution, and that the meeting notes would form part of the consultation record. The Pattullo Bridge Review team members introduced themselves.

2. Discussion – Geoff Cross Geoff Cross reviewed key sections of the Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Discussion Guide and answered questions from participants as he went through the Discussion Guide.

C: Sonia Nazar: I recommend completing the feedback form online, because they actually clearly state if you agree, check something. Going through [the printed guide] it seems to be the opposite. Online it really clearly shows if you agree, and if you disagree. C: Gary Robinson: I came here to fill in the feedback form; I couldn’t do it online.

Q: Andrea Mears: Who is on the TransLink board? A: Geoff Cross: TransLink’s board is appointed by the Mayors’ Council. There are nine members of the board. They are private members, so they make recommendations, they set policy… Q: Andrea Mears: These are elected officials? A: Geoff Cross: No. Q: Andrea Mears: So Mayors can appoint anybody to the TransLink board, which we then pay for with our taxes, but it’s an unelected board? A: Geoff Cross: Correct. Just like a city manager. A: Judy Kirk: The members of the Mayors’ Council, which is also part of TransLink’s governance structure, are elected in their communities, not as individual entities. Q: Andrea Mears: If we were to have a negative outcome for municipalities in terms of this consultation process, our Mayors would be the people who are ultimately responsible, who we could hold accountable? A: Judy Kirk: You could, but it would probably be inaccurate to think that they’re ultimately accountable. They make the key funding decisions. A: Geoff Cross: If a bridge required new funding, or if it required new connection in either New West or Surrey, or Richmond or Coquitlam, it would require the consent of those municipalities, as well as TransLink. If it requires additional funding, something that TransLink cannot afford in its Base

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 2 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

Plan, either through new taxation – road pricing, tolls, fuel tax, property tax – the Mayors’ Council has to approve it. A: Judy Kirk: The government has also announced that it thinks that there should be a referendum in the 2014 municipal election on the collection of projects that TransLink has planned for the next 15 years. It is a complicated governance model, but there are opportunities for you to hold people accountable.

Q: Rick McAlary: If TransLink owns the Pattullo Bridge, who is TransLink? A: Geoff Cross: TransLink is a government-created agency. Its governance is owned by the Province, and it was created in collaboration with GVRD, now called Metro Vancouver, and the mayors. It is a government agency that is responsible for the bridge, for the transit system and for 2300 kilometres of major road network, which is by mandate in the provincial legislation. C: Gary Robinson: The governance of TransLink is a challenge politically for all sorts of people. There are different sides, depending on your political perspective. My perspective is that it’s probably not accountable to anybody, because it should be elected. C: Andrea Mears: Yeah, if we’re paying for it. C: Gary Robinson: But that’s not TransLink’s problem. That’s really not even the city’s problem; it’s a provincial issue. The cities should demand that be changed.

Q: Sigrid Hagglund: When I go over the bridge in the evening, there is only one lane open each way. Is that due to construction or is that due to safety? A: Geoff Cross: It’s due to safety. There were a number of safety issues in the early 2000s, where we were having a number of fatalities. The major cause was excessive speed and drinking at night, when there’s not much volume. We closed those lanes to keep the speed down at night. Q: Kevin Vanderleek: Was it designed to be a 4- or a 2-lane bridge initially? A: Geoff Cross: It was initially three lanes, but it was converted a long time ago.

Q: Maya Russell: Is suicide prevention part of the mandate in deciding the future of the bridge? It’s a common place for jumpers; is that a factor in the design? A: Geoff Cross: Absolutely. There are standards for that. Q: Sonia Nazar: So if you upgraded or rehabilitated the bridge, you would put that in the design? A: Geoff Cross: There are standards for that, and for mitigating or trying to deter suicides. C: Sonia Nazar: They’re jumping off the train bridge, from what I’m hearing. That’s another issue.

Q: Grant Crawford: I worked in Richmond, and any time there was an accident on one of the main thoroughfares, everything stopped. Is there any consideration being given to that sort of situation, where there’s gridlock as a result of a major accident. A: Judy Kirk: You’re asking if part of this is to look at alternatives; if one route is shut down by an accident, then the Pattullo would be able to carry the diverted traffic? A: Geoff Cross: There are two dimensions that we’re going to try and capture, which are stated in Objective 6: reliable access and predictable travel times. On the facility itself: if there’s an accident or some sort of delay are there ways to clear it, and get it up and running quickly. That can be the configuration and the number of lanes, etc. What you’re talking about is the system level: we would definitely try and do that, looking at the connections and capacity. It’s not easy.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 3 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

C: Grant Crawford: You’re projecting massive population increases on south side of the bridge. As long as job creation in Surrey matches population growth, then everything will be fine. If the job growth is still in Vancouver, Burnaby and New West, then we’re still in trouble. We don’t need one bridge, we need six!

