Appendix A Records of Stakeholder and Public...

Sunshine Coast Regional District Integrated Transportation Study – Final

August 2011

Appendix A

Records of Stakeholder and Public Consultation

1

Sunshine Coast Regional District Integrated Transportation Study (ITS)

Stakeholder Workshop #1

Sechelt Indian Band Hall

October 26, 2009

1.0 COPY OF INVITATION

September 25, 2009

INVITATION TO STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP #1

INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION STUDY: SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

The Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) recently sent your organization a letter informing you of the

Integrated Transportation Study (ITS) being undertaken by ISL Engineering for the SCRD, and requesting

your participation at future Stakeholder Workshops.

Phase 1 of the ITS is now complete, which included a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,

Threats) analysis of the entire Sunshine Coast region within the context of the study, namely issues

pertaining to the regional road network, land use planning and development, air and sea travel, roadway

capacity, transit, pedestrians, cycling, green house gas emissions, traffic safety, etc.

Phase 2 of the study now commences with a Stakeholder Workshop, with breakout groups focusing on

key themes. A second workshop will subsequently take place in January 2010, at which feedback will be

given to stakeholders, following further advancement of the ITS. Phase 3 of the study includes a Public

Open House.

A representative from your organization is hereby invited to attend the first Stakeholder Workshop to be

held as follows:

Date: Monday, October 26, 2009

Time: 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM

Venue: Sechelt Indian Band (SIB) Hall

5432 Xenichen Avenue, Sechelt, BC (behind the Raven’s Cry Theatre)

The objectives of the first workshop are:

1. Introduce stakeholders to the ITS process and purpose.

2. Present and obtain feedback on Phase 1 work to date (incl. SWOT analysis).

3. Obtain your input on additional issues and information not already captured.

4. Obtain your suggestions for addressing constraints/barriers to a better District wide

transportation system.

Please be mindful of the fact that this is an SCRD initiative focusing on mainly regional issues. Local

traffic issues that do not have regional influence should be taken up with your local government.

For workshop facilitation and catering purposes, please reply to Lynda Edstrom of the SCRD by October

16, 2009 at the latest (604-885-6800, or [email protected]).

We look forward to your valued input.

2

2.0 WORKSHOP FORMAT

All invitees were forwarded a copy of the draft SWOT Analysis report prior to the workshop, however at the same time independent thoughts and ideas were preferred and encouraged. An overview of the project and work to date was presented at the start of the workshop, before facilitated breakout group discussions were held. There were four breakout group topics as shown in the table below. Three, 30 minute sessions were held to allow participants to rotate and give input for each topic if so desired. The purpose of these round table discussions was not to convince anyone of any specific position, but rather to establish stakeholders’ interests and concerns, and to identify ideas for potential solutions, related to how each topic affects those elements of the integrated transportation plan.

1.0

Table Topic: Facilitator:

Table 1 - Road Network Ed Kolla

Table 2 - Cycling & Pedestrians Danelle Laidlaw

Table 3 - Other Transportation Modes Bernard Abelson

Table 4 - Land Use & Development Lance Berelowitz

3.0 RECORD OF DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Table 1 - Road Network Issue: Commuter Needs

• Traffic on the Sunshine Coast has been steadily increasing over the years.

• Many people live in one community along the Sunshine Coast while they work in another, which creates significant amounts of inter-community traffic.

• Surges of ferry traffic create temporary problems with the road network system.

• Since Highway 101 is the only continuous route along the Sunshine Coast, significant pressure and reliance is placed on it.

Issue: Highway Congestion

• The reliance on Highway 101 results in traffic congestion and the inefficiency of moving goods and people.

• Highway 101 brings all traffic directly through the communities where there are high access densities and high traffic congestion.

• Some sections of highway are nearing capacity, particularly during ferry surges.

• Congestion problems could possibly be solved by making roadway improvements to Highway 101, where needed, including the implementation of turn bays, traffic signals or signage.

• Any improvements must not restrict or reduce access to the businesses along the corridor. Issue: Alternative Routes

• For safety and emergency evacuations, there are many sections of the highway that do not have an alternative route in the case of a road and bridge closures due to collisions, flooding or other emergencies.

• Closures of some key sections of road could separate the majority of the people from the hospital and other emergency services.

3

• One or more alternative routes should be created to eliminate the reliance on Highway 101, however this may be difficult due to the locations of parks and other land uses in the path of preferred alternatives.

• An alternative route could be established in different ways, with one option being a highway north of Gibsons, through Sechelt, and ending west of Sechelt, with connections to the communities, which option could possibly be built on the existing logging road systems. The overall alignment of this alternative route should be determined early so that the municipalities of Sechelt and Gibsons, as well as the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure could work independently overtime to create portions that will eventually connect.

