GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT...

COMBINED MONTHLY AND QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2014

GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT

MARCH 2016

DRAFT

1

GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT Monthly Status Report – March 2016

PROJECT STATUS DASHBOARD

Scope Status*

A Project Definition Report draft reference concept has been completed, which includes the main bridge and interchanges at Steveston Highway, Highway 17A and Westminster Highway as well as Highway 99 corridor improvements from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to Highway 91 in Delta.

The Project Definition Report was released on December 16, 2015. The Project scope, along with the draft reference concept, will be refined following Project

Definition Report consultation, technical studies and the environmental review.

Schedule

Consultation: Public and stakeholder consultation on the Project Definition Report has been completed; the Phase 3 - Project Definition Report Consultation Summary Report was released in March. Further comments from the public continue to be welcomed at the Project office in Richmond.

Environment: Consultation on the Project Description component of the Environmental Assessment (EA) Application is ongoing; the public comment period ended in February. Development of the EA Application will continue in preparation for a May/June 2016 submission.

Technical Studies: Engineering, geotechnical and other technical studies are underway to further inform the reference concept and in support of the procurement process.

Procurement: A business case has been completed. Procurement is expected to begin in 2016.

All key Project activities are proceeding on schedule.

Cost

The Project is on budget at March 31, 2016. The 2015/2016 fiscal year ended on March 31, 2016. Actuals were $2M below budget, primarily due to the timing of property acquisition.

* Status Legend: Green = No issues to report; Yellow = Minor issues to report; Red = Significant issues to report.

71.0

29.2

23.9

17.9

39.8

0.0

21.9

17.9

$0.0 $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0

Totals(FY 14/15‐16/17)

FY 16/17

FY15/16

FY14/15

millions of $

Work to Date

Project Development Budget(FY 14/15‐16/17)

2


INTRODUCTION

Project Overview

The George Massey Tunnel is an important link in the regional and provincial transportation system, carrying an average of 80,000 vehicles each day. It connects to key gateways such as Vancouver International Airport (YVR), the Peace Arch and Pacific Canada-U.S. border crossings, BC Ferries' Tsawwassen terminal, Deltaport and the Boundary Bay Airport. It is a vital goods movement route that fuels our local, regional, provincial and national economies, and a key access point for businesses in Delta, Surrey, Richmond, and Tsawwassen First Nation. Since the Tunnel opened in 1959, Metro Vancouver’s population and economy have grown, and its population is forecast to continue to grow by more than one million people over the next 30 years. Without improvements to this crossing, economic growth and regional livability will be constrained by congestion and increasing travel times for commuters, goods movers, commercial traffic and other traffic. With growing concerns about public safety and congestion in and near the Tunnel, in 2012, the government of B.C. commenced a study of options to address the Highway 99 corridor. After analysis and consultation, a new bridge to replace the Tunnel emerged as the most appropriate and supported solution. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2017.

Project Goals

Based on the Ministry’s mandate and results of consultation to date, six primary goals have been identified for the Project:

1. Reduce congestion. Improve travel times and reliability for all users. 2. Improve safety. This includes improving traffic and seismic safety, as well as emergency

response capabilities. 3. Support trade and commerce. Improve access to local businesses and gateway facilities, and

improve travel time reliability for goods movers and service providers. 4. Support increased transit on the Highway 99 corridor. Provide dedicated transit/HOV lanes

on the new bridge to improve travel time reliability and add capacity for long-term transit improvements.

5. Support options for pedestrians and cyclists. Provide a multi-use pathway on the new bridge to connect cycling and pedestrian corridors in Richmond and Delta.

6. Enhance the environment. Enhance the environment under the new bridge and in the Project right-of-way on Deas Island.

3


Key Milestones Achieved to Date

Key milestones achieved to date are listed by category below. The reports can be found within the Document Library of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project website.

Consultation Project Definition Report Completion of Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 Consultation, including

summary reports Environmental Review

Submission of Environmental Assessment Pre-Application to the BC Environmental Assessment Office

Design/Engineering Project Definition Report Draft Reference Concept Multiple traffic data and analysis reports Multiple geotechnical studies

Procurement Business Case Capital Cost Estimate Report Operations, Maintenance and Rehabilitation Base Cost Estimate Report Procurement Options Report Risk Report

March 2016 Highlights

Consultation Completed and released the Phase 3 – Project Definition Report Consultation Summary Report

Construction Began installing the reaction piles for the upcoming Pile Load Test

Obtained initial monitoring data during pile installations

Report Structure

The table below provides a brief description of the contents of this report.

1. Schedule High-level Project schedule including major milestones and deliverables

2. Project Management Objectives, monthly accomplishments and upcoming activities related to Safety, Quality and Project Controls

3. Project Development Scope, monthly accomplishments and upcoming activities for the each of the major disciplines: Stakeholders, Environment, Agriculture, Aboriginal Groups, Procurement, Engineering, Construction and Property

4. Cost Report Annual budgets and actual cost by fiscal year 5. Risk Management Key risks and mitigation strategies

4


1 SCHEDULE The following schedule depicts deliverables, milestones and associated dates and timelines for the planning phase of the Project as well as high-level construction timelines.

Legend:

Planning Environmental Review Procurement Property Acquisition Construction

Calendar Year

Consultation and Planning

Project Definition Report (PDR) Complete

Phase 3 Consultation : PDR

Phase 3 Consultation ; Summary Report

Environmental Assessment Process

Submit Pre-Application to EAO

Public Comment on Pre-Application

Submit EA Application

EAO Application Review

Public Comment on EA Application

EA Certificate

ALC Process

Permitting

Issue RFQ

RFQ Period

Proponent Shortlist

Issue RFP

RFP Period

Preferred Proponent

Financial Close

Property Acquisition

Pile Load Test

Advanced Works

Design

Main Bridge

Bridge Approaches

Highway and Structures North

Highway and Structures South

Tunnel Removal

RFP Period

Tunnel Decommissioning

EA Process

Q2Q1 Q2 Q4Q3 Q3

2022

Q4Q3Q2

2021

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q4 Q1Q1 Q2 Q3

20232020

Q4Q4 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q3Q3 Q4

20192017 2018

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2014

Q1 Q2

Permitting

2015

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2Q3 Q4

Planning

2016

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Pla

nn

ing

Advanced Works

Design

Highway and Structures South

Property Acquisition

Highway and Structures North

Bridge Approaches

Main Bridge Construction

RFQ

Pile Load Test

5


2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

2.1 Safety

Objectives:

Provide clear information on health and safety responsibilities. Ensure all required training is presented and evaluated. Ensure a safe worksite at all times.

Accomplished in month:

Conducted Occupational Health and Safety Committee meeting. Conducted Project safety orientations at the Project Office.

Key activities for next 3 months:

Safety training will be provided on a continual basis to the Project team and for new team members.

Occupational Health and Safety committee meetings. Field safety audits for Pile Load Test Project.

2.2 Quality

Objectives:

Ensure design services and construction works delivered to the Province are implemented within a quality standard consistent with Ministry standards and ISO 9001.


For the Pile Load Test: Review and monitoring of Contractor quality management activities including

quality control and quality assurance activities per Contractor’s Quality Management Plan, and work plans for Adjacent Structures Monitoring, Pile Installation and Construction Site Health, Safety and Environment Management.

Full-time site surveillance monitoring. External audit conducted on All-Span (load frame designer) by the Contractor;

no major findings identified.


Continue quality management input and support to procurement activities as required.

For the Pile Load Test: Continue review and monitoring of Contractor quality management activities

including observation and review of Contractor’s internal and external audits. Carry out activity-specific Quality Management System and surveillance audits

per audit schedule. Continue full-time site surveillance monitoring.

6


2.3 Project Controls

Objectives:

Effectively manage the Project’s contracts, scope, schedule and cost.


Held regular monthly Project controls meetings with all discipline leads. Began review of contract annual work plans for the fiscal year beginning April 1,

2016. Ongoing development and updates to the overall Project schedule.


Conduct monthly project controls meetings with all discipline leads. Conduct an annual performance review with main contractors for the fiscal year

ended March 31, 2016. Complete contract work plan review; finalization and approval of contract annual

work orders for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2016. Continued development of the Project’s performance measurement system.

7


3 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Stakeholders

Scope: Management of phased and ongoing public and stakeholder consultation, community relations and Project communications.


Completed and released the Phase 3 – Project Definition Report Consultation Summary Report.