Q: Gary Robinson: The first objective talks about moving toward a regional goal of having most trips by walking, cycling or transit. On the next page it talks about 54% growth for Surrey between now and 2041, and I think we heard recently that there’s more growth predicted than that. Is “most trips by walking, cycling or transit” a regional goal that TransLink believes should be forced on people, or is it a reaction? Are there any statistics that suggest that if we have 45% growth, there will be a certain percentage of people who will take transit or cycle or walk? C: Judy Kirk: The first question is about the priority for cycling and walking, correct? Q: Gary Robinson: Yes, is that a response or a goal? Is that a response to statistics that say people want to do that, or is it a goal that people need to be convinced to do that? A: Geoff Cross: From a policy side, it’s probably a bit of both. The Province has goals around mode share that are driven by performance (seeing it as a solution), driven by environmental goals, and driven by health goals. From TransLink’s side, setting a goal of most trips by walking, cycling or transit was a goal that was consulted on with the region and with the mayors. We’ve had strong policy support from the regional mayors, and we’re consulting with them again currently on the Regional Transportation Strategy around this goal. There’s been strong support for that. Q: Gary Robinson: When the Pattullo Bridge was built in 1937, they may have projected the lifespan of the bridge. Do we know how accurate that was to the growth that the bridge created? The bridge creates the growth. The Golden Ears Bridge wasn’t put there to ease traffic problems; it was put there to create growth at both ends of the bridge. This area is already developed, so it doesn’t serve that goal. What’s the goal with the bridge? If it’s to move people, how are the people going to move? Will it be by busses, transit or bikes, or will they continue to go to jobs in vehicles? That’s a fundamental question to what type of bridge is built, and that influences where the bridge goes. A: Geoff Cross: I think you’ve hit on the tension in doing the evaluation. A: Paul Lee: 51% of trips made by walking, cycling, or transit is an aspirational goal from Surrey’s point-of-view. This is something that the region wants to move towards, and it is supported by elected officials. Can you put the 50% in parts of Surrey; is it really applicable for this bridge? We’re not sure. We’re talking about 30 years down the line. We’d like to see more people taking transit, and with good facilities people will walk and bike. We’re not quite sure if we’ll meet the 50% that will govern the planning of this bridge; that’s why we’re working on it at this point. It’s an aspirational goal. C: Gary Robinson: The thought is, “where are people travelling to?” People who are going to walk, cycle and transit may not be doing it to leave Surrey, they’ll do it within Surrey. People who travel across the bridge are doing it for different reasons. C: Brian Woudstra: I think these are really good objectives. There’s one way to do it, and that’s public transit. One of the biggest problems we have in the Lower Mainland is that there’s not enough public transit. I hope that this consultation will lead to a conclusion that the only sensible way to move people around, without spending excessive money or time, is to increase public transit. We’ve got to increase the backbone of transit, which is SkyTrain, and triple or quadruple our busses. That costs money, but we can save money by not building a new bridge. Turn the existing bridge into bike and bus or just bikes. We’ve got to take steps in that direction, because we keep

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 4 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

reinforcing private single occupancy vehicles; we just built a 10-lane bridge for the same reason. These are really good objectives that can only be fulfilled through a decent, deliberate, large, frequent public transit system, where I can leave my car at home.

Q: Sigrid Hagglund: With walking and cycling towards the Pattullo Bridge, I could see it if they were developing the Bridgeview area, but that doesn’t seem to be in any plan. They’re developing between 108th and 96th Avenue, but there’s still a big gap of nothing. Is there a plan to develop that area with high-rises? It’s currently low-rise there. What’s the plan for Bridgeview? A: Paul Lee: Are you talking about along King George Boulevard? C: Sigrid Hagglund: Along King George Boulevard, from the Pattullo Bridge up to 96th. A: Paul Lee: The City Centre boundary is at 108th Avenue. North of 108th toward New Westminster, I don’t think there’s been a neighbourhood plan done for some time. Similarly to the Bridgeview area, I don’t think there’s been a neighbourhood plan done to look at uses of the land, population, and infrastructure and facilities. If we come to a conclusion about what kind of bridge we’re going to be providing, I hope there will be a reexamination of the uses of the land: should it be high-rises, should it be industrial, should it be commercial? Those things will be addressed. C: Sigrid Hagglund: I live in Bolivar Heights. Right now, there’s going to be no way I’m biking down through that area, to go across to New Westminster. C: Sonia Nazar: They are going to transit and they are going to bus. I work with a lot of university students, and the idea of these high-rises being centralized to SkyTrain stations is that people can get out of their cars and they can SkyTrain. A: Sigrid Hagglund: If that’s the plan, absolutely. I work downtown and I see people biking to work across the Cambie Bridge and the Burrard Bridge. We built offices on one side and residential on the other, so people go back and forth. I don’t see that around the Pattullo Bridge. C: Maya Russell: I also like the Objectives, but I see the disconnect in our first three goals. None of proposals really address that. Only through significant generational investment in transit, will we accomplish those goals. Right now we’re going in the wrong direction. C: Andrea Mears: I think Brian’s right about transit as well. I work in Vancouver and a lot of my coworkers live in Surrey and taking the SkyTrain is so expensive for them. We have free parking at the office. They say, “Why would I take the SkyTrain? I’ve got to get to the SkyTrain and then pay for multiple zones.” It’s not a cost-effective way for them to get to work right now.