• An alternative route west of Reddrooffs would not be needed due to the low traffic volumes.

• Alternative routes can be established by making connections between existing roads and upgrading these roads to make them appropriate for higher traffic volumes. This option may interfere with existing neighbourhoods, but will be less expensive than building new roads.

• All improvements should not need to be limited to only the Gibsons, Sechelt, and Roberts Creek areas.

3.2 Table 2 - Cycling & Pedestrians Issue: Safety and Infrastructure

Highway 101 is dangerous for both pedestrians and cyclists – danger was clarified as:

• Narrow or non-existent shoulders

• Lack of maintenance allows for leaves and debris to build up, and gravel slough from connecting unpaved roads covers the shoulder forcing pedestrians and cyclists onto the traveled portion of the roadway

• Lack of signage to encourage road sharing or alerting drivers to the presence of pedestrians and cyclists

• Lack of good lighting

• Drainage grates are parallel to road, increasing the risk of wheels falling into the grate Proposed Solutions:

• Ferry-to-ferry off-road bike path (in addition to the planned mountain bike ferry-to-ferry trail), paralleling the highway

• On-road ferry-to-ferry shoulder/bike lane

• Better communication, improved direction to Highway contractor to sweep highway regularly

• System of “spot improvement” alerts that could be submitted to SCRD and/or Highway contractor about problems in a particular area

• Provide signage to share road plus advising pedestrians and cyclists of alternatives

• Improve lighting along corridor

• Provide barriers between roadway, bike lanes, and sidewalks

• Focus on inter-community links

• Do small road improvements to bring up to standard (ie. Drainage grates)

Issue: Promotion of Cycling and Walking

Not enough is being done to encourage cycling and walking (and tourism) on the Sunshine Coast, specifically:

• Without appropriate facilities, visitors and residents will continue to use their vehicles which results in fewer pedestrians and cyclists, which results in less demand for appropriate facilities

• Access to Gibsons is difficult from the ferry

• BC Ferries encourage car use as there are often delays and no facilities on board for cyclists

• BC Transit do not adjust their schedules when the ferry is delayed leaving bus users stranded

• BC Transit do not have a guaranteed ride for cyclists (only 2-4 racks per bus)

4

Proposed Solutions:

• Mobilize bicycle advocacy groups such as BC Cycling Coalition (BCCC), Better Environmentally Sustainable Transportation (BEST), Sunshine Coast Cycling Association (SCCA), etc. to create a significant demand for facilities

• Work with BC Ferries to improve facilities on ferries for cyclists

• Work with BC Transit to improve scheduling between buses and ferries

• Allow for more bikes on buses – risk of insufficient space deters multi-modal trips, can currently accommodate 2-4 bikes

• Have BC Transit schedules on the ferry

• Provide more bicycle racks on the ferries and at the terminals for bicycle parking

• Encourage businesses to offer more services, for example B & Bs having a shuttle service for guests, thereby discouraging car use and encouraging active modes.

Issue: Education and Awareness

There is a big future for cycling and walking on the Sunshine Coast if changes are handled well.

• There seems to be a gap in knowledge by all road users and little consideration of accommodating other modes of transportation

• There is great planning but often implementation is lacking Proposed Solutions:

• Provide education through schools on the safe use of shared road space for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, thereby instilling a culture of awareness from a young age

• Conduct an education campaign to encourage appropriate road sharing

• Encourage ride-share particularly between Sechelt and Gibsons/Langdale Issue: Lack of Adequate Facilities

Access to suitable walking and cycling facilities is not easy. Specifically:

• Seniors, people with strollers, scooters and those in wheelchairs find it difficult to complete a trip totally on sidewalks

• Sidewalks are not always wide enough to allow strollers and wheelchairs to pass each other

• Wide roads are difficult to cross

• Bike routes are blocked by parked cars

• Terrain (hills) create barriers

• It is frustrating when new developments go in with no provision for walking or cycling facilities

Proposed Solutions:

• Create multi-use pathways within communities

• Use existing rights-of-way for trails

• Priority routes with transit stops

• Require wider sidewalks and retrofit older areas

• Have pedestrian and cyclist facilities included in development permit requirements

• Provide median refuges at targeted locations

• Increase enforcement of parking offences

• Focus on intra-community links

Issue: Different Priorities

There are a number of different jurisdictions in the area – SCRD, BC MoT, BC Ferries, BC Transit, Municipalities, Native Bands – but none of them seem to be listening or sensitive to what residents want, plus different groups want different things

• Taxes are already high in the SCRD; the tax base is small but the region is vast.

5

• Improvements are going to have to be incremental over a long period of time and with a lot of consultation.