Meetings were held with the following stakeholder groups: Agriculture Agricultural Land Commission Delta Agricultural Advisory Committee Richmond Agricultural Advisory Committee BC Cranberry Growers Association Richmond Farmers’ Institute Business Association Canadian Institute for Steel Construction Richmond Chamber of Commerce Government/Federal BC Environmental Assessment Office Transport Canada Government/Municipal City of Richmond Corporation of Delta Metro Vancouver / Metro Vancouver Parks Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Translink Other Port Metro Vancouver BC Hydro Fraser Health Vancouver Coastal Health


Conduct follow up with key stakeholders regarding the opportunity for feedback for the environmental assessment public comment period.

Continued stakeholder engagement and business and community group presentations.

8


3.2 Environment

Scope: Development of the Environmental Assessment (EA) Application as well as management of the Project monitoring and permitting process.


Conducted the second round meeting with the Technical Working Group (TWG) on March 10.

Received and addressed the second round of TWG comments on the draft Application Information Requirements (dAIR) document.

Revised the dAIR based on review comments; preparing to redistribute to the TWG.

Met with TWG members to discuss the Ministry’s response to comments on the dAIR.

Revising the Application to reflect the revised dAIR.


Revise the environmental baseline studies as a result of TWG comments on the dAIR.

Finalize the dAIR. Finalize the EA application for an expected submission of May/June 2016. Prepare for the Application review phase public comment period, including

consultation activities. Conduct environmental audits on the Pile Load Test.

3.3 Agriculture

Scope: Identify and work with farmers and other agricultural stakeholders potentially affected by the Project.

Prepare and submit the application to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC).


Met with the Richmond Farmers’ Institute (RFI), the Delta Agricultural Advisory Committee, the Richmond Agricultural Advisory Committee and the BC Cranberry Growers Association.

Ongoing meetings with Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) property owners and operators.

Met with the Agricultural Land Commission. Ongoing development of the application to the Agricultural Land Commission

(ALC) for approval of works within ALR boundaries.


Conduct follow-up meetings with farmers and stakeholders including the City of Richmond, the Corporation of Delta, the Ministry of Agriculture, the RFI and the DFI.

Finalize the application to the ALC. Submit the application to the ALC. Conduct assessment of existing highway ditch drainage/irrigation system and

develop improved system related to the Project’s design. Continuing liaison with ALR property owners and operators.

9


3.4 Aboriginal Groups

Scope: Consultation and engagement with Aboriginal Groups.


Six meetings were held with Aboriginal Groups. Supported Aboriginal Groups in their review and comment on environmental

assessment (EA) and Project-related documents and in the provision of traditional use studies for incorporation into the environmental assessment application.

Responded to questions, concerns and information needs of Aboriginal Groups through the EAO-led working group process, and through the Ministry’s consultation program.

Undertook a site visit with Lyackson First Nation elders to ensure knowledge sharing and effective involvement of elders in the Project’s review process.

Involved Aboriginal Groups in field work (River Otter Study, Human Health Impact Assessment).


Complete a draft Aboriginal Consultation Report for Aboriginal Groups’ review and comment.

Finalize the Aboriginal Consultation Report based on input received from Aboriginal Groups.

Continue consultation with Aboriginal Groups including site visits, meetings and community meetings.

Support Aboriginal Groups in their review and comment on EA and Project-related documents including the environmental assessment application.

Respond to outstanding questions, concerns and information needs of Aboriginal Groups through the EAO-led working group process and through the Ministry’s consultation program.

3.5 Procurement

Scope: Development of a business case, Request for Qualifications (RFQ), Request for Proposals (RFP) and subsequent evaluation of submissions.


Conducted initial planning for transfer of information to the data room site. Refined the draft RFQ including the submission requirements and evaluation

criteria, based on initial feedback. Began interdisciplinary internal reviews of the draft RFQ. Planned for implementation of the RFQ evaluation process including internal

reviews of the draft evaluation handbook and initial planning regarding protocols during the evaluation period.

Continued to develop the draft Concession Agreement with the advancement of technical specifications including road and structure design criteria and ongoing coordination between the legal, technical and procurement teams.


Continue developing the data room including access protocols. Conduct selection of the RFQ evaluation teams, orientation of the evaluation

participants and approval of the RFQ evaluation handbook. Finalize the RFQ. Continue working with the technical and external advisors to advance the draft

RFP and draft Concession Agreement.

10


3.6 Engineering

Scope: Development of a reference concept, technical requirements/specifications and related technical studies for the Project.

Travel demand forecasting, traffic operations modelling, traffic data collection, and other related services in support of the Project.


Developed conceptual design of Steveston interchange road and structures. Conducted micro-simulation for traffic operations at Steveston interchange and

the Highway 17A interchange. Began review of implications of new bridge code with respect to seismic design. Continued development of cycling and pedestrian trail design. Provided technical support on the Pile Load Test project. Ongoing refinement of reference concept and cost estimate.


Reference concept and cost estimate to be further refined based on the results of the Project Definition Report consultation, technical studies and the environmental review.

Construction staging analysis and constructability assessment will continue. Technical support for procurement will continue. Finalize seismic analysis related to the new bridge code. Additional drainage analysis will be conducted in Richmond. Ongoing traffic data collection and travel demand forecasting. Finalize reference concept for cycling and pedestrian trail design. Development of landscaping requirements and concepts.

11


3.7 Construction

Scope: The overall planning, coordination and implementation of construction activities. Current construction works include: Pile Load Test.


Began installation of reaction piles. Obtained initial monitoring data during pile installations.


Complete installation of reaction piles. Complete load frame modifications. Conduct the Pile Load Test; anticipated completion is summer 2016. Conduct environmental, safety and quality audits on the Pile Load Test.

3.8 Property

Scope: Review of properties along the Project corridor and development of a property acquisition plan.

The acquisition of land required to deliver the Project. A total of 34 properties have been identified for acquisition, the majority of which

are partial acquisitions.


Finalized five appraisal reports and delivered to owners for review. Prepared three draft acquisition agreements.


Continue property negotiations with owners to secure final agreements or agreements in principle.

Assist in the preparation of the ALR application, including onsite meetings with farmers.

Finalize property acquisition plans.

12


4 COST REPORT

4.1 Project Cost Estimate

Capital costs are estimated to be $3.5 billion. This estimate will be refined in response to scope changes resulting from public and stakeholder engagement and environmental review. The detailed cost estimate will be refined and finalized after the next phase of stakeholder and public engagement.

4.2 Planning Phase Financials

Notes:

- The 2015/2016 fiscal year ended on March 31, 2016 - Actuals were $2M below budget, primarily due to the timing of property acquisition

FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Totals

Work to Date 17.9 21.9 0.0 39.8

Budget 17.9 23.9 29.2 71.0

17.921.9

0.0

39.8

17.923.9

29.2

71.0

$0

$50

millions of $


5 RISK MANAGEMENT The Project team has developed a risk register for the Project, including risk mitigation strategies. The risk register is reviewed on a regular basis and will evolve as project development progresses. Soft soil conditions have been identified as a risk. The ministry is undertaking additional geotechnical investigations (Pile Load Test project) to test soil conditions and confirm foundation requirements for the bridge.


6 APPENDIX A – PROJECT PHOTOS

Pile installation

Pile splicing


7 APPENDIX B – PHASE 3 PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT

GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

PHASE 3 – PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT

MARCH 2016

This independent report of findings was prepared by Lucent Quay Consulting Inc. for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. The analysis includes input received through open houses, feedback forms, written submissions and stakeholder meetings. The views represented in the feedback forms and written submissions, which are summarized in this report, reflect the interests and opinions of people who chose to participate in the consultation process. They may not reflect the views of the broader public. The Ministry will consider the results of this consultation program along with ongoing technical and financial analysis in determining how to move the Project forward. Feedback form results presented in this report are a combination of online and hard copy feedback. Online feedback was collected using the Interceptum survey platform. Interceptum stores all of its data in Canada.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.........................................................................................................................EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

.................................................................................................................................................1. OVERVIEW 1

..................................................................................................................................1.1 About the Project 1...............................................................................................1.2 Previous Consultation and Engagement 1

..................................................................................................................................1.3 About this Report 2

.......................................................................................................2. PHASE 3 CONSULTATION PROCESS 2

...............................................................................................................................................2.1 Overview 2............................................................................................................................................2.2 Notification 3

..........................................................................................................................2.3 Engagement Methods 3

.........................................................................................................................................3. PARTICIPATION 5

...............................................................................................................................4. SUMMARY OF INPUT 5

......................................................................................................................................4.1 Participant Mix 5

......................................................................................................4.2 Summary of Input from All Sources 6...........................................................................................................4.3 Stakeholder Meetings Summary 7