C: Rick McAlary: I started cycling the Pattullo Bridge in 1986 from Kitsilano. I only came once a week and it was a big hassle, since infrastructure wasn’t such that you could cycle – there were no bike lanes. The Pattullo Bridge is not conducive to cycling. When I moved to Surrey in 1987, I lived in the Central City area. I used to take the bus at 5:15 a.m. I’d have to walk to Central City to take the bus to Vancouver to get to my job in Maple Ridge. I would get to work at 10:15, work 8 hours, and get home at 11 p.m. Our transit system is very poor. We are going to have to move goods. If you don’t move goods, you don’t increase your infrastructure, it doesn’t matter how many busses you have you’re still going to have a traffic jam. We tend to think very short term, our roads are narrow. We don’t have wide boulevards or widening of the roads. We’re at a good stage now where we’re doing this, and hopefully we can learn from it and move forward. We need to fix our roads. My biggest thing is trucks going across the Pattullo Bridge; it’s affecting King George Boulevard. You can see it in the deteriorating road quality over the past ten years. Traffic is huge; the minute the toll went in on the Port Mann, there was much more traffic on the Pattullo Bridge. Trucks aren’t

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 5 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

going to pay the big toll. The cost of goods is going to go up; we’re already complaining about the cost of goods going up, because the cost of fuel is going up. We do need transit, but it’s far from adequate. You still need both transit and infrastructure for it to work. C: Tim Binnema: I wanted to address the daunting nature of the bicycle ride. I bike to SkyTrain, but I have friends who bike across the Pattullo Bridge from Fleetwood to work in New West. That’s with the current infrastructure. Once you start, you say it’s efficient and not nearly as bad as you thought. I have biked for the past six years and I can’t believe I didn’t do it before.

Q: Kevin Vanderleek: This isn’t so much an objective as a value, has there been any value put in to the heritage of the bridge? Does that have any bearing? A: Judy Kirk: Does the bridge have a heritage value? Is it being taken into consideration? A: Geoff Cross: It’s iconic. It has been taken into account that for any bridge that we do – whether new or rehabilitated –the aesthetics of the bridge are important. There is no formal historical designation.

Q: Grant Crawford: Has a study been done as to the destination of most northbound traffic? Is it typically just Surrey to New Westminster? Or is it going to Burnaby or Vancouver? Where does the majority of the traffic go? A: Geoff Cross: We’re working on it. We have a general sense, but we’ve done a lot more work in the past few months to try and get a better understanding of the personal traffic and the goods movement. We’ve been doing truck surveys to understand their origin and destination, and what they’re carrying if they’re cargo. TransLink and the region undertake a trip diary every couple of years, so we do have some reasonable information on origins and destinations, but we’re trying to do a more intensive study for this corridor, so we’re just getting that information now. A: Judy Kirk: A summary will be available in the next phase of consultation, which will be in the fall.

C: Rob McCurdy: A new bridge is not going to resolve the issues that you have as Objectives. If you look at when the Alex Fraser Bridge was developed, it simply provided the ability for more people to live on the south side of the river, because of cheaper housing, and to travel to the north side of the river for work. We don’t have the government wherewithal, regional or otherwise; the market dictates where houses will be built. Bridges artificially modify the market by making it accessible. On page 9, it says “manage transportation demand before increasing capacity.” Until there is a way invented to manage origin and destination in particular. I wonder, how many businesses could we have relocated if we spend $3.28 billion moving people closer to where they work, and replenishing and replacing those relocated developments with residential developments so people can live closer to where they work. It comes down to affordability; a new bridge is going to have an impact on land cost. A new bridge is not a solution. We have an unsafe, old bridge and when a new bridge replaces that, it’s going to fill up. The Alex Fraser Bridge filled up almost the day it was opened. Any new bridge, other than those that have tolls on them, will fill up. People are forced, due to economics, to live on the south side of the river and travel to the north side for work.