• Regular roadwork still takes the bulk of the monies available Proposed Solutions:

• Find ways to make tax dollars go further – such as partnering with other agencies

• Consider lower cost designs (temporary) to begin with and once accepted, institute permanent solutions

• Look at cost-effective construction methods

• Institute disincentives for motor vehicle drivers and incentives for pedestrians and cyclists

3.3 Table 3 - Other Transportation Modes Issue: Aging Population

• 25% of the SCRD population was said to be 65 years and older, with a further 34% over 50. This aging population is likely to result in more motorized wheelchairs and golf carts. As a response, these types of modes are likely to require suitable trails, and should be registered. Ministry regulations currently govern these vehicles.

• HandyDart type services should be considered to also address the needs of this population group.

Issue: Transit

• Due to funding constraints, BC Transit could make no promises as to additional services.

• The use of smaller buses to shuttle passengers to transit hubs from areas not covered by a scheduled service was suggested.

• The number of home based businesses in the District limited the establishment of concentrated business districts, and makes servicing these businesses difficult. Having a map showing the location of these home based businesses would reveal those concentrated areas that could possibly be served.

• The variety of land uses, each with different transit requirements, further complicates service delivery.

• New developments should be required to meet long term planning needs, encouraging more concentrated developments to support transit service provision.

• A mainline service, fed by community shuttles should be established.

• Improved facilities such as lighting at shelters, covered shelters, etc., should be provided.

• Transit hubs to facilitate the integration of different services should be established in strategic locations.

• Incentives to boost the attractiveness of using alternative transport modes should be considered.

• Improvements should be made to the bus schedule to better accommodate community needs.

• Express services supported by “milk runs” were suggested.

• Park and Ride locations should be identified at strategic intersections along the highway, especially in the more rural areas. These can help concentrate communities to one location which is then serviced by transit.

• The current hourly bus service does not attract additional users. A half hour service would be more convenient.

Issue: Ferry Service

• There should be announcements on the ferries about landside bus operations, and information made available at the on board Visitor Information Desk.

• Day pass bus tickets should be sold on the ferries.

• The ferry service and schedule prevents the quick and efficient distribution of goods and service via couriers. This is an obstacle for business on the Sunshine Coast.

6

• There are no bicycle parking facilities on the ferries, yet cyclists are charged $2 extra for their bicycles. It was felt that not only should facilities be provided, but the surcharge was not warranted given that the bicycles do not reduce the ferry capacity.

• There were several suggestions to relocate the ferry operations to Sechelt due to its central location.

• A passenger ferry to Sechelt was also raised on several occasions.

• Smaller, more frequent ferries would both reduce the traffic surges caused by the ferry service, and give users more flexibility.

• A passenger ferry service that stopped at Langdale, Sechelt and onto Nanaimo or similar was proposed.

Issue: Ride Share Programs

• The Coast-Ride Program is a community initiative that enables hitchhikers to be registered and matched with motorists offering lifts.

• There is also the Sunshine Coast Rideshare Calendar website where people can either post rides available or request rides (www.suncoastcentral.com).

• The Jack Bell Ride Share Program, funded and endorsed by TransLink and BC Transit, operates Canada’s only large-scale public vanpooling service and provide online rideshare matching across BC. There are currently a few vehicles that are part of this program travelling from Gibsons to downtown Vancouver, and none registered providing lifts on the Sunshine Coast only.

• The Sunshine Coast Employment Center (www.scces.ca) has used ride-share services to enable those registered with them to access the Center and places of employment by issuing ride-share cards.

Issue: Air Travel

• While it is recognized that float planes do not offer a mass transportation option, they do provide a valuable service. Better integration of the float plan operations with BC Transit is needed at Porpoise Bay.

• The expansion of the runway at the Sechelt Airport is supported by BC Ambulance as it provides an emergency evacuation option.

Issue: Heavy Vehicles

• There are few passing opportunities along the corridor which causes motorist frustration who then sometimes take unnecessary risks and cause accidents.

• Mandatory truck pull outs along the highway could facilitate passing, however there is also an acknowledgement that in many cases the trucks are travelling at the speed limit so pullouts and similar measures are only accommodating bad driving habits. These would also increase truck exhaust emissions when accelerating to get back into the traffic.

• The slower moving trucks also cause long platoons behind them.

• Reddrooffs Road is not suitable for trucks, although it would only be used by trucks in the event of a highway closure.

• It was suggested that the Reed/Henry “community bypass” should have a commercial vehicle restriction to prevent trucks, etc from using this route.

Issue: Marine Transport

• If the highway were to be impassable for whatever reason, and with limited air options, marine opportunities become significant. However, there is no coordinated marine effort or plan if such a situation occurred.

• The waterfront presents unique industrial land use opportunities which are not recognized. Establishing industrial zones north of Langdale might be an option.

• There are limited barge landing facilities along the Sunshine Coast. Besides the industrial benefits they provide, they can also be used for hovercraft landings and recreational boat launches. They are relatively easy to construct, but any shared use must be properly managed.