......................................................................................................................4.4 Open Houses Summary 10.................................................................................................................4.5 Feedback Forms Summary 10

..........................................................................................................4.6 Written Submissions Summary 21

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Advertisements and Other NotificationsAPPENDIX 2 Feedback FormAPPENDIX 3 Display BoardsAPPENDIX 4 Stakeholder Presentation DeckAPPENDIX 5 Stakeholder Meeting NotesAPPENDIX 6 Written SubmissionsAPPENDIX 7 Verbatim Responses1

GMT ProjectPhase 3 Consultation Summary Report

29 Mar 2016

1 Available under separate cover at the Project Office

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/03/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-1-Notification-Program.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/03/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-1-Notification-Program.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/03/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-2-Feedback-Form.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/03/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-2-Feedback-Form.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/03/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-3-Display-Boards-web.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/03/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-3-Display-Boards-web.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/03/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-4-Stakeholder-Meeting-Presentation-web.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/03/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-4-Stakeholder-Meeting-Presentation-web.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/04/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-5-Stakeholder-Meeting-Notes.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/04/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-5-Stakeholder-Meeting-Notes.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/04/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-6-Written-Submissions.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2016/04/Phase-3-Consultation-Appendix-6-Written-Submissions.pdf

GMT Project Phase 3 Consultation Summary Report

29 Mar 2016 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY About the Project The George Massey Tunnel (Tunnel) is an important link in the regional and provincial transportation system, connecting to key gateways that fuel our national, provincial and regional economies. The Tunnel is now at capacity during the morning and afternoon rush hours and near capacity throughout the rest of the day. Population and employment on both sides of the Tunnel is forecast to continue growing, with demand at the Tunnel increasing by about 20 per cent over the next 30 years. In response to growing concerns about the impact of congestion and recognizing the age and condition of the existing George Massey Tunnel, the Government of British Columbia announced in September 2012 that planning for a replacement would begin immediately. Following two phases of public consultation, technical analysis and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders for a period of approximately three years, the Project Definition Report and business case were released for public feedback on December 16, 2015. The project scope includes replacing the Tunnel with a new 10-lane bridge (eight lanes plus two dedicated transit/high-occupancy vehicle lanes) spanning the Fraser River South Arm, decommissioning the Tunnel, and improving Highway 99 from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to Highway 91 in Delta. Proposed improvements include replacing the Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges; widening Highway 99 to accommodate dedicated transit/high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; and providing multi-use pathways for cyclists and pedestrians across the bridge that connect with the existing cycling and pedestrian networks on either side. The general alignment of the Project will follow the existing Highway 99 corridor, including across the Fraser River. The Project is designed to reduce congestion and improve travel times and reliability for commuters, transit, commercial vehicles, and tourists; improve safety; provide new travel options for cyclists and pedestrians; and provide capacity for improved transit. Consultation Process The Ministry adopted phased public and external stakeholder consultation program to support project planning and development. This included: • Phase 1: Understanding the Need (November to December 2012) – Focused on understanding the

need and potential constraints to develop the project scope and design requirements. • Phase 2: Exploring the Options (March to April 2013) – Based on Phase 1 consultation results and

preliminary technical work, Phase 2 sought input on the draft project scope and goals, five potential replacement scenarios and on the criteria to evaluate these options.

• Phase 3: Project Definition Report (December 16, 2015 to January 28, 2016) – Sought feedback on the full Project scope and business case, including Project goals, design features, benefit and cost analysis, draft performance evaluation/Project success measures, and tolling to fund the Project.

This report summarizes input received from Phase 3 consultation, which included participation from the public and stakeholders from across the Greater Vancouver region. Phase 1 and 2 results are available under separate cover and online at masseytunnel.ca. Participation • 1,037 people submitted a feedback form • 258 people signed up for project update emails (in addition to the 1,487 who had previously signed up) • 750 people attended the open houses • 102 people representing more than 60 organizations participated in the nine stakeholder meetings • 11 organizations provided written submissions • 266 people emailed the Project Office


29 Mar 2016 ii

• 310 people visited the Project Office in Richmond • 67 people called the Project Information Line • The Project website had 14,218 visits; the most popular downloads were:

o Project Definition Report (2,677 downloads) o Business Case (286 downloads) o PDR Draft Reference Concept (256 downloads)

Summary of Feedback The following is a high level summary of feedback from all sources, including stakeholder meetings, open houses, feedback form respondents and written submissions. • General support for the Project overall and interest in more detail about specific elements including

interchange designs, traffic forecasts, and the upcoming environmental assessment • General support for the following physical scope elements:

o Strong support for proposed transit, cycling and pedestrian measures o Strong support for capacity improvements to address congestion o Support for the proposed interchange improvements o Miscellaneous recommendations for additional Project scope items

• Respondents from Delta and Richmond were more likely to be supportive of the Project as compared with Vancouver residents, who were more likely to say that the Project is not needed

• Mixed support for tolling as a funding mechanism: o Most participants who commented about tolls supported tolling as a funding mechanism;

however, many participants suggested that tolling should be applied in the context of a regional tolling policy

o Some participants opposed any toll, for a variety of reasons • Strong support for use of other funding sources such as a federal funding contribution and

contributions from Port Metro Vancouver • Vancouver residents were more likely than residents of other areas to indicate support for tolls, while

Richmond residents were more likely to suggest tolling of all bridges at a lower rate and Delta residents were more likely to oppose tolling

• Concerns about potential increased traffic congestion at the Oak Street Bridge and, to a lesser extent, other Fraser River North Arm crossings

• Keen interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and how the Project will contribute to this • Questions about tunnel decommissioning and the potential effects of increased marine

traffic/industrialization of the Fraser River if the Tunnel is removed • Interest in additional transit improvements including timing of potential future rapid transit

extension – some participants expressed a preference for transit improvements instead of the Project • Some participants asked for more information about previous phases of consultation and the

rationale for a new bridge as compared to other alternatives explored in Phase 2 consultation About this Report Sections 1 to 3 of this report provide the overview and context for the Project and the consultation process as well as participation levels. Section 4 summarizes the key findings from each input source, including discussions at stakeholder meetings and open houses, feedback form responses, and written submissions. Additional information is available in the report appendices. The Ministry will consider this input along with technical, financial, environmental and policy considerations as Project planning continues. This includes preparing the Application for Environmental Assessment Review, which will be submitted in spring 2016, and in confirming the funding strategy for the Project.


29 Mar 2016 1

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 About the Project The George Massey Tunnel (Tunnel) is an important link in the regional and provincial transportation system, serving an average of 80,000 vehicles each day and connecting to key gateways that fuel our national, provincial and regional economies. Since the Tunnel opened in 1959, Metro Vancouver’s population has grown considerably. The Tunnel is now at capacity during the morning and afternoon rush hours and near capacity throughout the rest of the day. Population and employment on both sides of the Tunnel is forecast to continue growing, with demand at the Tunnel increasing by about 20 per cent over the next 30 years. In response to growing concerns about the impact of congestion and recognizing the age and condition of the existing George Massey Tunnel, the Government of British Columbia announced in September 2012 that planning for a replacement would begin immediately. Since then, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (the Ministry) has been conducting technical work and consulting with municipalities, aboriginal groups, Metro Vancouver, TransLink, the agricultural community, first responders, recreational groups, local businesses, local residents, cyclists, marine users, other stakeholders, and the public to assist in developing a project scope and business case for proceeding, to ensure that Highway 99 continues to serve regional, provincial, and national transportation needs. The Project will replace the Tunnel with a new 10-lane bridge (eight lanes plus two dedicated transit/high-occupancy vehicle lanes) spanning the Fraser River South Arm, decommission the Tunnel, and improve Highway 99 from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to Highway 91 in Delta. Proposed improvements include replacing the Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges; widening Highway 99 to accommodate dedicated transit/high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; and providing multi-use pathways for cyclists and pedestrians across the bridge and to connect with the existing cycling and pedestrian networks on either side. The general alignment of the Project will follow the existing Highway 99 corridor, including across the Fraser River. The Project is designed to reduce congestion and improve travel times and reliability for commuters, transit, commercial vehicles, and tourists; improve safety; provide new travel options for cyclists and pedestrians; and provide capacity for improved transit.