Q: Gary Robinson: Who takes the options recommended for further consideration off of the table? A: Geoff Cross: Elected officials, in collaboration with TransLink’s Board. Q: Gary Robinson: If Burnaby and Richmond don’t like the landing point of the Tree Island alternative, it’s still on here?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 6 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

A: Geoff Cross: That will be at the next stage. Right now, these are not positions. They are ideas that were put forward to give guidance to the elected officials and our Board. A: Judy Kirk: After this consultation, depending on feedback and the ongoing financial and technical review, either it will be the six options that go forward to elected officials for further consideration, or some other combination. C: Gary Robinson: There’s the economic question, there’s the viability question, there’s the opposition question. A: Judy Kirk: What you’ll see is that the Tree Island alternative, while here, is not recommended for further consideration. Unless there was a lot of feedback that said it should. Q: Gary Robinson: So if there’s no feedback that says “please keep this,” it won’t be considered further? A: Judy Kirk: Probably, yes. A: Geoff Cross: It would go to the Councils as well; Surrey and New West would provide feedback. We’re looking for direction from them.

C: Gary Robinson: You have no bridge, which in my opinion is not a good idea. However, you don’t have an option that says pedestrian-only bridge. A: Geoff Cross: As it stands, this would be rehabilitating the existing bridge for biking and walking, and no other new bridge (page 15). C: Unknown: I support that.

Q: Doug Hagglund: Wouldn’t it save time and misinformation if the municipalities that are interested in having a bridge came forward, and expressed their interest? All of this is irrelevant, until somebody says you can do it. A: Geoff Cross: I think that’s where we’re at right now. The partners, the City of New West, the City of Surrey, TransLink… C: Doug Hagglund: Judging by where these other bridges are or might want to be… For instance Burnaby, they don’t want to touch it… We’re looking at two to three options at best. A: Geoff Cross: Of the six that are proposed, the communities that would be directly impacted are Surrey, New Westminster and Coquitlam. Q: Doug Hagglund: How does Coquitlam feel about that? A: Geoff Cross: They’ve shown some interest; the City Council is interested in looking at it in more detail. A: Judy Kirk: With all of the meetings that we’ve had, there isn’t any question that people understand that something needs to be done with the Pattullo Bridge. What of these 25 alternatives, or some other combination, is going to meet what people think is reasonable. C: Gary Robinson: Delta has a tradition of realizing that the traffic that flows through their city isn’t really their responsibility. Surrey’s roads are four lanes up to Delta, and then go down to two, with speed bumps. Wouldn’t it be more important to decide where the traffic is coming from and going to, then decided who would be impacted by it? Coquitlam may want to consider it, but if they realize they’re going to get a lot of transient traffic through their community, they may not be happy about it in the end. An origin/destination study seems like it would be the most important first step. A: Geoff Cross: We have a good sense, but we want more detail. The vast majority of trips are either beginning in Surrey, Burnaby or New West. The Pattullo Bridge is serving as a strong regional

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 7 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

connection. A new bridge, like a Surrey-Coquitlam bridge, would take more study to understand where traffic is coming from and where it would divert. A: Judy Kirk: There have been questions about the level of analysis on a shorter list. Given the shortage of funds, and desire to move forward, the partnership is asking if the six they’ve selected for further consideration make sense.

Q: Grant Crawford: Would a new or rehabilitated crossing be funded by tolls? A: Judy Kirk: How will the project be funded? A: Geoff Cross: There is an assumption that it would be funded by tolls. Right now we’re focused on finding the best alternative, but we’re not blind to the idea of tolls. We will be testing the demand if this was a tolled facility, which is per one of the objectives, to manage demand. It is a regional policy to manage demand. A: Judy Kirk: It would be helpful to ensure people understand that whatever shortlist comes out of this consultation will end up going into a regional plan. A: Geoff Cross: We’re just starting to consult with elected officials on a 30-year regional plan; it will bring forward a 15-year investment plan early next year that will probably go to referendum. It will look at funding in general. It could include system-wide road pricing or tolls on bridges. We don’t know at this point. C: Rick McAlary: On page 9, it says “development of the replacement bridge on the basis of the ability to collect tolls.” A: Geoff Cross: For purposes of costing, we want to put forward an alternative that could recoup the cost via tolls.