• In general, marine transport options should be investigated, such as: o Water taxis o Passenger ferries

7

o Barges o Private craft o Others

Issue: Emergency Response and Highway Alternative Routes

• The Chapman Creek Bridge is a threat if it were to be impassable for whatever reason. This is especially important as the only hospital is located west of the bridge.

• In general, the ITS requires an emergency response element to be prioritized as it has the potential to impact the most people simultaneously. Specifics should be provided.

• Along the east coast of the Sechelt Inlet, the communities of Sandy Hook and Tuwanek are also vulnerable with only one access road, with the inlet providing marine access in the event of an emergency.

• It was reported that, on average, highway closures occur three times per year along the 80 km length. While this is low, the need for alternative routes remains.

• ICBC reported that there do not appear to be any specific crash trends by type or location. Higher traffic volumes due to ferry arrivals increase the risk of crashes.

• The last minute rush to catch departing ferries is an unnecessary risk along the highway, especially closer to the Langdale terminal.

• ICBC can assist financially in the upgrade of high crash locations.

• Although the Ministry is seeking dedication of right of way to be able to establish alternative routes along the corridor, many communities do not support this for fear of through traffic. This however, needs to be balanced against these same communities being isolated in the event of a highway closure, due to there being discontinuous alternative routes.

Issue: Long Term Accessibility

• Either a land based road connection from Squamish or a series of bridges from mainland Vancouver would eliminate ferry traffic surges, create emergency evacuation options, eliminate the community’s dependence on the ferry service, and generally normalize traffic flows along the coastline.

Issue: Traffic Management

• The new traffic calming on Gibsons Way has, in many cases, increased business turnover as motorists now observe shops, etc when stopped at traffic signals.

• Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures, such as “ramp metering” by way of a signal at the intersection of Sunshine Coast Highway and Stewart Road, could be used to reduce the traffic surge through Gibsons and Elphinstone. Since the Sunshine Coast Highway primarily carries ferry traffic, the highway would serve as the storage area for backed up traffic. The risk of this is that traffic would divert to Marine Drive and North Road to avoid the TDM measure.

• Staggering the unloading of vehicles from the ferry is not an option, as it will delay ferry operations.

Issue: General Observations

• It is important to manage expectations during this study.

• Reliable funding is needed for all initiatives proposed.

• Care should be taken to try to prevent any groupings of people from falling “through the cracks.”

Table 4 - Land Use & Development Issues ranged from the micro (site specific) to the macro scales (district wide). An example of a micro scaled issue was a concern about retaining walls that are built within or very close to the Highway 101 right-of-way on the uphill side: the concern is that these could be a safety hazard in the event of an earthquake if they fail and then block the highway. It was felt that there needs to be better policy and regulation governing approval of such retaining walls so that they do not impede emergency vehicles in the event of a structural failure. Issue: Industrial Land

8

There was a suggestion that new industrial land uses should be focused on the Howe Sound/Port Mellon area north of Gibsons, so as to limit the amount of heavy truck traffic on the 101 corridor. Others noted that industrial use is important to municipal tax bases so there should also continue to be industrial land use zoned in the Sechelt municipal area, perhaps in proximity to the airfield. There are conflicts between industrial/commercial and residential uses. Some suggested less industrial and more focus on recreational uses. It was noted that as resource-based industry (e.g. forestry, mining, fishing, etc.) shrinks and moves out, these lands could become available for more intense recreational use such as regional parks, hiking trails, cross country skiing, off-road biking, etc. Examples: B& K Road, Roberts Creek, Halfmoon Bay/Trout Lake area. Issue: Crown Lands future use

Much of the SCRD land base is in Crown Lands, and their future use could have major transportation impacts. It was noted that there is ongoing pressure for new mining and timber licenses. Issue: First Nations Treaty Settlements

It was noted that future First Nations treaty settlements could result in land development that could also have significant transportation impacts, for example if such lands were developed for industrial or large scale commercial uses. Issue: New development should pay towards new transportation infrastructure

It was noted that new residential development on the Sunshine Coast typically contributes very little towards transportation infrastructure capital costs, and such development should be required to pay their fair share. Higher DCCs were suggested several times. New development above a certain scale could also be required to provide on-site services and amenities (retail and commercial) to cater to new residents needs, in order to reduce traffic impacts on the existing corridor roads. Issue: Land Use development patterns and governance models

It was noted that higher population density is required to support better transit and other transportation infrastructure. There was broad-based recognition by many stakeholders that land use planning and transportation planning need to be integrated, if both are to be effective and optimized. It was noted that land use patterns can make or break public transit, for example. Several participants agreed that new development should be focused on existing urban areas rather than spread all along the corridor, in order to optimize land use, reduce sprawl, reduce GHG pollution, and move towards a more sustainable development model. It was noted that the various OCPs are good policy documents but are not always followed in practise. Councils need to stick to anti-sprawl land use policies and not give in to developers. Need to focus growth on nodes if you want better transit levels of service. Consider higher density zoning in certain locations to restrict growth to these areas vs. sprawl. Suggested to focus future growth on Gibsons and less on Pender Harbour, which puts more pressure on Highway 101 corridor. It was noted that there are too many local jurisdictions and separate OCPs: need one single integrated OCP (or Growth Management Strategy) for the entire SC. Too much silo planning. Suggestion: incorporate urban containment boundaries around municipalities e.g. Sechelt could focus new development on Wilson Creek; new 1,100 unit multi-family resort development to the north is problematic. Suggestion: consider amalgamation options. Chambers of Commerce are already exploring this. Issue: What is more sustainable development with peak oil and climate change imminent?

It was noted that the Sunshine Coast is almost entirely dependent on ferry service and that ferries rely on fossil fuel. Rising costs of fuel is an external threat and high- risk long term: need to plan for alternative fuel vehicles such as electric cars, etc. Question: if the future is more electric use, can the Sunshine Coast generate enough electricity? Suggestion: new developments should be ‘hardwired’ for alternative energy systems e.g. more electricity use, solar, wind, etc.

9

Issue: Seasonal/Vacation home patterns

It was suggested that the pattern of seasonal/vacation homes is unsustainable: too car dependent, puts burden on the existing road network and ferry services and is a very inefficient use of land. Issue: employment, services, goods and amenities

It was noted that we need jobs on the Sunshine Coast as well as recreational uses and vacation/retirement housing. Should try get Live and Work uses near each other to minimize traffic. Need for more complete communities with services and amenities, so don’t need to use cars as much. Concentrate development in mixed-use nodes. The region needs to become more self-sufficient for goods and services, to reduce the requirement for off-coast travel for these needs. Also, more local businesses would help keep $ on the Sunshine Coast. But some noted that limited services and amenities was part of the SC ‘lifestyle’. It was suggested that seasonal residents don’t want high density housing and skew local needs: recreational and vacation folks need to accept land uses that work for the entire region. Issue: Passenger ferry service

Support for passenger ferry service to Sechelt as this will take pressure off the Highway 101 corridor and reduce need for driving to Langdale, and provide an alternative to using the car. This would also support more intense residential densification in Sechelt. Issue: New development requirements

It was suggested that new residential developments should be required to accommodate a range of sustainable strategies such as car share or co-op services, reduced parking requirements, etc.

Sunshine Coast Integrated Transportation Study

Summary of Comments Public Open Houses: March 23, 2010

At the March 23, 2010 public open houses hosted in Sechelt and Gibsons, comment sheets

were distributed. The feedback gathered from the returned comment sheets was overall very

positive.

Highway 101 Assessment The Highway 101 curve improvement options were generally supported but some people felt

that the improvements are unnecessary to increase the safety, and may increase speeding.

Alternative improvement options that were suggested include providing and maintaining

reflectors on barriers and reflectors along the centerline of the road at curves. As well,

repainting paint lines, and installing streetlights at key intersections would improve safety

without requiring curve re-alignments.

Sechelt Congestion Although upgrading Highway 101 through Sechelt to four lanes was supported by some of the

community, many people were optimistic that these improvements would not be necessary.

Many people expressed that if available funding was used to increase public transit service, and

pedestrian and cycling facilities, widening of Highway 101 through Sechelt would not be

necessary.

Gibsons Way Access Management Most responses to the option of providing a Two Way Left Turn lane on Gibson’s Way were

positive. It was communicated that these lanes are easy to understand, and that signage and

pavement markings could be used to reduce confusion about the purpose of the lanes.

Transit Service The comments regarding transit showed that transit is a priority to many people in the Sunshine

Coast. Some people expressed a desire for increased frequency and accessibility of transit.

Long-term improvements including ferry to ferry service and dial-a-bus service were supported.

Some people feel that more bicycle racks should be provided on buses and at bus stops.

Park & Ride The proposal of Park & Ride locations along Highway 101 was very well supported. The

specific locations of these Park & Ride locations should be determined by each community.

Bicycles facilities should also be provided at Park & Ride locations.

Gibsons Bypass The Reed-Henry Bypass was strongly supported by the community of the Sunshine Coast as a

short-term bypass option. It was expressed that public education about roundabouts will be

needed, and that the roundabouts should be designed to safely accommodate pedestrians. The

exact locations of roundabouts and the short-term bypass should be examined further.

Cycling and Pedestrian Plan A ferry to ferry cycling route was supported, with emphasis on wide, clean shoulders. Some

concerns were expressed about the speeds on some roads including Highway 101 and the

need for these to be enforced before cycling volumes will increase significantly. Walking could

be encouraged by providing more benches and public spaces near sidewalks and walkways.


August 2011

Appendix B

Traffic Data and Video Presentation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Marine Drive (Langdale)

Westbound Thru Traffic

Eastbound Thru Traffic7

,45

0 %

Incr

ease

7,9

00

%In

crea

se

9,7

00

%In

crea

se

84

0 %

61

0 %

% Increase: 15 minutetraffic volume increaseabove Approx. Base TrafficVolume

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

TIme Interval

Highway 101 Traffic At North Road And Gibsons Way

Southbound Right Traffic

Eastbound Left Traffic

14

0 %

Incr

eas

e

11

0 %

Incr

ease

24

0%

Incr

ease

15

0 %

Incr

ease

40

%

35

%


0

50

100

150

200

250

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

TIme Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Veterans Road



0 %

Incr

ease

10

0 %

Incr

ease

10

0 %

Incr

ease

25

%

50

%


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Lower Road


Eastbound Thru Traffic

80

%In

crea

se

11

0 %

Incr

ease

22

0%

Incr

ease

14

0 %

Incr

ease

30

%

30

%


0

50

100

150

200

250

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Roberts Creek Road



0 %

Incr

eas

e

20

0 %

Incr

ease

70

%

75

%In

crea

se

50

%


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Field Road



90

%In

crea

se

70

%In

crea

se

10

0 %

Incr

ease

30

% 75

%


0

50

100

150

200

250

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Selma Park Road



40

%In

crea

se

60

%In

crea

se

60

%In

crea

se

5 %

35

%


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Wharf Road

Westbound Left Traffic

Northbound Right Traffic

5 %

Incr

ease

30

%In

crea

se

30

%In

crea

se

30

%

35

%


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

es

(15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Norwest Bay Road



%In

crea

se 80

%In

crea

se

85

%

45

%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Redrooffs Road East



%In

crea

se

80

%In

crea

se

16

5 %

Incr

ease

12

0 %

16

0%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

es

(15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Redrooffs Road West



16

0 %

Incr

eas

e

40

%In

crea

se8

0 %

80

%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Mercer Road East



80

%In

crea

se 19

0 %

Incr

ease

15

0 %

16

0 %


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Mercer Road West



%In

crea

se

16

0 %

Incr

ease

25

0 %

27

0 %


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Francis Peninsula Road



0 %

Incr

ease

15

0 %

Incr

ease

18

0 % 24

0 %


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

8:0

0

8:1

5

8:3

0

8:4

5

9:0

0

9:1

5

9:3

0

9:4

5

11

:00

11

:15

11

:30

11

:45

12

:00

12

:15

12

:30

12

:45

14

:00

14

:15

14

:30

14

:45

15

:00

15

:15

15

:30

15

:45

16

:00

16

:15

16

:30

16

:45

17

:00

17

:15

17

:30

17

:45

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

e (

15

Min

ute

s)

Time Interval

Highway 101 Traffic Volumes at Garden Bay Road



10

0 %

Incr

ease

33

0 %

Incr

ease

25

0 % 3

40

%



August 2011

Appendix C

Ferry Schedules

SCHEDULES

Route 3: Horseshoe Bay – Langdale

Travel Time: 40 min

Period of Operation: June 30 – Sept 7

Leave Horseshoe Bay

Leave Langdale

7:25 am 6:20 am

9:00 am Sat Only 7:55 am Sat Only

9:40 am 8:30 am

11:10 am Sat Only 10:05 am Sat Only

12:00 pm 10:50 am

1:35 pm Mon, Thu, Fri & Sat only 12:30 pm Mon, Thu, Fri & Sat only

2:15 pm Daily except Sat 1:05 pm Daily except Sat

3:45 pm Fri, Sun & Aug 3 Only except Sep 4 & 6 2:40 pm Fri, Sun & Aug 3 Only except Sep 4 & 6

4:30 pm 3:25 pm

5:50 pm Mon, Thu, Fri & Sun Only except Sep 6 4:45 pm Mon, Thu, Fri & Sun Only except Sep 6