1.2 Previous Consultation and Engagement Since announcement of the Project in September 2012, the Ministry has been conducting technical analysis, raising awareness about the Project, engaging interested parties in dialogue, and responding to Project-related enquiries. More than 2,000 people have participated in earlier phases of consultation as summarized below. More than 3,300 people have visited the Project Office in Richmond, and 1,745 people have signed up to receive Project e-updates. Phase 1: Understanding the Need (November to December 2012) – Conducted early in the Project’s planning process, this phase of consultation sought to understand travel demand, operating conditions, and opinions and interests on the importance of various design considerations. A total of 1,150 people participated in this phase of consultation. Participants identified congestion relief and economic growth as the most important factors when considering solutions for the Tunnel. Many participants strongly advocated moving forward quickly to replace the Tunnel, with many specifically indicating that doing nothing was not an option. Participants noted the importance of considering all users, including drivers, goods movers, transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians. Participants were also interested in short- term solutions while planning for a long-term solution continued. The consultation summary report and related consultation materials are available on the Project website.


29 Mar 2016 2

Phase 2: Exploring the Options (March to April 2013) – Sought input on five potential Tunnel replacement scenarios and the criteria to evaluate these scenarios. More than 1,000 people participated. Participants expressed general support for Project goals and evaluation criteria. There was an overall preference for a new bridge on the existing corridor (Scenario 2), with strong opinions for and against other options, particularly maintaining and upgrading the Tunnel (Scenario 1), as well as constructing a new crossing along a new corridor to the east (Scenario 5). Participants asked questions and expressed concerns about the safety of tunnels and sought confirmation that plans for the new bridge would allow for future rapid transit. Participants also requested more information about cost and funding options. The consultation summary report and related consultation materials are available on the Project website. Community and Stakeholder Engagement (ongoing) – Following completion of Phase 2 consultation, the Ministry has continued to engage with stakeholders and community members as Project planning continued. This has included: • More than 90 presentations to business, professional and community groups • Meetings with City of Richmond and Corporation of Delta representatives (more than 60 meetings

held with each municipality since December 2012) • More than 180 meetings with other municipalities, regulatory agencies, elected officials, regional

government agencies, agricultural organizations, business organizations, community and resident groups, commercial and recreational marine users, cycling groups, and first responders

• Meetings with First Nations as part of a separate, but related, Aboriginal Engagement program 1.3 About this Report This report provides a summary of feedback received during Phase 3: Project Definition Report (December 16, 2015 – January 28, 2016), which sought feedback on the full Project scope and business case, including Project goals, design features, benefit and cost analysis, draft performance evaluation/Project success measures, and tolling to fund the Project. The Project Definition Report and related documents including consultation display boards, a technical presentation, draft reference concept drawings, and the feedback form are available on the Project website. Feedback was gathered through the feedback form, stakeholder group meetings, open houses and written submissions.

2. PHASE 3 CONSULTATION PROCESS 2.1 Overview The Ministry undertook Phase 3 consultation (December 16, 2015 to January 28, 2016) to seek feedback on the Project Definition Report, the business case and tolling as a funding source. Key tools and activities during the six-week consultation period included advertising and notification, email and social media engagement, stakeholder meetings, two open houses, and a feedback form available in print and online. Details about the forms of notification and timing for each are presented in the subsections below. The Ministry will consider this input along with technical, financial, environmental and policy considerations as Project planning continues. This includes preparing the Application for Environmental Assessment Review, which will be submitted in spring 2016, and in confirming the funding strategy for the Project.


29 Mar 2016 3

2.2 Notification The Ministry invited public participation through a variety of communication techniques as identified in the following table. Copies of all notification materials are included in Appendix 1.

2.3 Engagement Methods 2.3.1 Online Engagement As with previous phases of consultation, the primary hub for Phase 3 information was the Project website, masseytunnel.ca, which was built and promoted on the GovTogetherBC engagement platform.

Form of Notification Description Date(s)

Newspaper advertising

Consultation launch public notices in the Vancouver Sun, The Province, the Richmond News and the Delta Optimist Public notices placed in the Vancouver Sun and The Province, and eight Lower Mainland community newspapers including one Punjabi language and two Chinese language newspapers, to announce open house dates

17-18 December, 2015 11-14 January 2016

Media event and release

Media event at the Project Office in Richmond to launch consultation, as well as a media release and two backgrounders distributed to Lower Mainland media outlets, which generated significant media coverage

16 December 2015

Media release Media release to announce consultation open house dates 14 January 2016

Website Three public notices posted online at masseytunnel.ca 16 December 2015 4 & 26 January 2016

Social media 17 tweets @TranBC 16 December 2015 - 28 January 2016

Project Information Office

Office hours: 8:30 – 4:30 p.m. (Mon-Fri) Information line: 1-8-555-MASSEY staffed during regular office hours, with target response call within two business days or less Email: [email protected]

Office opened January 2014 Phone/email since November 2012

Email and letter drop notices

3 emails sent to the 1,700+ Project database subscribers 21 letters distributed to residents living at Riverwoods in Delta, adjacent to the Tunnel

16 &17 December 2015 26 January 2016 22 January 2016

Stakeholder meeting invitations

Invitations to 28 stakeholder groups as well as elected officials in Delta and Richmond

16 December 2015

Follow Up Phone Calls

Follow up phone calls and emails were made to remind stakeholders about the open houses and feedback opportunities

Weeks of 16 December 2015 and 28 January 2016


29 Mar 2016 4

2.3.2 Consultation Discussion Guide and Feedback Form The 40-page Project Definition Report served as the consultation discussion guide, providing information about the Project and the consultation topics. A 20-question feedback form invited questions and comments about the project scope, traffic management during construction, the upcoming environmental review, level of agreement with specific Project elements, draft Project evaluation/success measures, and tolling as a funding source. The Project Definition Report and feedback form were available in hard copy at the open houses, stakeholder meetings, and the Project Office as well as online throughout the consultation period. 2.3.3 Stakeholder Meetings The Ministry hosted nine meetings with stakeholder groups who requested an opportunity to discuss the Project in more detail, including two City of Richmond committees, as noted in the following table:

Stakeholder Group Date

Vancouver Board of Trade Transportation Committee 18 December 2015

Richmond Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors 12 January 2016

Cycling groups 12 January 2016

BC Trucking Association 13 January 2016

City of Richmond Active Transportation Committee 13 January 2016

Steveston 20-20 Group (a group representing Steveston Village non-profit organizations)

18 January 2016

City of Richmond General Purposes Committee 18 January 2016

Rotary Club of Steveston 19 January 2016

Richmond Farmers Institute 25 January 2016

Meetings included a presentation from Project staff followed by a facilitated discussion. Meeting notes were taken to capture the key themes and discussion at each meeting (see Appendix 5). 2.3.4 Open Houses The Ministry hosted two open houses, as noted in the table below. These open houses were jointly hosted by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) and the Ministry, and provided participants an opportunity to ask questions and to comment on the Project Definition Report (Phase 3 consultation) and the Project Description and Key Areas of Study (pre-application for the environmental review). Each open house included an informal drop-in style session where participants could view display boards and Project design reference concepts, and speak with Project staff. Each participant was asked to sign in and was offered a copy of the Project Definition Report guide and hard copy feedback form. Open houses were scheduled late in the Phase 3 consultation period to run concurrent with the environmental assessment public comment period, which commenced on 15 January 2016. This ensured that interested parties would not have to attend two consultation events in short succession.

Community Date/Time Venue

Richmond Tuesday, January 26, 2016 2:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Sandman Signature Hotel Vancouver Airport Round Room 10251 St. Edwards Drive, Richmond, BC

Delta Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Delta Town & Country Inn Ballroom 6005 Highway 17A, Delta, BC


29 Mar 2016 5

2.3.5 Other Methods Throughout the Phase 3 consultation, members of the public continued to visit the Project Office and the telephone and email enquiry program established in November 2012 to manage and respond to Project-related questions. Project staff responded to email inquiries, generally within two business days.

3. PARTICIPATION Format Participation

Website • More than 14,200 website visits during the consultation period • 258 people signed up for Project update emails (in addition to the 1,487

people who had previously signed up)

Open Houses • 750 people attended the open houses, which were reported by 19 media outlets

Stakeholder Meetings • 102 attendees representing at least 60 organizations participated

Feedback Forms • 1,037 people completed feedback forms, of which 905 were completed online

Project Office • 310 people visited the Project Office • 67 people called the Project Information Line • 266 people sent emails

Written Submissions • 11 organizations provided written submissions

4. SUMMARY OF INPUT Input was collected through four key sources – stakeholder meetings, open houses, the feedback form and written submissions. Key theme summary results from each of these sources are described in the subsections that follow. 4.1 Participant Mix Most stakeholder meeting and open house participants live in Delta and Richmond; 42 per cent of feedback form respondents were from these municipalities. Approximately one quarter of feedback form respondents who live in Delta work in Vancouver and about 13 per cent work in Richmond. Richmond respondents work primarily in Richmond (41 per cent) or Vancouver (15 per cent). Of the 20 per cent of feedback form respondents from Vancouver, most (75 per cent) work in locations that don’t require use of the Tunnel. Stakeholder meeting participants tended to be frequent users of the Tunnel, and just over half (54 per cent) of feedback form respondents use the Tunnel at least once per week. Most (63 per cent) of respondents indicated they will use the new crossing about the same amount of time as they do today, while 13 per cent will use it more and 19 per cent will use it less frequently once the Project is complete. Participants from all sources represented a broad mix of mode shares. Feedback form respondents were primarily transit or carpool users (53 per cent), followed by single occupant vehicle drivers (39 per cent).