Q: Rob McCurdy: The capacity of a road network is only as good as its weakest link. Has the capacity of the north side highway and King George Boulevard been assessed to see if it could handle anything more than a 4-lane bridge? If don’t have capacity to handle a bridge wider than 4-lanes, is it worthwhile to explore anything beyond that? A: Geoff Cross: One of the questions is still around what you’re connecting to. Connections are still to be determined, since connections could be changed from what exists currently. That is a consideration, and it’s a point that’s come up in New West. We will look at it in much greater detail in traffic analysis. A: Paul Lee: Looking at what’s coming down Petersons Hill on King George is a real concern for Surrey. There’s no point in adding capacity, if you don’t have capacity on both ends. You’ve got to be careful talking about laning on the bridge. Theoretically, a 6-lane bridge has more capacity than a 4- lane bridge. However, bridge laning is often for movements, for example trucks and high- occupancy vehicles. Added extra lanes is not necessarily just for capacity, it’s for movement. Analysis will bring out some of these options. A: Eugene Wat: New Westminster is certainly concerned with congestion. We’re looking at not only the approach ramps, but the broader road network on both sides of the bridge. There is a need to ensure that there is the ability to move, otherwise you’re just moving a congestion point and it won’t achieve objectives for the movement of people or goods. C: Maya Russell: That’s my concern with alternatives 7, 8, and 9. I don’t see how they can feasibly be on the table. I dispute how they’ve been evaluated. There is already an effect on livability. There are neighbourhoods on lockdown during rush hour. There are entire neighbourhoods you can’t enter because of the arterial roadway you have to cross, and that’s with 4-lanes. It’s bad. We don’t

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 8 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

have the road network in New Westminster. It’s not just the connecting points; it’s the entire road network. We just don’t have the capacity for additional traffic. C: Andrea Mears: I agree with Maya. These cost estimates are ridiculous, because they don’t take into account the amount of money required to improve connections. There needs to be something done on the road; the costs would have to go up. A: Judy Kirk: It clearly states that costs don’t include connections. C: Andrea Mears: It’s hard to look at the options without that information. It would be nice to have a new bridge, but we also have to live there. C: Brian Woudstra: The number of lanes required for capacity and movement goes down with increased public transit. I realize that you have to move trucks and goods, but by definition increasing transit means the number of lanes go down. Things are shifting in Metro Van; we have a density like Europe, so we can do what Europe does. There’s a shift away from Vancouver. Don’t only think about northward movement. It’s a whole network in the Lower Mainland that we have to pay attention to, including out to Abbotsford and Hope. Hopefully there will be dense town centres that we can link, and within the town centres we have networks. That’s the direction we have to think about.

Q: Rick McAlary: Will the South Fraser Perimeter Road connect to the Pattullo Bridge, or the new bridge? A: Geoff Cross: We will be looking at that. C: Rick McAlary: I see a lot of trucks going through Surrey. An alternative is keeping the existing bridge to three lanes, with light traffic, and pedestrian and/or bike. The pedestrian and/or bike would have to be integrated in a safe way. Put in a new bridge around the north arm for feeding the bridge, which would allow the trucks. We already have the Port Mann Bridge taking trucks to Coquitlam; we have the Alex Fraser Bridge for Richmond and that area. A north arm would feed toward Burnaby, and where the truck traffic needs to go that is currently going via the Pattullo Bridge.

C: Sigrid Hagglund: Europe has come up quite a bit. You’ve got to look at the price of gas in Europe, which forces people out of their cars. Another thing that they have in Europe is the perimeter road. I think it’s ridiculous to have the bridge going through McBride Boulevard, since it cuts the residential area in half. You’ve got the South Perimeter Road, which I think is eventually going to be great for the trucks. Have you looked at a North Perimeter Road, to get to Stewardson Way and that area? Leave the city of New Westminster alone, and route the traffic around it. A: Judy Kirk: Geoff Freer is here representing the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Is the North Fraser Perimeter Road under consideration? A: Geoff Freer: The provincial part is about there. I think Coquitlam and New West are in discussions. A: Eugene Wat: Our understanding is that the provincial component through Coquitlam has been completed. The remaining section through New Westminster to the Queensborough Bridge is no longer being pursued by TransLink, because there is no funding and no plan. C: Sonia Nazar: New West doesn’t want it. Speak the truth. Surrey and Delta got it because they said Okay. A: Eugene Wat: There was a consultation done last year on a United Boulevard extension, which is one component of the NFPR project. New West was not supportive of the options presented, and

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 9 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

they thought it was a piecemeal approach to infrastructure. TransLink decided there was no community support, and decided not to pursue it any further. A: Geoff Cross: There was money from the federal government at that point, which is now no longer there. It’s not a priority for TransLink right now; there is still a need to address a connection there. We’re not sure what it looks like.