6:35 pm 5:30 pm

7:55 pm Sun Only except Aug 2 & Sep 6 6:55 pm Sun Only except Aug 2 & Sep 6

8:40 pm 7:35 pm

10:35 pm 9:40 pm

Period of Operation: Sept 8 – Feb 11

Leave Horseshoe Bay

Leave Langdale

7:20 am Daily Except Dec 25 & Jan 1 6:20 am Daily Except Dec 25 & Jan 1

9:20 am 8:20 am

11:20 am 10:20 am

1:20 pm 12:20 pm

3:30 pm 2:30 pm

5:30 pm 4:30 pm

7:25 pm 6:30 pm

9:15 pm 8:20 pm

11:00 pm Oct 12 only 10:10 pm Oct 12 only

Period of Operation: March 1 –March 31

Leave Horseshoe Bay

Leave Langdale

7:20 am 6:20 am

9:20 am 8:20 am

11:20 am 10:20 am

1:20 pm 12:20 pm

3:30 pm 2:30 pm

5:30 pm 4:30 pm

7:25 pm 6:30 pm

9:15 pm 8:20 pm

Route 7: Earls Cove – Saltery Bay

Travel Time: 50 min

Period of Operation: June 30 – Sept 7

Leave Earls Cove Leave Saltery Bay

8:15 am 7:15 am

10:35 am 9:25 am

12:50 pm 11:40 am

3:10 pm 2:00 pm

5:35 pm 4:30 pm

7:40 pm 6:40 pm

9:35 pm 8:35 pm

11:25 pm 10:30 pm

Period of Operation: Sept 8 – March 31

Leave Earls Cove Leave Saltery Bay

Effective Sep 8, 2009 to March 31, 2010 EXCEPT FOR Oct. 9, 12, Dec. 24, 26, 2009 & Jan. 1, 2010 (see

Alternate Schedule below)

6:30 am Daily Except Sundays and Dec 25 5:35 am Daily Except Sundays and Dec 25

8:25 am 7:25 am

10:25 am 9:25 am

12:20 pm 11:20 am

4:25 pm 3:20 pm

6:25 pm 5:25 pm

8:20 pm 7:20 pm

10:05 pm 9:15 pm

Leave Earls Cove

Leave Saltery Bay

Alternate Schedule for: Oct. 9, 12, Dec. 24, 26, 2009 & Jan. 1, 2010

8:25 am 7:25 am

10:30 am 9:25 am

12:35 pm 11:30 am

2:40 pm 1:35 pm

4:45 pm 3:45 pm

6:45 pm 5:45 pm

8:45 pm 7:45 pm

10:35 pm 9:40 pm

Route 13: Gambier and Keats Island Water Taxi

Schedule in Effect: September 8, 2009 to June 29, 2010

Langdale to Gambier Island &

Keats Island

Mon to Thu Friday Saturday Sun & Hol Mon

Leave Langdale 7:15 am 7:15 am 7:15 am 7:15 am

Leave Keats Landing 7:30 am 7:30 am 7:30 am ** 7:30 am **

Leave New Brighton 7:45 am 7:45 am 7:45 am 7:45 am

Arrive Langdale 7:55 am 7:55 am 7:55 am 7:55 am


Leave Keats Landing 8:25 am ** 8:25 am ** 8:25 am ** 8:25 am **








Leave Eastbourne 10:35 am ** 10:35 am ** 10:35 am ** 10:35 am **

Leave Keats Landing 10:50 am ** 10:50 am ** 10:50 am ** 10:50 am **




Arrive Langdale 12:05 pm 12:05 pm 12:05 pm 12:05 pm

Leave Langdale 12:05 pm 12:05 pm 12:05 pm 12:05 pm

Leave New Brighton 12:15 pm 12:15 pm 12:15 pm 12:15 pm



Leave New Brighton 3:10 pm 3:10 pm 3:10 pm ----------

Leave Keats Landing 3:25pm 3:25pm 3:25pm 2:10 pm


Leave Langdale ---------- ---------- ---------- 3:20 pm

Leave Eastbourne ---------- ---------- ---------- 3:35 pm **

Arrive Langdale ---------- ---------- ---------- 3:50 pm



Leave Eastbourne 4:40 pm ** 4:40 pm ** ------ ------



Leave Eastbourne ---------- ---------- 5:30 pm ----------

Leave Keats Landing 5:45 pm ** 5:45 pm ** 5:45 pm 5:15 pm


Leave Langdale ---------- ---------- ---------- 5:30 pm

Leave Eastbourne ---------- ---------- ---------- 5:45 pm **

Arrive Langdale ---------- ---------- ---------- 6:00 pm






Leave Keats Landing ---------- 6:45 pm ** ---------- ----------

Leave Eastbourne ---------- 7:00 pm ** ---------- ----------


Trips marked by 2 asterisks ** are on a request basis only. Please telephone (604) 886-4420 at least 1 hour prior to sailing time on

the date of travel and leave a voice mail message stating your name, contact phone number, time of travel and pickup location.


August 2011

Appendix D

Crash Data

PDO CAS PDO CAS PDO CAS PDO CAS PDO CAS PDO CAS

PAYNE/PRATT (Gibsons Way) 8 7 12 1 6 0 34 3 2 6 4 2 1 18 52

SHAW RD (Gibsons Way) 5 3 7 3 18 2 1 1 4 22

REDROOFFS RD 3 2 2 2 1 10 4 3 1 8 18

SCHOOL RD (Gibsons Way) 4 5 1 2 12 1 2 2 5 17

VENTURE WAY/MAHAN (Gibsons Way) 1 1 1 4 4 3 14 1 1 15

SHORNCLIFFE AVE 4 3 4 1 12 1 1 13

FIELD RD 1 1 2 1 2 2 9 2 1 1 4 13

COWRIE ST 2 2 4 1 1 10 1 1 2 12

FLUME RD 2 2 1 1 4 10 1 1 11

DAVIS BAY RD 2 2 2 1 3 10 1 1 11

REED RD 2 2 1 2 7 1 2 3 10

HENRY RD 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 3 5 10

SELMA PARK RD 1 2 1 2 1 7 1 1 8

SNODGRASS RD 2 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 8

TRAIL AVE 1 2 1 4 1 3 4 8

WHARF RD 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 5 8

DERBY RD 2 3 1 6 1 1 7

STEWART RD 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 7

PARK RD (Gibsons Way) 2 1 2 5 1 1 6

ROBERTS CREEK RD 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 6

GARDEN BAY RD 1 1 2 4 2 2 6

NORWEST BAY RD 3 1 4 2 2 6

TROUT LAKE RD 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 6

SEAVIEW LANE 1 2 2 5 0 5

WAKEFIELD RD 2 1 1 1 5 0 5

BAY RD 1 1 1 3 2 2 5

CHELPI AVE 1 1 1 1 4 0 4

HILL RD 1 2 1 4 0 4

MCCOURT RD 1 2 1 4 0 4

TI'TA 1 1 1 1 4 0 4

BURTON RD 2 1 1 4 0 4

CHAPMAN RD 3 1 4 0 4

FARNHAM RD (Gibsons Way) 1 1 1 1 4 0 4

HAVIES RD 1 3 4 0 4

MONKEY TREE LANE 1 1 2 4 0 4

INLET AVE 1 1 1 3 1 1 4

PELL RD 1 2 3 1 1 4

DOLPHIN ST 1 2 3 1 1 4

JOE RD 1 1 1 3 1 1 4

CEMETERY RD 2 1 3 0 3

MASKELL RD 1 2 3 0 3

HOUGH RD 1 1 1 3 0 3

LEEK RD 1 2 3 0 3

LOCKYER RD 2 1 3 0 3

MARLENE RD 1 1 1 3 0 3

CONRAD RD 1 2 3 0 3

GLADWIN TRAIL RD 1 1 1 3 0 3

JACK RD 1 2 3 0 3

LAWSON RD 1 2 3 0 3

MILLS RD 1 1 1 3 0 3

SUNNYCREST RD (Gibsons Way) 1 1 2 1 1 3

FRANCIS PENINSULA RD 1 1 2 1 1 3

MASON RD 1 1 2 1 1 3

MERCER RD 1 1 2 1 1 3

LOWER RD 1 1 1 1 2 3

VETERANS RD 1 1 1 1 2 3

DALE RD 2 2 0 2

OCEAN VIEW DR 2 2 0 2

NESTMAN RD 1 1 2 0 2

ORANGE RD 1 1 2 0 2

SEAMOUNT WAY 1 1 2 0 2

ST MARYS HOSPITAL DR 1 1 2 0 2

BROOKS RD 1 1 2 0 2

MADEIRA PARK RD 1 1 2 0 2

BLOWER RD 1 1 1 1 2

WESTLEY RD 1 1 1 1 2

SANS SOUCI RD 1 1 1 1 2

CROWE RD 1 1 0 1

HWUS AVE 1 1 0 1

LARGO RD 1 1 0 1

OLDERSHAW RD 1 1 0 1

SPRIGGS RD 1 1 0 1

SULLIVAN RD 1 1 0 1

BRYAN RD 1 1 0 1

CLARKSON WAY 1 1 0 1

EGMONT RD 1 1 0 1

HARBOUR VIEW RD 1 1 0 1

JESSE RD 1 1 0 1

LEANING TREE RD 1 1 0 1

LEANNE RD 1 1 0 1

MENACHER RD 1 1 0 1

MIDDLE POINT RD 1 1 0 1

NEILSON RD 1 1 0 1

TRAIL ISLAND DR 1 1 0 1

TYSON RD 1 1 0 1

WESLEY RD 1 1 0 1

XEBICHEN AVE 1 1 0 1

MCCULLOUGH RD 0 1 1 1

HEATHER 0 1 1 1

369 93 462

Key:

Road name Direct improvement proposed

Road name Indirect improvement affect

TOTAL

SUM SUM

LOCATION TOTALTOTAL

ON SIDE ROADON HIGHWAY

20062008 2007 2006 2008 2007

Appendix A Records of Stakeholder and Public...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix A Records of Stakeholder and Public...