29 Mar 2016 6

4.2 Summary of Input from All Sources 4.2.1 Project Scope • General support for the Project overall and interest in more detail about specific elements including

interchange designs, traffic forecasts, and the upcoming environmental assessment • General support for the following physical scope elements:

o Strong support for proposed transit, cycling and pedestrian measures o Strong support for capacity improvements to address congestion o Support for the proposed interchange improvements o Miscellaneous recommendations for additional Project scope items

• Respondents from Delta and Richmond were more likely to be supportive of the Project as compared with Vancouver residents, who were more likely to say that the Project is not needed

4.2.2 Funding • Mixed support for tolling as a funding mechanism:

o Most participants who commented about tolls supported tolling as a funding mechanism; however, many participants suggested that tolling should be applied in the context of a regional tolling policy – some for reasons of equity and others as a potential means to lower the cost of the toll

o Some participants opposed any toll, for a variety of reasons • Strong support for use of other funding sources such as a federal funding contribution and

contributions from Port Metro Vancouver • Vancouver residents were more likely than residents of other areas to indicate support for tolls, while

Richmond residents were more likely to suggest tolling of all bridges at a lower rate and Delta residents were more likely to oppose tolling

4.2.3 Other Themes • Concerns about potential increased traffic congestion at the Oak Street Bridge and, to a lesser

extent, other Fraser River North Arm crossings • Keen interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and how the Project will contribute to this • Questions about tunnel decommissioning and the potential effects of increased marine

traffic/industrialization of the Fraser River if the Tunnel is removed • Interest in additional transit improvements including timing of potential future rapid transit

extension – some participants expressed a preference for transit improvements instead of the Project • Some participants asked for more information about previous phases of consultation and the

rationale for a new bridge as compared to other alternatives explored in Phase 2 consultation


29 Mar 2016 7

4.3 Stakeholder Meetings Summary The Project Team attended meetings with stakeholder groups on request. The following table provides a summary of key themes from each of these meetings. Organization Date

Vancouver Board of Trade Transportation Committee (18 December 2015)

• Strong support for the Project • Appreciation for the full Project scope, particularly improvements at

Highway 91/Westminster Highway • Discussion of Highway 99 as an important national and provincial trade

and tourism corridor, and the need for efficient goods movement • Support for tolling and suggestion that tolls collected should also be

used to help fund the next phase of improvements in the future • Questions about plans to review the provincial tolling policy and

consideration of regional tolling • Questions about potential effects on congestion at the Oak Street

Bridge given that traffic is primarily regulated by the traffic lights at 70th

Avenue in Vancouver • Questions about HOV traffic merging to and from designated HOV

lanes

Richmond Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors (12 January 2016)

• Strong support for the Project • Questions about funding, including how much will be funded through

user tolls, how much federal funding can be anticipated, if any, and potential future plans for regional tolling

• Questions about how the Project benefits were quantified • Questions about soil conditions in the area • Preference for a Blundell interchange, but expectation that highway

widening between Steveston Highway and Westminster Highway may go a long way to addressing congestion in this area of the Highway 99 corridor

Cycling groups (12 January 2016)

The meeting included a detailed discussion of proposed cycling improvements at Bridgeport, Odlin/Shell Road, Westminster Highway, Blundell Road, Steveston Highway and River Road, and across the new bridge. Key themes were: • Strong support for the proposed improvements, and preference for

considering additional improvements within the Highway 99 corridor • Preference for bi-directional multi-use paths on both sides of the bridge,

for convenience and as a traffic calming measure; if path is only on one side of the bridge, ensure efficient cross access routes to and from it

• Preference for the multi-use path(s) to be under the bridge, as a weather protection measure

• Suggestion to use the Golden Ears Bridge cycling access/connections as a best practice guide, including signs, sight lines, grades, etc.

• Recommended using a skid-resistant surface and reflective markings, given the planned grade (5 per cent) of the new bridge

• Request to design connections to cycling networks and to the integrated transit stops in a manner that appropriately considers the needs of all cyclists (all ages and abilities)

• Suggested adding “zero fatality” as a specific goal and to include cycling incidents in the Project’s performance measures

• Request for more information about the cycling connections planned on the south side of the river


29 Mar 2016 8

Organization Date

BC Trucking Association (13 January 2016)

• Strong support for the Project, including the new Rice Mill Road accesses at Steveston Highway/Highway 99

• Questions about traffic management during construction, and recommendation to convene a traffic management advisory committee to assist in planning and evaluating traffic management measures

• Questions about soil conditions • Specific questions about the reference concept • Questions about procurement timing and use of local suppliers • Questions about what future developments are included in traffic

forecasts (e.g. build out of Deltaport Terminal 2) • Questions about traffic forecasts with respect to tolling • Questions about Tunnel decommissioning

City of Richmond Active Transportation Committee (13 January 2016)

The meeting included a detailed discussion of proposed cycling improvements at Bridgeport, Odlin/Shell Road, Westminster Highway, Blundell Road, Steveston Highway and River Road, and across the new bridge. Key themes were: • Strong support for the proposed cycling improvements, particularly at

Westminster Highway and Steveston Highway • Recommended additional improvements at Bridgeport/Van Horne • Discussion of options for ramp connections to/from the new bridge –

some prefer spirals, while some prefer switchbacks provided that the turning radii are large enough

• Suggestion to have one-way cycling traffic similar to the Burrard Street Bridge, given the likelihood for significantly increased demand; would require good connections and clear information signs

• Recommendations for human scale lighting along the bridge – suggestion to use the City of Richmond’s trail system lighting standards

• Support for proposed transit improvements and questions about when rapid transit will be extended

• Questions about feedback to date on tolling measures and potential consideration of region-wide tolling

• Questions about the toll rate and potential effects on Alex Fraser Bridge as a free alternative

• Questions about how the Tunnel will be decommissioned • Questions about the traffic forecasting methodology and how traffic

volumes on other tolled bridges compare with forecasts • Questions about trucks/heavy construction equipment and potential

effects on traffic during construction

Steveston 20-20 Group (18 January 2016)

• Appreciation for the presentation and the level of information provided • Questions about traffic volumes and how the most recent origin-

destination data was collected • Questions about the Steveston Highway interchange design and where

the additional Highway 99 lanes will pick up and drop off • Questions about the toll payback period assumptions, how much

federal funding and municipal funding is anticipated, and if the Project can proceed without a federal contribution

• Questions about Tunnel decommissioning and whether the decommissioned tunnel could remain in place rather than be removed

• Questions about how rapid transit will be incorporated in the future • Questions about the potential popularity of the new multi-use paths and

anticipated volume of cyclists and pedestrians as well as suicide prevention measures on the new bridge


29 Mar 2016 9

Organization Date

City of Richmond General Purposes Committee (18 January 2016)

• Preference for an upgraded tunnel instead of a new bridge • Questions about impacts to agricultural land and request for

confirmation that the Project will result in no net loss of ALR as well as information about the quality of land expected to be returned for agricultural use

• Concern that the Project may negatively affect plans for agricultural development as part of the City of Richmond’s Back Lands policy

• Concerns about potential impacts to Oak Street Bridge and questions about the validity of recent origin-destination traffic statistics

• Recommendation that the Ministry work with the City of Vancouver to improve timing of signal lights at 70th Avenue

• Questions about the benefits of a new bridge as compared with a new tunnel and about constructability given soil conditions in the area

• Preference to extend rapid transit as part of, or instead of, the Project • Desire for assurances that TransLink will deliver improved transit

service to make use of the transit infrastructure improvements planned as part of the Project

• Concern about potential impacts to Richmond roads and questions about whether the Project includes funding for local road improvements

• Concerns about potential increased shipping/industrialization of the Fraser River

Rotary Club of Steveston (19 January 2016)

• General support for the Project and appreciation for the cycling, transit and pedestrian scope elements