C: Bernadette Keenan: Some of us who live on the outskirts are not too happy about rerouting traffic to the middle of our communities. There have to be other solutions, including more transit and more rail; something that doesn’t put trucks through people’s backyards. I sat through consultations. In the last round of consultation about the Pattullo Bridge we had two options to consider: was it going to be to the left or right of the existing bridge? Also, the connections seem to be defined on the New Westminster side. They even showed parks in the materials. Except for King George Boulevard and the South Fraser Perimeter Road, there are no parks or local road networks shown in this material on the Surrey side. For people who are at ground zero of the Pattullo Bridge, we are being asked to comment on a “pig in a poke.” If I comment on option one, that may take out my neighbor’s home. If I comment on another option, it may take out my home. I think we should be done the courtesy being given local references, so we know where the bridge will be located. A: Paul Lee: 128th, Bridgeview Drive, and Brownsview Park are missing. We didn’t do a good job of showing the level of detail that is shown on the New Westminster side. A: Judy Kirk: We can rectify that. Q: Bernadette Keenan: Before the end of this round? A: Judy Kirk: Before the next round. A: Geoff Cross: What we’re trying to focus on is which corridor and how much capacity is required. There is a lot of work still to be done on alignment and connections. I understand the sensitivity around that, but we haven’t designed where exactly the bridge would go and the alignments. C: Bernadette Keenan: It’s very clear on the New Westminster side, but not so clear on the Surrey side.

C: Gary Robinson: I have a comment on bridge placement versus bridge design. A lot of countries have two-level bridges. If that was considered, with pedestrians and transit on one level and trucks on another level, you wouldn’t need as big a footprint. I know it still comes down to where the traffic comes from and where the traffic goes. Maybe a different kind of bridge design too. I don’t know at what point in the process that would be considered. A: Judy Kirk: Has a two-level bridge ever been considered? A: Geoff Cross: We looked at whether a two-lane bridge was possible in rehabilitating the existing bridge. It was deemed to be impossible. It’s a consideration for the future.

C: Bernadette Keenan: Have you looked at the railway bridge? It’s older than the Pattullo Bridge. It will probably need to be replaced as well. I heard a suggestion of combining the two. A: Geoff Cross: It has been looked at. It is owned by the Federal Government. We looked at it at a high-level, and it was deemed that there weren’t any cost savings. C: Bernadette Keenan: There would be space savings. A: Geoff Cross: There may be some space savings, but getting the alignment right, and the slopes and the grades, made it quite difficult. My understanding is that it could be even more expensive.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 10 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

A: Eugene Wat: TransLink did most of the work on that. In order to clear the marine traffic, the rail part still needs to be lifted up whenever marine traffic goes through. There’s a technical challenge to accommodating both corridors on the same bridge. I understand from TransLink that there are not a lot of advantages trying to combine the two. There’s also challenges getting the different levels of government to agree on a timeline. C: Bernadette Keenan: I would hate having to go through this process for the Pattullo Bridge, and then a year or two down the road being hit with the replacement of the railway bridge, and again our neighbourhood is at threat. A: Geoff Cross: We don’t see merit in it at this point. Q: Sigrid Hagglund: Could the rail bridge somehow be used for pedestrians and bicycles, and trains? The trains would go across separately, and then the pedestrians and bikes could cross. A: Geoff Cross: It’s something that could be explored. I’m not sure if it’s been looked at. The railways are never happy to look at liability things like that, and that’s an incredibly busy bridge. C: Gary Robinson: Having worked for railways in claims prevention, I can tell you that no railway would consider having pedestrians on the railroad bed.

Q: Andrea Mears: Why does the tunnel on page 18 stop where it does on the schematic? Would it actually go all the way to Highway 1? A: Eugene Wat: The intent is that it would tunnel underneath the steep hill on Richmond Street, and then when you hit 6th or 8th Avenue it would daylight onto the surface road system, around 6th Avenue. C: Andrea Mears: So it wouldn’t reduce the traffic going through New West; it would just dump from a tunnel. A: Eugene Wat: The idea is that it would get under the steep section.

C: Gary Robinson: I vote for alternative 19. Q: Grant Crawford: What neighbourhood on the Surrey side would the Coquitlam bridge be going through? Isn’t that a fairly dense residential area? C: Bernadette Keenan: We don’t know because they haven’t put any streets on the schematic. It would be in Bridgeview and go up Bolivar Heights. A: Paul Lee: In the spirit of collaboration Surrey is considering a new bridge in an existing neighbourhood, to help New Westminster and the regional concerns. Notionally, we know approximately where it will start. It’s not on 124th. It’s probably around 130th, where it crosses the river at the widest point. C: Bernadette Keenan: So it would take out our fishing dock. C: Unknown: Why would you build a bridge at the widest point? A: Paul Lee: There are challenges, but we are looking at this alternative because there seems to be a lot of public support for seeing this option being explored and further developed. A: Judy Kirk: It is very early; it needs further consideration, as do the others. If you think that it should not go forward for further consideration because of a lack of information, that’s what you should say in your feedback form. C: Bernadette Keenan: I think it’s unfair to ask us to comment without really knowing. I live there. You say 130th – I say fishing dock.