• Questions about how a new bridge was selected as the preferred option as compared with a new tunnel

• Questions about seismic challenges with the Tunnel and the improved seismic standards of a new bridge

• Questions about how the traffic data was collected • Questions about when rapid transit will be incorporated in the future • Questions about traffic management during construction and how

impacts will be avoided • Suggestion to include new park and ride facilities as part of the Project • Suggestion to consider improved access to the Vancouver International

Airport as part of the Project scope

Richmond Farmers Institute (25 January 2016)

• General support for the Project, given plans for no net loss of agricultural land, improved drainage on Highway 99 and better access within Richmond

• Strong support for plans to use median barriers on Highway 99, which will also help with flood control and avoid the need for construction of a mid-island dike elsewhere

• Discussion of potential salt wedge effects associated if deeper dredging happens in the future (Ministry and RFI studies are ongoing)

• Preference for an interchange at Blundell Road as part of the Project • Request to ensure that the Rice Mill Road access under the new bridge

be wide enough to accommodate farm vehicles • Request to ensure that all new underpasses/overpasses are built to

accommodate farm vehicles • Questions about seismic risk


29 Mar 2016 10

4.4 Open Houses Summary Two open houses were held during which participants had the opportunity to speak with Project staff and technical specialists as well as EAO staff. Project staff made note of their interactions with participants, which are summarized in the following table. Event Key Themes

Richmond (26 January 2016)

• General support for the Project, particularly with respect to Steveston Highway interchange improvements and transit improvements at Bridgeport Road

• Questions of clarification about the Project scope, including height/footprint of the new Steveston interchange

• Concerns about potential impacts to the Oak Street Bridge and other North Arm crossings between Richmond and Vancouver

• Concerns about potential effects to agricultural land • Questions about the origin-destination traffic data • Concerns about increased industrialization of the Fraser River

Delta

(27 January 2016)

• Most people support the Project but many had concerns about tolling and related effects for people living south of the Fraser River

• Concerns about port expansion and the potential for larger vessels to begin using this area of the Fraser River

• Suggestions that Port Metro Vancouver should assist in funding the Project

• Concerns about temporary construction impacts, given the amount of construction that has happened in Delta over the past several years

• Questions about potential effects to migratory birds • Questions about implications for the salt wedge • Questions about increased transit and potential new park and ride areas • Questions about how impacts to Deas Island Regional Park and the

neighbouring sloughs will be avoided • Concerns about potential increased noise levels during construction and

long-term operation of the new bridge • Questions about access to/from Highway 99, especially at River Road

4.5 Feedback Forms Summary The Ministry received 1,037 feedback form responses during the consultation period. Nine people sent in feedback forms from previous phases of consultation and these have been recorded as input but are not incorporated into the response summaries included below. It is important to note that almost all respondents answered questions about the Project scope elements and tolling (questions 5-7 and 9), and most responded to the demographic questions. Significantly fewer respondents provided comments or questions about other aspects about the Project. The number of respondents is noted for each question in the sections that follow.


29 Mar 2016 11

4.5.1 Project Scope Elements Participants were invited to provide comments or questions about the Project scope. Q1. The Project includes a new 10-lane bridge to replace the Tunnel, reconstructing the Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges, a multi-use pathway for cyclists and pedestrians on the new bridge, new transit/HOV lanes and improvements to Highway 99 between Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91 in Delta. What questions do you have, if any, about the draft project scope? • 309 respondents (30%) provided no comments • 55 respondents (5%) specifically stated they have no concerns • 664 respondents (65%) provided comments or questions

o 24% were generally supportive o 31% indicated conditional support o 10% were generally opposed

Key themes are summarized in the following table.

Comments/Questions About Project Scope (n=1,028)

Top Key Themes # Respondents %

Did not answer 309 30%

Requests for improvements to rapid transit as part of Project scope 103 10%

Concerns about Oak Street Bridge traffic effects 69 7%

Other Key Themes

Comments that the bridge is too big/too many lanes 62 6%

Statements that respondent has no comments/concerns 55 5%

Requests for improvements to other highways and bridges in region 50 5%

Questions about bridge exits/entrances and highway interchanges 41 4%

Comments about tolling 33 3%

Questions about potential traffic and noise management during construction 31 3%

Comments about the pedestrian and bike multi-use pathway 29 3%

Preference for an updated tunnel instead of a new bridge 29 3%

Suggestion to toll all bridges 24 2%

Statements of support for the Project 23 2%

Questions about construction and procurement 23 2%

Questions about why the Project did not go to plebiscite/referendum 23 2%

Note: Respondents may have commented on more than one topic.


29 Mar 2016 12

Strongly Agree 49%

Agree 24%

Neither Agree nor Disagree

9%

Disagree 4%

Strongly Disagree 8%

No answer 6%

Strongly Agree 34%

Agree 20% Neither Agree nor

Disagree 15%

Disagree 7%

Strongly Disagree

17%

No answer 7%

Q5. Please rate your level of agreement with the proposed transit/HOV lane extensions, which would add one lane in each direction to the new crossing for use by transit and carpool vehicles with two or more persons. • 73% of respondents agree

(49% strongly, 24% somewhat) with transit/HOV lanes

• 12% of respondents disagree (8% strongly, 4% somewhat)

• 9% neither agree nor disagree • 6% of respondents did not answer the question

Respondent base = 1,028

Q6. Please rate your level of agreement with the proposed addition of one general-purpose traffic lane in each direction, which would provide room for slower-moving and merging traffic, and accommodate for future growth, while maintaining the three lanes in each direction for other traffic that exist in the peak direction today.

• 54% of respondents agree

(34% strongly, 20% somewhat) with the additional general purpose lanes


• 15% neither agree nor disagree • 7% of respondents did not answer the question Respondent base = 1,028


29 Mar 2016 13

Q7. Please rate your level of agreement with the proposed multi-use pathway on the bridge for cyclists and pedestrians, connecting to Steveston Highway in Richmond and River Road in Delta. • 69% of respondents agree

(48% strongly, 21% somewhat) with the proposed multi-use pathway


• 11% neither agree nor disagree • 6% of respondents did not answer the question


4.5.2 Traffic Management During Construction Participants were invited comment or ask questions about traffic management during construction. Q2. The new bridge and Highway 99 improvements will be constructed while keeping traffic as it does today. This includes maintaining counterflow operations throughout construction. What questions do you have, if any, about traffic management during construction? • 559 respondents (54%) provided no comments • 104 respondents (10%) specifically stated they have no concerns • 365 respondents (36%) provided comments or questions, as highlighted in the table below: Comments/Questions About Traffic Management During Construction (n=1,028)




Questions about the traffic management plan 68 7%

Other Key Themes

Questions about Tunnel operations during construction 27 3%

Questions about congestion impacts during construction 27 3%

Statements of opposition to the Project 26 3%

Questions about impacts to interchange traffic flow during construction 24 2%

Concern about increased traffic on alternate routes during construction 23 2%

Questions/suggestions for increased/improved transit during construction 23 2%

Questions about construction hours of work/time of day 19 2%

Other Key Themes

# Respondents %

Concerns about construction delays 16 2%

Concern about traffic flow in Ladner during construction 15 1%

Concern about environmental impacts during construction 12 1%



Strongly Agree48%

Agree21%

Neither Agree nor Disagree

11%

Disagree6%

Strongly Disagree8%

No answer6%


29 Mar 2016 14

4.5.3 Environmental Assessment Review Participants were invited to provide comments or questions for the Ministry and the EAO to consider during the upcoming environmental assessment review. Q3. The Project will undergo Provincial Environmental Assessment review, which will consider the potential effects of the Project and how to appropriately address them. What questions do you have, if any, about the environmental review for this Project? • 509 respondents (50%) provided no comments • 95 respondents (9%) specifically stated they have no concerns or comments • 424 respondents (41%) provided comments or questions. Of these:

o 33% were generally supportive o 22% indicated conditional support o 13% were generally opposed

Key themes are summarized in the following table.

Comments/Questions About Environmental Assessment Review (n=1,028)




Questions and comments about the transparency of the process 60 6%

Questions about the Environmental Assessment review process 60 6%

Other Key Themes

Questions about impacts to farm land (Agricultural Land Reserve) 52 5%

Questions about climate change, GHG and emissions 50 5%

Comments and questions about impacts to wildlife 31 3%

Questions about increased traffic on the corridor 23 2%

Questions about potential increases in marine traffic 21 2%

Questions about tunnel decommissioning 19 2%

Comments and suggestions for improvements to rapid transit 17 2%

Comments and questions about impacts to fish and fish habitat 16 1%

Questions about potential noise impacts during construction 14 1%

Questions about impacts of construction 13 1%



Specific comments and questions related to the environment are being considered as part of the Environmental Review process. Many comments mirror those sent directly to the Environmental Assessment Office during the concurrent public comment period for the Project Description and Key Areas of Study. The Ministry will prepare an overview of comments received during PDR consultation and submit this to the EAO.


29 Mar 2016 15

4.5.4 Project Success Measures Participants were invited to provide comments or recommended changes to draft performance/Project success measures in determining success in achieving each of the Project goals as identified in the Project Definition Report. Q8. Page 30 of the Project Definition Report provides information on how each of the Project goals will be measured and evaluated. Would you add or change any measurements to help determine the Project’s success? • 529 respondents (51%) provided no comments • 90 respondents (9%) specifically stated they have no concerns • 409 respondents (40%) provided comments or questions Comments specifically related to recommended changes or new project success measures include: Traffic Measures • Increased transit capacity and ridership • Change in mode share including cycling and walking • Change in transit travel time • Change in emergency response times • Change in vehicle-kilometres travelled • Change in vehicle idling times • Change in traffic volumes on other crossings • Number of cars per capita

Economic Measures • Improved goods movement flow • Economic benefit of construction jobs • Economic impact of tolls on south of Fraser residents • Toll payback period

Community Development Measures • Change in residential/industrial development patterns • Surveys of business customers in Richmond and Delta • Aesthetic design of the new bridge

Environmental Measures • Air quality • Carbon footprint/Greenhouse Gas emissions • Farmland protection • Silt levels in Green Slough/changes in water quality • Drainage and stormwater runoff • General comments about a need for more specific

environmental success measures

Construction Performance Measures • On time/early completion • On or under budget at completion • Keeping traffic moving during construction

Many respondents used this question as an opportunity to reinforce earlier comments rather than to recommend new measures. Results of the key themes are as follows:

Comments/Questions About Project Success Measurements (n=1,028)




Requests for improvements to rapid transit 70 7%

Other Key Themes

Comments about reduced traffic congestion 42 4%

Comments about increased traffic on alternate routes 35 3%

Comments and complaints about process and transparency 31 3%

Comments about bridge usage by cyclists and pedestrians 28 3%


Miscellaneous comments about the Project scope 27 3%

Comments about alternate crossing options 26 3%

Comments about climate change, GHG and emissions 26 3%

Comments about the overall Project budget 25 2%


29 Mar 2016 16

Comments/Questions About Project Success Measurements (n=1,028)

Comments about potential environmental impacts 24 2%

Requests for no tolls 21 2%

Comments on tolling 18 2%


4.5.5 Other Comments and Questions The Project Definition Report outlines the proposed Project scope, rationale, and the business case for the Project moving forward. Participants were invited to offer any specific questions. Q4. What other questions do you have, if any, as the Project moves forward? • 432 respondents (42%) did not have any questions • 28 respondents (3%) specifically stated they have no concerns • 568 respondents (55%) provided comments or questions Key themes of questions are summarized in the following table. Key Comments/Questions as the Project Moves Forward (n=1,028)



Questions about tolling operations and costs 82 8%

Questions about transit improvements and increased service 80 8%

Other Key Themes

Questions about Project funding and budget 60 6%


Statements of opposition to tolling 36 4%

Questions about the why the Project did not go to plebiscite/referendum 35 3%

Questions and comments about the Project planning process and transparency 32 3%

Questions about Project scope 31 3%

Suggestions to toll all bridges 30 3%


Questions about potential increased congestion at Oak Street Bridge 23 2%

Questions and comments about the consultation process 21 2%


Questions/comments about specific highway interchanges 20 2%

Concerns about increased traffic on alternate routes 20 2%

Questions about alternate crossing options 20 2%


In addition, some participants took the opportunity to provide additional comments (Q20). • 446 respondents (43%) did not provide additional comments • 582 respondents (57%) provided comments


29 Mar 2016 17

Key themes of these comments are summarized below. Additional Comments/Questions (n=1,028)




Other Key Themes

Appreciation for opportunity to comment and consultation process 96 9%

Recommendations for various transit improvements and service increases 75 7%

General concerns about potential environmental impacts 66 6%

Recommend lower toll rates/discounted toll rates 43 4%

Concerns about increased traffic on alternate routes 40 4%

Comments about the Project process and transparency 27 3%

Comments about the size of the new bridge (too many lanes) 25 2%

Comments about the bridge design 17 2%

Comments about the pedestrian and bike multi-use pathway 12 1%


Questions about potential for increased marine traffic 12 1%


Suggestions to toll all bridges 9 1%


4.5.6 Tolling as a Funding Source Participants were invited to provide comments about tolling as a funding source. Q9. The Province intends to fund the Project through user tolls and is working with the federal government to determine potential funding partnerships. Please provide your comments about tolling as a funding source. • 154 respondents (15%) provided no comments • 874 respondents (85%) provided comments or questions. Of these:

o 13% support of tolling as proposed o 44% indicated conditional support for tolling (lower toll or toll all bridges) o 14% recommended alternative sources of funding o 22% opposed tolling

Vancouver residents were more likely than residents of other areas to indicate support for tolls as a funding source generally. Richmond residents were more likely to indicate support for tolling if all bridges were tolled at a lower rate, while Delta residents were more likely than other respondents to oppose tolling – about 26 per cent of respondents from Delta indicated a preference for no tolls.


29 Mar 2016 18

Private vehicle, alone 39% Private vehicle,

with other passengers

46%

Other commercial vehicle (smaller truck, bus, taxi, delivery vehicle, service vehicle)

2%

Transit 7%

Cycling or walking, and used the

shuttle service 1%

Commercial vehicle, over 5,500

kg 1%

No answer 4%

Key themes are summarized in the following table. Comments/Questions About Tolling as a Funding Source (n=1,028)


Suggestions to toll all bridges at a lower rate 384 37%



Statements of support for tolling 135 13%

Other Key Themes

Suggestions that current taxes should fund Project 80 8%

Concerns that tolling is unfair to local residents and businesses 79 8%

Requests for discounted toll for high-frequency users and off-peak hours 69 7%

Comments about alternate funding sources 58 6%

Comments about increased traffic on alternate routes 32 3%

Suggestions to improve rapid transit instead of building a bridge 27 3%

Comments about tolling operations 14 1%

Concerns about increased marine traffic 11 1%

Comments about the planning process and transparency 8 1%

Comments about traffic management and comparisons to other projects 7 1%

No concerns 6 1%


4.5.7 Participant Demographics

Current Use of the Tunnel and Highway 99 Participants were asked to indicate how frequently they use Highway 99 today, how they typically travel and where they typically enter or exit the highway. Q10. On average, how frequently do you use the George Massey Tunnel? • Most respondents (54%) use the Tunnel at least

once a week. o 28% use it four or more days/week o 26% use it at least once a week

Q13. When using the Tunnel, how do you most frequently travel? • 53% of respondents carpool or take transit • 39% of respondents are single occupant drivers • 3% of respondents are commercial vehicle

drivers (large and small) See chart to the right for details



29 Mar 2016 19

Delta 32%

Vancouver 20%

Surrey 12%

Richmond 11%

Other municipality 11%

Other Metro Vancouver

7%

No answer 4%

White Rock 3%

Origins and Destinations Respondents were asked to indicate where they usually enter and exit Highway 99 when they travel. Q11. When you travel Highway 99 between Oak Street Bridge and the U.S. border, where do you usually enter Highway 99 (e.g., from what on-ramps)? Q12. When you travel Highway 99 between Oak Street Bridge and the U.S. border, where do you usually leave the Highway (e.g., from what off-ramps)? The most common points of entry and exit are noted in the table below. Most Common Points of Entry % Most Common Points of Exit %

Oak Street Bridge or north 25% Highway 17A/River Road 19%

Highway 17A/River Road 15% Oak Street Bridge or north 14%

Steveston Highway 10% Steveston Highway 10%

Note: Respondents may have selected more than one option.

Future Use of the Tunnel and Highway 99 Participants were asked to indicate their use of the crossing when the new bridge opens. Q14. When the new bridge opens, it will help relieve congestion and provide more travel time reliability. Because of this my use of the crossing will… • 63% of respondents will use the Tunnel

about the same as they do today • 13% will use it more • 19% will use it less


Place of Residence Participants were asked to indicate where they live. Q15. Where do you live? The vast majority of respondents (89%) live in Metro Vancouver, including 32% from Delta, 12% from Surrey and 11% from Richmond. Respondents from Delta and Richmond were more likely to be supportive of the Project (as expressed in comments about Project scope) as compared with Vancouver residents, who were more likely to say that the Project is not needed. With respect to comments about the Project, Vancouver residents were more likely to have environmental concerns, Respondent base = 1,028 while Delta residents were more likely to express concerns about transparency of the planning process.