Q: Grant Crawford: Is the Tree Island crossing being seriously considered?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 11 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

A: Judy Kirk: It has been considered, but it’s not being recommended for further consideration. I think it’s important to note that the overarching notion that there are six being recommended for further evaluation, and 19 that aren’t. C: Grant Crawford: Tree Island would be a greater load on the Alex Fraser, which is virtually at capacity already. I don’t think it’s even worth considering.

C: Tim Binnema: It seems that a good link between the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the new Port Mann would be a better choice. You already have a fairly robust crossing and streamlined road, but they’re not well connected. You’ve got to go all of the way to 176th. If you could shorten that turn, you could get better use of that bridge, and offload any requirement for the Pattullo at all. C: Andrea Mears: I’d like to hear that again. C: Tim Binnema: The SFPR goes underneath the new Port Mann, and then you have to go all the way to 176th. You could take that to the Port Mann, but if they made that turn shorter it would be quicker. A: Geoff Freer: With South Fraser Perimeter Road planning, that was looked at and considered. It would result in very steep grades to get up to the Port Mann Bridge; it would go through residential areas on either side of the bridge, up across the old Surrey landfill. With the design that’s there today, and going out to 176th, it does take a little bit longer distance-wise and adds 10 minutes to your trip, but in talking to truckers, their preference is if they’re going to the tri-cities, they’re taking SFPR and then going across the Port Mann Bridge, and not taking the Pattullo Bridge. It is very convenient. C: Gary Robinson: I was on Surrey City Council when Surrey approved the South Fraser Perimeter Road. It is a limited access road to move traffic quickly from the other side of the Port Mann Bridge to Roberts Bank superport. It’s not designed to have many accesses and egresses into it, since there are steep banks all along it. It would defeat the purpose if you had bridges joining up to it; it’s supposed to take traffic off the roads in Surrey and put it down there. C: Bernadette Keenan: In Bridgeview we’re going to secede and join New West. C: Sonia Nazar: New Westminster knows how to say no.

C: Maya Russell: From the perspective of a New Westminster resident, I feel that Alternatives 7 and 8 be off the table, because there’s a lack of capacity in the street network. It would make a bad situation worse. I think the others recommended are worth considering, including, 19 I suppose. Although then that’s just more cars… no, maybe I don’t support option 19. Q: Andrea Mears: With Alternative 19, would that mean potentially tolling the new crossing? A: Geoff Cross: We’ll do some analysis both with tolls and without tolls. C: Judy Kirk: The answers that were given earlier about financing apply. C: Brian Woudstra: Toll everything; use the money for more busses. Go for Alternative 4: a 3-lane rehabilitation, with two lanes for busses and one lane for bikes. No cars. Increase the gas price. This is the wrong way to do it. If we don’t increase public transit, we will have an unlivable Lower Mainland. All we’ll be doing is sitting in cars, looking at one another. Q: Brian Woudstra: I’ve completed a CitySpeaks thing. Is that the same as the feedback form? A: Judy Kirk: It’s close, but not identical.

C: Kevin Vanderleek: Objective 3 feels like window dressing, as it says “minimizing emissions of greenhouse gasses.” It’s a bit of a tricky phrase: are you talking about reducing greenhouse gasses,

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 12 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

or reducing the growth of greenhouse gasses? “Minimizing greenhouse gasses” just means that one option has more than this option. It doesn’t say anything, unless you have that as a true goal. And that means reducing greenhouse gasses. A: Judy Kirk: Team: have you done any analysis of these alternatives with respect to greenhouse gasses? A: Geoff Cross: The reason that objectives 2 and 3 are combined at this point as shown in the screening is shown on pages 15 – 23 of the discussion guide, is because if you reduce the amount of vehicle travel, then you are reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses. There are other dimensions to that that we might be able to do in the future. For example, stop-and-go traffic and congestion creates more greenhouse gasses than optimized flow. The region, TransLink and the Province do have goals around greenhouse gas reduction, so that’s why it’s one that’s pertinent. We don’t have a set target around greenhouse gasses; there is a provincial one, but it’s not broken down per transportation. C: Kevin Vanderleek: Alternative 7 or 8, which is a new 5- or 6-lane bridge, seems counterproductive as far as greenhouse gasses. That’s radically on one side. Where is the solution that’s radically on the other side; that’s really robust in regard to public transit and reducing carbon emissions?

C: Bernadette Keenan: Out of the eight objectives, which one addresses natural capital costs? Some very unique ecosystems, the South Fraser waterfront, watershed, and our parks are already being compromised with the South Fraser Perimeter Road. Where is that in here? For a triple bottom line, that has to be part of the analysis. I don’t see it here. I see money and cars. A: Geoff Cross: It’s captured in a couple of areas. One is in GHGs and other pollutants; air emissions and particulate matter. With objective 4, minimizing impacts includes the ecosystem, the river, parkland and people’s private properties. It’s supposed to be captured in there. A: Judy Kirk: If you think there should be a specific and clear objective with respect to the environment, add that in your comments. C: Bernadette Keenan: That should be a stand-alone item. If we mess up the river, in terms of blockage and the salmon runs, nobody north of here through to the interior gets fish.

C: Grant Crawford: Europe has been brought up as an example of better transit. They have better transit, but they have gridlock like you wouldn’t believe. Everyone is riding bicycles and scooters because it’s the only reasonable way to move. Lots of the European centres do have better transit, and that’s something we should be working towards, but they can’t be held up as examples of the best ways, because they’re as polluted or more so than any of our cities. They have very dense populations, which we don’t have at this point. Mass transit is a nice goal, but it’s not practical now or for the next 50 years. We don’t have the density to make it work. We don’t shop like Europeans, where they buy food on a daily basis. You’ve got little town centres within Surrey that you have to have a vehicle to get back and forth to. It’s not practical to use transit at this point. C: Bernadette Keenan: Transit is not practical because it’s not there. Build it, and they will come. I moved 20 years ago to Bridgeview. They had the route 410 bus from the 22nd Street Station to Richmond. It was a commuter bus; it ran morning and evening, five days a week. It was always packed. They expanded that route to run seven days a week, 12 hours a day. It’s always busy. People will take it if it’s there. I also don’t see the inclusion of the evaluation of a rail corridor from Chilliwack to Scott Road. Have any consideration been given to expanding that further across the river? To continue that through to downtown Vancouver?

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 13 of 14 MEETING DETAILS Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation – Small Group Meeting Wednesday, June 25, 6:00 pm. – 8:00 p.m. City Centre Library 10350 University Drive, Surrey, B.C.

C: Gary Robinson: There are around 1000 kilometers of paved roads in Surrey carrying cars and people, and all leading to some place. The questions are economics and environment. Most people are numb to the cost in dollars. People are getting more enthused about the environment, and it’s catching up to the economic argument. That then means, who, why, what and where do we need to solve a problem. The bridge is to solve a problem. The problem is economics: how do people make money, get to work? They’re never going to be convinced, at this time, to solve a problem that’s strictly an environmental problem. People aren’t getting out of their vehicles to save the planet. The options have to achieve both. Alternative 19 achieves both. If you have something that moves traffic quicker, it reduces the environmental impact of people idling and burning fossil fuels. Give people the option of walking/biking/transit on one, and have traffic on the other. It allows us to defer the question of environment and economics. Right now, those are opposing arguments. A: Paul Lee: That rail, which is Hydro and Southern Rail, comes from Cloverdale, through Sullivan, up Kennedy, through Newton, and then connects up to Scott Road. It’s been recognized, and identified in Surrey’s Official Community Plan as a future transportation corridor. C: Bernadette Keenan: It goes beyond Surrey. C: Gary Robinson: It’s starting in August; I’m on the committee. A: Paul Lee: We’ve done a study on it, and we don’t see it as being part of the rapid transit corridor. It could in the future be used as commuter rail with four trains a day, something very similar to the West Coast Express. When we talk about transit, we’re talking about frequency. We don’t see that happening in that corridor. C: Bernadette Keenan: It would be the same frequency and similar type as the West Coast Express.

Q: Andrea Mears: If there’s a willingness to spend money on bridges, there should be a willingness to spend more money on transit. Why is there no option of increasing transit and having a 3-lane bridge, and helping people to get out of their cars? A: Geoff Cross: One of the things we will be doing, since we have goals around increasing trips by walking, cycling, and transit, is looking at this bridge in a 30-year window (2045). We are developing transit, cycling, and walking strategies. We will look at the network, and what does demand look like then? Everybody wants that trajectory going forward. What does the demand look like, on the need for roadway traffic too? We’re not going to be blind to that. While transit isn’t specific to this, we have very aggressive mode share layered in on top of that. We’ll see if this bridge is needed, how much capacity is needed, if we’re in a world where 40% of people are biking, walking and taking transit. That’s a conversation we’ll take forward to politicians and the public in the fall. These are complex problems about the trade-offs. It’s not an easy process. We’re here to try and be transparent, and show you where the trade-offs are. We are going to try and keep refining the information.

3. Closing Remarks – Judy Kirk Judy Kirk wrapped up the meeting, thanked participants for their time and encouraged participants to complete the feedback form and encourage friends and others to participate.

The record notes that the small group meeting ended at 7:47 p.m.

Pattullo Bridge Review Consultation Surrey Small Group Meeting – June 25, 2013 Page 14 of 14