Will stay about the same

63%

Will decrease19%

Increase, because I will travel more often generally

7%

Increase, because I will travel more

often on this crossing instead of

others6%

No answer5%


29 Mar 2016 20

Age of Respondents Q19. Please indicate your age range. • Respondents are primarily aged 25 to 44 (33%)

or 45 to 64 (38%) • 21% of respondents are aged 65+ (much higher than

the Metro Vancouver average of about 13.5%) The most common age range for respondents is 45 to 64 for all municipalities except Vancouver, where 61% of respondents are 25 to 44 years of age. Delta/Ladner/Tsawwassen area respondents are slightly older than Richmond and Surrey/White Rock area residents.

Respondent base = 1,028 Recreational Use Recognizing the recreational value of areas near the Tunnel, the Ministry sought to better understand whether consultation participants also use these areas. Results are shown in the following two charts. Q17. In the past year, have you visited Deas Island Regional Park or crossed over the Tunnel using the Millennium Trail in Delta or the Dyke Road Trail in Richmond?

Q18. In the past year, have you visited Deas Slough or one of the marinas near the George Massey Tunnel by boat?

Yes,%38%% No,%59%%

No%answer,%3%%

Yes,%18% No,%78%

No%answer,%4%

19-24 4%

25-44 33%

45-64 38%

65-74 17%

75+ 4%

No answer 3%


29 Mar 2016 21

4.6 Written Submissions Summary The Ministry received 11 written submissions from stakeholders and 80 written submissions from members of the public. Stakeholder submissions included: • BC Trucking Association • The City of Richmond • Delta HUB • Delta South MLA Vicki Huntington • HUB Cycling • Metro Vancouver • Port Metro Vancouver • Richmond Chamber of Commerce • Surrey Board of Trade • TransLink • Vancouver Board of Trade Key themes from each of these submissions are summarized in the table below, in chronological order by date received. Copies of these submissions are included in Appendix 6. Organization/Date Key Themes

Vancouver Board of Trade (16 December 2015)

Welcome the release of the Project Definition Report and Business Case and pledge support for the Tunnel’s replacement in an effort to improve the movement of goods and people along the Highway 99 corridor.

BC Trucking Association (27 January 2016)

Support replacing the Tunnel with a 10-lane bridge to support the movement of commercial goods. Referenced importance of considering over-dimensional loads, dangerous goods and long combination vehicles. Recommendations include: • Tolling all bridge crossings as a move towards mobility pricing and to avoid

traffic diversion • Use Golden Ears Bridge vehicle classifications rather than Port Mann • Institute a Traffic Advisory Committee to help guide traffic management

during construction and include penalty clauses for congestion • Increase vertical clearance of overpasses

TransLink (27 January 2016)

Support plans to toll the bridge, indicating that it is consistent with the Regional Transportation Strategy and the Metro Vancouver Mayors’ Vision. Suggested that the Project provides a good opportunity to review the Provincial Tolling Guidelines and move towards a mobility pricing strategy. Request to include a direct transit ramp at Highway 17A and that if Project scope is expanded, a direct connection for buses to Ladner Trunk Road. Note that the Project supports regional goods movement. Request more information about connections to local cycling and pedestrian networks on both sides of the new bridge, noting that a south side connection is critical for access to and from BC Ferries. Also request an opportunity to review preliminary transit access designs from a passenger safety and comfort perspective. Request that greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle-kilometres-travelled and mode share shift be included in the Project performance measures.


29 Mar 2016 22

Organization/Date Key Themes

Delta HUB (28 January 2016)

Strongly support a multi-use path on both sides of bridge and provided detailed recommendations for design and safety for these paths, as well as: • Coordinated signage • Ground level connections to the multi-use path from both sides of bridge,

to maximize accessibility from all potential origins • Improve community roadway (Vasey Road and 60th Ave) and the regional

cycling gateway as a whole with integrated transit stops at key locations

Request more information about: • Funding of Delta Trails • Plans for park and rides along Highway 99 • Potential extension of River Road (Corporation of Delta project) • New overpasses at Highway 10 and 112th Street

Delta South MLA Vicki Huntington (28 January 2016)

Supports many of the objectives outlined in the Project Definition Report and noted the following outstanding items: • Concern that tolling will create inequity for residents south of the Fraser

River • Suggests consultation on a region-wide tolling system and a funding

contribution from Port Metro Vancouver • Request for more information regarding “no net loss” of farmland • Request for more specific information about how South Delta residents will

access from Highway 17A, including passenger vehicles, transit, foot and bicycle traffic

HUB Cycling (28 January 2016)

Feedback on scope and performance measures related to cycling, specifically: • Request a more comprehensive plan for safe and convenient cycling along

the entire Highway 99 corridor to help address gaps in the regional cycling network

• Recommend creating a clear cycling goal with an objective to increase cycling along the length of the corridor

Metro Vancouver (28 January 2016)

Key interests are regional growth management, air quality and climate change, environment, regional utilities and infrastructure, and regional parks. Specific comments and requests for additional information include: • Information on transportation patterns associated with a new tolled bridge,

its effect on goods movement, and changes in greenhouse gases • Details on tolling options and refinements to provincial tolling policy • How air emissions will change per vehicle and overall (regional total) and

how will it compare to regional green house gas emission reduction targets • Recommendation to consider air quality impacts in the design of cycling

and pedestrian infrastructure • How climate change impacts are being considered in bridge design and

restoration projects • Recommendation to add a Health Impact Assessment • Details outlining impacts of the Project on agricultural land and possible

mitigation or enhancement options • Detailed information about the planning and design of the area within Deas


29 Mar 2016 23


Island Regional Park and a request to work with the Ministry to ensure strong ecological and trail connections to the park

• Request to consider opportunities to advance the Experience the Fraser Concept Plan

• Request information about construction and maintenance access • Scope details to ascertain extent of impacts on regional utilities

Port Metro Vancouver (28 January 2016)

Advise that Port Metro Vancouver had reviewed the PDR and does not have any feedback/comment on the report.

Richmond Chamber of Commerce (28 January 2016)

Endorse the concept of a replacement bridge as outlined in Project Definition Report, in particular the benefits of the new bridge. Note that in a membership survey conducted in January 2016, 87 per cent of decided respondents supported a new bridge. Request that more information be provided about: • Net gain of agricultural land • Specific environmental benefits • Potential effects at Oak Street and 70th Ave • Land use planning for the region • An economic, social and environment benefit-cost analysis, to help

communities understand overall effects of the Project

Surrey Board of Trade (28 January 2016)

Support replacement of George Massey Tunnel in principle and recommended mobility pricing as the preferred option for funding future infrastructure and transit projects. Recommend that governments work toward a coordinated regional tolling policy. Provided detailed individual responses from members to the questions outlined in the Ministry’s Project Definition Report feedback form.

City of Richmond (3 February 2016)

Support in principle, the objectives of the Project. Request that the following items be addressed before advancing further design and procurement:

• More details on plans for no net loss of agricultural land • More details on how riparian management and environmentally sensitive

areas in Richmond will be maintained and protected • How tolling will be implemented • Contingency plan for potential increased traffic at the Oak Street Bridge • Collaboration with Richmond on other infrastructure improvements • An iconic bridge design Offer specific recommendations for cycling and transit improvements.

Members of the Public (16 Dec 2015 to 28 Jan 2016)

Comments primarily with respect to support for the Project and comments/questions about project funding. Key themes are as follows:

• Very strong support for a new bridge • Very strong support for adding light rail as part of the project • Strong support for other aspects of the project scope, specifically including: o Steveston interchange improvements o Maintaining a River Road off ramp


29 Mar 2016 24


o Highway 17A interchange improvements o Improving HOV and transit travel across the river and for moving these

lanes from the shoulder to the median o Cycling improvements

• Many suggestions to also fix the problem of congestion at Oak Street Bridge as part of the Project

• Very strong opposition to tolling generally • Numerous suggestions to toll every bridge and/or lower the toll rate A low number of correspondents offer suggestions to change the project scope including:

• Reduce the number of lanes to on the new bridge to six or eight • Keep the Tunnel in place once it is decommissioned • Construct a new tunnel instead

GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT...

Documents

Transcript of GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT...