Summary of cost-benefit/impact analyses

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

Summary of cost-benefit/impact analyses Projects and initiatives to be cost recovered through GIF2022 November 2020

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Summary of cost-benefit/impact analyses – projects and initiatives to be cost recovered through GIF2022

2020-11 ii

Contents 1. About GIF2022 and this document ............................................................................................ 1 2. Pre-funding leverages government and partner funding ........................................................... 2 3. Projects to be cost recovered through GIF2022 ........................................................................ 2 4. Cost-benefit/impact analysis summary ...................................................................................... 3 4.1. Burrard Inlet Line Double Tracking Project .......................................................................... 3 4.2. Heatley Diamond Reconfiguration ........................................................................................ 3 4.3. Highway 91/17 and Deltaport Way Upgrade Project ............................................................ 4 4.4. Glen Valley Double Tracking ................................................................................................ 4 4.5. GTCF Technical Analysis and Engagement ........................................................................ 5 5. Costs allocated to terminals east of the Second Narrows Rail Bridge ...................................... 5 6. Allocation of costs to trade areas and groups of terminals ....................................................... 6 Appendices:

• Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 – May 2017 • Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030: Cost-Benefit Analysis Supplementary Documentation –

November 6, 2017 • Gateway Rail Assessment 2030 Executive Summary – April 6, 2018 • Second Narrows Rail Bridge Capacity Analysis – Summary of Rail Capacity Analysis

Methodology – November 6, 2020


2020-11 | Page 1 of 5

1. About GIF2022 and this document On January 1, 2022, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority will implement a new fee called the Gateway Infrastructure Fee 2022 (GIF2022). The fee will recover 90% of contributions that the port authority is pre-funding, on behalf of industry, towards infrastructure projects and initiatives to increase the fluidity of the gateway. The port authority will be contributing the remaining 10% from its revenues. This document, along with its appendices, provides an overview of cost-benefit/impact analyses related to the projects or initiatives that will be cost-recovered through GIF2022. Four documents are appended:

Appendix name Author Overview

Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 (GVG2030) May 2017

Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum

Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 (GVG2030) is the Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum’s (GTCF) strategy for smart infrastructure investment to remove bottlenecks impeding the growth of trade, while addressing the community impacts of goods movement and population growth. This document outlines nearly 40 initial projects and initiatives identified by the GTCF through consultation with industry, municipalities, Indigenous groups and government agencies.

Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030: Cost-Benefit Analysis Supplementary Documentation (HDR) November 6, 2017

HDR HDR’s report provides a cost-benefit analysis of full suite of projects outlined in GVG2030. This document was appended to the funding applications submitted by GTCF members in 2017 and 2019 to the National Trade Corridors Fund. Overall, this analysis determined that every $1 invested in GVG2030 projects would generate $2.32 in public benefits, for a total of $4 billion in benefits to Canadians.

Gateway Rail Assessment 2030 (MM1) April 6, 2018

Mott MacDonald Mott MacDonald was commissioned to interview industry stakeholders to understand forecasted growth to 2030 and identify rail capacity. Mott MacDonald then modelled the rail network to identify and prioritize infrastructure investments on rail corridors for the year 2030 and beyond. This document also provides a usage breakdown of infrastructure improvements by trade area.

Second Narrows Rail Bridge Capacity Analysis – Summary of Rail Capacity Analysis Methodology (MM2) November 6, 2020

Mott MacDonald This technical memo summarizes methodology and results of work undertaken to quantify the demand placed on the Second Narrows Rail Bridge from vessels transiting to and from terminals east of the bridge, and therefore the requirement for additional rail capacity to the North Shore Trade Area as a result of the operations of these terminals.


2020-11 | Page 2 of 6

2. Pre-funding leverages government and partner funding Since 2017, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and its partners have been seeking federal funding for priority gateway infrastructure projects across the Vancouver gateway. Funding commitments and pre-funding contributions from the port authority, on behalf of industry, will leverage investments from others—including the federal government through the National Trade Corridors Fund, the provincial government, municipalities, railways and private sector industry—into trade-enabling projects that will benefit the greater Vancouver gateway. The port authority has committed $380 million in pre-funding towards the capital projects and initiatives noted below, which will be cost recovered through GIF2022. By committing this pre-funding, the port authority and industry are leveraging approximately $2 million from the federal and provincial governments and other partners for every $1 million being pre-funded.

3. Projects to be cost recovered through GIF2022 This table outlines the projects and initiatives that will be cost recovered through GIF2022, and where information related to cost-benefit/impact analysis for each can be found:

Project name Pre-funding ($Million)

CBA/CIA

Pitt Meadows Road and Rail Improvements Project (Harris Road Underpass and Kennedy Road Overpass Project)

$61 GVG 2030, HDR, MM1, MM2, Section 5

Mountain Highway Underpass Project $6 GVG 2030, HDR, MM1

Westwood Street and Kingsway Avenue Grade-Separations Project (planning study)


Pitt River Road and Colony Farm Road Rail Overpasses Project (planning study)


Burrard Inlet Road and Rail Improvements Project – Centennial Road Overpass, Waterfront Road Access Improvements, Commissioner Street Road and Rail Expansion, and rail improvements along CP Cascade Subdivision

$55 GVG 2030, HDR, MM1

Burnaby Rail Corridor Improvement Project/Holdom Overpass (formerly North Shore Corridor Capacity Improvements Project) - Thornton Rail Tunnel Ventilation Upgrades, Rail Corridor Improvements, Holdom Road Overpass


Portside Blundell Overpass and Upgrades Project $42 GVG 2030, HDR, MM1

Fraser Surrey Port Lands Transportation Improvement Project $13 GVG 2030, HDR, MM1

BI Line Double Tracking Project $29 Section 4.1

Heatley Diamond Reconfiguration $6 Section 4.2

Highway 91/17 and Deltaport Way Upgrade Project $88 Section 4.3

Glen Valley Double Tracking $10 Section 4.4

GTCF Technical Analysis and Engagement $8 Section 4.5

Total $380


2020-11 | Page 3 of 6

4. Cost-benefit/impact analysis summary Please refer to the appendices for cost-benefit/impact analysis for the following projects and initiatives:

• Pitt Meadows Road and Rail Improvements Project (formerly Harris Road Underpass and Kennedy Road Overpass Project)

• Mountain Highway Underpass Project • Westwood Street and Kingsway Avenue Grade-Separations Project (planning study) • Pitt River Road and Colony Farm Road Rail Overpasses Project (planning study) • Burrard Inlet Road and Rail Improvements Project – Centennial Road Overpass, Waterfront Road

Access Improvements, Commissioner Street Road and Rail Expansion, and rail improvements along CP Cascade Subdivision

• Burnaby Rail Corridor Improvement Project/Holdom Overpass (formerly North Shore Corridor Capacity Improvements Project) - Thornton Rail Tunnel Ventilation Upgrades, Rail Corridor Improvements, Holdom Road Overpass

• Portside Blundell Overpass and Upgrades Project • Fraser Surrey Port Lands Transportation Improvement Project

The remainder of this section provides analysis for projects and initiatives not covered in the appendices.

4.1. Burrard Inlet Line Double Tracking Project The Burrard Inlet Line (BI Line) is CN’s primary access to the South Shore Trade Area to service the Centerm and Vanterm container terminals. The BI Line Double Tracking Project would increase the capacity of the BI Line to support anticipated growth in trade through the Port of Vancouver. It would also make the south shore rail network more resilient to disruptions by ensuring that an alternate route for south shore access to the North American rail network is maintained. Current rail operations along BI Line are constrained by not only the presence of five at-grade road crossings, which limit the flexibility of train positioning opportunities, but by the restriction associated with a capacity-constrained, single-track corridor. These limitations impact the ability of the rail corridor to accommodate growing container volumes through south shore terminals. The BI Line Double Tracking Project will support efficient movement of Canadian goods and people by addressing a bottleneck in the rail corridor by adding capacity to optimize the use of switching windows on the Heatley Diamond crossing. At this location, the BI Line crosses the CP Cascade Subdivision, which is used for freight service and also accommodates the West Coast Express commuter rail service. Due to conflicts with competing rail moves on the CP corridor, this crossing limits the amount of time that BI Line can be used. Adding a second track will allow for simultaneous rail movements to and from the south shore, enabling the movement of more volume within the same timeframe, thereby mitigating the impact of increased volumes on the CP Cascade Subdivision. The project will increase capacity and operational fluidity on rail corridors for both CN and CP, providing an increase in overall rail capacity to the South Shore Trade Area. The port authority is pre-funding $29 million on behalf of industry. Other funding is being provided by the National Trade Corridors Fund and CN.

4.2. Heatley Diamond Reconfiguration The reconfiguration of the Heatley Diamond and associated works on the south shore of Burrard Inlet are intended to address current capacity challenges at the intersection of the north-south Burrard Inlet Rail Line and the main east-west Rail Corridor along the South Shore. The BI Line connects into one of the northernmost east-west rail lines via the Heatley Diamond today, and so north-south movements from the BI Line across the Heatley Diamond impacts east-west flows.


2020-11 | Page 4 of 6

While the design of the project is still under development, the objective would be to reduce the conflict at this intersection and improve fluidity, both north-south and east-west, for terminal facilities in the South Shore Trade Area. The port authority is pre-funding $6 million on behalf of industry. Other funding is being provided by CP and CN.

4.3. Highway 91/17 and Deltaport Way Upgrade Project The Highway 91/17 and Deltaport Way Upgrade Project is a combination of improvements to existing Highway 91, Highway 17, Highway 91 Connector and Deltaport Way to improve travel safety and efficiency. These upgrades will improve local and commercial travel in the area and reduce conflicts between commercial vehicles and other traffic. The project will result in:

• Increased competitiveness for national and international commercial activity directed to and through the Pacific Gateway/Port of Vancouver

• Output productivity gains for Canadian manufacturers for critical ‘just-in-time’ operations due to reduced transit times and greater reliability as a result of reduced delays

• New Logistics Facility Construction: the construction of the new Highway 17 (SFPR) corridor has already attracted approximately $65 million in known investment for logistics facilities. The added access and capacity created by these improvements will create the conditions necessary to allow these initial facilities and others to expand in this area. These will further anchor the local economy with the expected creation of a myriad of supporting businesses.

This project will help meet forecasted container demand and provide additional calculated economic benefits of at least $427 million to the trucking sector. The construction of this project is also anticipated to generate an additional $156 million in gross domestic product (GDP) and almost 2,600 jobs. The anticipated cost of the project is approximately $260 million with funding from the National Infrastructure component of the New Building Canada Fund, the Province of B.C., and the Tsawwassen First Nation. The port authority is pre-funding $88 million on behalf of industry.

4.4. Glen Valley Double Tracking Glen Valley Double Tracking would increase the capacity of the rail corridor to support anticipated growth in trade through the Port of Vancouver. Double tracking would address a significant current bottleneck created by 3.7 miles of single track within the 25-mile double-track rail corridor between the end of the Directional Running Zone (DRZ) and CN’s Thornton Yard. Located near Abbotsford, B.C. on the CN Yale Subdivision, this 3.7-mile section of single track is operated bi-directionally and is within the corridor that CN and CP use to access the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor and terminals at Roberts Bank. The project would add a second track in the corridor, removing the conflict between opposing train movements causing congestion and delays while one or more trains wait for the single-track section to clear. The project would increase capacity and fluidity to better accommodate the anticipated 50% growth in train volumes to and from import and export facilities at Roberts Bank and in the rest of the Lower Mainland. The port authority is pre-funding $10 million on behalf of industry. Other funding is being provided by the National Trade Corridors Fund and CN.


2020-11 | Page 5 of 6

4.5. GTCF Technical Analysis and Engagement The Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum (GTCF), established in summer 2014, is a collaborative effort to ensure the Greater Vancouver Gateway is ready to manage growing trade. It consists of Transport Canada, the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, TransLink and the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council. Technical analysis and engagement undertaken by the GTCF has been critical in understanding the interests and issues facing trade-related transportation in the Greater Vancouver area, and has resulted in the identification and planning of strategic infrastructure and supply-chain efficiency initiatives, and securing federal and partner funding to advance priority projects. Funding for the ongoing work of the GTCF will support the identification and advancement of infrastructure and technology initiatives that maintain existing trade volumes to continue, optimize existing infrastructure, and prepare for and unlock potential terminal investments to accommodate forecasted increases in trade over the coming decades. The focus will shift to what projects will be required to manage growth in trade up to and beyond 2030, and to maintain the momentum that has been built since 2014 in leveraging federal and agency funding. The port authority applied for funding from the National Trade Corridors Fund toward this initiative in spring 2020. If successful, the amount to be cost recovered from industry would be reduced.

5. Costs allocated to terminals east of the Second Narrows Rail Bridge

Deep-sea vessels transiting to and from terminals east of the Second Narrows Rail Bridge require the raising and lowering of the Second Narrows Rail Bridge. This in turn restricts rail capacity to/from the North Shore Trade Area, and has contributed to the need for investments to support rail to the North Shore Trade Area. The Burnaby Rail Corridor Improvements and other GVG2030 projects will increase the capacity of the rail network serving the North Shore Trade Area. With those projects in place, and based on forecasts of rail and vessel volumes, total demand placed on the Second Narrows Rail Bridge in 2030 will be equivalent of 40.1 trains per day. Of this, 25.2 trains per day, or 63% of total demand, would be attributed to rail movements to/from the North Shore Trade Area. The remaining 14.9 trains per day, or 37% of total demand, would be as a result of vessel demand to and from the six bulk terminals located east of the Second Narrows Rail Bridge: IOCO, Westridge, Parkland, PCT, Shellburn and Suncor. Therefore, 37% of the cost of projects that will increase the capacity of the rail network serving the North Shore Trade Area will be allocated to the cross-berth volumes from these bulk terminals.


2020-11 | Page 6 of 6

6. Allocation of costs to trade areas and groups of terminals Based on the cost-benefit/impact analyses, the port authority has allocated the costs of projects and initiatives to be recovered through GIF2022 as follows:

Project name Pre-funding

($Million)

RBTA SSTA NSTA SNE FRTA

Pitt Meadows Road and Rail Improvements Project (formerly Harris Road Underpass and Kennedy Road Overpass Project)

$61

59% 20% 11% 10%

Mountain Highway Underpass Project $6

100%

Kingsway Avenue Overpass (planning study) Westwood Street Underpass (planning study)

$2

100%

48% 28% 24%

Pitt River Road and Colony Farm Road Rail Overpasses Project (planning study)

$2

48% 28% 24%

Burrard Inlet Road and Rail Improvements Project – Centennial Road Overpass, Waterfront Road Access Improvements, Commissioner Street Road and Rail Expansion, and rail improvements along CP Cascade Subdivision

$55

100%

BI Line Double Tracking Project $58

100%

Thornton Rail Tunnel Ventilation Upgrades Rail Corridor Improvements and Holdom Road Overpass

$42

27%

63%

46%

37%

27%

Portside Blundell Overpass and Upgrades Project

$13 100% to laden containers port-wide

Fraser Surrey Port Lands Transportation Improvement Project

$29

100%

Heatley Diamond Reconfiguration $6

100%

Highway 91/17 and Deltaport Way Upgrade Project

$88 85%

15%

Glen Valley Double Tracking $10 34% 20% 17% 10% 19%

GTCF Technical Analysis and Engagement

$8 36% 24% 23% 13% 4%

$380 Acronyms: RBTA – Roberts Bank Trade Area SSTA – South Shore Trade Area NSTA – North Shore Trade Area SNE – Terminals east of the Second Narrows Rail Bridge FRTA – Fraser River Trade Area

NGATEWAY TRANSPORTATIOCOLLABORATION FORUM

GREATER VANCOUVER GATEWAY 2030

DRAFT | MAY 2017


GATEWAY TRANSPORTATIONCOLLABORATION FORUM

Page 2 | DRAFT | MAY 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ��4

Map - Key Gateway Activity Centres and Railway Routing in Greater Vancouver ��10

Map - Rail Network Bottleneck Identification & Problem Definition ��11

Map - Road Network Issue Identification & Problem Definition ��12

Map - Potential Project Bundling ��13

Bundle 1 - Improvements Along the Rail Corridor Connecting to the North Shore and the South Shore of Burrard Inlet ��14

Bundle 2 - Improvements Along the Rail Corridor Connecting to the Burrard Inlet and The Fraser River ��20

Bundle 3 - Burrard Inlet Road & Rail Improvements Program ��26

Bundle 4 - Fraser Richmond Port Lands Access Projects ��32

Bundle 5 - Fraser Surrey Port Lands and Surrey Industrial Area Access Project ��38

Bundle 6 - Roberts Bank Rail Corridor Improvements ��42

Bundle 7 - Roberts Bank Terminal Access and Goods Movement Improvements ��46

Other Projects ��50

Appendix A ��56

| DRAFT | MAY 2017GATEWAY TRANSPORTATION

COLLABORATION FORUM





EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Creating strategic, nationally significant trade corridors to ensure the efficient movement of Canadian products to the world

Preamble

The transportation sector plays a critical role in Canada’s economy, in particular British Columbia and western Canadian provincial economies. A 2016 study by the Conference Board of Canada identified transportation and warehousing as the most concentrated industrial cluster in the Greater Vancouver area relative to the rest of Canada� The sector is growing at rates exceeding the national average and has created more than 30,000 jobs in Greater Vancouver in the last 25 years. A new 2017 study by the Federal Minister of Finance’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth emphasizes the importance of trade to the Canadian economy and describes how the country’s trade-related infrastructure is lagging globally. Efficient infrastructure to strengthen road, rail and port networks is required in the coming years for Canada to overcome this challenge, and the study put forward four recommendations to enable Canada to become a global trading hub. One of those recommendations is investing in trade-enhancing infrastructure that the Government of Canada is rightfully implementing�

The Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 initiative, our strategy for smart infrastructure investment, is guided by the Government of Canada’s commitment to strengthen trade corridors in order to increase trade and access global markets. Transportation 2030, announced by Transport Canada Minister Garneau in 2016, outlined how the Government of Canada will be investing $10.1 billion over the next 11 years in transportation infrastructure projects to help eliminate bottlenecks and build more robust trade corridors that will improve the reliability of our supply chain systems and grow our economy. For this investment to be successful, a strategic approach is needed to drive funds to where they will have the greatest impact for Canada’s economy�

Additionally, government has announced the creation of an infrastructure bank, which will unlock economic potential and provide access to additional funding� The Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 initiative is intended to provide information on trade transportation infrastructure required to strengthen the gateway and west coast goods and people movement through projects identified by the Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum (GTCF).

Success of this new infrastructure program will be realized far more quickly and effectively if a secretariat under Transport Canada is in place to oversee joint funding opportunities for common infrastructure projects� These projects are national in significance and have business cases that will demonstrate how the projects will deliver long-term economic benefits. These new projects will build on the success of projects funded under the Asia Pacific Gateway Corridor Initiative (APGCI) and maximize the use of existing transportation infrastructure. While the foundation is in place, further investment is required to keep pace with Canada’s growing trade needs. The Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 initiative aligns with the broader work of the Pacific Gateway Alliance (PGA) - a partnership between governments, ports, and rail –aimed at ensuring the Pacific Gateway is globally competitive.




Purpose

This briefing package provides an overview of:

• the results achieved by the GTCF since its inception in summer 2014;

• the projects identified and packaged as the Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 initiative, together with the region’s major bridge replacement and associated corridor upgrade projects; and,

• the significant opportunity for the gateway and Canada associated with these projects.

As an extension of the GTCF, Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 brings together a broad group of stakeholders that are presenting projects as bundles that have come together through rigorous studies and extensive engagement.

• Bundle 1 contains improvements along the rail corridor connecting to the North Shore and the South Shore of Burrard Inlet�

• Bundle 2 contains improvements along the rail corridor connecting to the Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River�

• Bundle 3 captures the Burrard Inlet Road & Rail Improvements Program.

• Bundle 4 contains projects to improve access to the Fraser Richmond Port Lands�

• Bundle 5 captures the Fraser Surrey Port Lands and Surrey Industrial Area Access Project�

• Bundle 6 contains improvements to the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor

• Bundle 7 contains improvements designed to improve access to Roberts Bank Terminal.

In addition to these project bundles, there are several major projects designed to alleviate bottlenecks on critical trade corridors in the region, including the Patullo Bridge Replacement and Corridor Upgrade Project, the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, and Highway 1 widening�

GTCF Overview

The Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum (GTCF), established in summer 2014, is a collaborative effort to ensure the gateway is ready to manage growing trade� The GTCF is primarily focused on identifying gateway-related projects of national significance: highways and major roads and bridges, rail infrastructure, port infrastructure and disaster mitigation infrastructure�

The GTCF Steering Committee consists of senior executives from Transport Canada, B�C� Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, TransLink and Greater Vancouver Gateway Council� Transport Canada is responsible only for facilitating collaboration and consensus among members in support of the committee’s mandate and does not participate in the evaluation or endorsement of recommended transportation infrastructure projects� Transport Canada also does not discuss project funding nor is it party to funding applications�




Overview of the Greater Vancouver Rail Network

The Greater Vancouver rail network connects the Port of Vancouver’s 27 major marine cargo terminals with the North American rail network, providing Canadian producers and consumers with trade access to more than 170 international trading economies. Rail plays a significant role in supporting Canada’s largest and most diversified Port area.

Canadian National Railway (CN) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) are the primary rail operators within the rail network. In the Fraser Valley, CP’s mainline is located on the north bank of the Fraser River and CN’s mainline is located along the south bank of the Fraser River. To increase the efficiency of private and public infrastructure, the two railways have developed a series of innovative cooperative operating agreements� All of the rail companies across the network cooperate to make the best use of the rail infrastructure, equipment and resources to maintain system reliability and cost effectiveness resulting in competitive trade for Canada�

The existing rail network is being utilized as efficiently as possible. However, these operational efficiencies alone will not be enough to support the significant Greater Vancouver gateway opportunities on the horizon. More infrastructure is required to link to road interfaces and mitigate the regional impacts of road-rail interactions�

Overview of the Greater Vancouver Road Network

The road network and goods movement in Greater Vancouver is governed by road authorities at the provincial, regional, and municipal level�

• B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is responsible for the provincial highway network.

• TransLink, in partnership with municipalities, plans the region’s major road network, approximately 600 kilometres of road that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods across the region and connects the provincial highway system with the regional road and bridge network. TransLink also owns and operates four bridges.

• Municipalities are responsible for the local road network and designating truck routes.

The overall movement of goods and trade can be improved by addressing infrastructure opportunities targeted at improved road-rail interactions�

Economic Impacts from Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 Project Construction and Maintenance

According to a recent economic impact analysis study conducted by Deloitte, and accounting for the direct, indirect and induced economic impacts, construction of the more than 30 projects identified in Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 will:

• stimulate approximately $4.3 billion of Canadian industry output;

• contribute $2.3 billion to Canadian GDP;

• create or sustain 30 thousand jobs across a broad range of industries; and,

• generate $1.6 billion in labour income. It is estimated that ongoing maintenance activities will have an additional annual impact of approximately:

• $5.3 million of Canadian output;

• $3 million to Canadian GDP; and,

• $2 million in labour income (net of the existing maintenance activity on current infrastructure).

These impact estimates are based on preliminary costing of the more than 30 projects, which are still in planning stages. As such, the impact estimates are subject to change as projects are included or excluded and cost estimates are refined.




Structuring (Dynamic) Economic Impacts

Beyond the construction and maintenance impacts, the proposed projects are expected to bring critical economic impacts, as well as a range of social and environmental benefits. The impacts of a similar set of infrastructure projects recently completed in the North Shore Trade Area were assessed for comparison and found to have resulted in:

• Increased Import/Export Capacity: By alleviating critical transportation capacity constraints, the projects have enabled a significant increase in trade through the gateway. Terminal operators report anywhere between 30 per cent and 160 per cent increase in capacity�

• Stimulated Private Sector Investment: The projects have stimulated follow-on private sector investment, which was approximately five times the size of the original project expenditure. The ultimate economic impact therefore exceeded the economic impact of the original investment multi-fold�

• Improved Productivity/Efficiency: The projects have significantly improved productivity across the supply chain. For example, one of the main train operators reports that they are able to eliminate one out of seven trains to transport the same volume, while some terminal operators are reporting increases of 33 per cent in unloading productivity and as much as a two-fold increase in loading productivity�

• Enhanced Competitiveness/Reputation: The projects have enhanced the international competitiveness and reputation of both the Port of Vancouver as well as the products exported via its terminals. For example, following the north shore projects, the gateway attracted an international investment commitment of over $500 million for a new grain terminal�

Social and Environmental Impacts of the Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 Projects

The Deloitte study of similar, recently-completed projects in the North Shore Trade Area also found that they have delivered important social and environmental impacts to the local community and the province, including:

• Public Safety: Elimination of interface between trains and pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles has significantly reduced the risk of traffic accidents and enabled faster and more secure access for first responders to the terminal area. Structural improvements have stabilized the road banks and hill sides, reducing the risk of landslides.

• Improved Mobility: Major congestion points have been removed in a community experiencing rapid growth in traffic. Reduced congestion has improved mobility for local residents, which is likely to support more flexibility in work arrangements and higher productivity due to reduced commuting time�

• Reduced Emissions: Elimination of wait times at train crossings means reduced emissions and reduced energy requirements�

Social and Environmental Impacts of the Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 Projects cont’d

• Reduced Noise: Noise pollution has been significantly reduced by decreasing industrial noise associated with rail car handling, minimizing the stopping and starting of trains at crossings, and reducing safety-related train whistles. The projects have stimulated new investment by terminal operators in noise barriers and mufflers.

• Urban Development: Terminal expansion stimulated by the projects will allow re-location of ship-handling and conversion of land into an industrial park. Some of the projects contributed to the rezoning of the adjacent residential area to higher density, which is expected to stimulate additional development activity in the area�

• Improved Standard of Living: The extension of the community Spirit Trail, introduction of bike lanes, improvements in traffic flow, reduction of noise, stabilization of unsafe slopes, and stimulated urban development have positively impacted the general standard of life in the area. More broadly, given that nearly 40 per cent of the B.C. economy is driven by exports, the export capacity expansion, improved productivity, and enhanced export competitiveness are critical for the long-term standards of life in the province�




Benefits of Project Bundling

There are multiple Canadian precedents for achieving similar benefits from bundling infrastructure projects.

Bundling projects can provide a number of strategic and technical benefits to the gateway and stakeholders, including:

1 Please see Appendix A for a full list of industry stakeholders, local governments, First Nations, and others who have been actively engaged over the past two years as part of the GTCF Working Groups and studies.

• Higher capacity expansion by optimizing flow over the entire corridor, as opposed to spot solutions that create constraints elsewhere;

• Better funding leverage by including more partners and spreading partner funding across projects to fill funding gaps;

• Greater competition for project design and construction by offering larger scale opportunities;

• Optimized construction and design innovation given the similar nature of the assets and ability to spread research and development costs over a larger range of projects;

• Accelerated project delivery timelines given ability of the contractor and developer to move and rotate different construction crews between the projects; and,

• Lower costs to procure and administer by using a single procurement approach.

The following sections in this package provide a summary of each proposed project bundle that combined have the potential to bring significant benefit to trade and investment in Canada. The bundles are presented both as a broader narrative as well as across a Greater Vancouver map to demonstrate the current bottlenecks and how they will be alleviated with the delivery of these projects�

Next Steps

Over the coming months, GTCF members, under the Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 umbrella, will continue working with local government, industry, First Nations and other stakeholders1 to confirm priority projects, gain support, and secure funding commitment� The Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 program is made up of project proponents with strong track record of leading and implementing large-scale infrastructure projects of national significance through collaborative intergovernmental initiatives such as the APGCI program�

In brief, Canada’s economy depends on a robust western Canadian trade-enhancing transportation infrastructure network. The Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 initiative and the project bundles recommended within are designed to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and to build on the previous success of the APGCI and provide a clear path to ensuring Canada continues to grow as a global trading hub.


COLLABORATION FORUM






MAP - KEY GATEWAY ACTIVITY CENTRES AND RAILWAY ROUTING IN GREATER VANCOUVER




MAP - RAIL NETWORK BOTTLENECK IDENTIFICATION & PROBLEM DEFINITION




MAP - ROAD NETWORK ISSUE IDENTIFICATION & PROBLEM DEFINITION




MAP - POTENTIAL PROJECT BUNDLING


COLLABORATION FORUM


Project Description

Bundle 1 proposes to address key issues on the rail network within the Vancouver Lower Mainland area on the north side of the Fraser River spanning from the Fraser Valley to the tidewater Port of Vancouver terminals on the Inner Harbour and the Fraser River�

The projects in Bundle 1 are complementary to each other and the combined delivery of the projects will:

• Maximize the use of current infrastructure assets to accommodate current and growing trade volumes;

• Facilitate increased rail corridor capacity and increased rail service efficiency and reliability to the South Shore, North Shore and Fraser River Trade Areas;

• Generate significant community, commuter and goods movement, road user benefits and enhance the safety at at-grade rail crossing and on the road network;

• Accommodate anticipated growth in rail and road traffic;

• Provide local and Indigenous community benefits; and,

• Reduce the impacts of national trade on local communities�

Project Cost

Bundle 1 Projects Estimated Capital Cost LocationPitt River Road Overpass $61 million CoquitlamColony Farm Road Overpass $35 million CoquitlamKingsway Avenue Overpass $75 million Coquitlam & Port CoquitlamWestwood Street Underpass $75 million Coquitlam & Port CoquitlamKennedy Road Overpass $25 million Pitt MeadowsHarris Road Underpass $46 million Pitt MeadowsHighwayay 7 at Allen Way Interchange / Harris Road Interchange

$129 million Pitt Meadows

Bell Road Overpass $29 million AbbotsfordBundle Total: $475 million

Potential Project Partners

1 Twenty-foot Equivalent Units�

• Port of Vancouver

• Government of Canada

• Province of British Columbia

• Kwikwetlem First Nation

• Translink

• Municipalities (City of Abbotsford, City of Pitt Meadows, City of Coquitlam, City of Port Coquitlam)

• Railways (CP, CN)

Why the Bundle is Required

These strategic infrastructure improvements will provide significant benefit to the economies of Canada and provinces beyond British Columbia by ensuring new and existing container, bulk, and break-bulk shippers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and across Canada continue to have access to a safe, efficient, reliable, and cost-competitive transportation network with capacity to accommodate future volume increases. In 2015 alone, bulk shippers transported over 53 million tonnes of cargo through the road and rail corridors accessing the North Shore and South Shore terminals while South Shore container terminal handled over 1�2 million TEUs1 �

BUNDLE 1 - IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE RAIL CORRIDOR CONNECTING TO THE NORTH SHORE AND THE SOUTH SHORE OF BURRARD INLET


COLLABORATION FORUM


BUNDLE 1 - IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE RAIL CORRIDOR CONNECTING TO THE NORTH SHORE AND THE SOUTH SHORE OF BURRARD INLET

By preserving the Port of Vancouver’s ability to accommodate new customers and forecasted cargo growth of 4.5% in each of the next five years2 the increased capacity of the transportation corridor facilitated by these projects will enable future cargo expansion, enhance shippers’ confidence in their industry sector investments, and ensure Canada remains competitive with global markets.

Key Commodities

The key commodities moved on this rail corridor to and from marine terminals include:

2 Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, 2016, 2015 Financial Report, p� 34 - Management Discussion and Analysis Section

• Western Canada agriculture products including grain, canola, pulses, and others;

• Canadian forest products including pulp, lumber, wood pellets;

• Saskatchewan potash;

• B.C. metallurgical coal;

• Vegetable seed oils;

• Mining mineral ores and concentrates;

• Fertilizers and sulphur; and,

• Container cargo import and exports�

Map of Bundle Project Locations

Problem Definition

The GTCF Fraser River Trade Area Study and stakeholders identified these projects as key infrastructure opportunities to improve goods movement through the Greater Vancouver Gateway� Coupled together, these projects will increase the efficiency of this entire corridor rather than addressing individual issues and pushing constraints downstream.

The road network’s efficiency, reliability, and safety are impacted by the nine at-grade rail crossings identified within Bundle 1 suite of projects. The at-grade crossings along this corridor are currently subject to some of the highest frequency of daily crossing delays and they will see a greater frequency of train crossings as the Vancouver Gateway grows to accommodate the increased demand for access tidewater port terminals. With each train crossing, commuters and goods movement vehicles experience travel time delays and must find an alternative route or wait for the train to clear the crossing.


COLLABORATION FORUM


The provision of grade separations will eliminate road traffic congestion due to increased rail traffic, will provide certainty of crossing the rail corridor for emergency services and first responders, minimize train whistling and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from idling vehicles during train events� The rail network operators will see increased mainline and yard operations efficiencies by enabling the optimization of corridor flows and yard switching activities.

Specific road and rail corridor issues to be addressed are:

Issue 1: Improving Mission Rail Bridge Staging CapacityIssue Description Mitigation(s)Mission Rail Bridge Staging Area: • West bound trains heading into the Greater Vancouver gateway are

facing delay as west bound trains exiting the Fraser Canyon directional running zone and seeking to cross the Mission Rail Bridge are currently staging or waiting on the CN Mainline, thus impeding all other westbound traffic accessing the gateway. The delay will be exacerbated as the number of trains at this location increases (see “Key Gateway Activity Centres and Railway Routing in Greater Vancouver” map).

• Three rural road at-grade crossings are currently impeding the railway’s ability to expand storage capacity at this location. The crossings need to be eliminated to enable a new rail siding to accommodate train traffic seeking to cross the Mission Rail Bridge�

Bell Road Overpass: • The Bell Road Overpass Project will

result in the elimination of three adjacent rural at-grade crossings and replace them with a single overpass� The project will increase safety by closing each of the crossings. Eliminating the at-grade crossing will enable the railways to create a train staging area for westbound trains accessing the Mission Rail Bridge�

Issue 2: Improving the road and rail network in Pitt MeadowsIssue Description Mitigation(s)CP Intermodal Yard (Pitt Meadows): • CP Intermodal Yard operations are constrained by the Harris

Road at-grade crossing at the east end of the intermodal rail yard. Elimination of the at-grade crossing will enable greater switching and train building efficiencies, provide the potential to add another mainline track, and increase access to intermodal services at Vancouver Intermodal Facility�

• The Harris Road at-grade crossing impacts the reliability of emergency services for the community on both sides of the crossing�

• Transport Canada, in its list of top high risk at-grade crossing, identified the Harris Road crossing as a hotspot for potential accidents�

• Kennedy at-grade crossing is located on the western boundary of the intermodal yard. This municipal trucking route constrains operational efficiency of the rail yard and access to the Pitt River Rail Bridge�

Lougheed Highway• The provincial Lougheed highway intersection at Harris Road

has been identified by the BC MOTI as a key candidate for a grade separated interchange that will increase the fluidity, capacity, and safety of the Lougheed corridor�

Harris Road Underpass Project: • The Harris Road Underpass Project will eliminate

the at-grade crossing on Harris Road� The crossing currently bisects the community of Pitt Meadows� By eliminating the crossing, the eastern boundary of the CP Intermodal Yard will no longer constrain CP’s ability to assemble intermodal trains�

Kennedy Road Overpass Project: • The Kennedy Road project will grade separate the

municipal trucking road at the west end of the CP Intermodal yard� The Project will work towards maximizing the efficiency of the Pitt River Rail Bridge as well as the rail yard�

Highway 7 at Harris Road/Allen Way Interchange Project: • The interchange will eliminate the Lougheed

Highway intersections at Harris Road and at Allen Way. Doing so will increase the fluidity of the road network between the Pitt River Bridge and connection to the Golden Ears Bridge while improving access to industrial properties, such as CP’s Vancouver Intermodal Terminal�


COLLABORATION FORUM


Issue 3: Improving the road and rail network in Coquitlam and Port CoquitlamIssue Description Mitigation(s)CP Coquitlam Yard & the Cascade Subdivision: • CP Coquitlam Yard operations are constrained

by the arterial road at-grade crossings of Westwood Street and Kingsway Avenue at the west end of the yard� Elimination of the at-grade crossings will generate significant travel time savings for the road network while enabling greater switching and train building efficiencies as well as the potential addition of another mainline rail track�

• Transport Canada, in its list of top high risk at-grade crossing, identified the Westwood Street crossing as a hotspot for potential accidents�

Westwood Street Underpass Project: • The Westwood Street Underpass project will eliminate the last

remaining major public at-grade crossing along the Cascade Subdivision between CP’s Coquitlam Yard and the Port South Shore terminals� Grade separating the arterial road crossing will enable increased CP yard train building flexibility.

Kingsway Overpass Project: • The Kingsway Overpass project will increase the operational

capacity of the Westminster Subdivision by eliminating the arterial road at-grade crossing� Along with the Pitt River and Colony Farm projects, this project enables siding expansion and double tracking along this rail corridor.

Issue 4: Increasing rail staging and meet and pass capacity along the Westminster SubdivisionIssue Description Mitigation(s)CP Westminster Subdivision: • The CP Westminster Subdivision currently

cannot add staging capacity because of insufficient staging length between at-grade crossings�

• Enabling CP to expand capacity by adding a siding along this corridor will increase rail access to the North Shore, Fraser River, and Lulu Island (Richmond) terminals.

Access to Riverview Hospital site• Grade separating Pitt River Road will address

the need to provide a new road connection to the Riverview Hospital redevelopment site and alleviate queuing on Pitt River Road and Lougheed Highway intersection as a result of the at-grade crossing closure from increasing rail traffic.

Access to the Kwikwetlem First Nation Reserve and Colony Farm Park• Grade separating Colony Farm Road will

address reliable multi-modal access to the Kwikwetlem First Nation Reserve, the proposed First Nation’s economic development site, and Colony Farm Regional Park while eliminating intersection movements along Lougheed Highway�

Pitt River Road Overpass Project: • The Pitt River Road Overpass project will provide this major

roadway with a grade separation of the CP Westminster Subdivision near Lougheed Highway. The new intersection and grade separation design includes access to the primary access point to the new Riverview development and mental health center� Eliminating the at-grade crossing at Pitt River Road will also provide substantial commuter traffic time saving to Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam communities. When coupled together with the Colony Farm Road overpass, the Project will enable the Westminster subdivision to have sufficient staging length between Kingsway Avenue and New Westminster to facilitate capacity expansion through the addition of a new siding or double tracking.

Colony Farm Road Overpass Project: • The Colony Farm Road Overpass Project will eliminate an

intersection on Lougheed Highway and the Colony Farm Road at-grade crossing. The project will provide significant travel-time savings by eliminating movements at the intersection at Lougheed Highway and Colony Farm Road� The new overpass will provide reliable multi-modal access from Lougheed Highway to the Kwikwetlem First Nation (KFN) Reserve, the planned KFN commercial development, the Colony Farm Regional Park, and the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital� Coupled with the Pitt River Road Overpass project, this road rail grade separation will facilitate future capacity expansion along the CP Westminster Subdivision through additional siding or double tracking.


COLLABORATION FORUM


Issue 5: West Coast Express Service ReliabilityIssue Description Mitigation(s)• The West Coast Express (WCE) leases access from CP’s South Shore rail corridor to

provide regional commuter passenger rail services from Mission to downtown Vancouver during the morning and evening commuter peak times�

• Operations began in 1995 under a 20 year lease and were recently renewed until 2025.

• Since inception, passenger and freight demand have each increased substantially, which is now creating rail congestion issues along the corridor�

• Congestion has created WCE service reliability issues as trains are increasingly delayed as freight and passenger movements compete for track availability. For example, during a 47-day period in late October to December 2016, 69 eastbound evening trains were delayed for a cumulative effect of 319 station delays and 80 hours in delays�

• Without greater service reliability, optimizing ridership to encourage a commuter modal shift to WCE will be a challenge.

• Without greater capacity along the rail corridor, there is significant uncertainty that CP would be interested in extending the WCE lease for an additional term.

• The proposed improvement for Issues 2 and 3 will increase the operational efficiency and capacity of the CP Cascade subdivision which will reduce the frequency of conflicts between the commuter passenger rail service and freight traffic, thus increasing the reliability and in turn subscription rate of the WCE service.

Issue 6: New Westminster Rail Bridge Congestion and Capacity ConstraintsIssue Description Mitigation(s)The New Westminster Rail Bridge (NWRB) is consistently operating at or above its capacity. The single-track bridge provides one of two rail links across the Fraser River for all rail operators and is a key part of the rail corridor, carrying traffic serving the North Shore terminals. Where possible, developing operational or train routing alternatives to reduce the demand on the NWRB could extend the operational life of the federal owned infrastructure asset�

The long-term solution to potentially expanding or replacing the rail bridge is outside of the current federal funding program window. The GTCF bundles focus on maximizing the operational capacity and lifespan of the current bridge asset.

• Increased capacity along the CP corridor (CP Westminster Subdivision) could provide an attractive alternative for North Shore terminal traffic to utilize this corridor, which could reduce demand on the NWRB and extend the life of the federal asset. When combined with the improvements proposed in Bundle 2, the feasibility of routing trains over the CP Westminster Subdivision instead of over the NWRB increases substantially.

Economic Development

Marine terminal traffic demand is strong as inland producers and consumers seek increased access to global markets. In response to this demand, South Shore terminal operators are currently investing in increased capacity and modernization to remain competitive� For example, Port of Vancouver recently approved permits for grain terminal projects at Alliance Grain, Columbia Containers, and Viterra Pacific Grain Elevators and a potash terminal at Pacific Coast Terminal. In addition, an application is under review for container expansion at the Centerm container terminal� Similar investments to those on the South Shore are taking place at North Shore and Fraser River Terminals

Bundle 1, with an estimated capital expenditure of $475 million will generate the following direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits during construction period3�

3 Metrics are derived from Deloitte LLP’s “Vancouver Gateway Economic Impact Analysis of Infrastructure Projects”. January 2017


COLLABORATION FORUM


Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits

Canada is a trading nation and its efficient national transportation trade network enables Canadian producers and consumers to compete in international markets. The national transportation system supports economic growth, job creation, and Canadian communities. Maintaining and expanding the efficient network requires investment in the supply chain by public and private sectors. In doing so Canada, the rail corridors, and the host communities mutually benefit.

Social and Environmental Benefits:• Enhanced public safety;

• Improved mobility;

• Improved transit service;

• Reduced emissions from vehicles and trains;

• Reduced noise pollution train whistling;

• Reliable crossings of the rail corridor;

• Facilitation of development;

• Improved standard of living and access to parks;

• Enhanced emergency response times;

• Reduced impacts of regional and national trade on local communities;

• Improved access to Indigenous communities;

• Improved multi-modal access to regional park;

• Improved safety by removing at-grade crossings; and,

• Improved nuisance noise levels through the elimination of at-grade crossing�

Economic Benefits:• Increased GDP, taxes, and jobs growth during and after

construction;

• Follow-on private sector investments;

• Increased import/export capacity;

• Increased competitiveness of the terminal and Canadian products;

• Stronger international reputation;

• Enhanced efficiency and international competitiveness for Port of Vancouver, the Pacific Gateway, and Canada;

• Increased Fraser River, North Shore, and South Shore capacity handling of bulk commodity exports and container trade;

• Enablement of Port of Vancouver to serve future cargo expansion on the North Shore, South Shore and Fraser River;

• Improved reliability and reducing rail corridor transit times and operating costs;

• Increased employment and tax revenues at the municipal, provincial and federal levels;

• Generation of productivity gains for the Canadian economy; and,

• Reduced potential economic disruptions or foregone economic activity�


COLLABORATION FORUM


Project Description

Bundle 2 is a suite of interdependent projects that will facilitate increased trade along rail corridor servicing Port of Vancouver terminals on the North and South Shores of the Burrard Inlet, while generating significant community and road user benefits as well as increased at-grade rail safety�

The bundle will address rail tunnel ventilation, rail train staging capacity, road rail grade separations, interchange replacement, and intersection improvements� Construction of the improvements is to occur on or adjacent to existing road or rail corridors in Burnaby, New Westminster, and Coquitlam.

Project Cost

Bundle 2 Projects Estimated Capital Cost LocationNew Westminster Road / Rail Grade Separation and crossing closures

$130-240 million New Westminster

Brunette Interchange Upgrades $380-400 million CoquitlamNorth Shore Corridor Capacity Improvement Project• Thornton Rail Tunnel Ventilation Improvements

• Douglas Grade Separation

• Rail Corridor Improvements (~5 miles of track)

• Retrofitting Tugs with folding masts

$15 million

$70 million

$35 million

$2 million

Burnaby

North Fraser Way at Marine Way Intersection Improvements $4 million BurnabyBundle Total: $636 - 766 million





• Municipalities (City New Westminster, City of Burnaby, City of Coquitlam)

• Railways (CP, CN, BNSF)

• TransLink


These strategic infrastructure improvements will provide significant benefit to the economies of Canada and provinces beyond British Columbia by ensuring new and existing container, bulk, and break-bulk shippers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and across Canada continue to have access to a safe and cost-competitive transportation supply chain with the capacity to accommodate future volume increases. By preserving and enhancing the Port of Vancouver’s ability to accommodate cargoes, the increased capacity of the transportation corridor facilitated by these projects will enable future cargo expansion, enhance shippers’ confidence in their industry sector investments, and ensure Canada remains competitive with global markets.

In 2015, the North Shore Terminals alone handled an estimated 33�5 million tonnes of grain, coal, potash, and other products providing Canadian producers with access to international markets� Terminals on the North Shore are currently considering investments that could increase terminal capacity by as much as 250%. Terminals are indicating a desire to expand capacity; however, they also articulated that investment decisions cannot be finalized until upstream supply chain capacity investments along the rail corridor have been confirmed and that the investment ensures that the rail corridor continues to be efficient, competitive and reliable.

BUNDLE 2 - IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE RAIL CORRIDOR CONNECTING TO THE BURRARD INLET AND THE FRASER RIVER


COLLABORATION FORUM


Key Commodities

The key commodities transported on this rail corridor include:


• Canadian forest products including pulp, lumber, wood pellets;


• B.C. metallurgical coal;

• Vegetable seed oils;

• Mining minerals ores and concentrates;

• Fertilizers and sulphur; and,

• Containerized cargo import and exports�


Problem Definition

The GTCF and stakeholders identified these projects as key infrastructure opportunities to increase good movement through the Greater Vancouver Gateway�

The road network’s efficiency, reliability, and safety are impacted by each of the at-grade rail crossings identified within the Bundle 2 suite of projects. The provision of grade separations and at-grade crossing closures will:

• Eliminate road traffic congestion due to increased rail traffic;• provide travel time certainty of crossing the rail corridor for emergency services and first responders; • minimize train whistling and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from idling vehicles during a train events; and,• benefit railways and their customers as rail operations are optimized to utilize the increased capacity and network

efficiency.


COLLABORATION FORUM


Specific corridor issues to be addressed are:

Issue 1: North Shore Rail Corridor Capacity ImprovementIssue Description Mitigation(s)North Shore Rail Corridor Capacity: • The rail corridor to the North Shore operates as

a cohesive system from the North Shore to New Westminster Rail Bridge and on to CN’s Thornton Yard� There is currently only one sidings or staging area along the corridor so train routing must be coordinated to transit from the North Shore, across the Second Narrows Rail Bridge, through the Thornton Tunnel, along the rail line to and across the New Westminster Rail Bridge (NWRB). Improvements to each element of the system are interdependent and compounding�

Increased Rail Capacity to the South Shore: • The rail corridor from the NWRB to the Thornton

Tunnel also provides access to South Shore Terminals via the Burrard Inlet Line� As outlined in Bundles 1 and 3, container and grain terminals along the South Shore are expanding and the proposed infrastructure in Bundle 2 will also benefit those Bundles 1 and 3.

Thornton Tunnel Rail Capacity: • The rail tunnel’s capacity is limited by the cycle

time required between each train transit. After each transit, the locomotive emissions must be vented to ensure that there is sufficient oxygen for the next locomotive and operating crew� Currently, the minimum ventilation time is approximately 20 minutes after each transit�

Staging Capacity:

In order to take advantage of the reduced vent time, trains must be staged closer along the rail corridor to the tunnel than is currently possible.

Near the south end of the Thornton tunnel, eliminating the Douglas at-grade crossing will enable the construction of staging capacity through the addition of five miles of new track along the corridor�

To facilitate staging the crossings will be eliminated by:

Douglas Road Grade Separation: • The Douglas Road rail grade separation project eliminates

a key at-grade crossing on a municipal trucking route� The project is a component of the Burnaby’s most recent Official Community Plan�

• Project benefits include increased rail safety and regional goods movement�

Tunnel Ventilation:

In order to increase the frequency of rail traffic transiting the Thornton Rail Tunnel, it is necessary to increase the rate at which locomotive exhaust emissions are cleared from the tunnel� By introducing additional mechanical ventilation in the tunnel, the required venting time between trains will be reduced from 20 minutes to 10 minutes or less, thus dramatically increasing the availability of the tunnel and the ability to optimize rail operations along the corridor�

Second Narrows Rail Bridge Capacity: • The rail bridge is required to open for all vessels

in excess of 11m (35 ft) in height as marine traffic at the second Narrows rail bridge has the right-of-way. A recent assessment by the Port concluded that 20 percent of vessel transits requiring bridge openings are by local commercial tugs with masts extend past 11m in height� Eliminating the need for the bridge to open for the four tallest tugs would reduce the number of bridge openings by an estimated 650 lifts per year�

• As the rail tunnel is immediately adjoining to the Second Narrows Rail Bridge, tunnel capacity and cycle time are directly correlated to the capacity across the rail bridge. Any increase in the tunnel capacity will directly benefit the operations of the rail bridge.

Retrofitting of tugs with folding masts: • The four commercial tugs identified result in an estimated

650 bridge openings per year and could be retrofitted with folding masts that can be lowered as the vessels transit under the bridge thus eliminating the respective rail bridge openings�

Corridor Improvements: • The Thornton Tunnel ventilation and corridor staging

improvements described above will increase the capacity of the rail corridor immediately adjoining the bridge. This will enable greater optimization of the rail bridge’s operational capacity and availability and service to the North Shore Terminals�


COLLABORATION FORUM


Issue 2: New Westminster Rail Bridge (NWRB) Capacity Constraints and CongestionIssue Description Mitigation(s)The NWRB is a single-track swing bridge that provides the rail link across the Fraser River between Surrey and New Westminster. The bridge is over 100 years old and will eventually require replacement or upgrading; however, the GTCF Bundles focus on maximizing the operational capacity and lifespan of the bridge in its current state.

The bridge is currently operating near its practical operational capacity. The operational efficiency of the bridge can be improved by reducing the transit window required for each train crossing by increasing the proximity of the staging locations to the bridge.

The improvements proposed in Bundles 1 and 2 will enhance connectivity and facilitate railways diverting a portion of current traffic from NWRB to the CP Westminster Subdivision.

The long-term solution to potentially expand or replace the NWRB is outside of the current federal funding program window. The GTCF bundles focus on maximizing the operational capacity and lifespan of the current bridge asset.

New Westminster at-grade Crossing closures: • Closing the at-grade crossings at Braid Street, Spruce

Street, and Cumberland Street will improve rail, traffic and community safety, while increasing rail operating efficiencies and enable the corridor to accommodate the anticipated growth in rail traffic. A grade separation will replace the three at-grade crossings�

• South bound trains will be able to stage closer to the north end of the bridge head thus increasing the practical operational capacity of the bridge.

• Coupled with the Brunette Interchange Project, local communities will benefit from travel time-savings, increased rail crossing safety, and reduced nuisance noise through train whistling reductions�

• Coupled with the Issue 1 mitigations, the capacity and fluidity of the Burrard Inlet rail corridor line to the south shore and the north shore terminals will be increased�

• Reduce vehicle and rail conflicts with the closure of the New Westminster Rail Crossings.

Issue 3: Marine Way at North Fraser Way West Bound left hand turning capacityIssue Description Mitigation(s)The intersection at Marine Way and North Fraser way provides primary access to the Big Bend Industrial Park� Currently, during peak demand, traffic demand exceeds turning lane capacity to access the industrial park. The resultant traffic queues exceed capacity and spill over impacting the major thoroughfare - Marine Way, which is a key goods movement and commuter corridor in the region with an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of nearly 40,000�

Marine Way at North Fraser Way Dual Westbound Left Hand Turn Project:• The Marine Way at North Fraser Way project will see a second

westbound turning lane added to increase the storage capacity of the lanes accessing the industrial park�

• The project will generate significant road user benefits with travel time savings alone estimated at $4.1 million.

• As part of the project there is an opportunity to upgrade the safety of the adjacent railway crossing�

Issue 4: Brunette InterchangeIssue Description Mitigation(s)The Brunette Interchange was originally designed and constructed in the 1960s and currently experiences several issues:

• Traffic Safety – the location accounts for 10% of all crashes within the City of Coquitlam;

• Interchange ramps are difficult to navigate for large trucks;

• Congestion – the ramps and interchange itself operate above capacity during peak traffic demand;

• Regional goods movement – congestion at the interchange is impacting access to Highway 1 from Coquitlam and New Westminster as well as intraregional truck movements; and,

• The Rail crossings (discussed in Issue 2) impact the road network traffic flows as well as the efficiency of the railway network�

The Brunette Interchange project will:• replace the existing interchange to reduce

congestion on Highway 1 and on local arterial roads� This will increase capacity for goods movement, community, and commuter traffic.

• increase multimodal accommodations for cyclist and pedestrians to facilitate increased access to rapid transit services at the Braid Skytrain Station�

• Increase emergency service access to regional Royal Columbian Hospital and health district.

• Improve traffic safety and reduce the frequency of crashes at this high volume location�


COLLABORATION FORUM



Bundle 2, with an estimated capital expenditure of between $636-766 million, will generate the following direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits during construction period1�

In addition to these construction project economic benefits, Bundle 2 will likely facilitate follow-on investments by the private sector in terminal capacity to expand trade� Similar trade corridor capacity projects have proven successful at generating positive economic, social and environmental impacts� Deloitte’s recent assessment of the similar North Shore Trade Area APGCI investment observed that the $200 million in infrastructure investment stimulated over $1 billion, or five times as much as the initial investment, in follow-on private sector investment in terminal productivity, capacity expansion, and an entire a new terminal� In addition to the capital investments, the APGCI project reported an increase in rail operating efficiencies whereby longer trains have now eliminated the need for an additional train each day. It is anticipated that Bundle 2 will facilitate similar investment to increase terminal competitiveness�


Canada is a trading nation and its efficient national transportation trade network enables Canadian producers and consumers to compete in international markets. The national transportation system supports economic grown, job creation, and Canadian communities. Maintaining and expanding the efficient network requires investment in the supply chain by public and private sectors. In doing so Canada, the trade corridors, and the host communities mutually benefit.


Social and Environmental Benefits:

• Enhanced public safety by removing at-grade crossings;

• Reduced impacts of national trade on local communities;

• Enhanced emergency response times;

• Improved commuter and community mobility;

• Improved transit service;


• Reduced noise pollution train whistling; and,

• Provision of grade separated multi-modal access to a regional park�

Economic Benefits:

• Enhanced efficiency and competitiveness for Port of Vancouver, the Pacific Gateway, and Canada;

• Increased GDP, taxes, and jobs growth during and after construction;

• Potential follow-on Private Sector investments;

• Increased import/export capacity;

• Enablement of Port of Vancouver to serve future cargo expansion;

• Stronger international reputation;

• Reduced potential economic disruptions or foregone economic activity;

• Generating productivity gains for the Canadian economy; and,

• Improved reliability and reduced rail corridor transit times and operating costs�


COLLABORATION FORUM



COLLABORATION FORUM


Project Description

Bundle 3 is a suite of interrelated road rail grade separations and local and port roadway improvements that will facilitate increased rail movements and better rail service to terminals on the South Shore, while generating significant community and road user benefits and enhancing the safety of at-grade rail crossing safety. Bundle 3 components are an integral component the City of Vancouver’s False Creek Flats redevelopment plan� The grade separations and road improvements are proposed for construction on and adjacent to existing road or rail corridors in the City of Vancouver and the Port of Vancouver�

Bundle 3 addresses key issues on the rail corridor servicing Port of Vancouver Terminals on the South Shore of the Burrard Inlet. In 2015, the South Shore Terminals alone handled an estimated 20 million tonnes of bulk commodities and over 1.2 million TEUs of containers providing Canadian producers and consumers with access to international markets� Terminals along the South Shore are investing in new capacity and implementing operational efficiencies to remain internationally competitive to facilitate greater maritime trade. The bundle will work to ensure that Canadian markets continue to receive consistent and competitive supply chain services that will enable Canada to expand its trade corridors to global markets.

Project Cost12

Bundle 3 Projects Estimated Capital Cost LocationOverpasses/ Upgrades along to Burrard Inlet Line (Malkin National or Williams)

TBD$150-230 million1,2

Vancouver

Burrard Inlet Road and Rail Improvement Project:• Waterfront Road Access Improvement Project

• Centennial Road Overpass Project

• Commissioner Street Rail and Road Expansion Project

$59 million

$54 million

$15 million

Vancouver

Bundle Total: $278 - 358 million


1 Cost estimate subject to confirmation by City of Vancouver: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/false-creek-flats-prior-venables-replacement-open-house-information-displays�pdf 2 includes land acquisition costs valued at $75-$105 million



• City Vancouver

• Railways (CP,CN, BNSF, SRY)

• TransLink


These strategic infrastructure improvements will provide significant benefits to the economies of Canada and provinces beyond British Columbia by ensuring new and existing containerized cargo and bulk shippers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and across Canada continue to have access to a safe and cost-competitive transportation network with capacity to accommodate future volume increases�

By preserving the Port of Vancouver’s ability to accommodate new customers and cargoes in the future, the increased capacity of the transportation corridor facilitated by these projects will enable future cargo expansion, enhance shippers’ confidence in their industry sector investments, and ensure Canada remains competitive with global markets.

BUNDLE 3 - BURRARD INLET ROAD & RAIL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM


COLLABORATION FORUM


Key Commodities

The key commodities transported along these corridors are:

• Containerized cargo import and exports;

• Western Canada Agriculture Products including grain, canola, pulses, and others;

• Canadian forest products including pulp, lumber;


• Vegetable seed oils; and,

• Sulphur�


Problem Definition

GTCF, the City of Vancouver, and stakeholders identified these projects as key infrastructure opportunities to increase the sustainability of goods movement through the Vancouver Gateway by addressing key bottlenecks that limit the accessibility of Port of Vancouver Terminals and as part of the City of Vancouver’s redevelopment plan for the False Creek Flats�

Road network efficiency, reliability and safety are impacted at each of the at-grade rail crossings identified within the Bundle 3 suite of projects. These crossings are subject to some of the highest frequency and duration of daily crossing delays, and the provision of grade separations and closing of at-grade crossings will:

• Eliminate road traffic congestion due to current and increased rail traffic; • Provide certainty of crossing the rail corridor for emergency services and first responders; • Minimize train whistling and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from idling vehicles during train events; and,• Benefit railways and their customers as rail operation are optimized to utilize the increased capacity and efficiency.


COLLABORATION FORUM



Issue 1: South Shore Road and Rail Network Congestion IssuesIssue Description Mitigation(s)Waterfront Road – Centennial Road Connectivity • At the east end of the Centerm Intermodal Yard (IY)

access is provided via at-grade crossing of Waterfront Road� Centerm is planning to increase productivity of the IY from 5,000m to 8,500m of rail per day, which will exacerbate the impacts at these crossings.

• There is currently no continuous road access to the Port or Highway 1 from Waterfront Road.

• Access for cruise related trucks from Highway 1 requires the use of city streets to access Canada Place�

• Limited access for first responders when road is blocked by trains.

Waterfront Road Access Improvement Project • The project will connect East Waterfront Road to

Centennial Road, thus providing continuous Port access road along the South Shore from Highway 1 to Canada Place, which will increase mobility within the port property�

• Enables rail alignments to facilitate rail track expansion

• Grade separates the road and rail access to the Centerm terminal�

• Facilitates consistent and predictable emergency services access from Waterfront road.

• Benefits all South Shore road and rail traffic.Centennial Road Congestion and at-grade Crossing Impacts • Centennial Road is intersected by three spur lines that

provide access to the marine terminals� Train crossing occupancies result in significant delays to the Port trucking corridor and specifically container truck traffic.

• The area is constricted in width whereby neither rail nor road can be expanded to accommodate current and future traffic demands.

Centennial Road Overpass Project • Creation of a viaduct structure that will separate Port

container trucks and other port traffic from three at-grade spur lines that provide direct access to adjacent Vanterm container Terminal, Alliance Grain Terminal, and the SRY Dock�

• Improves road operations, minimizes road and rail conflicts, and improves overall safety.

• The grade separation will enable the expansion of the Port road and gateway rail networks�

• Benefits all South Shore Traffic. Commissioner Street Congestion: • The road network in this area is narrow and

geometrically sub-standard.

• Access to Terminals is tight and sub-standard.

• The sub-standard geometry and limited width of the road restrict efficient and secure access to the port operations and constrain the fluidity of container truck movements�

• The adjacent rail corridor width cannot be expanded to accommodate an additional track as it is constrained to the south by an embankment and to the North by Commissioner Street�

Commissioner Street Rail and Road Expansion Project: • Improves overall safety through this section of the

South Shore corridor�

• Includes the widening of Commissioner Street in the vicinity of Columbia Continers transload centre and the site preparation works for additional rail capacity�

• Community mitigations will include the construction of acoustic barriers to reduce existing and future noise impacts from port and railway activities�


COLLABORATION FORUM


Issue 2: Burrard Inlet Rail Line (BI Line) crossing within False Creek FlatsIssue Description Mitigation(s)• The Burrard Inlet railway line (BI Line) is located just

south of the South Shore terminals near the false creek flats. In 2008. the City of Vancouver commissioned a study to identify opportunities to support goods movement along the rail corridor and to increase the safety and efficiency of the City’s road, cycling, and pedestrian networks� The Study determined that closing the Venables at-grade crossing and constructing a grade separation of the BI Line at Malkin (alternative locations at Williams or National) avenue would increase the capacity of the road network, thus decreasing commuter times� The grade separation project will tie into existing cycling and pedestrian networks to provide a safe multi-modal crossing of the railway corridor�

• The new corridor will also serve to provide emergency access to the new St� Paul’s Hospital and medical center and is a key component of the city’s false creek redevelopment plans�

Malkin Avenue (alternative locations at National or William) Overpass ProjectThe project is an essential component of the City redevelopment plans for the False Creek Flats� The project includes:

• A grade separation of the BI Line will for road users, pedestrians, and cyclists� The grade separation supports the City’s goals to increase community livability and connectivity;

• The closure of Venables Street at-grade crossing and implementation community calming measures to reduce traffic on residential streets;

• Connections to the City’s multimodal path network; and,

• The closure of a series of at-grade crossings along the BI Line that will enable greater staging capacity and efficiency in accessing South Shore terminals.


Bundle 3, requiring an estimated capital expenditure of between $278 to $358 million, will generate the following direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits during construction period3. The columns in the figures below are respective to the project capital expenditures�

In addition to these construction project economic benefits, Bundle 3 projects will enable private sector follow-on investments that result from the increased capacity generated by the corridor improvements. Investment programs have already been initiated at Centerm, Alliance Grain Terminal, and Columbia Containers.

Similar trade corridor capacity projects have proven successful at generating positive economic, social and environmental impacts. Deloitte’s recent assessment of the similar North Shore Trade Area Projects observed that the $200 million project stimulated over $1 billion, or five times as much, as the initial investment in follow-on private sector investment from terminal productivity, capacity expansion, and an entire new terminal� In addition to the capital investments, the North Shore project has reported increasing rail operating efficiencies whereby longer trains have now eliminated the need for an additional train each day� It is anticipated that Bundle 3 projects will facilitate the ongoing private investment to increase terminal competitiveness�



COLLABORATION FORUM



Canada is a trading nation and its efficient national transportation trade network enables Canadian producers and consumers to compete in international markets. The national transportation system supports economic growth, job creation, and Canadian communities. Maintaining the efficiency and expanding the network requires investment in the supply chain by public and private sectors. In doing so, Canada, the trade corridors and the host communities mutually benefit.


• Enhanced safety by removing at-grade crossings for traffic and pedestrians;

• Creation of an East-West bike and pedestrian path and grade separating this path across the BI line;

• Improved regional mobility and commuter travel times;

• Improved nuisance noise levels through the elimination of at-grade crossing and the construction of sound barriers;

• Reduced truck and rail idling times and associated greenhouse gas emissions;

• Facilitation of City-led redevelopment of the False Creek Flats industrial area;

• Enhanced emergency response times and access to the new St Paul’s Hospital Site and Health district; and,

• Minimized impacts of regional and national trade on local communities�

Economic Benefits:

• Enhanced efficiency and competitiveness of the supply chain for Port of Vancouver, the Pacific Gateway and Canada;

• Increased GDP, taxes and jobs growth during and after construction;

• Increased South Shore capacity handling of bulk commodity exports and container trade;

• Facilitation of follow-on private sector investments - Bundle 3 provides the transportation capacity required to enable the expansion of Centerm by 600,000 TEUs;

• Generation of productivity gains for the Canadian economy by improving reliability and reducing rail corridor transit times and operating costs; and,

• Reduced potential economic disruptions or foregone economic activity�


COLLABORATION FORUM



COLLABORATION FORUM


Project Description

GTCF Bundle 4 addresses key issues on the road network and rail corridor that services Port of Vancouver operations within the Fraser Richmond Port Lands (FRPL) in Richmond, British Columbia. Bundle 4 proposes to grade separate two at-grade crossings, to widen a local arterial road, and to widen from four lanes to six, a section of provincial Highway 91� These network improvements will facilitate increased rail movements, reduced commuter times, increased operational efficiency, and improved public safety.

The logistics centres within the FRPL provide off-dock infrastructure and key components of the backbone of supply chain that supports container trade through the Vancouver area. The area is an integral part of the supply chain whereby containers are stuffed with Canadian exports and inbound cargo is sorted at distribution centres. The Port is forecasting that container trade demand will double through B.C. ports by 2030. In response the Port and its terminal operators are expanding capacity at deep sea terminals. These terminal expansions in the Vancouver Inner Harbor and at Roberts Bank will increase demand on supply chain and specifically operators within the Fraser Richmond port lands. For the container supply chain to remain competitive through the gateway, the infrastructure accessing the off-dock facilities must be improved�

Project Cost

Bundle 4 Projects Estimated Capital Cost LocationPortside Road Overpass and Upgrade $90 million RichmondBlundell Road Four-Laning $13 million RichmondWestminster Highway Overpass $31 million RichmondHighway 91 Six-Laning $50 million Richmond

Bundle Total: $184 million





• Municipality - City Richmond

• Railways (CN)

• Municipality - City of Richmond

• TransLink


These strategic infrastructure improvements will provide significant benefit to the economies of Canada and provinces beyond British Columbia by ensuring new and existing container, bulk, and break-bulk shippers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and across Canada continue to have access to a safe and cost-competitive transportation network with capacity to accommodate future volume increases�

The bundle will:

• Enhance rail and port logistics operations and capacity;

• Accommodate anticipated growth truck traffic from the logistics centres;

• Grade separate a major truck route;

• Reduce the impacts of national trade on local communities;

• Enhance regional goods movement capacity;

• Enhance commuter and rail safety; and,

• Enhance emergency response times�

BUNDLE 4 - FRASER RICHMOND PORT LANDS ACCESS PROJECTS


COLLABORATION FORUM


Key Commodities


• Western Canada Agriculture Products including grain, canola, pulses, and others

• Canadian forest products including pulp, lumber, wood pellets

• Containerized cargo import and export


Problem Definition

The GTCF Bundle 4 will increase the efficiency of road and rail networks in Richmond, British Columbia. The GTCF and stakeholders identified these projects as key infrastructure opportunities to increase goods movement through the Vancouver Gateway, which provide significant benefits to community and commuter road network users.

Road network efficiency, reliability, and safety are impacted by congestion due to the lack of capacity for the volume of truck traffic generated by the industrial cluster at the Fraser Richmond Port Lands and the heavy volume of east west commuter traffic. The congestion is exacerbated at each of the at-grade rail crossings identified within the Bundle 4 suite of projects. The at-grade rail crossing to be grade separated by this bundle experience some of the highest frequency of daily crossing delays due to their proximity to rail yard switching� The provision of grade separations and increased corridor capacity will reduce road traffic congestion and will provide certainty of crossing the rail corridor for emergency services and first responders, while minimizing train whistling and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from idling vehicles during train events.


COLLABORATION FORUM



Issue 1: Fraser Richmond Port Lands Road Network CongestionIssue Description Mitigation(s)Portside Train Blockages: • Portside Road is located at the eastern terminus of the Ewen Yard�

As a result, the numerous switching activities from the yard result in some of the highest crossing blockage rates in the region. Currently the crossing experiences 37 blockages a day impeding traffic for over 2 hours each day.

• The train blockage impacts access to the transloading facility and other industrial properties on the south side of the rail line�

• Traffic queues from train blockages impact local arterial road network. No. 8 Road, Blundell Road, and Portside Road traffic experience congestion, which delays traffic from the logistics centres and getting goods to market in a timely manner� These arterial roads provide direct connections to the provincial highway network connecting the logistics centres with Port terminals and the rest of Canada�

• Congestion and rail events impact the reliability of emergency response times�

Portside Road Overpass and Upgrade • Elevates the Portside Road and Blundell

Road intersection to provide a grade separation of the rail line at the head of the Ewen Yard� The elevated intersection to enable full movements.

• Increases emergency access reliability to the industrial properties south of the rail line�

• Increases switching efficiency of the Ewen Yard�

• Increases access to and efficiency of off-dock facilities�

• Provides access for the economic development of industrial lands located to the west of the #7 Road Canal where currently no road access exists�

Bundell Road Congestion • Blundell road currently reduces to two lanes from four lanes

west of No�8 Road� The Road provides the primary access to the logistics and warehousing facilities on the west side of the Fraser Richmond Port Lands. The current configuration limits opportunities for transit and constrains movement of tractor trailer movements�

• The development of the Richmond (municipal) Industrial Lands immediately west of #7 Road Canal will contribute to congestion on Blundell�

Blundell Road Four-Laning • Widening of Blundell from 2 lanes to four

lanes with provisions for truck turning lanes�

• Improves opportunities for enhanced transit services to the industrial park�

• Enables Growth of additional Richmond Industrial land west of number 7 Road Canal�

• New configuration increases the safety of truck movements�

Issue 2: Westminster Highway at-grade Crossing Issue Description Mitigation(s)Westminster Highway Congestion • The corridor is anticipated to have eight train blockages

a day with an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for a cross-product1 of nearly 200,000 by 2030.

• Current traffic delays are already significant for commuter and goods movement traffic along Westminster Highway.

Westminster Highway Overpass • Provides a grade separation of Westminster

highway�

• Improves commuter and community traffic along this corridor

• Facilitates additional rail capacity in the area to service the Richmond logistic hub.

1

1 cross-product indicative metric that indicates level of interaction between train and vehicles at at-grade crossings. The cross product is calculated as the product between AADT and # of Trains.


COLLABORATION FORUM


Issue 3: Highway 91 Capacity and CongestionIssue Description Mitigation(s)Highway 91 is the major access route to the FRPL� In addition, the route connects the areas south of the Fraser River and the South Shore Port facilities. The section between Knight Street and Nelson Road experiences significant congestion issues during peak and off-peak travel times� Key issues on this segment of the highway include:

• Road User safety and collision rates;

• Commuter congestion and significant delay during AM and PM peak travel demands; and,

• Congested goods movement between FRPL and Highway 99� Highway 99 provides direct link to the United States and connections to Vancouver International Airport and to Port terminals� The Province is upgrading this section of the Highway 99 corridor including the construction of a 10 lane bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel and upgrading of interchanges at Highway 91 connects with Highway 99�

Highway 91 Six-Laning• Expand Highway 91 in Richmond from four to six

lanes between Knight Street and the Nelson Road Interchange�

• The increased capacity will benefit commuter and goods movements through reduced travel times through reduced congestion�

• Project will provide enhanced east west connectivity within Richmond�

• Improves FRPL highway link to Highway 99 and connectivity to YVR, Port Terminals, and United State Border crossing�

• These improvements will complement the work being delivered as part of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project�


Bundle 4, with an estimated capital expenditure of between $184 million will generate the following direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits during construction period2�

The FRPL are a strong economic generator in the region and is a key component of the supply chain that enables Canadian producer and consumers to access international markets� The successful operation of the Port of Vancouver container terminals and their competitiveness relies heavily the efficient operation of the FRPL off-dock facilities. The FRPL’s daily truck trip generation profile is comparable to that of a deep sea container terminal. Consequently, the area is a logistic and warehousing hub that requires access to a reliable and efficient transportation network.

Currently the FRPL supports the Canadian economy by generating annually an estimated:

• 4700 person-years of direct employment;

• $260 million a year in direct wages;

• $400 million a year in direct GDP; and,

• $870 million a year in economic output.



COLLABORATION FORUM



Canada is a trading nation and its efficient national transportation trade network enables Canadian producers and consumers to compete in international markets. The national transportation system supports economic growth, job creation, and Canadian communities. Maintaining and expanding the efficient network requires investment in the supply chain by public and private sectors. In doing so Canada, the trade corridors, and the host communities mutually benefit.


• Reduced commuter and goods movement travel times;

• Enhanced public safety on the road network and at rail crossings;

• Improved transit service for workers;

• Reduced emissions from idling vehicles and trains;

• Reduced noise pollution train whistling;

• Facilitation of logistics parks and industrial developments;

• Enhanced emergency response times and predictability; and,

• Reduced impacts of regional and national trade on local communities�

Economic Benefits:

• Enhanced efficiency and competitiveness of the supply chain for Port of Vancouver, the Pacific Gateway and Canada;

• Increased transloading capacity handling of grain and forestry containerized exports;

• Increased GDP, taxes, and jobs growth during and after construction;

• Facilitation of follow-on private sector investments in logistics park developments;

• Generation of productivity gains for the Canadian economy;

• Reduced potential economic disruptions or foregone economic activity; and,

• Stronger international reputation for investment and trade�


COLLABORATION FORUM



COLLABORATION FORUM


Project Description

Bundle 5 addresses key goods movement transportation issues in the Brownville area of Surrey and Delta� Brownsville hosts a large concentration of industrial lands in excess of 420 ha including over 50 ha of Port property� Provincial Highway 17 connects the area to the National Highway Network and Port Terminals while rail service is provided by all major railways (BNSF, CN, CP) as well as the local switching railway SRY.

Bundle 5 will increase the road network connectivity to the port, industrial, and commercial properties from the highway network and will facilitate a comprehensive rail redevelopment of the area� The Bundle will construct an interchange on Highway 17 providing access to port lands and will construct a grade separation of Highway 17 at Old Yale Road� The interchange and associated road improvements will also grade separate the adjacent railway network and rail yard� The Old Yale project will facilitate a direct connection to the Pattullo Bridge Replacement, which provides an essential goods movement capacity across the Fraser River�

Project Cost

Bundle 5 Projects Estimated Capital Cost LocationHighway 17 Interchange at Plywood Road and Grade Road $108 million Surrey & DeltaHighway 17 at Old Yale Road Overpass $32 million Surrey

Bundle Total: $140 million





• TransLink

• Municipalities (City of Surrey, Corporation of Delta)

• Railways (CN, BNSF, SRY, CP)


By preserving the Port of Vancouver and the adjacent industrial properties’ ability to accommodate new customers and cargoes in the future, the increased capacity of the transportation corridor facilitated by these projects will enable future cargo expansion, enhance shippers’ confidence in their industry sector investments, and ensure Canada remains competitive with global markets.

The recently completed Highway 17 has significantly increased mobility along this highway corridor. Improved connectivity to the corridor is required to facilitate re-investment in the area and job creation. Surrey’s official community plan for the area estimates that upon redevelopment the area will provide direct annual employment of 20,000 high-paying industrial and commercial jobs. The area is a key contributor to the regional, provincial and national economies. For example, the Port recently estimated that Port properties alone in the area contributed the following direct and indirect benefits to the economy:

• 4000 jobs;

• $220 million a year in wages; and,

• $440 million a year in GDP.

BUNDLE 5 - FRASER SURREY PORT LANDS AND SURREY INDUSTRIAL AREA ACCESS PROJECT


COLLABORATION FORUM


Bundle 5 addresses key mobility and access constraints within the Brownsville area that will:

• Enable a direct connection from the new Pattullo Bridge to industrial and port properties;

• Increase access and facilitate re-development of Fraser Surrey Port Lands and the surrounding industrial properties;

• Enhance rail and port logistics, operations, and capacity;

• Accommodate anticipated growth in rail and road traffic;

• Provide grade separated access to enhance emergency response times;

• Reduce the impacts of national trade on local communities;

• Enhance regional goods movement capacity; and,

• Enhance community and rail safety�

Key Commodities



• Canadian forest products including pulp, and lumber; and,

• Containerized cargo import and exports�



COLLABORATION FORUM


Problem Definition

The GTCF Bundle 5 will address the efficiency of road and rail networks in Surrey and Delta, British Columbia. The GTCF and stakeholders identified these projects as key infrastructure opportunities to increase goods movement through the Vancouver Gateway while providing significant benefits community and commuter road network users.

The road network’s efficiency, reliability and safety are impacted by each of the at-grade rail crossings identified within the Bundle 5 suite of projects within the Brownsville area. The provision of grade separations will reduce road traffic congestion due to rail crossing events and will provide certainty of crossing the rail corridor for emergency services and first responders while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from idling vehicles during train events� Bundle 5 projects are complementary to the Pattulo Bridge Replacement Project, which is described in “Other Projects”.


Issue 1: Access to Fraser Surrey Port LandsIssue Description Mitigation(s)• The primary access to the Surrey Brownsville Industrial area

and Fraser Surrey Port Lands is currently provided via the Tannery Road interchange with Highway 17� A collection of two lane roads connects the interchange with various port and industrial properties�

• The single interchange does not have the functional capacity required to support growth opportunities in this area�

• Mobility in the area is constrained by the capacity of the two lane roads, the connectivity of the network, and the high number of at-grade crossings of active spur lines.

• The road temporary network alignment constrains the redevelopment opportunities for industrial and port properties�

Highway 17 at Plywood Road and Grace Road Interchange • The interchange will add a second primary

access point to the port lands from Highway 17�

• The structure will also grade separate the railway tracks parallel to Highway 17 allowing for the development of expanded rail access to terminals�

• The interchange will enable greater certainty for first responders crossing the rail corridor to the Fraser Surrey Port Lands and will provide a secondary access/egress point in the case of an emergency situation�

Issue 2: Highway 17 at Old Yale Road Intersection Issue Description Mitigation(s)Old Yale Road intersection at Highway 17 • The signalized intersection at Highway 17 and Old Yale Road

reduces the free flow movement of highway traffic.

• The City of Surrey OCP anticipates an Old Yale Road underpass of Highway 17� This underpass will increase connectivity to the industrial properties on the North side of Highway 17�

• The Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project alignment is planning a direct connection to Highway 17 westbound towards the Fraser Surrey Port Lands from the new crossing� The present intersection will need to be removed and replaced with an underpass structure to accommodate the bridge connection from the new crossing�

Old Yale Road Underpass at Highway 17 • The proposed six-lane structure will provide

grade separation of the municipal arterial road and the provincial highway�

• The project will improve goods movement and commuter traffic along the Highway 17 corridor and on Old Yale Road�

• The structure will facilitate a direct connection from the new Pattullo Bridge to Highway 17 west� This connection will eliminate the need for goods movement trucks to use the municipal roads when accessing Highway 17 or the Port and industrial properties within the Brownsville area from the Pattullo Bridge�



COLLABORATION FORUM


Based on previous corridor expansion projects, Bundle 5, with an estimated capital expenditure of $140 million will generate the following direct, indirect and induced economic benefits during the construction period1�

In addition to economic benefits during construction, Bundle 5 projects will enable private-sector follow-on investments that result from the increased capacity generated by the road network improvement and future rail realignment. Based on zoning and recent developments it is likely that future follow-on investments will be port and logistics center based.

Similar trade corridor capacity projects have proven successful at generating positive economic, social and environmental impacts. Deloitte’s recent assessment of the similar North Shore Trade Area Projects observed that the $200 million project stimulated over $1 billion, or five times as much as the initial investment, in follow-on private-sector investment in terminal productivity, capacity expansion, and an entire a new terminal� It is also anticipated that Bundle 5 projects will facilitate the ongoing private investment to increase terminal competitiveness�


Canada is a trading nation and its efficient national transportation trade network enables Canadian producers and consumers to compete in international markets. The national transportation system supports economic growth, job creation and Canadian communities. Maintaining and expanding the efficient network requires investment in the supply chain by public and private sectors. In doing so, Canada, the trade corridors and the host communities mutually benefit. Specific benefits of Bundle 5 include:



• Enhanced public safety;

• Reduced commuter and goods movement times;


• Facilitation of logistics parks and industrial developments;

• Enhanced emergency response times and predictability;

• Minimized impacts of regional and national trade on local communities;

• Improved safety by removing at-grade crossings; and,

• Reduced volume of heavy vehicle commercial traffic on municipal streets�

Economic Benefits:

• Enhanced efficiency and competitiveness for Port of Vancouver, the Pacific Gateway, and Canada;


• Facilitation of follow-on private-sector investments and increasing import/export capacity;

• Increased competitiveness of terminals and Canadian products;

• Improved reliability and reduced rail corridor transit times and operating costs; and,

• Generation of productivity gains for the Canadian economy�


COLLABORATION FORUM


Project Description

Bundle 6 consists of projects that will reduce the impacts of international trade on Metro Vancouver local communities� The bundle focuses on community livability and maximizing the utility of past APGCI funded grade separations along the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor, which links the deep sea marine at Roberts Bank with the North American rail network.

The Whistle Cessation Projects will upgrade at-grade crossings to meet federal rail crossing standards required to enable whistle cessation agreements between the railways and the local community. The 96th Avenue Project will provide grade separated access to the community north of the CN Yale Subdivision in Langley.

The Langley Road Improvements with Rail Crossing Information System (RCIS) Project will upgrade local roads to handle diverted traffic and install real-time information signs to notify road users of pending train events at the major at-grade crossings and direct road users to grade separated crossings. The Langley Road Improvements with RCIS will be constructed within the Township of Langley and the City of Langley, and will be an extension of the current RCIS Project (RCIS - Phase 1), which will be implemented in 2017. The GTCF Roberts Bank Trade Area Study and the GTCF Fraser River Trade Area Study each identified potential candidate locations for whistle cessation throughout the Greater Vancouver Lower Mainland rail network. Specific whistle locations will be refined based on community impacts and budgetary constraints.

Project Cost

Bundle 6 Projects Estimated Capital Cost LocationLangley Road Improvements with RCIS $10 million City of LangleyWhistle Cessation Projects $5 million City and Township of Langley96th Avenue Overpass Project $12 million Township of Langley

Bundle Total $27 million





• TransLink

• Railways (CP, CN)

• Municipalities (City of Langley, Township of Langley)


These strategic infrastructure improvements in Bundle 6 will provide significant road user and community benefits. The Langley Road Improvements and RCIS Project leverages past grade separation that were constructed under the successful Roberts Bank Rail Corridor Program, which was funded under the Asia Pacific Gateway Corridor Initiative (APGCI). The first phase of RCIS is currently being implemented. The second phase, proposed within Bundle 6, provides road improvements, new road connections, and additional signs to increase the program’s benefit and so that the use of existing infrastructure is maximized.

Trade through the Vancouver Gateway and specifically through the Port of Vancouver terminals at Roberts Bank is expected to grow substantially with current terminal investment and the proposed new terminal development. Bundle 6 continues the established practice within the Vancouver Gateway of ensuring sustainable gateway development by proactively considering the effects of goods movements on communities, engaging local communities, identifying issues, and responding to community interest. Continued sustainable development of the Vancouver Gateway will ensure a resilient, safe, and competitive Canadian supply chain�

BUNDLE 6 - ROBERTS BANK RAIL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS


COLLABORATION FORUM


The bundle will:

• Reduce the impacts of international trade on local communities;

• Enhance commuter and rail safety; and,

• Enhance reliability and reduce emergency response times.

Key Commodities

• Containerized import and export cargo; and,

• Western Canadian coal.



COLLABORATION FORUM


Problem Definition

The GTCF Bundle 6 addresses nuisance noise levels from train whistling and issues regarding road network efficiency in Langley, British Columbia. The GTCF Roberts Bank Trade Area Study, in consultation with stakeholders, identified these projects as opportunities to mitigate the impacts of Canadian international trade on these host communities while providing significant benefits to the community and road users. Specific corridor issues to be addressed are:

Issue 1: Langley Road Network Congestion during train crossing eventsIssue Description Mitigation(s)Congestion and Queuing During Train Events • Traffic congestion accrues during each train crossing

event within the City of Langley� Congestion develops during the crossing closure as well as during the time required to dissipate the traffic after the train has cleared the crossing� Stakeholders have reported that time to clear congestion per train event is estimated in excess of ten minutes� This is in addition to the five minute period that the train occupies the crossing�

• The RBRC program, funded under the APGCI, constructed a series of road rail grade separation projects in this area bounded by the City of Surrey, the City of Langley, and the Township of Langley� However, there remain several major arterial road crossings of the rail corridor. Notifying traffic and providing connection to the available grade separation routes will further increase the benefits to road users and maximize the use of existing infrastructure and previous investments�

Additional RCIS Signs • New RCIS signs will be installed at key locations

including 200th street, the Langley bypass, and the Fraser Highway�

• Drivers will be encouraged to divert to grade separated crossings. This will have the additional benefit of reducing the number of vehicles queued at each at-grade crossing and the time to clear the congestion�

Local Road Network Connections • As a way to eliminate the need for costly additional

overpasses in the area and to maximize the use of previous investments in grade separations, the existing arterial road network requires widening or additional short segment to be added in order to accommodate diverted traffic.

Road Connecting between 53rd Avenue and 203rd Street • This connection could complete the 53rd/54th Avenue

corridor and provide a reliable connection to 196th street corridor railway overpass

Road Connecting between 202nd Street and 203rd Street Just North of the Langley Bypass • This connection could provide a more complete grid

network to enable a greater volume of traffic to divert to the Mufford Crescent overpass from the Langley Bypass at-grade crossing�

Issue 2: 96th Avenue Issue Description

Within the Fort Langley community, there are a number of at-grade crossings that connect the community on the north side of the CN Yale Subdivision with the community on the south side� Due to the proximity of the crossing, at times all these at-grade crossing can be occupied by a single train, which has resulted in a level of community severance�

96th Avenue Project • the 96th Avenue overpass will provide a guaranteed

access route for emergency services and residents the community on the north side of tracks�

• The overpass will include accommodations for multimodal use including pedestrians and cyclist


COLLABORATION FORUM


Issue 3: Whistle Cessation Projects Issue Description

The GTCF RBTA Study identified candidate projects locations for whistle cessation within the City and Township of Langley. Transport Canada requires that all trains whistle whenever they approach a public at-grade crossing. Communities can, subject to Transport Canada Regulations and Guidelines, eliminate the requirement for whistling at specific public crossings subject to the train engineer who ultimately determines the need for whistling, by entering into a whistle cessation agreement(s) with the operating railway. The encumbrance to establishing whistle cessation agreements is often the municipal funding required for the crossing safety upgrades. The Bundle 6 Whistle Cessation Projects will support communities to fund the safety upgrades in preparation for the whistle cessation agreements� Candidate Whistle Cessation Projects in other communities are addressed in “Other Projects”.


In addition to the economic benefits from construction, Bundle 6 projects will contribute to the sustainable development of the Vancouver Gateway generating positive economic, social and environmental impacts. The projects maximize past grade separation investments in the Roberts bank Rail Corridor Program. A preliminary assessment of the Langley Road Improvements with RCIS Project indicates that road user benefits, which were predominantly derived from travel time savings, will be in excess of $5.8 million.


Canada is a trading nation and its efficient national transportation trade network enables Canadian producers and consumers to compete in international markets. The national transportation system supports economic growth, job creation, and Canadian communities. Maintaining and expanding the efficient network requires investment in the supply chain by public and private sectors. In doing so, Canada, the trade corridors, and the host communities mutually benefit.


• Reduced impacts of national trade on local communities;

• Enhanced public safety of at-grade rail crossings;

• Reduced emissions from idling vehicles during train events;

• Reduced nuisance noise from train whistling; and,

• Reduced commuter and goods movement travel times�

Economic Benefits:

• Investment in the sustainability of the Port of Vancouver, the Pacific Gateway and Canada;


• Reduced potential economic disruptions or foregone economic activity; and,



COLLABORATION FORUM


Project Description

Bundle 7 consists of three projects that will reduce the impacts of international trade on Metro Vancouver local communities and generate commuter and goods movement travel time savings� The highway improvements proposed in Bundle 7 increases the road network capacity to the port terminals at Roberts Bank, to industrial properties on the Tsawwassen First Nations (TFN) Treaty Lands, and to Delta’s Tilbury Industrial Area (a major Vancouver Gateway facilities centre). The improvements also enable the rail yard capacity expansion required to support container trade expansion at the Port’s Roberts Banks terminals.

Bundle 7 consists of upgrading the intersection on Highway 17 at 80th Street to an interchange and upgrading Deltaport Way by adding two lanes and replacing Arthur Drive overpass and intersection with an interchange.

Project Cost

Bundle 7 Projects Estimated Capital Cost LocationTilbury / 80th Street Interchange $60 million DeltaArthur Drive Bridge Replacement $80 million DeltaDeltaport Way Widening to Four Lanes $25-45 million Delta

Bundle Total: $165-185 million





• Railways (BCRC)

• Municipality – Corporation of Delta


The strategic infrastructure improvements in Bundle 7 will remove bottlenecks on the provincial highway network that serves Roberts Bank terminals and off-dock logistic and distribution centres within the region. On average, 30% of containers arrive or depart Roberts Bank terminals by truck while the balance 70% moves by rail. It is essential to maintain efficient road and rail service to and from container terminals to ensure that forecasted demand is captured. A reliable and cost effective supply chain ensures the continued growth of the Canadian container trade and its internationally respected reputation�

The Port of Vancouver forecasts that container volumes through port terminals will increase from the current annual volume of just over 3.0 million TEUs to 4.8 million TEUs by 2025. Bundle 7 investments support the ongoing and efficient access by road and rail to the Roberts Bank terminals as well as the off-dock facilities within the region.

Key Commodities


• Containerized import and export cargo; and,

• Metallurgical and thermal coal�

BUNDLE 7 - ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL ACCESS AND GOODS MOVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS


COLLABORATION FORUM



Problem Definition

The GTCF Bundle 7 addresses issues related to the provincial highway network in Delta, British Columbia. The GTCF Stakeholders and the Roberts Bank Trade Area Study identified these projects as opportunities to mitigate the impacts of Canadian international trade on these local communities while providing significant benefits to businesses, the community, and road users�


Issue 1: Highway 17 at 80th Street Intersection CongestionIssue Description Mitigation(s)Congestion: • The intersection on Highway 17 at 80th Street provides access to the Tilbury

Industrial Area� During peak demand, the intersection is operating at or near capacity�

• The Tilbury Industrial Area and the adjacent Sunbury Industrial Area are experiencing significant redevelopment as businesses elect to invest in these areas.

• The industrial growth has resulted, and will continue to result, in increased truck traffic as transportation and logistic-oriented businesses migrate to the area due to the strong transportation network connections and the proximity of the Fraser River�

Tilbury Interchange: • The interchange will

remove 80th Street intersection from the Highway 17 corridor� This will improve road safety, reduce idling, increase the corridor capacity, and generate travel time savings for commuters and the goods movement industry�


COLLABORATION FORUM


Issue 2: Deltaport Way Congestion Issue Description Mitigation(s)Congestion: • Deltaport Way is the sole trucking route to access the Port

terminals at Roberts Bank and the TFN Treaty Industrial Lands. Highway traffic is predominantly container truck traffic throughout the day with the addition of commuter traffic during shift change at the terminals�

• The growth of terminal capacity and the development of the TFN Treaty Industrial Lands will result in Deltaport Way operating near or above capacity.

Deltaport Way 4 Laning • Four laning will increase the safety and

capacity of the highway while reducing the cycle times required at the intersections at 41B and Arthur Drive�

Arthur Drive Bridge Replacement and Interchange: • The Arthur Bridge replacement project

will construct a diamond interchange to eliminate the intersection on Deltaport Way and increase connectivity to the TFN Treaty Industrial Lands and Delta’s road network�

• The bridge span will be increased to accommodate four lanes on Deltaport Way and full expansion of the rail corridor�


Bundle 7 will contribute to the sustainable development of the Vancouver Gateway by generating positive economic, social and environmental impacts� The Vancouver Gateway previously experienced an economic disruption when container truck drivers went on strike� The strike resulted in a loss of international reputation and was estimated to cost the Canadian Economy $885 million a week. Since this incident, the Port and supply chain partners, including truck drivers, have made significant gains in resolving the issues that led to the strike and repairing the international reputation of the Vancouver Gateway. The investments in Bundle 7 will facilitate a container trucking market that remains efficient, competitive, and without labour disruptions.

Economic benefits from during construction of Bundle 7 with an assumed construction cost of $165 million are outline below:


COLLABORATION FORUM



Canada is a trading nation and its efficient national transportation trade network enables Canadian producers and business to compete in international markets and provide consumers with choice and goods at a fair price� The national transportation system supports economic growth, job creation, and Canadian communities. Maintaining and expanding the efficient network requires investment in the supply chain by public and private sectors. In doing so Canada, the trade corridors, and the host communities mutually benefit.


• Reduced impacts of international trade on local communities;

• Generation of travel time savings for commuters and goods movement road users;

• Increased public safety for road users; and,

• Support of First Nations economic development opportunities and investment in First Nations communities�

Economic Benefits:

• Investment in the competitiveness of the Port of Vancouver, the Pacific Gateway and Canada;



• Reduced potential economic disruptions or foregone economic activity due to labour disputes resulting from insufficient or efficient access to container terminals and off-dock facilities; and,



COLLABORATION FORUM


Project Description

The strategic infrastructure improvements identified in this fact sheet work to increase the connectivity and mobility of the highway and road network within the Vancouver Lower Mainland. The projects will provide significant benefits to goods movement, commuter and overall mobility of road users. The Projects identified enhance a key road connection to the Vancouver International Airport (YVR), upgrade major roadway connections across the Fraser River, expand highway capacity along Highway 1, improve community livability, and provide local road connections to facilitate economic development on First Nations and port lands�

• 4700 person-years of direct employment;

• $260 million a year in direct wages; and,

• $400 million a year in direct GDP, and $870 million a year in economic output.

Project Cost

Other Projects Estimated Capital Cost LocationMountain Highway Underpass• The Mountain Highway underpass will increase road clearance

under the CN Rail overpass to accommodate the movement of large project cargo loads from the Port to the highway network�

$6 million North Vancouver

Whistle Cessation Projects• Whistle Cessation Projects at numerous locations throughout

the Lower Mainland will upgrade crossing safety infrastructure to higher standards to reduce trains whistling and the impacts on communities at the specific public at-grade crossings.

$20 million Various Municipalities

Moray Channel Bridge• The Moray Channel Bridge Project will replace the current swing

bridge with a fixed structure across the middle arm of the Fraser River in Richmond�

$91 million Richmond

Western Lower Level Route Extension (WLLRE)• The WLLRE Project will extend the Low Level Route from Garden

Avenue to Marine Drive near Park Royal Shopping Centre in North and West Vancouver.

$160 million North and West Vancouver

Highway 1 Widening from Langley to Abbotsford including Surrey overnight truck parking• The Highway 1 widening project will continue the improvement

of the highway from four lanes to six within the Lower Mainland� The project also includes the construction of an overnight long-haul truck parking area in North Surrey�

$695 million Surrey, Langley, and Abbotsford

Pattullo Bridge Replacement• The Pattullo Bridge Replacement project will replace the existing

80-year-old structure with a new four lane bridge that can be expanded to six lanes as demand increases�

$1,506 million New Westminster and Surrey

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Bridge• The George Massey Tunnel Replacement project will decommision

the existing four-lane tunnel and construct a new ten-lane structure. Construction will be initiated in 2017.

$3,500 million Delta and Richmond

OTHER PROJECTS


COLLABORATION FORUM





• Vancouver International Airport (YVR)

• Municipalities


• TransLink

• Railways (BCRC, CN, CP, BNSF, SRY)

• Squamish First Nation



COLLABORATION FORUM


Problem Definition


Issue 1: Mountain Highway UnderpassIssue Description Mitigation(s)Supply chain partners including private industry, the port, and various levels of government have been working collaboratively to increase the competitiveness of the Vancouver Gateway for project cargo� The group identified Mountain Highway Underpass as a key bottleneck in the project cargo corridor from the Port of Vancouver to inland industrial sites such as those in Northern Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

The Mountain Highway underpass of CN Rail line has a maximum clearance of 4�2 meters, which is lower than the maximum permitted cargo clearance allowed on Highway 1 in British Columbia. This constraint is resulting in project cargo shipments being diverted through other ports.

• The Mountain Highway Underpass project will lower the north bound lane of the underpass to facilitate the movement of maximum legal size project cargo loads from the Lynnterm port Terminal�

• The clearance will be increased to 5.43 meters to facilitate overheight and overweight Project Cargo transiting the gateway enroute to major industrial development locations�

Issue 2: Whistle Cessation Projects Issue Description Mitigation(s)The GTCF RBTA Study and FRTA Study identified candidate locations for whistle cessation throughout the Vancouver Lower Mainland� Transport Canada requires that all trains whistle on approaching a public road at-grade crossing. Communities can, subject to Transport Canada Regulations and Guidelines, eliminate this requirement, by entering into a whistle cessation agreement(s) with the operating railway. Notwithstanding this agreement, it is the decision of the train engineer as to whether the whistle is sounded�

With increasing train traffic and train lengths traversing communities, whistling at crossings is becoming an increasing impact. The encumbrance to establishing whistle cessation agreements is usually the municipal funding required for the crossing safety upgrades� The Whistle Cessation Projects will support communities funding the safety upgrades required in preparation for the whistle cessation agreements. Candidate Whistle Cessation Projects in Langley are specifically addressed in the “Bundle 6 Fact Sheet”.

Issue 3: Moray Channel BridgeIssue Description Mitigation(s)Improving Travel Time Reliability from YVR to Highway 99• The bridge was constructed in 1965 and is

nearing the end of it structural service life�

• The existing Moray Bridge provides two eastbound traffic lanes leaving the airport and operates as a system with the Airport Connector Bridge that provides three westbound lanes to the airport�

• Stakeholders raised concern regarding the capacity of the structure at two lanes, the reliability of the swing mechanism, which can no longer be serviced by readily available commercial parts, and the reliability of time sensitive commercial truck trips delayed by bridge openings.

Moray Channel Bridge Replacement Project• The Moray Channel Bridge Replacement Project will replace

and upgrade the current road link to YVR from Highway 99� The new structure will support the ongoing growth and development of Canada’s second business airport. In 2016, YVR handled more than 281,000 tonnes of high value cargo and a record 22�3 million passengers�

• The project proposes to replace the existing swing span with a new fix span across the channel. The structure will have an air draft equal to that of the Airport Connector Bridge so that marine traffic can still transit the channel.

• The bridge will include three lanes for eastbound vehicle traffic and accommodations for a multimodal path for cycling and walking�


COLLABORATION FORUM


Issue 4: Western Lower Level Road Extension (WLLRE)Issue Description Mitigation(s)Congestion at the Head of the Lions Gate Bridge• The Marine Drive bridge spanning the Capilano River is

connected to approaches at the north end of the Lions Gate Bridge�

• Lions Gate Bridge traffic must compete with municipal east-west traffic that also uses the Marine Drive Capilano River Bridge. The limited capacity of the road network results in major congestion and travel delays�

• Recent improvements at the Lions Gate Bridge head have worked toward segregating these streams of traffic, but the area continues to experience significant congestion and traffic delays.

Traffic and Congestion on Local First Nations Road Network• The Low Level Road currently directs traffic through Squamish

First Nations community streets via Welch Street, Capilano Road, and the Wardance Bridge. The Squamish First Nations have indicated a desire to divert this regional traffic by extending the low level route and implementing traffic calming measures within the Squamish First Nation reserve local road network�

Redundancy in the in municipal road• There are currently only two municipal roadway crossings of

the Capilano River: the Marine Drive crossing and the Wardance Bridge crossing�

WLLRE Project• The WLLRE Project will create a new

connection between the District of North Vancouver and the District of West Vancouver across the Capilano River� The new connection will divert traffic away from the Lions Gate Bridge head to increase capacity for inter-municipal traffic and commuters using the Lions Gate Bridge�

• The resulting road network re-configurations will divert traffic from local streets within the Squamish First Nation to the new WLLRE thus increasing community livability for the people of the Squamish First Nation�

• The new connection will establish an industrial grade separated road link over the CN rail line to the undeveloped lands within the Squamish First Nations Reserve� (The Lands are also know as the Pacific Environmental Centre Site)

• The new link will provide redundancy to increase the resiliency of the municipal road network for regional traffic and commercial trucking�

Issue 5: Highway 1 widening from Langley to AbbotsfordIssue Description Mitigation(s)Congestion on Highway 1• Highway 1 was widened from the Port Mann Bridge across the

Fraser River to 202nd Street interchange in Langley as part of the Port Mann Highway 1 Project�

• MOTI, the Township of Langley and Transport Canada are currently implementing further upgrades to extend the widening to 216th Street and to construct a new Interchange at 216th Street� This project will address the present congestion and delays through this section of Highway 1 for commercial trucking and commuter traffic. However, the Highway 1 section between Abbotsford and Langley will remain highly congested and the bottleneck between the Fraser Valley and Metro Vancouver

• The expansion of Highway 1 from Abbotsford to Langley will eliminate the last remaining 4-lane section of Highway 1 between the Burrard Inlet and Abbotsford.

Overnight Truck Parking• Currently the long-haul trucking industry has limited options

for overnight parking� This has resulted ad hoc parking including the use of city streets�

Highway 1 Widening Project• Increases capacity of Highway 1 from Langley

to Abbotsford eliminating the bottleneck between the Fraser Valley and Metro Vancouver enabling travel time savings for regional goods and people movement�

• The Highway 1 widening project from Langley to Abbotsford (32.5km) will expand Highway 1 from four lanes to six lanes between the 216th Street interchange in Langley and the Whatcom Interchange in Abbotsford.

North Surrey Overnight Truck Parking Project• Provides overnight truck parking to remove

truck parking from local streets and to concentrate parking so facilities and services can be provided.

• This provides benefits to the local communities and commercial truck operators as they will have a safe and convenient place to park overnight�


COLLABORATION FORUM


Issue 6: Pattullo Bridge ReplacementIssue Description Mitigation(s)The Pattullo Bridge is a critical link for local, regional and national transportation needs and an important component of the Asia-Pacific Gateway goods movement network� An average of 80,000 vehicles per day, about 10 per cent of which are trucks, cross the Fraser River on the Pattullo Bridge�

The bridge was built in 1937 and was designed for a 50-year life which has now been exceeded by 30 years. The 80-year old bridge is vulnerable to high wind conditions and may not survive a moderate seismic event or ship collision�

The Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project will replace the current crossing with a safe and efficient crossing with modern lane widths that will improve travel-time reliability and safety for all bridge users.

The design is the outcome of multiple years and phases of engagement with the municipalities of New Westminster and Surrey, as well as goods movement partners such as the Port of Vancouver and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure�

The design has been endorsed by both the councils of New Westminster and Surrey and will provide:

• Improved and new connections to the road network on both sides of the bridge, including improved access to the recently completed Highway 17 truck corridor, and more free-flow access on and off the bridge;

• A safer crossing with wider lanes and a centre median that separates traffic travelling in opposite directions;

• A more reliable crossing as modern lane widths and curvature will provide about 10 per cent increased capacity on the new four-lane bridge; and,

• Accommodation for multimodal use path and connections to regional greenway paths�

Issue 7: George Massey Tunnel ReplacementIssue Description Mitigation(s)The George Massey Tunnel is an important link in the regional and provincial transportation system� It connects to key gateways such as Vancouver International Airport (YVR), Canada-U.S. border crossings, BC Ferries’ Tsawwassen terminal, Deltaport container Terminal and the Boundary Bay Airport�

Congestion• Since the Tunnel opened in 1959, Metro Vancouver’s population

and economy have grown with an additional one million people forecast 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.

Safety• The tunnel was built to the engineering standards of the 1950s

and, while operationally safe, it does not meet modern highway and seismic standards�

• With narrow lanes and multiple merge points, crashes in and around the tunnel happen with higher frequency than on other parts of the Highway 99 corridor�

The George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

The project will:

• Construct new 10-lane bridge (eight lanes plus two dedicated transit/HOV lanes), with construction to begin in 2017;

• Replace the Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges, providing better access to and across Highway 99, with improved on and off ramps and additional lanes;

• Improve transit and HOV infrastructure, providing a continuous dedicated transit/HOV lane between Highway 91 in Delta and Bridgeport Road in Richmond, which will also support potential future rapid transit expansion;

• Provide access and connections for cyclists and pedestrians with a multi-use pathway on the new bridge; and,

• Decommission existing tunnel�


COLLABORATION FORUM





APPENDIX A

LIST OF INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, FIRST NATIONS & OTHERS

Steering Committee Member Agencies• Transport Canada

• BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

• TransLink


• Greater Vancouver Gateway Council

Municipalities• Corporation of Delta

• City of Richmond

• City of Burnaby

• City of New Westminster

• City of Surrey

• City of Coquitlam

• City of Port Coquitlam

• City of Pitt Meadows

• City of Maple Ridge

• District of Mission

• City of Abbotsford

• Township of Langley

• City of Langley

• City of White Rock

• City of North Vancouver

• District of North Vancouver

• District of West Vancouver

First Nations• Tsawwassen First Nation

• Katzie First Nation

• Halalt First Nation

• Squamish Nation

• Tsawwassen First Nation

• Tsleil-Waututh Nation

• Semiahmoo First Nation

• Cowichan Tribes

• Lyackson First Nation

• Musqueam Indian Band

• Penelakut Tribe

• Lake Cowichan First Nation

• Kwantlen First Nation

• Shxw’owhamel First Nation

• Sto:lo Tribal Council

• Skawahlook First Nation

• Sto:lo Nation

• Soowahlie First Nation

• Kwikwetlem First Nation

• Leq’á:mel First Nation

• Seabird Island First Nation

• Matsqui First Nation

• Sumas First Nation Industry & Organizations • BNSF

• CN Rail

• CP Rail

• SRY

• Alliance Grain Terminals

• Allied Shipbuilders

• Canexus Chemicals

• Cargill

• Columbia Containers

• Global Container Terminals

• DP World

• Fibreco

• Fraser Surrey Docks

• Kinder Morgan Canada Terminals (Vancouver Wharfs)

• Lafarge

• Lantic Sugar/ Rogers

• Lynnterm (Western Stevedoring)

• Neptune Terminals

• Pacific Coast Terminals

• Richardson Terminals

• Seaspan

• TSI Vanterm

• Univar Canada Terminal

• Vancouver Pile Driving

• Viterra

• West Coast Reduction

• Westshore Terminals

• WWL

• YVR

• Canaan Group

• Coast 2000

• BC Marine Terminal Operators Association

• BC Chamber of Shipping

• Fraser River Industrial Association (FRIA)

• Western Canadian Shippers Coalition

• Council of Marine Carriers

• Metro Vancouver (GVRD)

Proposal for Project Funding Under the National Trade Corridors Fund

North Shore Corridor Capacity Improvement Projects

Appendix D: Cost-Benefit Analysis Supplementary Documentation

Greater Vancouver

Gateway 2030

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Supplementary Documentation

National Trade Corridors Fund


November 6, 2017

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority | Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 | National Trade Corridors Fund Cost-Benefit Analysis Supplementary Documentation

| i

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4

1.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Monetized Benefits .................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Non-Monetized Benefits ............................................................................................................ 8

1.5 Results....................................................................................................................................... 9

1.6 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................. 12

2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 13

3 CBA Methodology and Framework ................................................................................................... 14

4 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Base Case and Alternative Case ............................................................................................ 19

4.1.1 Base Case (Without Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 projects) ............................ 19

4.1.2 Alternative Case (Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 projects are built) ................... 19

4.2 Project Cost and Schedule ...................................................................................................... 20

4.2.1 Capital Costs .............................................................................................................. 20

4.2.2 Operations & Maintenance Costs .............................................................................. 21

4.2.3 Residual Value of Assets ........................................................................................... 21

5 Freight Diversion Analysis ................................................................................................................. 22

5.1 West Coast Port Overview ...................................................................................................... 22

5.1.1 Port of Seattle/Tacoma............................................................................................... 24

5.1.2 Port of Portland .......................................................................................................... 24

5.1.3 Port of Vancouver USA .............................................................................................. 25

5.2 Capacity Improvements at Other West Coast Ports ............................................................... 26

5.3 Commodity Overview .............................................................................................................. 30

5.3.1 Intermodal .................................................................................................................. 32

5.3.2 Grain ........................................................................................................................... 33

5.3.3 Potash ........................................................................................................................ 33

5.3.4 Forest Products .......................................................................................................... 34

5.3.5 Petrochemicals ........................................................................................................... 35

5.3.6 Canola Oil ................................................................................................................... 35

5.3.7 Coal ............................................................................................................................ 35

5.3.8 Sulphur ....................................................................................................................... 36

5.3.9 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 36

6 Key Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 37

6.1 Projection of Train Volumes .................................................................................................... 37

6.2 Greater Vancouver Rail Capacity ............................................................................................ 39

6.3 Rail Rate Comparison ............................................................................................................. 41

6.3.1 Rail Haul Distance Increases ..................................................................................... 41

6.3.2 Increased Resources & Cycle Times ......................................................................... 42

6.3.3 Interline Rates vs. Single Line Rates ......................................................................... 42

6.4 Ocean Shipping Rate Comparison .......................................................................................... 43

6.4.1 Comparative Bulk Shipments ..................................................................................... 44

6.4.2 Comparative Container Shipments ............................................................................ 46

7 Outcome Measurement, Data and Assumptions .............................................................................. 50

7.1 Transportation Cost Savings to Canadian Producers ............................................................. 50


| ii

7.1.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 50

7.1.2 Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 50

7.1.3 Benefit Estimates ....................................................................................................... 52

7.2 Safety and Environmental Impacts of Shipments to Alternative Ports .................................... 52

7.2.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 52

7.2.2 Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 53


7.3 Local Transportation and Environmental Benefits .................................................................. 54

7.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 54

7.3.2 Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 58


8 Cost-Benefit Analysis Results ........................................................................................................... 60

8.1 Results Summary .................................................................................................................... 60

8.2 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................. 61

9 Supplementary Data Tables .............................................................................................................. 63

9.1 Total Program Benefits and Costs .......................................................................................... 63

9.2 Annual Demand Projections .................................................................................................... 64

9.3 Rail Network Improvement Benefits ........................................................................................ 65

9.4 Transportation Cost Savings to Canadian Producers ............................................................. 66

9.5 Environmental Impacts of Shipments to Alternative Ports (GHG) .......................................... 67

9.6 Environmental Impacts of Shipments to Alternative Ports (CAC) ........................................... 68

9.7 Local Transportation and Environmental Benefits .................................................................. 69

9.8 Safety Impacts of Shipments to Alternative Ports ................................................................... 70


| iii

Tables

Table ES-1: Summary of Infrastructure Improvements and Associated Benefits ......................................... 9

Table ES-2: Overall Results of the Cost-Benefit Analysis ......................................................................... 11

Table 1: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Economic Impact Analysis Comparison ............................................. 15

Table 2: Key Project Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 18

Table 3: Capital Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................. 21

Table 4: Port of Seattle/Tacoma – Capital Improvement Projects .............................................................. 27

Table 5: Port of Portland – Capital Improvement Projects .......................................................................... 29

Table 6: Port of Vancouver (Washington) – Capital Improvement Projects ............................................... 30

Table 7: Trains per Day in Greater Vancouver ........................................................................................... 38

Table 8: Rail Network Line Capacity Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................ 39

Table 9: Rail Network Terminal Capacity Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................... 40

Table 10: Greater Vancouver Rail Network Capacity ................................................................................. 40

Table 11: Sample Rail Distance Differentials between Vancouver and Portland ....................................... 42

Table 12: Sample Rail Rate Differentials between Vancouver and Washington ........................................ 43

Table 13: Rail Rates Based on AAR and RAC Averages ........................................................................... 43

Table 14: Baltic Dry Index Rates October 16, 2017 ................................................................................... 45

Table 15: Average Base Bulk Vessel Charter Time-Destination Singapore ............................................... 46

Table 16: Eastbound Trans-Pacific Container Rates, Select Pacific Ports ................................................ 49

Table 17: Ocean Carrier Availability, Select Pacific Ports .......................................................................... 49

Table 18: Assumptions used in the Estimation of Transportation Cost Savings ........................................ 50

Table 19: Estimates of Transportation Cost Savings Benefits .................................................................... 52

Table 20: Assumptions used in the Estimation of Safety and Environmental Benefits .............................. 53

Table 21: Estimates of Safety and Environmental Benefits ........................................................................ 54

Table 22: Data sources for Local Transportation and Environmental Benefits Analysis ............................ 55

Table 23: Assumptions used in the Estimation of Local Benefits ............................................................... 58

Table 24: Estimates of Local Transportation and Environmental Benefits ................................................ 59

Table 25: Overall Results of the Cost-Benefit Analysis .............................................................................. 60

Table 26: Summary of Key Sensitivity Analysis Parameters ...................................................................... 62

Table 27: Summary of Other Sensitivity Analysis Parameters ................................................................... 62

Figures

Figure ES-1: Cargo Growth Forecast at the Port of Vancouver ................................................................... 5

Figure 1: Cargo Growth Forecast at the Port of Vancouver ....................................................................... 16

Figure 2: Regional Rail Network Map ......................................................................................................... 32

Figure 3: Trains per Day in Greater Vancouver .......................................................................................... 38

Figure 4: Greater Vancouver Rail Capacity Constraints ............................................................................. 40

Figure 5: Three Year Baltic Dry Rate Index 2014-2017. ............................................................................. 45

Figure 6: World Container Index October 2015-October 2017 ................................................................... 47

Figure 7: Index of Short Term Route Rate Fluctuations ............................................................................. 47


| 4

1 Executive Summary

This report provides an analysis of the costs and benefits of the projects proposed by the Gateway

Transportation Collaboration Forum in its Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 (GVG2030) strategy.

Benefits of Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030

The purpose of the GVG2030 strategy is to identify and pursue federal funding for smart

infrastructure investments to ensure that the Greater Vancouver Gateway is ready to serve

forecasted trade growth through the Port of Vancouver to 2030. The nearly 40 transportation

projects proposed as part of GVG2030 will provide national, provincial, regional, and local

benefits. By removing capacity constraints and freight bottlenecks to get Canadian goods to

market, these projects will help grow the economy, create well-paying jobs and support liveable,

green communities with improvements to safety, mobility, and air quality.

GVG2030 projects include grade separation or closure of a series of at-grade road-rail crossings

within the Greater Vancouver area. The elimination of delays at the rail crossings will improve the

mobility of commuters and freight trucks, support active pedestrian and bicycle lifestyles, and

improve the quality of life of residents through noise and emissions reductions.

The projects identified for submission in the first national call for projects from the National Trade

Corridors Fund represent the Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum’s highest priority

projects to address existing and emerging bottlenecks in the next five years.

While this report has been prepared to support the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority’s submission

of 9 Comprehensive Project Proposals to the National Trade Corridors Fund in November 2017,

it provides an analysis for the nearly 40 projects that make up the GVG2030 strategy. It is

anticipated that funding applications will be submitted for all GVG2030 projects over the

subsequent national calls for projects.

Overall, the analysis determined that every $1 invested in the GVG2030 projects would generate

$2.32 in public benefits, for a total of $4 billion in benefits to Canadians. It should be noted that

as most cargo handled through the Port of Vancouver is transported by rail, this analysis focuses

on the benefits associated with investments that would remove rail bottlenecks and increase rail

capacity. Given the nature of the proposed roadway improvements, freight shipments by truck

also benefit through reduced delay and improved reliability. However, the quantification of the full

range of these benefits falls outside of the scope of this analysis.

1.1 Introduction

The Greater Vancouver rail network connects the 27 major marine cargo terminals within the Port

of Vancouver with the North American rail network. This network provides Canadian producers

and consumers with access to more than 170 international trading economies worldwide. Rail

plays a significant role in supporting Canada’s largest and most diversified port.


| 5

The Port of Vancouver is served by three Class 1 railways – the Canadian National Railway (CN),

the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), and the BNSF Railway (BNSF) – as well as the Southern

Railway of British Columbia (SRY). These railways have recognized the need for rail capacity

expansion to meet the forecasted increases in demand in the Greater Vancouver area. This need

has historically been addressed through infrastructure expansion, operational improvements, as

well as co-production agreements between railways which expand the capacity of existing rail

infrastructure. All of the rail companies across the network cooperate to make the best use of the

rail infrastructure, equipment and resources to maintain system reliability and cost effectiveness

resulting in competitive trade for Canadian businesses and consumers.

While these cooperative agreements have provided operating efficiencies across Greater

Vancouver (effectively increasing rail capacity), additional infrastructure investments must be

made in order to ensure that future rail capacity is sufficient to meet the growing demand for goods

movement through the Port of Vancouver.

Trade through the Port of Vancouver is increasing

In 2016, 136 million tonnes of cargo across various commodity sectors passed through the Port

of Vancouver. Based on a conservative assumption of cargo growth, total annual tonnage through

the port is anticipated to increase by 69 million tonnes by 2030, as compared to 2016 volumes.

Figure ES-1: Trade Growth Forecast at the Port of Vancouver

To manage this projected growth, which translates to approximately 26 additional trains per day

travelling to / from the Port of Vancouver, investment in the GVG2030 projects is needed to

increase the efficiency and capacity of the rail network.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Mill

ions o

f M

etr

ic T

onnes

Port of Vancouver Freight Volumes

Others

Other Fertilizers

Autos

Sulphur

Bulk Liquids

Potash

Metals & Minerals

Agricultural Products

Forest Products

Containers

Coal


| 6

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The overall improvements and public benefits generated by these projects were monetized

through a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) – a conceptual framework that quantifies in monetary

terms as many of the costs and benefits of a project as possible. Where it is not possible to

reasonably quantify benefits, qualitative assessments are provided. The CBA in support of

GVG2030 demonstrates a sound analysis of anticipated outcomes of the program including

safety, efficiency, environmental, social and international trade and commerce benefits in

compliance with federal, provincial and industry-specific CBA guidance.

1.2 Methodology In order to fully assess the impacts, a Base and Alternative Case is used to compare the

socioeconomic costs of rail network capacity constraints in the Base Case to the anticipated

benefits from infrastructure improvements in the Alternative Case.

Base Case (Without Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 projects)

In the Base Case, it is assumed that the infrastructure improvement projects identified in

GVG2030 are not constructed. As a result, railroad capacity serving both passenger and freight

rail services remains at current levels resulting in constraints to future growth in passenger and

freight rail service once capacity is reached. The Base Case assumes planned / funded

improvements at other West Coast ports proceed as planned, and that rail capacity constraints

within the Greater Vancouver rail network result in either the diversion of Canadian cargo to

other ports, most likely in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S., at an increased cost to Canadian

businesses and consumers.

In addition, with long term growth in freight and passenger rail traffic, commuters are

increasingly being delayed at level crossings within Greater Vancouver. Vehicle idling while

crossings are occupied by trains results in increased emissions. While vehicle delay is

prominent, the presence of at-grade crossings also may result in impacts to emergency

response, safety and noise.

Alternative Case (Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 projects are built)

The Alternative Case presumes that the nearly 40 projects identified in GVG2030 proceed as

planned, alleviating rail network bottlenecks and facilitating growth in international trade.

Construction of the projects is expected to provide rail capacity and fluidity improvements

directly contributing to the overall scale and productivity of port operations. These improvements

allow terminals to expand operations, reduce unit costs and, more generally, allows the Port of

Vancouver to meet forecasted demand for Canadian trade.

The GVG2030 program will grade separate a series of at-grade intersections within Greater

Vancouver. The elimination of delays at the rail crossings will improve the mobility of commuters

and freight trucks, support active pedestrian and bicycle lifestyles, and improve the quality of life

of Greater Vancouver residents through noise and emissions reductions.


| 7

1.3 Monetized Benefits

The following benefits arising from the implementation of the full suite of GVG2030 projects are

monetized as part of this CBA.

Economic Benefits

Shipper Cost Savings

As rail capacity in the Greater Vancouver area is increasingly restricted due to future train

volumes, additional train delay places upward pressure on rail rates. Further, as practical

capacity of the rail network is reached, shippers are forced to find alternate ports to reach

export markets. These locations, being further from Canadian production sources, result

in higher transportation costs for producers. Infrastructure improvements designed to

increase rail capacity within the Port of Vancouver provides a more efficient supply chain

providing Canadian producers with a more cost-effective way of moving goods to

international markets.

Motor Vehicle Operating Cost Savings

As train volumes grow, motorists will be increasingly delayed at level crossings. Grade

separation eliminates fuel consumption and other vehicle operating costs typically incurred

by vehicles idling at occupied crossings.

Travel Time Delay

Reduction of delays and improved fluidity in passenger or freight transportation is a key

goal of transportation investments. Time saved from faster travel could be dedicated to

activities with higher value to the public including recreation, work, and other more

productive uses of the time.

Quality of Life Benefits

Safety

Minimizing the rail distance from Canadian production centres to port facilities reduces the

probability of accidents in the form of derailments or rail/road interaction. Further, reducing

the number of at-grade crossings within the Greater Vancouver area effectively eliminates

the possibility of collisions between trains and vehicles at those crossing that are grade

separated.

Emissions

Minimizing the rail distance from Canadian production centres to port facilities reduces

locomotive emissions relative to more distant ports. Further, reducing the number of at-

grade crossings within the Greater Vancouver area reduces vehicle emission for those

idling when the crossing is occupied.


| 8

1.4 Non-Monetized Benefits

In addition to the monetized benefits described above, the GVG2030 projects would generate

benefits that are difficult to monetize. A brief description of those benefits is provided below.

Economic Benefits

Improved Travel Time Reliability

Motorists have a chance to experience delays at any given at-grade railway crossing,

which causes variability in travel time. In addition, queued vehicles may block adjacent

intersections causing delays on nearby roads. Creating grade separated rail crossings will

improve travel time reliability, as motorists will avoid any risk of delays due to passing

trains. However, valuation of reliability can be drastically different among the users of

facilities, and as such is difficult to monetize.

Improved Access to Future Development Potential

Grade separated crossing sites are being designed to improve travel time reliability and

accessibility which could result in increased development in the surrounding area. In

addition, grade separated crossings are being planned to accommodate future growth of

the rail network, which would otherwise increase future delays at the crossings.

Quality of Life Benefits

Improved Connectivity

Grade separation will replace at-grade crossings with new pedestrian and cycling facilities

along an overpass allowing for greater connectivity and promotion of an active lifestyle.

As well, access to opportunities including nearby businesses and other public facilities will

be improved.

Improved Emergency Vehicle Access

Key emergency services (fire, police, and ambulance) are impacted by delays at rail

crossings, resulting in delays for emergency services. Without these delays, emergency

services can arrive faster and prevent damage that would have otherwise occurred in their

absence. For example, survival rates for serious medical emergencies are dependent on

the arrival time of an ambulance. Removing blockages through the various GVG2030

projects would improve the travel time and reliability for emergency responders that may

otherwise not be able to pass or be forced to take a longer route.

Reduced Noise Pollution

Federal law requires trains to sound their horns or whistle as they approach a public grade

crossing. As part of GVG2030, various at-grade crossings will be either separated or

eliminated, which will result in less noise from train whistles.


| 9

1.5 Results

Taking the present value of GVG2030 project costs and benefits over a 30-year study period and using a 10% real discount rate results

in an overall Net Present Value of $2.2 billion, and a Benefit-Cost Ratio of 2.32. The $3 billion investment ($1.7 billion in present

value terms) would result in a total of $4 billion in discounted benefits – 2.3 times more than the cost of the improvements with a

payback of 7.8 years, and an internal rate of return of 23.5%.

Table ES-1 summarizes the impacts and associated monetary benefits expected from the project in constant 2017$ discounted at

10%.

Table ES-1: Summary of Infrastructure Improvements and Associated Benefits

Current Status or Baseline & Problems to be Addressed

Changes to Baseline / Alternative

Socio-Economic Impact Population Affected by Impacts Summary of Results

2017$ Discounted at 10%

The presence of numerous at-grade rail/road crossings in Greater Vancouver limits the ability to expand railroad infrastructure. With long term growth in rail traffic, railroad delay will cause inefficiencies in the supply chain, raising transportation costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers of rail transportation services. Practical capacity of the rail network In the port influence area is reached sooner in the absence of these rail infrastructure improvements. Canadian producers of commodities destined for export must seek alternate port facilities, move goods a longer distance, and face higher transportation costs as a result.

GVG2030 projects will grade separate a series of at-grade intersections within Greater Vancouver allowing additional rail infrastructure to be constructed increasing rail capacity and reducing train delay.

Avoidance of increased supply chain costs for Canadian producers of export commodities due to increased train delay as train capacity is approached

Canadian producers of export commodities

$3,471 M Avoidance of increased supply chain cost for Canadian producers of export commodities once the practical capacity of Greater Vancouver freight rail network is reached.

Canadian producers of export commodities

Improved safety - avoided vehicle / train collisions due to longer train route to alternative port destinations

Residents near alternative West Coast ports

$169 M

Avoidance of increased locomotive emission due to alternative port destinations

Residents near alternative West Coast ports

$78.3 M

Avoidance of increased emissions due to locomotive idling

Local businesses and residents Not monetized


| 10

Current Status or Baseline & Problems to be Addressed

Changes to Baseline / Alternative

Socio-Economic Impact Population Affected by Impacts Summary of Results

2017$ Discounted at 10%

With long term growth in freight and passenger rail traffic, commuters are increasingly being delayed at level crossings within Greater Vancouver. Vehicles idling while crossings are occupied generates greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air contaminant pollution. While vehicle delay is prominent, the presence of at-grade crossings also may result in impacts to emergency service response times, safety, and noise.

GVG2030 projects will grade separate a series of at-grade intersections within Greater Vancouver. The elimination of delays at the rail crossings will improve the mobility of commuters and freight trucks, support active pedestrian and bicycle lifestyles, and improve the quality of life of Greater Vancouver residents through noise and emissions reductions.

Reduced delay (travel time) costs

Motorists, shippers, local businesses and residents

$177 M

Improved safety - avoided vehicle / train collisions

Motorists, shippers, and residents $7.4 M

Avoided emissions due to vehicle idling

Motorists, shippers, local businesses and residents $1.6 M

Reduced vehicle operating costs due to vehicle idling and delay

Motorists, shippers, local businesses $7.8 M

Residual value of infrastructure assets

Local governments $25.3 M

Reduced travel time variability. Fewer rail crossing blockages will improve travel time reliability


Not monetized

Grade separation will provide pedestrian and cycling facilities allowing for greater connectivity and promotion of active lifestyles, in addition to improved access to nearby businesses and other public facilities.

Pedestrians, cyclists, local businesses and residents.

Not monetized

Grade separation and whistle cessation will reduce noise pollution from train whistles.

Pedestrians, cyclists, local businesses and residents.

Not monetized

Fewer rail crossing blockages will improve reliability for emergency responders that may otherwise not be able to pass or be forced to take a longer route.


Not monetized


| 11

Table ES-2: Overall Results of the Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-Benefit Analysis Results Discounted at 10% Undiscounted

Program Benefits

Transportation Cost Savings to Canadian Producers

$3,471,426,000 $16,900,839,000

Safety and Environmental Benefits from Rail Network Improvements

$247,347,000 $1,184,706,000

Improved Safety $169,009,000 $823,501,000

Avoided GHG Emissions $56,598,000 $281,842,000

Avoided CAC Emissions $21,740,000 $79,363,000

Local Transportation and Environmental Benefits

$194,064,000 $974,646,000

Travel Time Savings $177,403,000 $895,800,000

Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $7,753,000 $39,157,000

Improved Safety $7,354,000 $31,811,000


Avoided CAC Emissions $169,000 $791,000

Residual Value of Assets $25,303,000 $441,530,000

Total Benefits $3,938,141,000 $19,501,721,000

Program Costs

Capital Costs $1,688,917,000 $2,957,094,000

Operations & Maintenance Costs $16,632,000 $91,371,000

Total Costs $1,705,549,000 $3,048,465,000

CBA Summary Results Discounted at 10% Net Present Value (NPV) $2,232,593,000 Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.32 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 23.5% Discounted Payback Period (DPP) 7.81 years

For the purposes of the BCR, O&M is considered a negative benefit and only up-front project capital costs are used in the denominator.


| 12

1.6 Sensitivity Analysis

Overall, results are driven primarily by increased capacity and improved rail network efficiency

that translate to transportation cost savings to Canadian shippers. Increased demand is a natural

requirement for capacity improvement projects and 1.48% per year was determined to be the

break-even growth rate for the analysis holding everything else constant. As a comparison, freight

volumes at the Port of Vancouver have increased by an average of 2.6% per year since 2008,

representative of a full business cycle.

The sensitivity analysis of incremental distance and cost to shippers for moving goods to alternate

gateways - which account for 88% of total public benefits - determined that a $693 increase in

cost per railcar is the breakeven point for the CBA, while an increase as high as $2,825 in costs

from a 644 kilometers increase in haul distance would increase the NPV to $4.7 billion and

generate a BCR of 3.77.

A 25% change in capital cost estimates resulted in a 19% change in NPV while a ten-fold increase

in operations and maintenance costs had a 6.7% impact to NPV, indicating that uncertainty in the

cost estimates does not put net public benefits at risk.

Overall, in all reasonable instances of the sensitivity analysis, the benefit-cost ratio remained well

above 1.0 and demonstrated that even with overly conservative assumptions the GVG2030

improvements are expected to generate a substantial amount of public benefits with relatively low

risk.


| 13

2 Introduction

This document provides detailed technical information on the cost-benefit economic analysis

conducted in support of the nearly 40 projects proposed by the Gateway Transportation

Collaboration Forum in its Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 (GVG2030) strategy. It has been

developed to serve as an appendix for federal funding applications being submitted to the National

Trade Corridors Fund (NTCF).

Section 2 - Introduction: Outlines the CBA document layout and structure to assist NCTF

reviewers.

Section 3 - CBA Methodology and Framework: Introduces the conceptual framework

used in the Benefit-Cost Analysis.

Section 4 - GVG2030 Overview: Provides an overview of the nearly 40 GVG2030

projects, including a brief description of existing conditions and proposed alternatives; a

summary of cost estimates and schedule; and a description of the types of effects that

GVG2030 is expected to generate.

Section 5 - Freight Diversion Analysis: Estimates of travel demand and traffic volumes.

Section 6 - Key Assumptions: Discusses the general assumptions used in the estimation

of project costs and benefits. Specific attention is made to critical assumptions such

as rail rates, train volumes and current rail capacity limitations.

Section 7 - Outcome Measurement, Data and Assumptions: Details the specific data

elements and assumptions used to address the goals of the project and to comply with

program requirements.

Section 8 - Cost-Benefit Analysis Results: Estimates the Net Present Value (NPV), its

Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) and other project evaluation metrics for the GVG2030 projects.

This section also provides the outcomes of the sensitivity analysis that evaluates the

different assumptions and the impact that the variability of those assumptions may have

on the overall project.

Section 9 - Supplementary Data Tables: Includes a detailed breakdown of all benefits

associated with the GVG2030 projects, including annual estimates of benefits and costs,

as well as intermediate values to assist NTCF in its review of the applications.


| 14

3 CBA Methodology and Framework

Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a conceptual framework that quantifies in monetary terms as many

of the costs and benefits of a project as possible. CBA adopts the view that a project or proposal

would be rated positively if the overall benefits to society outweigh the costs and any losses.

Typically, CBA is a forward-looking exercise, seeking to anticipate the welfare impacts of a project

or proposal over its entire lifecycle. Future welfare changes are weighted against today’s changes

through discounting, which is meant to reflect society’s general preference for the present, as well

as broader inter-generational impacts.

For most traditional project evaluations, it is reasonable and desirable to evaluate individual

project investments at a very discrete and localized level because the cost and benefit of the

project are tied to that project alone. For example, for an individual (non-rail capacity related)

roadway/railway grade-separation project that is solely intended to improve local traffic flow, one

can quantify these benefits and costs to that roadway alone and complete the CBA. The CBA at

this level can appropriately be used to establish the project worthiness.

However, the benefits derived from groups of projects designed to expand overall railway system

capacity, and therefore allowing greater throughput, cannot be accurately established by

examining each individual project in isolation. To do so would understate the benefits if not fail to

capture benefits at all. This is because railways are a cohesive network with very few moving

vehicles (trains) and with the movement of each vehicle dependent entirely on the movement of

others; whereas roadways are a transportation system where each vehicle can choose from an

almost unlimited set of independent paths. For railways, the overall effect of the group or portfolio

of projects must be considered in unison as all are required to improve system capacity.

Proceeding with one of the projects may alleviate one specific bottleneck while shifting it to

somewhere else in the system (without the other project improvements), and subsequently having

no incremental change to system capacity. Typically, railways examine a suite of projects using

an operations simulation model to have assurance that the overall system capacity and fluidity

has been achieved. All of the discrete improvements are considered as a single overall project

whose implementation is required to achieve the results. For example, the Chicago, Illinois,

CREATE program established a Base Case and Build Case network simulation model when the

program was conceived in the early 2000s, and then identified more than 100 grade-separation,

railway connection, railway double-tracking, and railway signalling projects that were tested in the

Build Case network model to assure that the overall throughput, fluidity, and reliability goals of

the program would be achieved. In contrast, the benefits and costs of the numerous roadway

grade-separation projects within the CREATE program could be analyzed on a single-project

basis for the roadway effects only because each one had independent utility for motorists.

Accordingly, an isolated project-by-project CBA would greatly understate these system level

effects in Greater Vancouver rail network. A holistic portfolio level CBA is required. While project-

specific localized effects on vehicle traffic and fluidity can be estimated by project, the overall

network capacity expansion effect cannot (as it also requires the other project improvements).


| 15

Therefore, a comprehensive CBA for capacity improvement projects at the Port of Vancouver

requires a program-level approach.

The specific methodology developed for this application was developed using the above CBA

principles and is consistent with published Government of Canada guidelines. In particular, the

methodology involves:

Establishing existing and future conditions under the Base (No-Build) and Alternative

(Build) scenarios;

Assessing benefits with respect to each of the NTCF program objectives;

Measuring benefits in dollar terms, whenever possible, and expressing benefits and costs

in a common unit of measurement;

Discounting future benefits and costs with the real discount rates recommended by

Transport Canada (real rate of 10 percent); and,

Conducting a sensitivity analysis to assess the impacts of changes in key assumptions.

The GVG2030 projects would generate substantial economic activity and contribute to additional

private investment in the region, however, such economic benefits are not traditionally considered

in a CBA framework as they do not directly reflect to public welfare effects.

While crucial for highlighting the macroeconomic benefits of the GVG2030 projects, these effects

are instead typically quantified as part of an Economic Impact Assessment (EIA). The difference

between the two types of economic analyses is outlined in below.

Table 1: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Economic Impact Analysis Comparison

Cost Benefit Analysis Economic Impact Analysis

Compares the advantages (user benefits, societal benefits) and disadvantages (costs) of an investments

Assesses how the investment affects economic activity in the region

Estimates whether society is better off from the investment. Concerned with people’s “well-being”

Estimates effects of the investment on macroeconomic indicators (e.g., jobs) Project expenditures (costs) are seen as benefits as they generate economic activity.

Primarily concerned with economic efficiency and welfare gains

Primarily concerned with changes in economic activity

Benefits expressed as resource cost savings or changes in “well-being”

Impacts expressed as changes in business sales, employment, income, or tax revenue

Used by public decision makers to determine whether to proceed or approve the project

Used by proponents & sponsors to communicate the merits / economic benefits of a project to the public


| 16

4 GVG2030 Overview

The Greater Vancouver rail network connects the 27 major marine cargo terminals within the Port

of Vancouver with the North American rail network. This network provides Canadian producers

and consumers with access to more than 170 international trading economies worldwide. Rail

plays a significant role in supporting Canada’s largest and most diversified port.

The Port of Vancouver is served by three Class 1 railways – the Canadian National Railway (CN),

the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), and the BNSF Railway (BNSF) – as well as the Southern

Railway of British Columbia (SRY). These railways have recognized the need for rail capacity

expansion to meet the forecasted increases in demand in the Greater Vancouver area. This need

has historically been addressed through infrastructure expansion, operational improvements, as

well as co-production agreements between railways which expand the capacity of existing rail

infrastructure. All of the rail companies across the network cooperate to make the best use of the

rail infrastructure, equipment and resources to maintain system reliability and cost effectiveness

resulting in competitive trade for Canadian businesses and consumers.

While these cooperative agreements have provided operating efficiencies across Greater

Vancouver (effectively increasing rail capacity), additional infrastructure investments must be

made in order to ensure that future rail capacity is sufficient to meet the growing demand for goods

movement through the Port of Vancouver.

Trade through the Port of Vancouver is increasing

In 2016, 136 million tonnes of cargo across various commodity sectors passed through the Port

of Vancouver. Based on a conservative assumption of cargo growth, total annual tonnage through

the port is anticipated to increase by 69 million tonnes by 2030, compared to 2016.

Figure 1: Cargo Growth Forecast at the Port of Vancouver

0

50

100

150

200

250

Mill

ions

of

Metr

ic T

onnes

Port of Vancouver Freight Volumes

Others

Other Fertilizers

Autos

Sulphur

Bulk Liquids

Potash

Metals & Minerals

Agricultural Products

Forest Products

Containers

Coal


| 17

To manage this projected growth, which translates to approximately 26 additional trains per day

travelling to / from the Port of Vancouver, investment is needed to increase the efficiency and

capacity of the rail network.

Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030

The purpose of the GVG2030 strategy is to identify and pursue federal funding for smart

infrastructure investments to ensure that the Greater Vancouver Gateway is ready to serve

forecasted trade growth through the Port of Vancouver to 2030. The nearly 40 transportation

projects proposed as part of GVG2030 will provide national, provincial, regional, and local

benefits. By removing capacity constraints and freight bottlenecks to get Canadian goods to

market, these projects will help grow the economy, create well-paying jobs and support liveable,

green communities with improvements to safety, mobility, and air quality.

GVG2030 projects include grade separation or closure of a series of at-grade road-rail crossings

within the Greater Vancouver area. The elimination of delays at the rail crossings will improve the

mobility of commuters and freight trucks, support active pedestrian and bicycle lifestyles, and

improve the quality of life of residents through noise and emissions reductions.

The projects identified for submission in the first national call for projects from the National Trade

Corridors Fund represent the Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum’s highest priority

projects to address existing and emerging bottlenecks in the next five years.

Projects to be submitted during first NTCF intake

A total of nine Comprehensive Project Proposals are being submitted by the Vancouver Fraser

Port Authority as part of the GTCF in 2017. As a result of bundling, these nine proposals include

16 of the nearly 40 projects within the GVG2030 strategy. These nine proposals are:

1. North Shore Corridor Capacity Improvement Project,

2. Harris Road Underpass and Kennedy Road Overpass Project,

3. Bell Road Overpass Project,

4. Burrard Inlet Road and Rail Improvement Projects,

5. Mountain Highway Underpass,

6. Whistle Cessation and Rail Crossing Information System,

7. Portside Blundell Overpass and Upgrade Project,

8. Pitt River Road and Colony Farm Road Rail Overpasses Project, and

9. Westwood Street and Kingsway Avenue Grade-Separations Project.

With the exception of the Mountain Highway Underpass project, each of these projects directly

improve shipment of goods to and from the Port of Vancouver by rail, through removal of existing

at-grade crossings that limit operational flexibility, and / or addition of mainline or siding tracks to

increase capacity of the rail network. The Mountain Highway Underpass, is purely a road-based

project to enable the movement of oversize project cargo, and is assessed separately.


| 18

Table 2: Key Project Characteristics

Project Name Project Characteristic

1 North Shore Corridor Capacity

Improvement Project

New 18,000 feet of siding track; removal of one at-

grade crossing.

2 Harris Road Underpass and

Kennedy Road Overpass

Project

New 17,000 feet of siding track, removal of two at-grade crossings.

3 Bell Road Overpass Project 11,000-foot extension to existing 6,000-foot siding track, removal of three at-grade crossings.

4 Burrard Inlet Road and Rail

Improvement Projects

Approximately 31,000 feet of new sidings and

realigned tracks, as well as reworking of switching

operations.

5 Mountain Highway Underpass Enables the movement of oversize project cargo.

6 Portside Blundell Overpass and

Upgrade Project

Improves road and safeguards rail access to

logistics centres that support the growth of container

terminals, and will also safeguard for rail access to

support the future development of bulk terminals in

the area. Provides ability for train switching

movements to be conducted without affecting

vehicle traffic.

7 Whistle Cessation and Rail

Crossing Information System

Mitigates many of the impacts to surrounding

communities that would otherwise be incurred as a

result of these additional train volumes, and would

also provide the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

with the ability to monitor day to day rail operations.

8 Pitt River Road and Colony

Farm Road Rail Overpasses

Project

17,000 feet of double-tracking, removal of two at-grade crossings.

9 Westwood Street and Kingsway

Avenue Grade-Separations

Project

Safeguarding for future track, removal of two at-

grade crossings.

While the first phase of nine project identified above are being submitted by the port authority as

part of the 2017 intake for the NTCF funding program, the CBA incorporates the anticipated costs

of the full suite of nearly 40 projects identified in GVG2030. The remainder of these projects would

be submitted by the port authority as part of future NTCF intakes, or would be submitted by other

GTCF members. Inclusion of costs for all future submissions in the CBA is necessary because

additional projects that will be submitted in subsequent phases of funding applications are

required to be implemented in order to achieve the rail network benefits outlined in the benefits

analysis.


| 19

4.1 Base Case and Alternative Case

One of the most essential but often overlooked components of Cost-Benefit Analysis is defining

the Base Case (No-Build) and the Alternative Case (Build). Improper definition of either of these

cases can lead to significant under or over-estimation of benefits.

4.1.1 Base Case (Without Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 projects)

In the Base Case, it is assumed that the infrastructure improvement projects identified in

GVG2030 are not constructed. As a result, railroad capacity serving both passenger and freight

rail services remains at current levels resulting in constraints to future growth in passenger and

freight rail service once capacity is reached. The Base Case assumes planned / funded

improvements at other West Coast ports proceed as planned, and that rail capacity constraints

within the Greater Vancouver rail network result in either the diversion of Canadian cargo to other

ports, most likely in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S., at an increased cost to Canadian businesses

and consumers.

In addition, with long term growth in freight and passenger rail traffic, commuters are increasingly

being delayed at level crossings within Greater Vancouver. Vehicle idling while crossings are

occupied by trains results in increased emissions. While vehicle delay is prominent, the presence

of at-grade crossings also may result in impacts to emergency response, safety and noise.

Key assumptions in the Base Case include:

Rail network capacity is 80 trains per day and remains constant over the study period.

Unconstrained, train volumes grow at an average of 2.3% per year between 2017 and

2030; volumes are assumed constant after 2030.

Rail rates are an additional $1,709 to/from a Pacific Northwest port compared to the Port

of Vancouver.

Rail distance to/from Pacific Northwest port is an additional 369km (229mi) compared to

the Port of Vancouver.

Train traffic is expected to persist for 365 days each year as ports operate throughout the

year.

4.1.2 Alternative Case (Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 projects are built)

The Alternative Case presumes that the nearly 40 projects identified in GVG2030 proceed as

planned, alleviating rail network bottlenecks and facilitating growth in international trade.

Construction of the projects is expected to provide rail capacity and fluidity improvements directly

contributing to the overall scale and productivity of port operations. These improvements allow

terminals to expand operations, reduce unit costs and, more generally, allows the Port of

Vancouver to meet forecasted demand for Canadian trade.


| 20

Moreover, many projects are explicitly designed to include grade separation of road and rail traffic

which will benefit residents of Greater Vancouver through reduced travel time delays, reduced

vehicle operating costs, enhanced safety, and avoided air emissions.

Key assumptions in the Alternative Case include:

Upon completion of all capacity-related GVG2030 projects, rail network capacity increases

to 114 trains per day by 2030.

o Capacity of the network increases each year between 2019 and 2029, as projects

are completed.

Unconstrained, train volumes grow at an average of 2.3% per year between 2017 and

2030; volumes are assumed constant after 2030.

Rail rates are an additional $1,709 to/from a Pacific Northwest port compared to the Port

of Vancouver.

Rail distance to/from Pacific Northwest port is an additional 369km (229mi) compared to

the Port of Vancouver.

Train traffic is expected to persist for 365 days each year as ports operate throughout the

year.

4.2 Project Cost and Schedule

4.2.1 Capital Costs

As noted previously, in addition to the costs associated with the nine CPPs being submitted by

the port authority ($1.16 billion), costs are included for the remainder of the projects within

GVG2030. In total, GVG2030 identifies approximately $1.7 billion of additional projects1, and an

allowance is made for an additional $100 million in rail construction for an overall estimated cost

of $1.8 billion. It was assumed that half of these would be NTCF intakes in fall 2020 and 2022,

and high-level cash flows of Phase 2 and Phase 3 projects have been generated in the years

subsequent to those intakes. It was assumed that half of these projects (by capital value) would

be submitted in Phase 2, and the remainder in Phase 3. Note that for simplicity, for the

Overpasses / Upgrades along the Burrard Inlet Line for which the port authority submitted an

Expression of Interest and the City of Vancouver is submitting a CPP is considered a Phase 2

project. This assumption was made because although this project is being submitted as part of

the fall 2017 intake, the actual timing of major design and construction work, per the project

schedule included in the EOI, is anticipated to occur in the early- to mid-2020s.

1 Three projects in GVG2030 are not included in this figure; the George Massey Tunnel Replacement

Project, the Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project, and the Highway 1 Six-laning, as the benefits related

to these projects are primarily road-related.


| 21

Table 3: Capital Cost Estimates

Millions 2017$ 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total

GVG2030 Phase 1 Projects (2017 submission) $110 $111 $254 $266 $412 $9 $1,163

North Shore Corridor Capacity Improvement Projects $16 $16 $34 $59 $59 $9 $193

Harris Road Underpass and Kennedy Road Underpass Project

$9 $9 $37 $35 $35 $126

Bell Road Overpass Project $4.8 $4.8 $20 $19 $19 $68

Burrard Inlet Road and Rail Improvement Projects $44 $37 $19 $19 $19 $138

Mountain Highway Underpass Project $1.3 $3.8 $3.4 $8.6

Whistle Cessation and Rail Crossing Information System $1.0 $6.0 $6.0 $7.0 $20.0

Portside Blundell Overpass and Upgrade Project $6.1 $6.1 $34 $32 $32 $111

Pitt River Road and Colony Farm Road Rail Overpass Project

$22 $22 $95 $91 $91 $322

Westwood Street and Kingsway Avenue Grade-Separations Project

$7 $7 $5 $3 $156 $177

GVG2030 Phase 2 Projects (2020 submission) $90 $90 $269 $314 $135 $897

GVG2030 Phase 3 Projects (2022 submission) $90 $90 $269 $314 $135 $897

Total Capital Costs $110 $111 $254 $356 $502 $278 $404 $224 $269 $314 $135 $2,957

4.2.2 Operations & Maintenance Costs

Incremental maintenance and future infrastructure renewal and replacement costs were

estimated to be approximately $3.5 million per year over the study period. Phase 1 ongoing cost

estimates were carried out on a project basis, while costs for Phases 2 and 3 were higher level

estimates using general cost factors and as a ratio of the capital costs. While these estimates will

need more detailed analysis in the future, they are believed to be in the right order of magnitude

and are not significant enough to impact the overall results of the analysis. The Sensitivity Analysis

presents results under a scenario where these ongoing costs are 10 times larger than current

estimates.

4.2.3 Residual Value of Assets

The residual value of capital assets at the end of the study period is estimated using straight-line

depreciation and represents the remaining useful life of structures and other long-lived assets.


| 22

5 Freight Diversion Analysis

This section provides detailed information critical to the development of underlying assumptions

required in the estimation of GVG2030 benefits. As mentioned above, in the absence of projects

that improve Greater Vancouver rail capacity as outlined in GVG2030 and, as Canadian export

volumes grow over time, rail capacity constraints within Greater Vancouver will require the

movement of goods through alternative ports. This has two consequences: i) freight rail trains are

increasingly delayed within Greater Vancouver thereby increasing supply chain costs and ii) at

some point, rail capacity is reached forcing Canadian producers to seek alternative port locations

for access to exports markets which in turn also raises supply chain costs as additional land side

distances must be travelled.

Key to this assertion are a number of assumptions including:

1. Alternate West Coast ports have (or will have) the necessary terminal infrastructure in

place to receive additional volumes of divertible commodities. For example, it is doubtful

that coal shipments could be diverted to alternate ports given there is no terminal facilities

in place to actually process those shipments. On the other hand, potash shipments would

appear to be divertible to the Port of Portland given its current terminal infrastructure

dedicated to this commodity.

2. Alternate West Coast ports have (or will have) the necessary rail infrastructure in place in

order to receive additional rail volumes.

3. Rail connections between Canadian and U.S. Class 1 railways are in place in order to

interchange Canadian originated volumes of commodities now destined for alternative

West Coast ports.

Section 5.1 provides an overview of West Coast ports that could serve as alternative gateways

for Canadian shippers in terms of terminal operations, the range of commodities handled, serving

railroads and programmed rail improvements. Particular focus is given to the Port of

Seattle/Tacoma, Port of Portland and the Port of Vancouver USA as these ports are most likely

to receive additional Canadian originated shipments given their geographical proximity to the Port

of Vancouver. Following this, Section 5.2 provides a brief description of rail improvement projects

currently funded or contemplated by the various port authorities in the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

Finally, Section 5.3 provides an analysis of those commodities that are likely to be diverted in the

absence of rail capacity improvements at the Port of Vancouver given the nuances of railroad

operations and the capabilities of alternate ports to receive and process various Canadian

originated commodities.

5.1 West Coast Port Overview

This section describes (1) the basic features of West Coast U.S. ports that can serve as

alternatives to the Port of Vancouver, (2) the rail network serving these ports, and (3) how freight

produced in or consumed in Canada would likely shift from the Port of Vancouver to other ports,

as the rail network serving port reaches capacity. This section consists of an overview describing


| 23

why and how freight shifts, and describes the diversion pattern that is likely to occur for each

major rail commodity currently transported by rail to or from the Port of Vancouver.

The Port of Vancouver, in common with all major ports in Canada and the U.S., is a market-facing

port, that is, the traffic that is selected to move through the port, as opposed to other ports, is

determined by shippers instead of through a central planning authority. Shippers choose which

port to use for their goods based on total shipping cost from origin to destination, time to market,

reliability, and ease of use. Total shipping cost is typically the most important factor in goods that

are shipped by ocean vessel. The ability of any given port to compete with another is most

dependent upon total shipper cost2. As a railway network serving a port reaches capacity, rail

carriers in North America have substantial regulatory freedom to price to optimize the value of

their capacity. The practical effect is that railways auction their available capacity to the highest

bidder. Shippers with the highest-value goods typically will pay the highest shipping price, thus

win the auction. Once the highest-value goods are fully allocated capacity, the remaining railway

capacity moves downward toward the lowest-value goods. The lowest-value goods must seek a

port with a lower total shipping cost, or often are unable to tolerate any increase in shipping cost

and leave the market altogether. For example, a coal producer in Country A, faced with higher

shipping costs, can no longer price on a delivered basis into an export market, and the coal

demand in that market is taken up by a different producer in Country B.

A major factor in total shipping cost is also the cost of the export facilities that load or unload ships

and trains, and store and stage the commodity until shipload or trainload volumes are achieved.

These facilities are extraordinarily expensive and have substantial requirement for waterside land,

which is itself an extraordinarily valuable commodity. Facilities designed to load and unload

commodities are typically highly commodity-specific, and do not exist at every port. Thus,

commodities that have one or few export facilities to choose from will tolerate higher total shipping

costs through a port where these facilities exist, as the threshold cost to recreate these facilities

at another port which could offer lower total shipping costs is very high.

Ports are often regarded as entities unto themselves. From an ocean-basin perspective, two ports

are often differentiated only by their relative difference from another port on the other side of the

ocean basin, by their draft, and by their fees. However, from the overland-freight perspective,

particularly in a very large land mass such as North America with great distances between inland

producing and consuming points and tidewater, ports are highly differentiated by the capacity and

competitive ownership of the rail network that serves them, and the facilities at the port.

Ports can to some degree influence total shipper costs through improving efficiency, reducing

cargo dwell times, increasing throughput volumes and attracting customers by offering a wide

range of services that cargo depends on. Often ocean shipping lines, railways, and other

common-carriers of freight will ask ports to reduce the costs to the carrier or the total shipping

costs, through the port changing the way it handles cargo, reduction of labour costs or resolution

2 NASSTRAC 2016 Survey of Shippers


| 24

of labour contract issues that affect port reliability or throughput, by instituting operational changes

that reduce a vessel’s port time, or a roll back of fees.

Ports often also do not control many of the cost of services they provide. Many port authorities,

such as the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, operate as landlord ports, leasing out facilities to

carriers or terminal operators. However, the facilities in every port, whether under the control of

the public port agency or not, all share common infrastructure including waterways, rail and roads.

The public port agency is looked upon as providing for the common benefit of the port district on

properties they control and areas where they can only influence.

5.1.1 Port of Seattle/Tacoma

The Port of Seattle/Tacoma, operated by the Northwest Seaport Alliance, is located in the Puget

Sound region in Washington State. The two seaports were independently-run competitors until

2015 when they combined services to form the third largest cargo port in the United States by

container volume. The port spans over 1,758 acres in King and Pierce counties, and features a

depth of 51 feet and above allowing access by Post Panamax III (16,000 TEU) vessels.

In 2016, container traffic totaled 3.6 million TEUs. Top international trading partners include

China/Hong Kong, Japan, Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. In addition, more than 80

percent of the total trade volume between Alaska and the lower 48 states passes through its

terminals. The port’s top imports include industrial machinery, electronics, vehicles, toys and

furniture. Top exports include oil seeds and grains, industrial machines, prepared vegetables and

fruits, fish and seafood, edible fruits, and metals.3

The ports house 10 container terminals and 5 non-container terminals. Spanning over 1,012

acres, the container terminals consist of 23 berths and 47 cranes, 43 of which are post-Panamax.

However, this summer, the Alliance approved the purchase of 8 more Neopanamax gantry

cranes, which will be installed over the next two summers beginning in 2018. Efforts are also

underway for terminal expansion to create a terminal that can handle two 18,000 TEU ships at

once. Facilities include five on-dock intermodal yards and three near-dock intermodal yards.

The ports are serviced by two Class I railroads – BNSF and UP. The railroads offer early fifth-

morning service to U.S. Midwest and Ohio Valley markets and over 40 regular departures from

the gateway every week.

5.1.2 Port of Portland

The Port of Portland is located about 161 kilometers from the mouth of the Columbia River. The

channel is 43 feet deep and 600 feet wide and ship transits normally take approximately eight

3 "Frequently Asked Questions". The Northwest Seaport Alliance. Retrieved February 6, 2017.

https://www.nwseaportalliance.com/faqs


| 25

hours to reach a berth in Portland. Over 1,600 ships per year enter and depart the Columbia River

for six deep-draft ports.

Over 13 million tons of cargo move through the Port’s facilities each year. Major exports include

grain, soda ash, potash, automobiles and hay. Major imports include automobiles, steel,

machinery and mineral bulks. Imports and exports at the Port total about $15.4 billion annually.4

The Port is the 5th largest auto import gateway in the United States and the largest mineral bulk

port on the U.S. West Coast. In 2013, Port of Portland was listed as the largest wheat exporter in

the United States.5

The Port contains four major terminals. Terminal 2 features two multipurpose cranes and can

handle virtually any cargo from lumber and forest products to steel, machinery and packaged

cargoes.6 Terminal 4 is also multipurpose and features seven ship berths capable of handling

cargoes including autos, forest products, steel, and dry and liquid bulks. Terminal 5 features the

Port’s rapid-handling grain elevator and, completed in 1997, a $48 million mineral bulk exporting

facility. Terminal 6 handles the Port’s container service; however, after a termination of its ICTSI

Oregon lease agreement earlier this year, the Port is currently developing new ideas to fill that

role. The terminal is serviced by 7 container cranes (4 Post Panamax).

Serviced by two Class I railroads, BNSF and Union Pacific, the Port has invested heavily in a

number of rail yards, overpasses, new trackage and related projects to improve capacity, velocity

and safety throughout the region.

5.1.3 Port of Vancouver USA

The Port of Vancouver USA is a multi-purpose port authority on the Columbia River in Vancouver,

Washington. The port handles more than 7 million tons of cargo each year including products

such as wheat, grains, mineral and liquid bulks, automobiles and project cargo.

The Port of Vancouver USA primarily serves bulk import and export markets with dedicated

facilities for agricultural commodities, mineral ores, concentrates, and fertilizers. Port of

Vancouver USA is directly served by both BNSF and UP and has recently completed its West

Vancouver Freight Access project, a $270 million USD project creating a new rail entrance to the

port.

4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Portland_(Oregon)

5 https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Port%20Profiles%20Entire%20Pub.pdf

6 https://www2.portofportland.com/#Marine-Terminal


| 26

5.2 Capacity Improvements at Other West Coast Ports

According to Federal Maritime Commission, “a leading cause for cargo diversions is port

congestion. […] While severe congestion manifested in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland

in 2014-2015, it is a condition that can develop at any port, in any place in the world and lead to

domestic or foreign port cargo diversions. […] West Coast ports and the U.S. government have

vowed that port congestion on the scale experienced in 2015 will not happen again, with West

Coast ports taking steps to insure against a repeat. For example, massive infrastructure

improvement and expansion projects are underway to ensure ports can handle the increase in

cargo volume due to mega ships, and Super-Post-Panamax cranes are being installed along the

West Coast to move more TEUs than ever before. Further, evidence shows that shippers still

prefer the efficiency and reliability that comes from using the United States as a gateway into

North America.”7

The Ports of Seattle/Tacoma, Portland and Vancouver USA are all committed to improving

infrastructure to improve their competitive position and have begun planning and constructing

projects that add rail capacity, remove rail congestion and bottlenecks, or improve railroad

operations and efficiency.

Typical projects include:

Providing rail access to dock infrastructure,

Grade separations to expedite freight movement, improve public safety, and reduce modal

delay,

Construction of new tracks for added freight capacities,

Construction of new tracks on rail bridges to relieve bottlenecks and increase capacity,

Construction of new arrival and departure tracks to stage trains,

Construction of new yard tracks for added railcar storage,

Installation of powered rail switches to increase rail throughput/capacity,

Installation of universal crossovers to improve rail traffic fluidity and increase capacity,

Rehabilitation of track to allow for track speed increases, and

Construction of track connections to improve access and throughput.

A summary of future railroad-related capital projects being proposed by select U.S. Pacific

Northwest (PNW) ports is presented in Table 4 through Table 6 below. (Information regarding port

infrastructure improvements was obtained through public sources.)

7 Federal Maritime Commission, Fourth Annual Update of the Study of U.S. Inland Containerized Cargo

Moving through Canadian and Mexican Seaports, July 2016.


| 27

Table 4: Port of Seattle/Tacoma – Capital Improvement Projects

Project Name Description Purpose Timeline (Years)

Cost (US $M)

Funded

East Marginal Way Construct grade separation

Improves safety and capacity

1 $56.3 Yes

Argo Yard Truck Roadway

UP grade crossing improvements on East Marginal Way and Colorado Avenue; includes adding UP Argo Yard automated gate system

Adds capacity and access; improves operational efficiency

1 $7.75 Yes

Lander Street Bridge Project

Construct grade separation; joint with Port of Tacoma

Improves safety and capacity

N/A $123 Yes

EB-1 Connection to General RR System (Port of Tacoma and Tacoma Rail project)

Construct connection to the general railroad system; provides dock freight rail access to support existing break-bulk operations and attract future customers

Improves access and capacity

N/A N/A Yes

North Leads (Port of Tacoma and Tacoma Rail project)

Construct industrial lead tracks to the Blair Peninsula


N/A N/A Yes

Transfer Yard Connection to Lincoln (Port of Tacoma and Tacoma Rail project)

Construct connection from the Port Transfer Yard to existing tracks along Lincoln Avenue


N/A N/A Yes

Culvert Erdahl Ditch (Port of Tacoma and Tacoma Rail project)

Repair retaining walls supporting the Erdahl Ditch in the main rail yard; reconfigure tracks

Adds capacity and access; improves operational efficiency; and removes rail bottleneck

N/A N/A No

Arrival & Departure (A&D) Track Extension & East End Yard Reconfiguration (Port of Tacoma and Tacoma Rail project)

Construct additional railroad tracks; make adjustments designed to improve operational flexibility and efficiency

Adds capacity; improves operational efficiency; removes rail bottleneck

N/A N/A No

West End Yard Reconfiguration (Port of Tacoma and Tacoma Rail project)

Construct additional railroad tracks; make adjustments designed to improve operational flexibility and efficiency

Adds capacity; improves operational efficiency; removes rail bottleneck

N/A N/A No


| 28


Cost (US $M)

Funded

Washington United Terminal – Double Ending (Port of Tacoma and Tacoma Rail project)

The project would mirror the configuration of the current access into the terminal tracks on the North end to allow trains to make a “through movement”

Adds access, capacity, and operational flexibility

N/A N/A No

Pierce County Terminal – Double Ending (Port of Tacoma and Tacoma Rail project)

Construct terminal tracks on the West end to allow trains to make a “through movement;” construct new connection to the general railroad system on the East end of the terminal

Adds capacity and access; improves operational efficiency

N/A N/A No

Yard Tracks 5 and 6 Rail Relay Project (Tacoma Rail project)

N/A Adds rail capacity N/A N/A Yes

Port Pass Track Upgrade (Tacoma Rail project)

N/A Improves rail bottleneck

N/A N/A Yes

Yard Tracks 8 and 9 Rail Relay (Tacoma Rail project)


N/A N/A Yes

Lincoln Ave "Wye" Installation (Tacoma Rail project)


N/A N/A Yes

East Loop Rehabilitation and 17th Street Expansion (Tacoma Rail project)


N/A N/A Yes

NIM Yard Lead Track Upgrade (Tacoma Rail project)


N/A N/A Yes

Taylor Way Track Rehabilitation and Expansion (McPip area track upgrade) - Tacoma Rail project

N/A Adds rail capacity N/A N/A Yes

SR 509 Track Rebuild Project (South Lead) - Tacoma Rail project


N/A N/A No

West Loop Track Rehabilitation (Concrete Tech Area)


N/A N/A Yes

Sources:

(1) https://www.portseattle.org/Business/Construction-Projects/Documents/CIP_Q1_2017_rpt.pdf

(2) https://www.portseattle.org/Supporting-Our-Community/Regional-Transportation/Pages/Lander-St-Overpass.aspx

(3) https://www.portoftacoma.com/sites/default/files/LandUseTransportationPlan.pdf


| 29

Table 5: Port of Portland – Capital Improvement Projects


Cost (US $M)

Funded

Portland Terminal Railroad Power Switches

Install dispatcher-controlled powered switches between Lake Yard and Terminal 2

Adds capacity and improves operational efficiency

5 $10.81 No

Ramsey Yard Utilization

Connect existing track with industrial lead

Improves operational efficiency and access

10 $1.7 No

Bonneville Rail Yard Build Out

Construct two interior yard tracks; completes the double-track lead from the wye at the east end of the yard to Barnes Yard

Adds rail-staging capacity for South Rivergate

10 $3.6 No

BNSF Fallbridge Double Tracking

Double-track the Fallbridge rail line to Washougal

Increases capacity of the BNSF east-west main line serving Port of Portland

10 $72 No

T6 Development Project

This program includes additional scour protection, T6 entrance overcrossing, two cranes, terminal electrical upgrades, yard gantry cranes, and 6,800 feet arrival and 8,500 feet departure tracks

Adds rail-staging capacity to the container terminal

10 $80 No

Marine Drive Improvement Phase 2

Construct rail overpass on Marine Drive

Avoid road/road conflict; improves operational efficiency

20 $13.6 No

West Hayden Island Interior Access Road

Construct interior roadway including rail overpass and berth access

Avoid road/road conflict; improves operational efficiency

20 $13.6 No

West Hayden Island Rail Yard

Construct rail yard connected to facility trackage


20 $9.5 No

West Hayden Rail Access

Rail access from the railroad main line to support West Hayden Island development

Adds capacity and rail access

20 $3 No

North Portland Junction

Upgrade railroad with universal crossovers, tie into centralized traffic control (CTC), and improve geometrics


10 $9.16 No


| 30


Cost (US $M)

Funded

Kenton Rail Line Upgrade

Double track from Peninsula Junction to Interstate 205; increase track speeds between North Portland, Peninsula Junction, and Reynolds on the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) Kenton Line


10 $25.38 No

Terminal 2 Yard and Rail Improvement

Rehabilitate rail and pavement at Terminal 2

Improves operational efficiency

5 $16.5 No

T4 Berth 410, 411 Rail Yard Improvements

Construct additional rail track in Berth 410 and the 411 Rail Yard


10 $7.8 No

T4 Pier 1 Tracks 704-709

Rehabilitate Tracks 704-709

Adds capacity and storage; also improves operational efficiency

5 $0.45 No

Barnes to Terminal 4 Rail

Construct a new track from Barnes Yard to Terminal 4; includes the replacement of Lombard Bridge

Adds capacity and rail access

5 $10.54 No

Source: https://popcdn.azureedge.net/pdfs/Trade_Trans_Studies_PTIP_2017_Final.pdf

Table 6: Port of Vancouver USA – Capital Improvement Projects


Cost (US $M)

Funded

West Vancouver Freight Access - Grain Track Unit Train Improvements Phase B

N/A Improving capacity and rail access

N/A N/A Yes

West Vancouver Freight Access - Grain Track Unit Train Improvements Phase C

N/A Improving capacity and rail access

N/A N/A Yes

Bulk Unloading Facility N/A Improving capacity and rail access

N/A N/A Yes

Source: https://www.portvanusa.com/resources/waterfront-spring-brochure/

5.3 Commodity Overview

The Greater Vancouver rail network serving the Port of Vancouver is approaching capacity. As

the rail network becomes congested, the overall capacity of the port will be effectively capped for

all commodities that require rail transportation, limiting the amount of traffic growth that can be

accommodated at the port. Without additional investment, rail congestion will result in increased


| 31

cycle times for shipments, more demand for rail equipment and resources, and ultimately higher

shipping rates to/from the port. Commodity value and existing port capacity will have a large

influence on which commodities will shift, and in what order they will shift as the port becomes

more congested.

Due to the high capital threshold to construct new port facilities required to load and unload

containers and bulk commodities at ports where these facilities do not presently exist, it is likely

that as the rail network serving the Port of Vancouver reaches capacity, the goods and

commodities that will be diverted first will be those for which suitable port facilities already exist

at other ports. For example, potash facilities already exist at the Port of Portland and grain facilities

exist at numerous West Coast ports. Due to distances from most Canadian origins, capacity of

the rail network and existing facilities at the Port of Vancouver and Prince Rupert will likely be

exhausted before other West Coast ports are utilized. The Pacific Northwest ports in the U.S. are

the next most likely to see volumes shift towards them, followed possibly by other ports on the

U.S. West Coast, U.S. Gulf Coast, and Canada and U.S. East Coast. However, as overland

distances between inland points of production and consumption and ports of export/import

increase, low value goods may simply cease to move altogether due to uncompetitive

transportation costs to final destination compared to other producers and consumers in the world

market.

The respective rail networks of CN and CP are most efficient when providing single-line hauls

along their main lines towards Canadian West Coast ports. As traffic shifts from the Port of

Vancouver or the Port of Prince Rupert (CN only) to other ports, interline connections will need to

be made between CN, CP, and the respective U.S. railways serving those ports. In many cases

this will add route distance, and in all cases it will add additional handlings to rail shipments,

increasing cycle times and shipping rates. Traffic origins play a large role in how rail traffic patterns

may shift over time as it will dictate the most likely rail routing from origin to destination. The path

of least resistance (factoring in overall distance, cycle times, and shipping rates) will usually

dictate the most likely rail route and port selected by a shipper.

When specifically looking at Western Canadian resources, the Port of Vancouver has the strategic

advantage of being the only West Coast port served by both Canadian Class 1 railways (CN and

CP). Efficient access by both rail carriers results in competitive options for shippers including

optionality from many dual-serviced or interchange locations in Western Canada.

It’s important to note that the overall route structure of CN and CP plays a significant role in

determining how rail traffic will move to other ports, specifically PNW ports. CN has limited

connections to BNSF in Western Canada (Manitoba and Vancouver only). CN has no direct

connection with UP in Western Canada. CP has more options to route traffic to UP and BNSF at

several interchanges through the Upper Midwest and across Western Canada. This is illustrated

on the map below:


| 32

Figure 2: Regional Rail Network Map

The following analysis gives a perspective of potential traffic diversions for each commodity group,

focusing on the most likely scenarios first.

5.3.1 Intermodal Containers

As the port approaches capacity, intermodal container volumes may be affected in a variety of

ways depending on the origin/destination of the traffic within North America. Domestic container

volumes moving to/from Greater Vancouver will have to remain on rail, or else move to truck

further increasing costs.

International container volumes could shift to other ports if shipping rates increase or transit times

increase. Containers originating/terminating in U.S. markets (Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit,

Memphis, etc.) would potentially move over to U.S. rail carriers for movement to/from West Coast

ports at Seattle/Tacoma, Oakland, and LA/Long Beach. There is potential for containers to be

diverted to East Coast or Gulf Coast ports for furtherance via the Panama Canal, especially for

low-value goods with little time sensitivity.


| 33

CN and CP will likely concentrate on the longest hauls of domestic and international intermodal

volumes first. In some extreme cases, the Canadian rail carriers may exit markets that have low

volume and low yields – leaving that traffic to be trucked to larger terminals or other rail carriers

for furtherance to/from port.

5.3.2 Grain

Grain represents the most likely candidate of the bulk commodities for diversion. The overall

global grain market is diverse, opening up a variety of options for grain shippers to get their

product to market. CN’s current pricing structure for export grain allows prairie shippers to choose

between both the Port of Vancouver and the Port of Prince Rupert equally, providing some relief

for CN shippers, but limited by the total grain export capability at Prince Rupert. CP grain shippers

in Western Canada and the U.S. would have access to PNW grain ports through a CP-UP

agreement to move traffic through the Eastport ID interchange. A similar option exists between

CP and BNSF with slightly longer route distances. With excess grain capacity in the PNW, export

facilities provide attractive grain prices if the higher rail rates to the PNW can be overcome. Other

grain export facilities on the Great Lakes and Gulf Coast could be utilized depending on overall

net back to grain shippers. Again, a significant amount of capacity exists at these ports to handle

any shifts in traffic that may occur.

As discussed previously, the CN route structure in Western Canada does not easily present

options to interchange Western Canadian grain products to either UP or BNSF for furtherance to

the PNW. As such, CP would need to be utilized as an intermediate carrier in many cases,

increasing rail rates further. Although both CN and CP interchange with BNSF in the Vancouver

area, it is assumed that any grain diverted to the PNW would have to avoid this gateway due to

overall rail congestion in Greater Vancouver and limited BNSF capacity between Vancouver BC

and PNW grain ports.

Other export options for grain include Thunder Bay, which has significant export capability and is

serviced by both CN and CP. The Twin Ports of Duluth/Superior also present an export option for

Canadian grain with direct access by CN. CP has access to the Twin Ports, but the out of route

rail distance for shipments from Western Canada would drive costs up for shippers considerably.

The Port of Churchill presents an opportunity to export grain to global markets if/when the rail line

is reopened. The grain terminal has been closed since 2016, but could be reactivated to export

grain if market economics presented itself.

Grain will ultimately be shipped to where the best economics present themselves. Shippers may

start selling into less lucrative markets like Europe, North Africa, and South America if insufficient

capacity exists to export through Vancouver or other West Coast ports. This results in overall cost

increases and lower profitability for Canadian grain shippers if they cannot export to Asia.

5.3.3 Potash

Currently, potash exports through the port are handled through Neptune Terminals (Canpotex

Potash) and Pacific Coast Terminals (K+S Potash). As a bulk, granular commodity, potash


| 34

volumes could shift to other bulk terminals in North America as long as suitable storage capacity

existed at port due to Potash’s corrosive nature. Potash export facilities with excess capacity

would be utilized first, with the opportunity for volumes to shift to other facilities with investment in

appropriate storage capacity.

In addition to Neptune Terminals, Canpotex utilizes a secondary export facility in Portland.

Railcars are shipped from Saskatchewan origins through a CP-UP routing via the Eastport, Idaho

interchange. It is likely that Canpotex would divert volumes to Portland, maximizing the export

capability of its Portland facility before looking for alternatives. Shifting volumes to Portland would

result in higher rail rates due to longer route distance, two Class I rail carriers being involved in

the haul, and reduced train size capability on that corridor (130 car maximum train lengths to

Portland versus 170 cars to Vancouver). Once Portland was fully utilized, Canpotex could likely

divert additional volumes to Thunder Bay, Ontario, and Saint John, NB. Shipping to Thunder Bay

or Saint John would increase overall shipping costs to get product to desirable markets (primarily

Asia), but they would allow capacity to get product to market. Like grain, Canpotex may have to

shift product to other markets, resulting in increased costs and lower yields.

With K+S Potash being a relatively new entrant in the Canadian potash markets, it’s unknown if

K+S could secure alternative export capacity for some of its volumes in the near term. It’s

assumed that K+S volumes would likely continue to Pacific Coast Terminals in Vancouver unless

an agreement could be reached with another export terminal. Longer term, an export facility could

be developed in the PNW for K+S, ensuring export capability to Asian markets.

Greater Vancouver rail congestion could potentially deter new potash entrants from developing

export facilities at the Port of Vancouver. BHP Billiton Canada recently proposed development of

a new potash export facility at Fraser Surrey Docks (Surrey BC) to handle approximately 8 million

tonnes per year of potash from its proposed Jansen mine in Saskatchewan. BHP had previously

reached an agreement in 2010 with the Port of Vancouver (Washington State) to develop a potash

export facility in the PNW, but that project was cancelled. Capability to ship potash with either CN

or CP to Fraser Surrey Docks along with reduced shipping costs from origin were likely

contributing factors in BHP’s decision to select Surrey as a location for their export facility versus

the original site selected in the PNW. Investment in Greater Vancouver’s rail capacity should

ensure that companies continue to invest in projects like the BHP export facility versus looking

elsewhere for port capacity on the West Coast.

5.3.4 Forest Products

Forest products currently exported from Vancouver could be diverted to other ports, primarily

those located in the PNW that handle similar products. Several options exist to get these products

to port, including utilizing an interline railway gateway and trucking to a U.S. rail transload facility.

Forest products originating on CP in Southern BC or Alberta may be diverted to UP at Eastport

or BNSF at Sweet Grass, Montana, for furtherance to the PNW. Other forest product traffic

originating in Western Canada may be trucked to transload facilities on UP or BNSF in the U.S.,

near to the border. Several existing transload facilities already penetrate Canadian lumber


| 35

markets for single-line haulage to U.S. destinations on BNSF and UP. In some cases, the only

alternative may be to truck the product direct to port. This would not only increase shipper costs,

but would also increase congestion on Greater Vancouver highways with increased freight truck

traffic.

The market economics to move forest products to Vancouver from eastern origins in Canada

(Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and some cases Saskatchewan) would be reduced, likely leading to

them being diverted to North American domestic markets, or potential ports on the East Coast.

Similar to other commodities, this would lower the overall profitability for forest products without

access to the West Coast export markets.

5.3.5 Petrochemicals

Petrochemicals may be diverted away from Vancouver is several ways. Some volume may initially

shift to other West Coast facilities with excess capacity. Longer term, larger volumes may incent

capital investments into proposed terminal expansion and greenfield projects. Several proposed

projects that were originally designed to handle crude oil may be resurrected to handle other

petrochemical products such as low-sulphur diesel, glycol, and LPG export.

Port facilities on the U.S. East and Gulf coasts could be utilized but with declining netbacks to

producers due to increased shipping costs from origin. There is potential to ship product directly

to Mexico by rail now that the market has been opened up to foreign energy volumes. Shipping

to Mexico opens up a new market for petrochemicals, but the increased transportation costs

would result in lower returns for producers. In almost all cases, petrochemical diversion increases

shipping distances and overall transportation costs for shippers.

5.3.6 Canola Oil

Canola oil is exported through two major facilities in Vancouver: West Coast Reduction and

Pacific Coast Terminals. Some of this volume could shift to domestic markets, potentially

replacing other vegetable oils. There is potential for some canola oil volumes to be diverted to

export facilities that handle U.S. production of canola oil or soybean oil depending on excess

capacity, but again rail shipping rates would be higher. It is assumed most production would

continue to be exported through existing facilities in Vancouver unless significant capacity is

developed elsewhere on the West Coast for export.

5.3.7 Coal

West Coast export coal facilities in Canada are currently limited to Ridley (Prince Rupert),

Neptune (Vancouver), and Westshore (Vancouver). Pacific Coast Terminals (Vancouver)

previously handled small volume coal in the past, but that capacity has been used up by the new

K+S Potash volumes now being handled at the facility. Much smaller volumes of coal are exported

in the U.S. at Long Beach, Stockton, and Levin-Richmond Terminal, all in California. Export coal

volumes at the ports are limited by factors including low draft for vessels, coal-handling

machinery, storage space, rail network congestion, and inability to expand under current

environmental and air quality permitting restrictions. With no other West Coast coal terminals


| 36

capable of handling large volumes of coal, and other proposed U.S. West Coast coal facilities

having difficulty in progressing through permitting approvals, coal will likely need to be diverted to

the East or Gulf Coasts. Transportation costs will be increased by longer rail hauls from Southern

BC (or Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana for BNSF). Shipping costs to Asia will

increase as well if shipments need to go through the Panama Canal. With such large increases

in shipping costs to access other North American ports, it is assumed that the majority of Canadian

coal production currently exported at Canadian West Coast ports will continue to be exported out

of Canada’s West Coast ports, but PRB coal may be diverted to Gulf Coast ports, or cease to be

exported in quantity.

5.3.8 Sulphur

Sulphur is a relatively low value commodity that is highly susceptible to shipping rates and logistics

costs. A small percentage of export volumes may shift into the domestic market (molten sulphur)

but otherwise it is likely that little volume will divert. Both West Coast sulphur export facilities are

located in Vancouver (Vancouver Wharves and Pacific Coast Terminals), so there is little flexibility

to divert elsewhere on the West Coast currently. If shipping costs were to increase significantly,

it is likely that most export sulphur would just be “poured to block” and stockpiled in the prairies.

Shippers may stock pile product until market prices increase high enough to justify the additional

costs of transportation to alternate ports, as well as any capital investment required at new ports

to handle sulphur export.

5.3.9 Conclusion

Ultimately traffic will shift to port facilities that maximize both service and price for shippers and

supply chains. There are certain efficiencies of utilizing the Port of Vancouver today, but those

will slowly erode as it becomes more congested. Commodities that have the opportunity to shift

to different ports/markets will shift over time to whatever results in the best net back to shippers.


| 37

6 Key Assumptions

The CBA measures benefits against costs over a 30-year study period, from the start of project

development and construction in 2018 through 2047.

The monetized benefits and costs are estimated in 2017 dollars with future dollars discounted in

compliance with NTCF requirements using a 10 percent real discount rate, and sensitivity testing

using 7 and 3 percent.

The methodology makes several important assumptions and seeks to avoid overestimation of

benefits and underestimation of costs. The following provides details with respect to the

estimation of train volumes entering Greater Vancouver, the capacity of the rail network, rail rates

to various alternate ports locations, and maritime shipping rates from alternate port locations.

6.1 Projection of Train Volumes

Train volume forecasts from 2017 to 2026 were derived from the forecasts developed for the

British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (BC MoTI) in support of the

Transportation Trade Network (TTN) study. The TTN freight forecasts were developed in 2017 to

help the Ministry assess and develop a series of infrastructure improvement options designed to

ensure British Columbia’s multi-modal trade transportation network remains competitive as a

Gateway for Asian trade with North America and the world.

The TTN study employed a forecast methodology that was endorsed by stakeholders and

included risk analysis to assess the full range of potential outcomes. The initial step used to

estimate freight rail volumes was to assign a proportion of throughput at the Port of Vancouver to

mode of delivery (rail, road, pipeline or coastal shipping). Drawing upon various sources including

data from the port authority, CP, CN, and recent Ministry truck traffic counts, HDR assigned

estimates of the proportion of port throughput traveling to/from interior British Columbia (or

beyond) to each mode by each commodity. This provided an estimate of commodity volumes that

typically travel to/from interior British Columbia (or beyond) by mode. For those volumes moving

by rail, HDR, working with the Class 1 railways, developed a set of parameters to convert freight

tonnage to train counts (including average carload capacity, adjustments for empty movements,

etc.). The effective train counts represented train-equivalents accounting for industry practices of

fully loading unit trains, and partially loaded manifest trains which are often consolidated to carry

many different commodities on route to their destination. Specific assumptions regarding carload

types currently in service and their respective carrying capacity were vetted by both CP and CN.

Over the course of the study, HDR, Parsons and BC MoTI regularly engaged the Class 1 railways,

the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, the Prince Rupert Port Authority, and Transport Canada to

obtain opinion on various assumptions, calculations and resulting freight and traffic estimates.

Individual review meetings were held with CP and CN whereby HDR presented its most recent

estimates of train movements in and out of Greater Vancouver and associated assumptions.

During these meetings, the project team received feedback and adjusted rail specific assumptions


| 38

accordingly. Further, the project team provided Transport Canada with its findings and worked to

identify and reconcile any differences between TTN forecasts and those produced internally by

Transport Canada. Finally, HDR provided aggregate corridor specific train count and long haul

truck trip forecasts to both port authorities for review and comment. While opinions varied with

respect to growth in specific commodities, consensus was obtained that the aggregate (across all

commodities) forecast of freight rail traffic movements was reasonable.

The table and figure below present the train count forecasts used in the CBA, including the latest

actual counts (2016), the counts for the first study period year (2018), the first year of completed

phase one project improvements (2023), and the final year of analysis (2047). Forecasts beyond

year 2030, in other words those beyond the scope of the TTN study forecasts and the Rail Traffic

Controller modeling (described in the next section) were conservatively assumed to remain

constant. In reality, freight traffic would likely continue to grow, generating additional trade benefits

from the expanded network capacity.

Table 7: Trains per Day in Greater Vancouver

Trains per Day 2016 2018 2023 2030 2047

Freight Trains 55.3 62.0 73.3 85.7 85.7

Passenger Trains 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4

Total Trains 70.7 77.4 88.7 101.1 101.1

Figure 3: Trains per Day in Greater Vancouver

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Trains per Day in Greater Vancouver

Passenger Trains Freight Trains


| 39

6.2 Greater Vancouver Rail Capacity

Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) is a train-dispatch simulation modelling software which is used as an

important tool in providing data for analytical studies in complex rail environments. Used by all

Class 1 railways in North America, the RTC model uses a series of algorithms to determine how

a train moves in a defined network. Aspects considered for the model include track speed, track

length, motive power, signals, bridges, and train priorities.

Creating the model requires data on the network of main lines, passing tracks, yards, and

junctions is needed, as well as track charts and timetables. The RTC model will produce a vast

amount of data from which various analyses can be performed. The RTC model will identify all

possible paths for a train on a route and select the solution that has the lowest cost for the network.

The cost component considers factors such as distance, adherence to schedule, and train priority.

Conflicts between two trains are again solved by selecting the solution with the lowest cost.

Using the outputs, performed analyses included delay analysis, train volumes and grade crossing

analysis. Delay is the time a train waits due to its designated route being unavailable. For the

analysis, two measurements were used. The first is D/10, which is delay minutes for each ten

train miles operated. D/10 can compare scenarios with different numbers of trains and track

configurations as well as determine effects on delay due to modifications. The second

measurement, D>30, determines where delays in the simulation are greater than 30 minutes. At

each node, data such as the number of trains passing through, time of arrival, time of departure,

and train speed can be collected. This data can then be used to develop train volumes in the

network. Where grade crossings were to be analyzed, a node was included to record when the

head and tail of the train passes the node.

Railroad capacity can be divided into line capacity and terminal capacity. Line capacity is the

amount of trains a line can support over a time period. Theoretical line capacity is the maximum

capacity that a line can sustain and continue to operate, however, it is typically unrealistic.

Sustainable capacity is estimated but is generally a better measurement to be used and looks at

the capacity that a line can sustain daily without creating excessive delays to other trains. The

following evaluation criteria was developed by Mainline Management (MLM) for line segments:

Table 8: Rail Network Line Capacity Evaluation Criteria

D/10 Line Operation

Less than 5 minutes Well below estimated sustainable capacity

Between 5 to 10 minutes Within estimated sustainable capacity

Between 10 to 15 minutes Approaching or at estimated sustainable capacity

Greater than 15 minutes Above estimated sustainable capacity

Terminal capacity is the ability to process trains for either origination, termination, changing crews

or servicing. Sustainable capacity for terminals is the operational level before multiple operations

are affected, thereby decreasing efficiency for the entire terminal.


| 40

The following evaluation criteria was developed by MLM for terminals:

Table 9: Rail Network Terminal Capacity Evaluation Criteria

D/10 Terminal Operation

Less than 10 minutes Well below estimated sustainable capacity

Between 10 to 20 minutes Within estimated sustainable capacity

Between 20 to 30 minutes Approaching or at estimated sustainable capacity

Greater than 30 minutes Above estimated sustainable capacity

A network is able to operate above estimated sustainable capacity for a short period of time before

there will widespread major congestion. The chart below presents rail network capacity

assumptions used for conducting the Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Table 10: Greater Vancouver Rail Network Capacity

Trains per Day 2016 2018 2023 2030 2047

No-Build Case Network Capacity 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0

Build Case Network Capacity 80.0 80.0 98.5 114.0 114.0

Unconstrained Train Forecast 70.7 77.4 88.7 101.1 101.1

Trains Diverted to Alternative Ports - - 8.7 21.1 21.1

Figure 4: Greater Vancouver Rail Capacity Constraints

21 TPD Diverted80 TPD

114 TPD

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Capacity-Constrained Trains per Day in Greater Vancouver

Passenger Train Forecast Freight Train Forecast Diverted Freight Trains

No-Build Capacity Build Capacity


| 41

6.3 Rail Rate Comparison

Transportation shipping costs to the Port of Vancouver are currently a lower cost and more

efficient option for Canadian shippers relative to other West Coast ports in North America. With

expected volume growth, it’s important that the rail network in Greater Vancouver remains fluid

with sufficient rail capacity to handle growth, traffic fluctuations, as well as make up capability

during unplanned events (weather, rail outages, labour issues, etc.). The relative capacity of the

rail network in Greater Vancouver has a direct influence on overall rail costs.

As the rail network in Vancouver approaches practical capacity, there becomes very little

capability to handle unplanned events in the supply chain. The port regularly deals with both rain

and high winds that can limit the ability to load outgoing ships. Other issues dealt with on a regular

basis include labour outages, maintenance activities, and rail line outages (due to snow, slides,

derailments, etc.). It’s important to have a reasonable amount of buffer capacity in the supply

chain to make up for all these unplanned events, otherwise the port’s capability to grow and adapt

to changing markets is jeopardized.

Some buffer currently exists in port facility storage (bulk storage for commodities, ground storage

for containers, etc.). However, actual railcar storage in Greater Vancouver is very limited. For the

most part, rail traffic needs to be metered into Greater Vancouver in a timely fashion that allows

for “Just in Time” delivery to port facilities. The railways have a limited amount of storage capacity

in their Vancouver rail yards to handle any major variance, so a fluid pipeline from origin to

destination is important to the rail carriers. Projects that increase rail capacity or allow more

flexibility in rail operations will help the port handle growth and variability in traffic volumes. Without

additions to the infrastructure, continued growth in traffic would create congestion issues that

could re-direct freight to other West Coast Ports. In the event that shipments are delayed or

directed elsewhere, the relative impacts to shipper costs (specifically for rail) are reviewed below:

6.3.1 Rail Haul Distance Increases

In many cases, especially for bulk commodities originating in Western Canada, the overall rail

distance for shipments would increase if Vancouver was congested and could not be utilized as

the destination for rail shipments originating on CN or CP. Shipping commodities to other

locations, primarily in the Pacific Northwest would increase the overall rail distance. The increase

in rail distance would have a direct impact on rail costs (including fuel surcharges), which are

typically passed on to the customer in the form of higher tariffs.


| 42

An example of various rail distance scenarios for potash shipments is shown below:

Table 11: Sample Rail Distance Differentials between Vancouver and Portland

Origin Destination Rail Distance Rail Routing

Saskatoon SK North Vancouver BC 1,746km / 1,085mi CN Direct

Saskatoon SK North Vancouver BC 1,804km / 1,121mi CP Direct

Saskatoon SK Prince Rupert BC 2,045km / 1,271mi CN Direct

Saskatoon SK Portland OR 2,173km / 1,350mi CP – UP via Eastport ID

Saskatoon SK Portland OR 2,351km / 1,461mi CP – BNSF via Sweet Grass MT

6.3.2 Increased Resources & Cycle Times

As congestion in Greater Vancouver increases, shipment cycles will lengthen, thus increasing the

requirement for additional resources. On the rail side this includes additional railcars, locomotives,

and train crews (labour). In the near term this could result in a lack of railcars for shipments, delays

waiting for resources at origin, and variability in shipping times as resources are prioritized for old

date shipments. Over time, railways will adjust pricing to reflect the increased use of resources

for traffic coming to the Port of Vancouver as they will have to purchase or lease more railcars,

purchase more locomotives, and hire more train crews and increase tariffs to recover the

expenditures.

6.3.3 Interline Rates vs. Single Line Rates

The vast majority of the rail traffic shipped to Vancouver is completed on a single line rate with

either CN or CP as the line haul carrier. This means that either CN or CP both originated and

terminated the traffic. In some cases, they may have employed a switch carrier at either origin or

destination, but those switch rates are typically fixed and absorbed by CN or CP. A single line

haul typically results in the most competitive rates as overheads and fixed costs are only allocated

for a single rail carrier. In the case where multiple rail carriers are required, an interline rate would

be required with each line haul carrier requiring their division of the rate. Typically, this results in

higher rates per kilometer/mile as each carrier wants to maximize their profitability and provide

contribution towards their fixed costs and overheads. In some cases, it can also add complexity

and increased transit time to shipments. Additional handlings are usually required to interchange

traffic between carriers, slowing shipments down when they could be continuing their way towards

destination. Even when unit trains are interchanged, there can be additional time lost for changing

locomotives, changing crews, and/or doing inspections (when required). The increased costs and

handling times generally incent customers to utilize single line hauls whenever possible. As the

port becomes more congested, lack of investment in capacity will result in more and more

shipments having to seek alternative gateways (likely U.S. PNW ports), incurring interline rates

and increasing the overall cost to Canadian producers and shippers.

To emphasize the difference between a single line rate and an interline rate, Table 12 compares

freight rates for export grain shipped from Unity SK to either Vancouver, BC (single line rates) or


| 43

Longview WA (interline rates)8. Although CN and CP rates to Vancouver differ by less than $400

per car, rates to a typical PNW export elevator at Longview WA are almost $1,900 per car more

based on current US-Canadian exchange rates.

Table 12: Sample Rail Rate Differentials between Vancouver and Washington

Origin Destination Single Car Rate

Unit Train Carload Rate

Rail Routing

Unity SK

Vancouver BC $4,393 $3,640 CN Direct

Vancouver BC $3,985 $3,257 CP Direct

Longview WA $7,100 $5,127 CP – UP via Eastport ID

Vancouver BC vs. Longview WA

$3,115 $1,870 CP – UP via Eastport ID

As most tariffs are confidential between shippers and railways, a broader estimate for generic

freight rate differences was developed utilizing Association of American Railroads (AAR) and

Railway Association of Canada (RAC) average revenue/ton-miles in 2017$ (see Table 13 below).

The shipping cost differential of $1,709 per carload of mixed freight is representative of the

average impacts that could be expected in the event of freight diverting to U.S. PNW ports based

on AAR & RAC averages. In some cases, the diversion route distance may be less than the

example, somewhat narrowing the cost difference. In other cases, the route distance diversion

may be more, potentially increasing the cost of diversion. Some traffic will require three Class 1

rail carriers to be involved to get the traffic to port, such as Northern Alberta to PNW traffic routed

CN-CP-UP, further increasing the rate differential. Based on all these variables, the total distance

and average rail shipping costs from Saskatoon to Portland are used as a proxy to calculate rail

shipping rate differentials for various commodities moving to and from the Asia-Pacific region.

Table 13: Rail Rates Based on AAR and RAC Averages

Origin Destination Average Rate Rail Routing

Saskatoon SK North Vancouver BC $7,099 CP Direct

Saskatoon SK Portland OR $8,808 CP – UP via Eastport ID

Rate Differential North Vancouver BC vs Portland OR

$1,709 CP – UP via Eastport ID

6.4 Ocean Shipping Rate Comparison

To develop an understanding of comparative cost structures that impact shippers and port

competitiveness, an analysis of various ocean shipment costs was undertaken. All ocean carriage

costs are not considered in the same manner. For commodity shipments and some agricultural

products, containers are often the manner of choice for shippers. This is generally the case if

8 Export grain rates are based on the most current CN and CP grain tariffs available to HDR clients as of

October 2017


| 44

cargo is moved from inland locations to the coast for ocean transit. Container capacity is generally

limited to approximately 30 short tons to comply with roadway restrictions in the United States

and Canada except for designated heavy weight routes. Containers provide for rapid intermodal

interchange and the same equipment for handling containers is used by all modes: truck, rail and

port. The efficiencies achieved in the intermodal interchange of containers is paramount in

keeping shipment costs lower, even with limited capacity. Container shipments generally involve

higher value commodities. A loaded container shipment is generally priced by trucking and rail

companies on per tonne and per mile basis and by water on an ocean rate between ports (empty

containers often have reduced rates). Contract rates may be based on a door to door shipment,

point to point shipment or a port to port shipment. Turnaround in port is generally quick, normally

within a 24-hour period and vessel calls are scheduled as part of a regular liner service.

Bulk shipments of liquid and dry bulk commodities, including neo-bulk cargoes, are often based

on a ship load charter rate. Most cargoes handled on chartered ships are generally higher quantity

but have a lower value. These cargoes include agricultural products such as grain and corn,

metals and minerals including road salt and scrap steel, coal, fertilizers such as potash, biomass

such as wood chips, forest products including processed lumber which is generally carried as

neo-bulk, and bulk liquids including petroleum, kaolin, water and liquefied gases. Ships may be

chartered on a bare boat basis, time charter or voyage charter. The charter party, or contract,

dictates the final cost to the shipper. Most charter arrangements use the BIMCO Gencon 94

standard format9.

6.4.1 Comparative Bulk Shipments

A bareboat (or demise) charter is when the vessel is provided to the shipper and the shipper is

responsible for crewing, maintenance, operations and all regulatory requirements. Time charters

are generally for specific long periods and the owner may bareboat the vessel or manage all of

the operations including crewing. Voyage charters are generally short-term arrangements and the

owner provides all crew and manages all operations for a single or small number of specific

voyages. How the vessel is chartered has a direct impact on the final cost to the shipper and in

most cases only impacts port competiveness based on the location of load and discharge ports,

distance between them and the average daily charter rate. The demand for the commodity, its

market rate, source for loading and destination for unloading drives port selection assuming the

port can handle the commodity.

Take for example various North American ports on the West Coast with a port pairing connecting

to Singapore. The distance traveled impacts the number of days the vessel is employed in transit

and the charter party generally includes inland travel time, time alongside a dock for loading and

discharge called lay time, and delay periods due to weather or other issues. A vessel arriving at

a West Coast port may use up a week or more of operational time which could include four to six

days to load or discharge the vessel at each port. These costs including any days the vessel is

9 Baltic and International Maritime Council, Uniform General Charter, 1994.


| 45

inactive or any delays the vessel may face are priced and the cost passed onto the shipper. Even

delays for labour actions causing port interruptions are generally passed along to shippers.

Daily charter rates have in the last several years been very low because of the large number of

available vessels and the lack of long term charter agreement opportunities. In 2016, daily

average charter rates for vessels dropped as low as $12,000 USD per day not including

surcharges. The average rates in the third quarter of 2017 have rebounded to around $20,000

USD per day excluding surcharges. Some vessel rates for particular vessel types dropped as low

as $3,000 USD per day.10

Figure 5: Three Year Baltic Dry Rate Index 2014-2017.11

Table 14: Baltic Dry Index Rates October 16, 201712

USD Cape Index (BCI)

Panamax Index (BPI)

Supramax Index (BSI)

Index 2980 1637 1082

Spot TC Avg. $20,971 $13,150 $11,305

October 2017 $20,047 $12,905 $11,137

One Year Ago $12,644 $6,714 $7,064

The table below presents vessel charter rates by origin to Singapore assuming a voyage speed

of 15 knots and a day rate with fuel of $25,000 USD.

10 Baltic Dry Index (BDI) October 2017 11 Baltic Dry Index, October 2017 12 Ibid


| 46

Table 15: Average Base Bulk Vessel Charter Time-Destination Singapore

Port Nautical Miles

Transit Days

Port Time

Total Days

Vessel Cost

Vancouver, BC 7,078 20 20 40 $1,000,000

Prince Rupert 5,683 16 20 36 $900,000

Seattle/Tacoma 7,062 20 20 40 $1,000,000

Portland 7,142 20 20 40 $1,000,000

Oakland 7,735 22 20 42 $1,050,000

LA/Long Beach 7,867 22 20 42 $1,050,000

On top of the base vessel rate, additional fees such as pilotage, tugs, wharfage, dockage,

equipment hire, assessments, vessel services and other costs based on the terms of the contract

apply. With charter rates within a similar range for the West Coast, the shippers’ competitive cost

is more directly related to the source market price than the comparative vessel charter or port

costs. Overall, an average dry or liquid bulk shipment of approximately 25,000 deadweight metric

tons, with all costs including operator profit, would average between $1.2 million and $2.5 million

USD from a Pacific Northwest port to Singapore excluding the cost of the commodity.13 That would

average approximately between $50 and $100 per short ton all inclusive depending on the

commodity. For low value material such as scrap metal or aggregates, $50 per short ton. For

higher value cargo such as processed lumber, $100 per short ton. Ocean freight rates for grain

shipments from the PNW to Asia have been as low as $20 per short ton in 2017.14 Overall,

shippers have been trying to move bulk cargo in the largest vessels available to offset the vessel

costs which do not dramatically increase with vessel size.

6.4.2 Comparative Container Shipments

World container rates have been highly volatile over the last several years since the industry

began rebounding from the 2008 recession. Larger ships, overcapacity of available slots, the slow

economic rebound in Europe and other factors have kept container rates overall lower than the

period prior to 2008.15 Recently, one of the world’s largest container carriers, Hanjin, went out of

business taking some 600,000 slots out of the market which had only a marginal impact on short

term rates. Worldwide slot capacity is about 2% higher than demand.16

Container rates are the highest on heavy demand routes. These include Asia to North America

and Asia to Europe. From North America and Europe to Asia the rates are considerably less since

a large number of containers being repositioned are empty. In some cases, the overall cost of

Trans-Pacific westbound to Asia from any port on the West Coast is as little as one third of the

eastbound rates. After several years of depressed rates on all worldwide routes, container rates

13 Apex Worldwide Rate Estimator 14 Grain Transportation Report, Agricultural Marketing Service, US Department of Agricultural June 2017. 15 Drewry World Container Index 2017. 16 Ibid


| 47

are slowly rebounding on some key routes. Container carriers have announced rate hikes of

approximately $80 for a twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) and $100 for a FEU which are already

impacting shippers.17 Overall container rates are measured on a composite scale known as the

World Container Index which presents aggregate rates and trends. While overall there has been

a recent decline in worldwide rates, the eastbound Trans-Pacific rates have been improving due

to consumer demand. Seasonal fluctuations impact short term rates such as the winter pre-

holiday rush which occurs in late summer.

Figure 6: World Container Index October 2015-October 2017

Figure 7: Index of Short Term Route Rate Fluctuations

Unlike vessel charters, liner services are more price sensitive and port competition more critical.

Liner services will select ports for regular scheduled service based on a wider range of

considerations. The ocean carrier provides the shipper with an eastbound or westbound per

container rate, normally based on the box size, either 40 feet by 8 feet by 8 feet called a forty-foot

17 Loadstar, October 2017.


| 48

equivalent unit (FEU) or 20 feet by 8 feet by 8 feet called a twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU).

There are also rates for variations on the container size. Once the rate is given to the shipper,

normally on a one-year contract except for spot market shipments, the carrier absorbs the costs

associated with port activities at the terminals. The rate may also include additional services

depending on how the Bill of Lading (B/L) is established. The Bill of Lading is the contract of

carriage between the ocean carrier and the shipper. The cost per unit is based on the extent of

transportation services offered, as mentioned door to door, point to point or port to port. Pricing

for ports is not the only competitive issue. Other factors include:

Port and terminal efficiency,

Geography,

Terminal size and equipment,

Competitive rail access,

Highway connections,

Congestion,

Terminal dwell time, and

Management.

Ocean carriers focus on improving terminal efficiencies and increasing crane pick rates to

minimize a vessel’s port call time. Public port agencies generally focus on improving infrastructure

such as harbour deepening and removal of air draft restrictions. This is particularly critical since

the ocean carriers are building and deploying bigger ships to increase volumes per voyage and

reduce per container handling costs. This has a direct impact on port costs to carriers. A sample

breakdown of container rate structure component from Maersk include:

Bunker Adjustment Factor - 6%, Fuel surcharges and flux in world bunker rates

Currency Adjustment Factor - 5%, Surcharge for currency rate flux

Basic Freight Rate (BAS) - 57%, Basic ocean shipping freight rate

Terminal Handling Charge - 26%, Value added services (terminal or carrier provided)

Documentation - 11%, Administration costs for documentation-i.e. Bill of Lading

Customs Clearance - 5%, Creation and distribution of Customs Clearance Document

Competition between ports is not only dependent upon what the port charges and associated

costs but also the ocean freight rate. Ocean rates are contingent upon origin and destination

locations and incorporated services and may involve a number of additional services depending

upon the nature of the containerized commodity. Rates incorporate a range of components that

eventually establish the cost to the shipper.

Container rates have been at historic lows over the last several years but have begun to rebound

in specific markets, particularly between Asia and the West Coast including the Pacific Northwest

which has a geographic advantage in the Asia trade.

To get a perspective on the competitive rates in the PNW market, HDR did a spot market

comparison based on 3rd quarter 2017 aggregate rates which are similar between ocean carriers.

The focus was eastbound from Asia since westbound to Asia rates are artificially low.


| 49

Table 16: Eastbound Trans-Pacific Container Rates, Select Pacific Ports18

Origin Port Low Range High Range

Vancouver, BC $897 $991

Prince Rupert $1,032 $1,141

Seattle-Tacoma $885 $979

Portland $876 $968

Oakland $941 $1,040

LA/Long Beach $931 $1,029

Port utilization is a function of available carrier services at each port. Most Pacific ports have

multiple connections either directly to ports throughout the world or by transload connections at

major hub ports. A comparison of the number of container services for each selected Pacific port

provides an indication of the port’s competiveness and its ability to attract new services. All of the

ports have several services that call on several of the other listed ports as part of their North

American port call cycle. They also connect to multiple ports in Asia.

Table 17: Ocean Carrier Availability, Select Pacific Ports19

Port Number of Container Ocean Carriers

Worldwide Connections

Multiple Port Cycle - Pacific

Vancouver, BC 19 Yes Yes

Prince Rupert 6 Yes Yes

Seattle/Tacoma 7 Yes Yes

Oakland 21 Yes Yes

LA/Long Beach 23 Yes Yes

18 Apex Worldwide Rate Estimator 19 Port and Terminal Web Sites for Selected Ports


| 50

7 Outcome Measurement, Data and Assumptions

This section describes the measurement approach used for each benefit or impact category

identified in Table ES-1 and provides an overview of the associated methodology, assumptions,

and estimates.

7.1 Transportation Cost Savings to Canadian Producers

7.1.1 Methodology

Transportation costs are calculated in two parts - the rail costs and ocean carrier costs - based

on freight forecasts and transportation rates described in Section 6.

Capacity-constrained forecasts are used to estimate the number of trains routing to the Port of

Vancouver, and the difference between the constrained and unconstrained forecast is used to

determine the number of trains that would be reasonably expected to divert to other U.S. ports

under the No-Build scenario. For each commodity, daily train count forecasts are annualized and

converted to rail cars. Rail cars are converted to carloads by factoring in an adjustment for empty

movements, described in further detail in the assumptions section below. Average rail haul rates

are applied to the carloads to determine total rail costs to shippers and producers.

Ocean carrier costs are calculated on a per-tonne or container basis from the Port of Vancouver

and comparable PNW U.S. ports to Singapore. While shorter distance and transit times from

Vancouver is expected to generate transportation cost savings for Canadian producers, spot rates

at the time of analysis did not demonstrate a substantial difference and were conservatively

assumed to be the same on an incremental basis.

7.1.2 Assumptions

The assumptions used in the estimation of transportation cost savings are summarized in the table below.

Table 18: Assumptions used in the Estimation of Transportation Cost Savings

Transportation Cost Inputs Value Source

Representative Rail Carload Shipping Rate

Mixed Freight from Saskatoon SK to North Vancouver BC

$7,099 CAD Railway Association of Canada, "Rail Trends 2016", ISBN: 978-1-927520-05-5, Value inflated to 2017$.

Mixed Freight from Saskatoon SK to Portland OR

$8,808 CAD Association of American Railroads, "Railroad Facts, 2017 Edition"

Mixed Freight Rail Cost Differential between Vancouver and Portland

$1,709 CAD RAC and AAR, 2017.

Representative Rail Shipping Distance

Mixed Freight from Saskatoon SK to North Vancouver BC, CN Direct

1,746km / 1,085mi

HDR Analysis, 2017.


| 51

Transportation Cost Inputs Value Source

Mixed Freight from Saskatoon SK to North Vancouver BC, CP Direct

1,804km / 1,121mi

Mixed Freight from Saskatoon SK to Prince Rupert BC, CN Direct

2,045km / 1,271mi

Mixed Freight from Saskatoon SK to Portland OR, CP – UP via Eastport ID

2,173km / 1,350mi

Mixed Freight from Saskatoon SK to Portland OR, CP – BNSF via Sweet Grass MT

2,351km / 1,461mi

Mixed Freight Rail Distance Differential between Vancouver and Portland, CP Direct to Vancouver vs. CP – UP via Eastport ID to Portland

369km / 229mi

Selected the shortest distance differential as a conservative assumption.

Drawing on the input of the Class 1 railways on average carload and train characteristics by

commodity as described in the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure TTN study, HDR

estimated transportation costs for all freight that may divert in case of severe port congestion. Key

assumptions used are outlined below:

Rail cars moving commodities other than containerized freight return empty to their origin.

That is, loaded cars inbound to the ports are emptied for export at the port and return

empty to point of origin (or a similar location) to be reloaded. This assumption was made

because rail cars are both specialized for a given commodity, and once loaded with a

commodity, typically require cleaning before use by a different commodity to avoid

contamination.

Freight cars used to carry manufactured or processed goods such as steel, motor

vehicles, machinery, scrap, and foodstuffs often have some empty movements in both

directions due to many factors associated with the flow of goods. Accordingly, based upon

industry opinion including that of the Class 1 railways, an additional factor of 10% was

added to account for empty carloads of non-bulk commodities.

For containerized freight, there is typically some inefficiency with laden containers in

North American rail practice. Due to fluctuations in volumes of containers offloaded from

ships, and the need to maintain adequate well car supply at ports, some well cars will

move empty even in the dominant container flow direction. In order to account for this, a

“slot utilization” factor of 5% is added.

The number of carloads per train is governed by many factors including length of sidings

on specific corridors in the rail network, grades between origin and destination, train

weights, efficient locomotive usage, train handling, terminal capabilities, and others.

Intermodal trains are typically composed of double stacked containerized freight. We

assume the use of 5-well articulated cars with each well containing 4 TEU (20 TEU per

car).

Class 1 railways also provided input on rail rates and distances for commodities to the Port of

Vancouver and alternative ports for commodities required to divert.


| 52

7.1.3 Benefit Estimates

The table below shows the estimated public benefits value of transportation cost savings to

Canadian producers and shippers that GVG2030 would enable.

Table 19: Estimates of Transportation Cost Savings Benefits

Discounted at 10% Undiscounted

Rail Cost Savings $3,471,426,000 $16,900,839,000

Ocean Carrier Cost Savings - -


$3,471,426,000 $16,900,839,000

7.2 Safety and Environmental Impacts of Shipments to

Alternative Ports

7.2.1 Methodology

The proposed projects at the Port of Vancouver will reduce the likelihood of port congestion and

freight diversion to alternative PNW ports. Longer hauls by rail to further ports would have adverse

safety and environmental impacts that can be avoided with continued efficient service to Greater

Vancouver. The following safety and environmental impacts were quantified and monetized:

Avoided accident costs,

Avoided greenhouse gas emissions, and

Avoided criteria air contaminant pollution.

While freight rail operations in Canada and the U.S. are considered to be one of the safest modes

of transportation, accidents due to vehicle collisions, trespassing, and others still occur; and while

the probability of occurrence is exceptionally low, longer travel distances increase the risk of an

event.

Monetizing accident costs requires data on the frequency and severity of accidents in addition to

the value of fatalities and injuries. Estimates for fatalities and injuries by rail were gathered from

publically available data and converted to a rate per tonne-kilometer for fatalities and injuries.

Accident rates were applied to the tonne-kilometers travelled for diverted shipments to determine

the expected number of fatalities and injuries in both the Build and No-Build case. The injuries

and fatalities were then monetized to determine the safety and accident costs. With improved rail

network capacity, the shorter haul to the Port of Vancouver will reduce the distance travelled and

reduce the expected safety and accident costs to the general public.

The negative effects of pollution depend on both the quantity of pollution produced and the type

of pollutants emitted. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and criteria air contaminant (CAC)

pollution were quantified and monetized, accounting for different pollutants and their respective


| 53

cost to the environment and human health. Emission rates per train tonne-kilometer for carbon

dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC), fine particulate matter

(PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were multiplied by their monetary value to determine the total

environmental value.

7.2.2 Assumptions

The assumptions used in the estimation of safety and environmental benefits are summarized in

the table below. Given that the incremental freight rail shipments to PNW ports would move

through the U.S., U.S. statistics were used to quantify safety and environmental impacts, but

social values recommended in Canadian CBA guidance were used to monetize those impacts.

Given that social values recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation are significantly

higher (especially when converted to Canadian dollars), the results of this analysis are considered

to be conservative.

Table 20: Assumptions used in the Estimation of Safety and Environmental Benefits

Variable Name Unit Value Source

Fatalities per Billion Tonne-kilometres by Train

fatalities/Btkm 0.27 US Government Accountability Office, Surface Freight Transportation; A Comparison of the Costs of Road, Truck, and Waterways Freight Shipments That Are Not Passed on to Consumers, January 2011, Table 4; converted from events per billion ton-miles to events per billion tonne-km.

Injuries per Billion Tonne-kilometres by Train

injuries/Btkm 2.27

Value of a Statistical Life, National Impacts

$/fatality $7,725,410 Conclusions and Recommendations for Canadian Policy Analysis: Policy Horizons Canada, Value of Statistical Life 2007$, inflated to 2017$

Average Cost per Accident Injury, National Impacts

$/injury $82,105 Calculated from weighted average of major & minor accidents and their corresponding costs found in Collision Costs Study prepared for the Capital Region Intersection Safety Partnership by Paul de Leur, February 2010, inflated to 2017$.

NOx per Gallon of Fuel Burned - Line Haul Locomotives

grams/tonne-km

variable by year

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, "Emission Factors for Locomotives", EPA-420-F-09-025, April 2009. Converted to tonne-kilometres from ton-miles.

VOC per Gallon of Fuel Burned - Line Haul Locomotives

grams/tonne-km

variable by year

PM per Gallon of Fuel Burned - Line Haul Locomotives

grams/tonne-km

variable by year


| 54

Variable Name Unit Value Source

SO₂ per Gallon of Fuel Burned - Line Haul Locomotives

grams/tonne-km

variable by year

CO₂ per Gallon of Fuel Burned - Line Haul Locomotives

grams/tonne-km

variable by year

Value of CO₂ damages $/tonne variable by year

Environment and Climate Change Canada, Technical update to Environment and Climate Change Canada's social cost of greenhouse gas estimates, March 2016. Values inflated to 2017$.

Value of NOX damages $/tonne $4,003 Transport Canada Estimating the Full Costs of Transport in Canada, 2000$. Values inflated to 2017$.

Value of VOC damages $/tonne $488

Value of PM2.5 damages $/tonne $14,090

Value of SO2 damages $/tonne $4,428


The table below shows the estimated public value of avoided safety and environmental costs.

Table 21: Estimates of Safety and Environmental Benefits


Improved Safety $169,009,000 $823,501,000




$247,347,000 $1,184,706,000

7.3 Local Transportation and Environmental Benefits

7.3.1 Methodology

Five categories of transportation and environmental benefits to local residents were quantified

and monetized:

Travel time savings,

Vehicle operating cost savings,

Improved safety,

Avoided greenhouse gas emissions, and

Avoided criteria air contaminant pollution.

These benefits are derived primarily from the elimination of existing rail at-grade crossings. The

projects do not generally increase road capacity (i.e. in terms of number of lanes), and are not


| 55

expected to induce additional travel demand that would reduce the transportation or

environmental benefits. Table 22 lists the source of traffic data that was used in the analysis.

Table 22: Data sources for Local Transportation and Environmental Benefits Analysis

Project Crossing Traffic Volume Data Sources

Bell Road Overpass Project

Bell Road 2016 Railway Crossing Assessment (2016), City of Abbotsford. No further growth in traffic volumes assumed, as the area is primarily rural in nature. Hargitt Street

Swanson Street

Whistle Cessation and Rail Crossing Information System

Various (RCIS system)

BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure study for RCIS system.

Harris Road Underpass and Kennedy Road Overpass Project

Harris Road 2011 City of Pitt Meadows turning movement count at intersections of Harris Road / 122 Avenue and Harris Road / 124 Avenue, and 2013 BC MoTI link volume count on Lougheed Highway near Harris Road. Growth rate of 3.8% assumed to 2030 based on output of the regional travel demand model, driven by land use intensification in Pitt Meadows.

Kennedy Road 2015 City of Pitt Meadows link volume count. Growth rate of 3.8% assumed to 2030 based on output of the regional travel demand model. Growth is driven by the development of an industrial area that Kennedy Road would provide access to.

Westwood Street and Kingsway Avenue Grade-Separations Project

Westwood Street 2013 City of Coquitlam turning movement count at Westwood Street / Dewdney Trunk Road Intersection. Growth rate of 3.0% assumed to 2030 based on output of the regional travel demand model, driven by land use intensification in Coquitlam City Centre.

Kingsway Street 2013 City of Coquitlam turning movement count at Westwood Street / Kingsway Avenue Intersection. Growth rate of 2.3% assumed to 2030 based on output of the regional travel demand model, driven by land use intensification in Coquitlam City Centre.

Pitt River Road and Colony Farm Road Rail Overpasses Project

Pitt River Road 2013 City of Coquitlam turning movement count at Lougheed Highway / Pitt River Road Intersection. Growth rate of 0.9% assumed to 2030 based on output of the regional travel demand model, driven by land use intensification in Coquitlam City Centre.

Colony Farm Road

2013 City of Coquitlam turning movement count at Lougheed Highway / Colony Farm Road Intersection. No further traffic growth assumed; as


| 56

Project Crossing Traffic Volume Data Sources

Colony Farm Road is a dead end that does not provide through-connectivity, and has a limited number of destinations.

North Shore Corridor Capacity Improvement Projects

Douglas Road Regional Transportation Model (EMME4), developed by TransLink.

Burrard Inlet Road and Rail Improvement Projects

Vanterm West Centerm Expansion Project Traffic Impact Study (2016), Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. Some updates undertaken to confirm latest assumptions for development of tenant properties on the south shore, and truck / train mode splits to container terminals.

Alliance Grain Terminal

Portside Blundell Overpass and Upgrade Project

Portside Road Fraser Richmond Port Lands Area-Wide Transportation Plan (2015), Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. Some updates undertaken to confirm latest assumptions for development of currently vacant sites owned by the port authority. Daily expansion factor based on BC MoTI data for daily truck volume profile on nearby Highway 91.

Outputs from the Rail Traffic Controller model were also used to represent the impacts of train

movements through at-grade crossings. The following information is available from the RTC:

2015 average daily train volumes and average total daily crossing occupancy, and

2030 with GVG2030 in place average daily train volumes, average total daily crossing

occupancy, and start times and crossing occupancy durations of individual train

movements at each crossing.

The assessment approach made use of the detailed 2030 train operating output (with

implemented GVG2030 projects) to simulate crossing blockages. An assumption was made that

the total daily crossing occupancy for the “with GVG2030 in place” and “no build” occupancies

would be similar. Although volumes in the “with GVG2030 in place” would be higher, in the “no

build” condition there is more congestion on the rail network which could decrease train speeds

or inadvertently cause trains to block crossings for longer than they are permitted to. Travel time

savings, vehicle operating cost savings, avoided greenhouse gas emissions and avoided criteria

air contaminant pollution were all calculated primarily using a traffic operations micro-simulation

model. Hourly traffic volumes and individual train crossing events, both for a 24-hour period, were

programmed into the traffic operations model such that traffic flow would be blocked during these

rail events. The model was then run with these rail events occurring, as well as without the rail

events occurring. Vehicle hours travelled, fuel consumption, GHG and CAC emissions were

extracted from both models, and a difference in values was calculated. These differences

represent the benefits of the project.

For most crossings, a simple two-zone traffic operations model was used, because most

crossings have no feasible alternative routes crossings for traffic to use instead, or these


| 57

alternative routes are also blocked by the same train. The following projects used a slightly

different approach to benefits analysis:

The Whistle Cessation and Rail Crossing Information System,

The North Shore Corridor Capacity Improvement Projects,

The Burrard Inlet Road and Rail Improvement Projects, and

The Portside Blundell Overpass and Upgrade Project.

The Rail Crossing Information System of the Whistle Cessation and Rail Crossing Importation

System project was quantified through a meso-scopic traffic operations model that allowed drivers

to “read” the dynamic message signs and make choices about trip routing based on the nearest

available grade-separated crossing.

For the North Shore Corridor Capacity Improvement Projects, the availability of two grade-

separated crossings on parallel corridors to Douglas Road (Willingdon Avenue to the west and

Kensington Avenue to the east) combined with the anticipated extended daily blockages at

Douglas Road means that vehicles would likely avoid using Douglas Road and instead use

alternative routes. Due to the regional-scale travel patterns impacts anticipated at this crossing,

travel time savings benefits from this proposed grade-separation were analysed using the

Regional Transportation Model, the travel demand model developed by TransLink for planning

analysis. This model was run for both a “with Douglas Road” and “without Doulas Road”

condition”, reflecting the assumption of motorists avoiding the Douglas Road corridor altogether

due to the lack of travel time reliability, and instead diverting to parallel routes. The Douglas Road

Grade-Separation would restore connectivity on the Douglas Road corridor. Vehicle hours

travelled and vehicle kilometres traveled were extracted from the Regional Transportation Model

and used to assess project benefits.

For the Burrard Inlet Road and Rail Improvement Projects, a 24-hour traffic operations micro-

simulation model was used, but this model covers a much larger area of the port’s restricted-

access road network on the south shore as well as the adjacent City of Vancouver public road

network. This allows the spillover effects of traffic operations constraints on the port’s road

network that impact the Vancouver’s public road network to be captured.

The Portside Blundell Overpass and Upgrade Project analysis is based on a previously-developed

large-area peak-hour only micro-simulation model. Therefore, benefits were expanded to a daily

benefit based on daily truck volume profiles on Highway 91, which is the primary access to the

Fraser Richmond Industrial Lands that this Project will serve.

Once 2030 benefits were modelled, all other years’ benefits were scaled based on a delay growth

rate. The delay growth rate is calculated using the product of the average annual daily traffic and

daily train occupancies (since total delays at a crossing are sensitive to both of these parameters)

for both 2017 and 2030, which was then used to develop an annual growth rate. It was assumed

that beyond 2030, there would be no further growth in train volumes, but that traffic volumes would

continue to grow at the same rates.


| 58

Collision reduction savings were calculated using the US Department of Transportation’s Accident

Prediction Model, which is detailed in the agency’s Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook

(2007). This predictive model provides an estimate of total annual collisions at a crossing, as well

as the proportion that will result in injuries or fatalities. Most input assumptions relate to the

physical infrastructure of the crossing (e.g. existing crossing control infrastructure), which is

confirmed by reviewing images of the crossings. An assumption was made that on average 50%

of trains would pass through the crossing during daylight hours and the remainder would pass

outside of daylight hours. This assumption is consistent with the RTC output, which shows train

movements occurring at all times of the day and night. Collision benefits were calculated year-by-

year throughout the 30-year evaluation horizon, using the same growth in train and vehicle

volumes assumptions described above.

7.3.2 Assumptions

Once year-by-year outputs were developed for each of the five transportation and environmental

benefit categories, the outputs were quantified and monetized according to the values and

assumptions in Table 23 below.

Table 23: Assumptions used in the Estimation of Local Benefits

Variable Name Value Source Comments

Person Value of Time $17.09 /hour Default Values for Cost Benefit Analysis, BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, December 2012

Inflated to 2017$ using Statistics Canada Consumer Price Index

Average Passenger Vehicle Occupancy

1.24 people /vehicle

2011 Metro Vancouver Regional Screenline Survey, TransLink, August 2013

Truck Value of Time $49.36 /hour Default Values for Cost Benefit Analysis, BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, December 2012


Gas Cost $1.38 /litre

Diesel Cost $1.42 /litre

Mileage $0.25 /km Regional Transportation Model (EMME4), TransLink, 2016

Collision Cost (Property Damage Only)

$12,189 Default Values for Cost Benefit Analysis, BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, December 2012


Collision Cost (Injury), Local Impacts

$145,380

Collision Cost (Fatality), Local Impacts

$6,847,764

Value of CO2 damages Variable by year

Technical Update to Environment and Climate Change Canada's Social Cost of Greenhouse Gas Estimates, Environment and Climate Change Canada, March 2016



| 59

Variable Name Value Source Comments

Value of CO damages $250 /tonne South Fraser Perimeter Road Regional Air Quality Impact Assessment, BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, September 2006, and Transport Canada Estimating the Full Costs of Transport in Canada, 2000$. Values inflated to 2017$.


Value of NOX damages $4,003 /tonne

Value of PM10 damages $3,872 /tonne

Benefit Annualization Factor

330 days /year

Estimate, based on traffic volumes being lower on weekends.

All benefits were estimated over a 30-year period, and converted to a present value using a 10%

discount rate. Although the evaluation period is 2018-2047, because the projects will take several

years to be implemented, benefits typically only begin accruing in 2022.


The resulting monetized benefits for all nine project are summarized in Table 24 below.

Table 24: Estimates of Local Transportation and Environmental Benefits




Improved Safety $7,354,000 $31,811,000




$194,064,000 $974,646,000

In addition to the quantified benefits to residents of Greater Vancouver, the following impacts are

also important but not quantified:

Reduced noise pollution from the elimination of train whistling,

Improved emergency vehicle access and response times,

Improved walking and cycling connectivity, both through the proposed projects providing

high-quality infrastructure for these modes, as well as people walking and cycling no

longer being impacted by train-related delays, and

Public transit benefits, both in the form of travel time savings for transit passengers, and

improved operations and scheduling reliability for TransLink. Additionally, there are some

crossings where transit does not exist or run frequently in part because the at-grade

crossing impacts the feasibility of the service; grade-separation will enable these crossings

to provide additional service, in addition to improving existing transit operations.

Each of these benefits are described qualitatively in Section H.2 of each Comprehensive Project

Proposal.


| 60

8 Cost-Benefit Analysis Results

8.1 Results Summary

The tables below summarize the CBA findings in 2017$. Taking the present value of project costs

and benefits over a 30-year study period and using a 10% real discount rate results in an overall

Net Present Value of $2.2 billion, and a Benefit-Cost Ratio of 2.32.

Table 25: Overall Results of the Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-Benefit Analysis Results Discounted at 10% Undiscounted

Program Benefits


$3,471,426,000 $16,900,839,000


$247,347,000 $1,184,706,000

Improved Safety $169,009,000 $823,501,000




$194,064,000 $974,646,000



Improved Safety $7,354,000 $31,811,000



Residual Value of Assets $25,303,000 $441,530,000

Total Benefits $3,938,141,000 $19,501,721,000

Program Costs

Capital Costs $1,688,917,000 $2,957,094,000

Operations & Maintenance Costs $16,632,000 $91,371,000

Total Costs $1,705,549,000 $3,048,465,000

CBA Summary Results Discounted at 10% Net Present Value (NPV) $2,232,593,000 Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.32 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 23.5% Discounted Payback Period (DPP) 7.81 years For the purposes of the BCR, O&M is considered a negative benefit and only up-front project capital costs are used in the denominator.


| 61

The $3 billion investment20 ($1.7 billion in present value terms) would result in a total of $4 billion

in discounted benefits with a payback of 7.8 years, and an internal rate of return of 23.5% – well

above the 10% hurdle rate.

8.2 Sensitivity Analysis

The CBA outcomes presented in the previous sections rely on a large number of assumptions

and long-term projections; both of which are subject to considerable uncertainty. The primary

purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to help identify the variables and model parameters whose

variations have the greatest impact on the CBA outcomes - the “critical variables.”

The sensitivity analysis can also be used to:

Evaluate the impact of changes in individual critical variables – how much the final results

would vary with reasonable departures from the “preferred” or most likely value for the

variable; and

Assess the robustness of the CBA and evaluate, in particular, whether the conclusions

reached under the “preferred” set of input values are significantly altered by reasonable

departures from those values.

The outcomes of the sensitivity analysis for GVG2030 projects are summarized in the table below.

The table provides the percentage changes in project NPV associated with variations in variables

or parameters. Based on rigorous analysis and a conservative assumption of cargo growth,

between 2017 and 2030, total annual tonnage through the port is anticipated to increase by 60

million tonnes, or by an average of 2.3% per year. Increased demand is a natural requirement for

capacity improvement projects and 1.48% per year was determined to be the break-even growth

rate for the analysis holding everything else constant. As a comparison, freight volumes at the

Port of Vancouver have increased by an average of 2.6% per year since 2008, representative of

a full business cycle.

Overall, results are driven primarily by increased capacity and improved rail network efficiency

that translate to transportation cost savings that accrue to Canadian shippers. Table 26 below

focuses on the key drivers of transportation cost savings – incremental distance and cost to

shippers for moving goods to alternate gateways - which account for 88% of total public benefits.

The table presents a range of potential impacts to shippers, and determines that a $693 increase

in cost per railcar is the breakeven point, while an increase as high as 644 kilometers would

increase the NPV to $4.7 billion and a BCR of 3.77. In reality, incremental shipper distances to

alternative ports could be over 800 kilometers. A worst case scenario in the analysis determined

20 As noted in Section 3.2, this number reflects the cost of the overall GVG2030, not just the Phase 1

submissions.


| 62

that the difference in distance from Saskatoon to Vancouver via CN direct and Saskatoon to

Seattle via CP and BNSF interchange could be as far as 877km / 545mi.

Table 26: Summary of Key Sensitivity Analysis Parameters

Incremental Shipment Distance

Incremental Cost to Shippers ($/railcar)

Net Present Value Change in NPV

BCR

118km / 73mi $693 $0 M -100.0% 1.00

161km / 100mi $867 $384 M -82.8% 1.23

241km / 150mi $1,194 $1,100 M -50.7% 1.65

322km / 200mi $1,520 $1,817 M -18.6% 2.08

369km / 229mi $1,709 $2,233 M n/a 2.32

402km / 250mi $1,846 $2,534 M +13.5% 2.50

483km / 300mi $2,172 $3,250 M +45.6% 2.92

563km / 350mi $2,499 $3,967 M +77.7% 3.35

644km / 400mi $2,825 $4,683 M +109.8% 3.77

Table 27: Summary of Other Sensitivity Analysis Parameters

Original NPV (Discounted at 10%)

Parameters Change in Parameter Value

Net Present Value

Change in NPV

BCR

$2,233 M

Capital Cost Estimates

-25% decrease in capital costs

$2,655 M +18.9% 3.10

+25% increase in capital costs

$1,810 M -18.9% 1.86

O&M Estimates

10 times increase in annual O&M costs

$2,083 M -6.7% 2.23

7% Discount Rate

All future values discounted at 7%

$3,991 M +78.8% 3.02

3% Discount Rate

All future values discounted at 3%

$8,806 M +294.4% 4.57

Changes in upfront capital cost estimates are always a significant driver of CBA results, especially

when it comes to the BCR. A 25% change in cost estimates results in an inverse 19% change to

the NPV, which means that uncertainty in the cost estimates does not put net public benefits at

risk. Similarly, a 6.7% decrease in NPV and a BCR of 2.23 under an excessive increase in

operations and maintenance costs demonstrates that despite preliminary estimates, they do not

present a risk to the overall business case.

Finally, using lower discount rates in line with other common guidelines across North America

(e.g. 7% requirement for the U.S. Department of Transportation, and approximately 3% for low

risk debt) significantly improves CBA results. As future benefits are discounted at a lower required

rate of return, the GVG2030 net benefits increase to $4 billion and $8.8 billion with rates of 7%

and 3% respectively.

Overall, in all reasonable instances of the sensitivity analysis, the benefit-cost ratio remains well

above 1.0 and demonstrates that even with overly conservative assumptions the GVG2030

improvements are expected to generate a substantial amount of public benefits with relatively low

risk.


| 63

9 Supplementary Data Tables

This section breaks down all benefits associated with the GVG2030 projects by year.

9.1 Total Program Benefits and Costs

Calendar Year Project Year Benefits Undiscounted

Costs Undiscounted

Net Benefits Undiscounted

Net Benefits (Discounted at 10%)

2018 1 - $110,415,000 -$110,415,000 -$100,378,000

2019 2 - $111,314,000 -$111,314,000 -$91,995,000

2020 3 $193,000 $253,978,000 -$253,785,000 -$190,672,000

2021 4 $193,000 $355,789,000 -$355,595,000 -$242,876,000

2022 5 $270,913,000 $502,577,000 -$231,664,000 -$143,845,000

2023 6 $344,291,000 $279,735,000 $64,556,000 $36,440,000

2024 7 $411,234,000 $405,584,000 $5,650,000 $2,899,000

2025 8 $478,545,000 $226,434,000 $252,111,000 $117,612,000

2026 9 $544,568,000 $271,584,000 $272,984,000 $115,772,000

2027 10 $612,277,000 $316,784,000 $295,493,000 $113,926,000

2028 11 $681,677,000 $137,534,000 $544,143,000 $190,719,000

2029 12 $752,800,000 $2,984,000 $749,816,000 $238,914,000

2030 13 $829,053,000 $2,984,000 $826,069,000 $239,283,000

2031 14 $829,059,000 $2,984,000 $826,075,000 $217,531,000

2032 15 $829,137,000 $2,984,000 $826,153,000 $197,774,000

2033 16 $829,233,000 $2,984,000 $826,249,000 $179,816,000

2034 17 $829,349,000 $2,984,000 $826,365,000 $163,492,000

2035 18 $829,510,000 $3,145,000 $826,366,000 $148,629,000

2036 19 $829,722,000 $2,984,000 $826,738,000 $135,178,000

2037 20 $829,979,000 $5,075,000 $824,904,000 $122,617,000

2038 21 $830,231,000 $2,984,000 $827,247,000 $111,786,000

2039 22 $830,529,000 $2,984,000 $827,545,000 $101,661,000

2040 23 $830,895,000 $2,984,000 $827,911,000 $92,460,000

2041 24 $831,570,000 $2,984,000 $828,586,000 $84,123,000

2042 25 $832,270,000 $2,984,000 $829,286,000 $76,540,000

2043 26 $832,995,000 $2,984,000 $830,011,000 $69,642,000

2044 27 $833,749,000 $2,984,000 $830,766,000 $63,369,000

2045 28 $834,535,000 $2,984,000 $831,551,000 $57,663,000

2046 29 $835,343,000 $2,984,000 $832,359,000 $52,471,000

2047 30 $1,277,871,000 $20,777,000 $1,257,094,000 $72,042,000

Total

$19,501,721,000 $3,048,465,000 $16,453,256,000 $2,232,593,000


| 64

9.2 Annual Demand Projections

Calendar Year

Project Year

Trains in Greater Vancouver (No-Build)

Trains Diverted to Alternative Ports

(No-Build)

Trains in Greater Vancouver (Build)

Trains Diverted to Alternative Ports

(Build)

2018 1 28,252 - 28,252 -

2019 2 29,200 221 29,200 221

2020 3 29,200 1,173 29,200 1,173

2021 4 29,200 1,936 29,200 1,936

2022 5 29,200 2,562 31,762 -

2023 6 29,200 3,179 32,379 -

2024 7 29,200 3,812 33,012 -

2025 8 29,200 4,447 33,647 -

2026 9 29,200 5,069 34,269 -

2027 10 29,200 5,705 34,905 -

2028 11 29,200 6,355 35,555 -

2029 12 29,200 7,021 36,221 -

2030 13 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2031 14 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2032 15 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2033 16 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2034 17 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2035 18 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2036 19 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2037 20 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2038 21 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2039 22 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2040 23 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2041 24 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2042 25 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2043 26 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2044 27 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2045 28 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2046 29 29,200 7,703 36,903 -

2047 30 29,200 7,703 36,903 -


| 65

9.3 Rail Network Improvement Benefits

Calendar Year

Project Year

Transportation Cost Savings

(Discounted at 10%)

Avoided GHG Emissions

(Discounted at 10%)

Avoided CAC Emissions

(Discounted at 10%)

Accident Cost Savings (Discounted at 10%)

Residual Value of Assets

(Discounted at 10%)

2018 1 - - - - -

2019 2 - - - - -

2020 3 - - - - -

2021 4 - - - - -

2022 5 $150,854,000 $2,357,000 $1,766,000 $7,311,000 -

2023 6 $170,369,000 $2,677,000 $1,857,000 $8,263,000 -

2024 7 $185,921,000 $2,938,000 $1,872,000 $9,024,000 -

2025 8 $197,398,000 $3,137,000 $1,837,000 $9,588,000 -

2026 9 $204,750,000 $3,266,000 $1,752,000 $9,953,000 -

2027 10 $209,718,000 $3,359,000 $1,666,000 $10,202,000 -

2028 11 $212,639,000 $3,419,000 $1,561,000 $10,352,000 -

2029 12 $213,807,000 $3,451,000 $1,437,000 $10,416,000 -

2030 13 $213,485,000 $3,459,000 $1,314,000 $10,409,000 -

2031 14 $194,078,000 $3,154,000 $1,093,000 $9,462,000 -

2032 15 $176,434,000 $2,876,000 $917,000 $8,602,000 -

2033 16 $160,395,000 $2,623,000 $765,000 $7,820,000 -

2034 17 $145,813,000 $2,391,000 $635,000 $7,109,000 -

2035 18 $132,558,000 $2,180,000 $529,000 $6,463,000 -

2036 19 $120,507,000 $1,985,000 $445,000 $5,875,000 -

2037 20 $109,552,000 $1,808,000 $378,000 $5,341,000 -

2038 21 $99,593,000 $1,646,000 $316,000 $4,856,000 -

2039 22 $90,539,000 $1,498,000 $265,000 $4,414,000 -

2040 23 $82,308,000 $1,364,000 $227,000 $4,013,000 -

2041 24 $74,825,000 $1,259,000 $207,000 $3,648,000 -

2042 25 $68,023,000 $1,162,000 $188,000 $3,316,000 -

2043 26 $61,839,000 $1,072,000 $171,000 $3,015,000 -

2044 27 $56,217,000 $989,000 $155,000 $2,741,000 -

2045 28 $51,107,000 $913,000 $141,000 $2,492,000 -

2046 29 $46,461,000 $841,000 $128,000 $2,265,000 -

2047 30 $42,237,000 $776,000 $117,000 $2,059,000 $25,303,000

Total $3,471,426,000 $56,598,000 $21,740,000 $169,009,000 $25,303,000


| 66

9.4 Transportation Cost Savings to Canadian Producers

Calendar Year

Project Year

Rail Cost Savings (Undiscounted)

Ocean Carrier Cost Savings (Undiscounted)


(Undiscounted)


(Discounted at 10%)

2018 1 - - - -

2019 2 - - - -

2020 3 - - - -

2021 4 - - - -

2022 5 $242,953,000 - $242,953,000 $150,854,000

2023 6 $301,819,000 - $301,819,000 $170,369,000

2024 7 $362,307,000 - $362,307,000 $185,921,000

2025 8 $423,139,000 - $423,139,000 $197,398,000

2026 9 $482,789,000 - $482,789,000 $204,750,000

2027 10 $543,955,000 - $543,955,000 $209,718,000

2028 11 $606,683,000 - $606,683,000 $212,639,000

2029 12 $671,018,000 - $671,018,000 $213,807,000

2030 13 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $213,485,000

2031 14 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $194,078,000

2032 15 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $176,434,000

2033 16 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $160,395,000

2034 17 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $145,813,000

2035 18 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $132,558,000

2036 19 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $120,507,000

2037 20 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $109,552,000

2038 21 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $99,593,000

2039 22 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $90,539,000

2040 23 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $82,308,000

2041 24 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $74,825,000

2042 25 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $68,023,000

2043 26 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $61,839,000

2044 27 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $56,217,000

2045 28 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $51,107,000

2046 29 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $46,461,000

2047 30 $737,010,000 - $737,010,000 $42,237,000

Total $16,900,839,000 - $16,900,839,000 $3,471,426,000


| 67

9.5 Environmental Impacts of Shipments to Alternative Ports (GHG) Calendar

Year Project

Year Freight Tonne-kilometres

Avoided Avoided GHG Emissions

(tonnes of CO2e) Avoided GHG Emissions

(Undiscounted) Avoided GHG Emissions

(Discounted at 10%)

2018 1 - - - -

2019 2 - - - -

2020 3 - - - -

2021 4 - - - -

2022 5 5,231,847,000 - $3,795,000 $2,357,000

2023 6 6,504,541,000 - $4,742,000 $2,677,000

2024 7 7,814,132,000 - $5,725,000 $2,938,000

2025 8 9,133,006,000 36 $6,724,000 $3,137,000

2026 9 10,428,301,000 58 $7,702,000 $3,266,000

2027 10 11,758,321,000 89 $8,711,000 $3,359,000

2028 11 13,124,133,000 120 $9,754,000 $3,419,000

2029 12 14,526,839,000 151 $10,831,000 $3,451,000

2030 13 15,967,576,000 182 $11,942,000 $3,459,000

2031 14 15,967,576,000 214 $11,978,000 $3,154,000

2032 15 15,967,576,000 246 $12,014,000 $2,876,000

2033 16 15,967,576,000 278 $12,050,000 $2,623,000

2034 17 15,967,576,000 311 $12,087,000 $2,391,000

2035 18 15,967,576,000 344 $12,123,000 $2,180,000

2036 19 15,967,576,000 377 $12,142,000 $1,985,000

2037 20 15,967,576,000 410 $12,160,000 $1,808,000

2038 21 15,967,576,000 444 $12,179,000 $1,646,000

2039 22 15,967,576,000 460 $12,197,000 $1,498,000

2040 23 15,967,576,000 454 $12,216,000 $1,364,000

2041 24 15,967,576,000 454 $12,399,000 $1,259,000

2042 25 15,967,576,000 441 $12,585,000 $1,162,000

2043 26 15,967,576,000 408 $12,774,000 $1,072,000

2044 27 15,967,576,000 373 $12,966,000 $989,000

2045 28 15,967,576,000 336 $13,160,000 $913,000

2046 29 15,967,576,000 298 $13,347,000 $841,000

2047 30 15,967,576,000 258 $13,537,000 $776,000

Total 365,937,482,000 6,743 $281,842,000 $56,598,000


| 68

9.6 Environmental Impacts of Shipments to Alternative Ports (CAC)

Calendar Year

Project Year

NOX Emissions Avoided (tonnes)

VOC Emissions Avoided (tonnes)

PM2.5 Emissions Avoided (tonnes)

SO2 Emissions Avoided (tonnes)


(Undiscounted)


(Discounted at 10%)

2018 1 - - - - - -

2019 2 - - - - - -

2020 3 - - - - - -

2021 4 - - - - - -

2022 5 657 24.9 14.3 - $2,844,000 $1,766,000

2023 6 760 28.6 16.7 - $3,290,000 $1,857,000

2024 7 845 31.6 17.6 - $3,649,000 $1,872,000

2025 8 912 33.7 19.1 0.01 $3,937,000 $1,837,000

2026 9 957 36.5 20.2 0.01 $4,132,000 $1,752,000

2027 10 1,001 37.3 20.9 0.02 $4,321,000 $1,666,000

2028 11 1,033 37.5 21.4 0.02 $4,455,000 $1,561,000

2029 12 1,053 38.9 19.7 0.03 $4,511,000 $1,437,000

2030 13 1,060 40.0 19.4 0.03 $4,537,000 $1,314,000

2031 14 966 35.3 19.1 0.04 $4,152,000 $1,093,000

2032 15 893 32.7 16.9 0.05 $3,830,000 $917,000

2033 16 822 30.2 14.8 0.05 $3,516,000 $765,000

2034 17 754 27.8 12.8 0.06 $3,211,000 $635,000

2035 18 687 25.4 12.6 0.06 $2,940,000 $529,000

2036 19 640 23.1 10.6 0.07 $2,724,000 $445,000

2037 20 595 22.8 10.5 0.08 $2,540,000 $378,000

2038 21 550 20.6 8.6 0.08 $2,335,000 $316,000

2039 22 507 20.3 8.5 0.08 $2,160,000 $265,000

2040 23 483 18.1 6.7 0.08 $2,035,000 $227,000

2041 24 483 18.1 6.7 0.08 $2,035,000 $207,000

2042 25 483 18.1 6.7 0.08 $2,035,000 $188,000

2043 26 483 18.1 6.7 0.08 $2,035,000 $171,000

2044 27 483 18.1 6.7 0.07 $2,035,000 $155,000

2045 28 483 18.1 6.7 0.06 $2,035,000 $141,000

2046 29 483 18.1 6.7 0.05 $2,035,000 $128,000

2047 30 483 18.1 6.7 0.05 $2,035,000 $117,000

Total 19,000 692 337 1.24 $79,363,000 $21,740,000


| 69

9.7 Local Transportation and Environmental Benefits

Calendar Year

Project Year

Travel Time Savings (Discounted at 10%)

Vehicle Operating Cost Savings

(Discounted at 10%)

Improved Safety (Discounted at 10%)

Avoided GHG Emissions

(Discounted at 10%)


(Discounted at 10%)

2018 1 - - - - -

2019 2 - - - - -

2020 3 $138,000 $2,186 - $642 $4,606

2021 4 $125,000 $2,023 - $596 $4,187

2022 5 $4,949,000 $339,000 $572,000 $59,000 $8,213

2023 6 $10,011,000 $445,000 $635,000 $77,000 $9,705

2024 7 $10,152,000 $449,000 $585,000 $78,000 $9,638

2025 8 $10,210,000 $449,000 $538,000 $78,000 $9,523

2026 9 $10,198,000 $448,000 $495,000 $78,000 $9,370

2027 10 $10,126,000 $446,000 $456,000 $78,000 $9,185

2028 11 $10,006,000 $442,000 $419,000 $78,000 $8,976

2029 12 $9,845,000 $437,000 $385,000 $77,000 $8,748

2030 13 $10,624,000 $418,000 $354,000 $74,000 $9,293

2031 14 $9,741,000 $388,000 $323,000 $69,000 $8,501

2032 15 $8,932,000 $360,000 $295,000 $64,000 $7,777

2033 16 $8,192,000 $334,000 $269,000 $60,000 $7,114

2034 17 $7,515,000 $310,000 $246,000 $56,000 $6,508

2035 18 $6,895,000 $288,000 $224,000 $52,000 $5,954

2036 19 $6,328,000 $267,000 $205,000 $49,000 $5,447

2037 20 $5,808,000 $248,000 $187,000 $45,000 $4,984

2038 21 $5,333,000 $230,000 $170,000 $42,000 $4,560

2039 22 $4,898,000 $213,000 $155,000 $39,000 $4,172

2040 23 $4,500,000 $198,000 $142,000 $36,000 $3,817

2041 24 $4,136,000 $184,000 $129,000 $34,000 $3,492

2042 25 $3,803,000 $171,000 $118,000 $31,000 $3,195

2043 26 $3,498,000 $158,000 $108,000 $29,000 $2,924

2044 27 $3,219,000 $147,000 $98,000 $27,000 $2,675

2045 28 $2,964,000 $136,000 $89,000 $25,000 $2,448

2046 29 $2,730,000 $127,000 $82,000 $23,000 $2,240

2047 30 $2,525,000 $118,000 $74,000 $22,000 $2,054

Total

$177,403,000 $7,753,000 $7,354,000 $1,385,000 $169,000


| 70

9.8 Safety Impacts of Shipments to Alternative Ports

Calendar Year

Project Year

Fatalities Avoided Injuries Avoided Avoided Accident Costs (Undiscounted)

Avoided Accident Costs (Discounted at 10%)

2018 1 - - - -

2019 2 - - - -

2020 3 - - - -

2021 4 - - - -

2022 5 1.4 11.9 $11,774,000 $7,311,000

2023 6 1.7 14.8 $14,638,000 $8,263,000

2024 7 2.1 17.8 $17,585,000 $9,024,000

2025 8 2.4 20.8 $20,553,000 $9,588,000

2026 9 2.8 23.7 $23,468,000 $9,953,000

2027 10 3.1 26.7 $26,461,000 $10,202,000

2028 11 3.5 29.8 $29,534,000 $10,352,000

2029 12 3.9 33.0 $32,691,000 $10,416,000

2030 13 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $10,409,000

2031 14 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $9,462,000

2032 15 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $8,602,000

2033 16 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $7,820,000

2034 17 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $7,109,000

2035 18 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $6,463,000

2036 19 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $5,875,000

2037 20 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $5,341,000

2038 21 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $4,856,000

2039 22 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $4,414,000

2040 23 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $4,013,000

2041 24 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $3,648,000

2042 25 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $3,316,000

2043 26 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $3,015,000

2044 27 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $2,741,000

2045 28 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $2,492,000

2046 29 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $2,265,000

2047 30 4.3 36.3 $35,933,000 $2,059,000

Total

98 832 $823,501,000 $169,009,000

Gateway Rail Assessment 2030

Executive Summary

April 6, 2018


382729-MMD-00-P0-RP-RW-0004 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b2952/DOPE/382729-MMD-00-P0-RP-RW-

0004 - GRA2030 Executive Summary.docx Mott MacDonald

Mott MacDonald Suite 1888 Bentall 5 550 Burrard Street Vancouver BC V6C 2B5 Canada T +1 604 681 4400

mottmac.com

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3T4

Gateway Rail Assessment 2030

Executive Summary

April 6, 2018

Mott MacDonald Canada Ltd registered in Canada no. 2232292. Suite 301, 30 Duncan Street, Toronto, ON M5V 2C3


Mott MacDonald | Gateway Rail Assessment 2030 Executive Summary

382729-MMD-00-P0-RP-RW-0004 | April 6, 2018 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b2952/DOPE/382729-MMD-00-P0-RP-RW-0004 - GRA2030 Executive Summary.docx

Issue and revision record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 2018/01/24 W. Mak A. Wells J. Sutcliffe Issued for Information

B1 2018/02/23 W. Mak Draft Issue

B 2018/03/16 W. Mak A. Wells J. Sutcliffe Final Issue

C 2018/04/06 W. Mak A. Wells J. Sutcliffe Final Issue

Document reference: 382729-MMD-00-P0-RP-RW-0004

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-

captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being

used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied

to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other

parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

This R eport has been prepar ed sol el y for use by the party which commissi oned it (the 'Client') in connection wi th the capti oned pr oject. It shoul d not be used for any other purpose. N o person other than the Client or any party who has expr essl y agreed terms of reli ance with us (the 'Recipi ent(s)') may r el y on the content, infor mation or any views expr essed in the R eport . This R eport is confi denti al and contains pr opri etary intell ectual pr operty and we accept no duty of car e, r esponsibility or li ability to any other recipi ent of this R eport . N o repr esentati on, warranty or undertaki ng, express or i mplied, is made and no responsi bility or liability is accepted by us to any party other than the Client or any Reci pient(s), as to the accuracy or completeness of the i nfor mati on contai ned i n this R eport . For the avoi dance of doubt thi s Report does not i n any way pur port to i nclu de any legal, insurance or fi nanci al advice or opi nion.

We disclai m all and any liability whether arising i n tort, contr act or other wise which we might otherwise have to any party other than the Cli ent or the Reci pient(s), in respect of this Report, or any infor mation contained in it. We accept no responsi bility for any error or omissi on in the Report which is due to an error or omissi on in data, i nfor mation or statements supplied to us by other parti es i ncludi ng the Cli ent (the 'Data'). We have not independentl y verified the D ata or other wise exami ned i t to deter mi ne the accuracy, completeness, sufficiency for any purpose or feasi bility for any particular outcome incl uding fi nanci al.

Forecasts presented i n this document were pr epared usi ng the Data and the Repor t is dependent or based on the D ata. Inevitabl y, some of the assumptions used to develop the for ecasts will not be realised and unantici pated events and circumstances may occur. C onsequentl y, we do not guarantee or warrant the conclusions contained in the R eport as ther e are li kel y to be differences between the forecas ts and the actual results and those dif fer ences may be material. While we consi der that the infor mation and opini ons given in this R eport are sound all parti es must rel y on their own skil l and judgement when making use of it .

Infor mation and opi nions ar e current onl y as of the date of the Report and we accept no responsi bility for updati ng such infor mation or opi nion. It shoul d, therefor e, not be assumed that any such infor mati on or opi nion conti nues to be accurate subsequent to the date of the Report. U nder no circumstances may this Report or any extrac t or su mmar y thereof be used i n connecti on with any public or pri vate securities offeri ng incl udi ng any related memor andum or pr ospec tus f or any securiti es offering or stock exchange listi ng or announcement.

By acceptance of this Repor t you agree to be bound by this disclai mer. This disclai mer and any issues, disputes or cl ai ms arising out of or in connection wi th it ( whether contractual or non-contractual i n natur e such as cl ai ms i n tort, from br each of statute or regul ati on or otherwise) shall be governed by, and co nstr ued i n accordance with, the laws of Engl and and Wales to the exclusion of all conflict of l aws principles and r ules . All disputes or clai ms arising out of or r elati ng to this discl ai mer shall be subjec t to the excl usi ve jurisdicti on of the English and Welsh courts to which the parties irrevocabl y submit.

Mott MacDonald | Gateway Rail Assessment 2030 Executive Summary


Contents

1 Project Rationale 1

2 Gateway Rail Assessment 2030 4

2.1 Stakeholder Engagement Process 4

2.2 Development of Rail Input Parameters 5

2.3 Gateway 2030 Simulation 6

Mott MacDonald | Gateway Rail Assessment 2030 1 Executive Summary


1 Project Rationale

The Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum (GTCF) was founded in 2014 by the

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) to collaboratively develop and gain funding approval

for transportation and related infrastructure necessary for supporting continued trade growth in

the Greater Vancouver Gateway (the Gateway).

The Gateway comprises of approximately 2,900 km2 of land within the Greater Vancouver

region. It also hosts Canada’s largest port where it is home to 27 major deep-sea and domestic

marine terminals operating over five business sectors: automobile, container, cruise, breakbulk

and project cargo, and bulk. The terminal facilities are supported by an extensive rail system

that connects the Gateway to the rest of Canada through the Fraser Canyon as well as a large

portion of the United States via connections to the south. Rail service to the terminals is

provided by three Class 1 railroads and one regional short line railroad on a shared regional

Gateway rail network with other passenger rail services. The freight and passenger rail service

providers include:

● Canadian National Railway (CN);

● Canadian Pacific Railway (CP);

● Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF);

● Southern Railway of British Columbia (SRY);

● VIA Rail;

● Rocky Mountaineer;

● West Coast Express commuter train services offered by Translink; and,

● Amtrak.

The Gateway can be divided into four distinct trade areas that are intrinsically connected with

one another by the regional rail and road networks. The four trade areas are as follows:

● North Shore Trade Area (NSTA);

● South Shore Trade Area (SSTA);

● Fraser River Trade Area (FRTA); and,

● Roberts Bank Trade Area (RBTA).



Figure 1 illustrates the four trade areas’ boundaries in relation to the Gateway’s rail and road

network.

Figure 1: Trade Areas within the Greater Vancouver Gateway in Relation to Rail Network

Note: Rail network shown in Blue.

The GTCF’s steering committee is made up of regional transportation agencies that include

senior executives from BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, TransLink, Vancouver

Fraser Port Authority, Transport Canada, and the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council. Building

upon the success of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative that saw the realization of

multiple Gateway transportation improvement projects between 2006 and 2013, the GTCF’s

goal is to coordinate efforts and better position the Gateway to drive funds where they will have

the greatest impact for Canadian and regional economy.

Studies commissioned by the GTCF have identified a list of approximately 40 infrastructure

projects across the Gateway as potential opportunities to relieve road traffic congestion and

increase trade corridor capacity (including rail).

The projects were grouped to provide a number of strategic and technical benefits, including:

● Higher stated capacity expansion by optimizing flow over an entire corridor, as opposed to

spot solutions that create constraints elsewhere;

● Better funding leverage by including more partners and spreading partner funding across

projects to fill funding gaps;

● Greater competition for project design and construction by offering larger scale opportunities;

● Optimized construction and design innovation given the similar nature of the assets and

ability to spread research and development costs over a larger range of projects;

● Accelerated project delivery timelines given the ability of the contractor and developer to

move and rotate different construction crews between projects; and,

● Lower costs to procure and administer projects by using a single procurement approach.



The Government of Canada announced in 2016 its Transportation 2030 vision which outlined

Canada’s commitment to invest $10.1 billion over the next 11 years in transportation

infrastructure projects. As a result, the Trade and Transportation Corridors Initiative was created

by Transport Canada as a subset of this funding plan and dedicated $2 billion of the Federal

government’s investment specifically towards the National Trade Corridor Fund (NTCF). The

fund is a merit-based program purposed to strengthen the Canadian economy by supporting

improvement projects over the next 11 years that would increase efficiency and reliability of

existing trade corridors and grow the Canadian economy. The NTCF is expected to have

multiple intakes for improvement project applications over the next decade with at least two

subsequent national calls for projects likely in 2020 and 2022.

From the list of identified infrastructure projects, 23 projects were deemed to be priority in

supporting near-term trade growth within the Gateway. The selected projects were further

combined into nine funding applications to be submitted for the NTCF’s first intake and they are

as follows:

Table 1: Project Groups Under Consideration for First NTCF Funding Application Intake

Group Number and Name Project Name

1. North Shore Corridor Capacity Improvement Project (NSCCIP)

Thornton Tunnel Ventilation Upgrade

Douglas Road Grade Separation

Thornton Tunnel Approach Siding

2. Harris Road Underpass & Kennedy Road Overpass Project

Harris Road Grade Separation

Kennedy Road Grade Separation

New Vancouver Intermodal Facility Siding

3. Bell Road Overpass Project Bell Road Grade Separation

Matsqui Junction Siding Extension

4. Burrard Inlet Road & Rail Improvement Project

(BIRRIP)

Centennial Road Overpass Project (CROP)

Waterfront Road Access Improvement Project

Commissioner Street Rail and Road Expansion Project

Cascadia Support Tracks Project

5. Pitt River Road and Colony Farm Road Rail

Overpasses Project

Colony Farm Road Overpass

Double Tracking of CP Westminster Subdivision

6. Portside-Blundell Overpass and Upgrade Project Grade Separation of the Portside / Blundell / No. 8 Road Intersection

Blundell Road Widening

Portside Road Extension Across No. 7 Road Canal

Pitt River Road Overpass

7. Westwood Street & Kingsway Avenue Grade

Separation Project

Westwood Street Grade Separation

Kingsway Avenue Grade Separation

8. Mountain Highway Underpass Project Mountain Highway Underpass Project

9. Whistle Cessation and Rail Crossing Information

System Project

Whistle Cessation at Various Locations

Rail Crossing Information System (RCIS) at Various Locations

Although the remaining improvement projects have not been submitted, they will be required to

support Gateway growth to 2030 and shall be considered as future candidates for subsequent

NTCF intake submissions.



2 Gateway Rail Assessment 2030

As a member of the GTCF, VFPA engaged Mott MacDonald and its sub-consultant, MainLine

Management, to support this Greater Vancouver Gateway 2030 initiative by undertaking a

capacity study of the Greater Vancouver rail network for a future year of 2030. The purpose of

the study was to identify smart infrastructure investments on existing rail corridors to help

eliminate bottlenecks and improve the reliability of supply chain systems to support Gateway

trade growth towards year 2030 and beyond.

At a high level, the study scope can be summarized into the following tasks:

● Survey of rail-related stakeholders (providers and recipients of rail services) handling trade

commodities of national significance across the Gateway;

● Assessment of stakeholder data to develop realistic input parameters for the 2030 rail

network simulation model;

● Development of high-level rail infrastructure concepts;

● Simulation of the Greater Vancouver rail network for theoretical year 2030; and,

● Assessment of simulation results and support VFPA’s funding application team by providing

technical and financial outputs with respect to rail-related aspects and projects.

Subsequent sections and the graphic below briefly describes the study’s key events and

milestones leading up to the first funding application intake’s deadline and beyond.

2.1 Stakeholder Engagement Process

VFPA and Mott MacDonald engaged 30 different stakeholders across the four trade areas,

including railroads, major commodity shippers, and rail-serviced marine terminals, to survey

current throughputs and operational plans as well as aspirations leading up to 2030.

Furthermore, Class 1 and short line railroads were comprehensively consulted to ensure that

aspirations within each trade area were not significantly misaligned from the railroads’ future

operating plans and commodity market forecasts.

The marine terminals surveyed handle the majority of trade commodities within the Gateway.

These terminals have forecasted growth in excess of 90% by 2030. Table 2 summarizes the

anticipated growth in trade commodity volumes that were captured during the consultation.

July 2017Engage and collect

stakeholder's plans for Year 2030

August 2017Begin simulating GVG

2030 model

Late August 2017Develop rail concepts

September 5 2017NTCF deadline for

Expressions of Interest (EOI)

September 2017Complete 2030 simulation and analyse resutls

October 2017

Develop outputs and provide business case

support

November 6 2017

NTCF deadline for Phase 1 project

funding applications

Q1 2018

On-going support and stakeholder engagement



Table 2: Consolidated Cross-Berth Throughput Captured During Engagement Sessions, By Trade Area

Trade Areas Current Volume (2016)

Anticipated Volume (2030)

Percentage Increase

North Shore (NSTA) 33.7 Mt/a 67.6 Mt/a 100%

South Shore (SSTA) 33.4 Mt/a 57.6 Mt/a 73%

Fraser River (FRTA) * 23.0 Mt/a 46.9 Mt/a 104%

Roberts Bank (RBTA) 41.0 Mt/a 82.0 Mt/a 100%

Notes: - All volumes are reported as cross-berth throughput in Millions of Metric Tonnes per Annum (Mt/a). - Surveyed throughputs have been moderated based on infrastructure capacity, feedback from suppliers, and market forecasts. * - Short-sea shipping forestry products have been excluded from the analysis as rail network demand only makes up a limited portion of forestry products’ cross-berth throughputs.

2.2 Development of Rail Input Parameters

Mott MacDonald, supported by MainLine Management, built upon an existing simulation model

to investigate where the constraints and bottlenecks might be located within the Gateway rail

network. With the last major revision of the simulation model taking place in 2013 and significant

changes in railroad operation occurring within the last year, an overhaul of the simulation model

was undertaken to ensure that the simulation reflected the latest proposed operating

procedures. Three sets of rail-related input parameters were required to update the model: train

traffic volume, rail operating plans, and infrastructure changes (road and rail).

The surveyed terminals’ annual throughputs were converted from tonnage to an equivalent

number of train deliveries and removals required over a five-day period. These five-day blocks

of train traffic were then collected into sets of loading charts for each Gateway Trade Area.

Due to the complicated nature of railroading, VFPA and Mott MacDonald undertook extensive

engagement with Class 1 and short line railroads to extract operating plans and procedures

which included, but is not limited to, the following parameters:

● Start and end destinations;

● Scheduled time for spot (delivery) and removal of trains;

● Rolling stock changes;

● Train configurations including lengths and makeups;

● Preferred train routing across the Gateway;

● Dwell time within terminal to replicate loading and unloading processes;

● Inspection requirements and locations; and,

● Crew change requirements and locations.

The combination of the train loading charts and the rail operating plans form the basis from

which virtual train traffic was generated.

The simulated scenario replicates a future year 2030’s rail network and train throughput

volumes. Recognizing the anticipated timeline of Gateway throughput growth by 2030, the

simulation model incorporates the nine project groups submitted for the first intake as well as

other identified key rail infrastructure projects. Although the additional projects are required to

support the 2030 volumes, these projects are not necessarily required to support the projected

near-term growth in the Gateway.



The additional projects included in the 2030 simulation are candidates for submission in

subsequent funding application intakes and are as follows:

● Grade separation of Piper Avenue (Burnaby) to allow one additional North or South Shore

train to stage along the BNSF New Westminster Subdivision;

● Double tracking between CN Thornton Yard and Brownsville to further support facility

expansions in the area; and,

● Road closure in New Westminster and extension of existing tracks toward the New

Westminster Rail Bridge to optimize utilization of the existing bridge infrastructure.

2.3 Gateway 2030 Simulation

The primary tool used for the capacity analysis is Berkeley Simulation Software’s Rail Traffic

Controller (RTC) program. This software is the tool used by North American Class 1 Railroads

to identify capital infrastructure projects and assess changes in rail traffic operations. The RTC

software has been used in this study to replicate train movements across the entire Gateway rail

network. The software’s outputs provide a better understanding of rail traffic demands and

infrastructure requirements along the various rail corridors. The geographic extents of the rail

simulation model are bound by the following landmarks:

● Northern extent: Capilano River;

● Eastern extent: Approximately 6 km east of the Mission Rail Bridge;

● Southern extent: Canada-US border; and,

● Western extent: Georgia Strait.

The model was successfully simulated over five days to allow trains to fully arrive and depart the

rail network. Within the five days, peak operations are also considered. Outputs from the model

have been compiled using data over the three middle days to ensure that non-daily or irregularly

scheduled trains (e.g. VIA Rail’s the Canadian passenger route) are captured within the results.

The primary metrics to describe rail network capacity are average delay minutes per train over

each 10 miles travelled and whether requested trains arrive within the same day that they were

scheduled to arrive. To simplify the results, Figure 2 (overleaf) illustrates the key landmarks

within the Greater Vancouver area and colour coded delays on vital rail segments within the rail

network.

The simulation results indicate that the Gateway rail network, while capable of handling the

anticipated trade growth, will be constrained once peak rail traffic growth reaches the 2030 train

volumes. This is particularly evident along the rail corridor that connects from CN Thornton Yard

to the North Shore Trade Area. While the rail infrastructure improvements included in the 2030

simulation will provide enough additional capacity for the network to function, additional

infrastructure and operational changes are required for any further growth and to reduce the

identified congestion at peak 2030 rail operations.

This phased approach to delivering capacity-enabling infrastructure will have the benefit of

allowing implementation timelines to adapt to increased network capacity demands as new

terminals and terminal expansion projects become operational. Furthermore, the flexibility in the

implementation schedule allows for further operational flexibility to be afforded to the railways.



Figure 2: Gateway 2030 Simulation Results in Graphical Form

The simulated volumes are based on stakeholder plans collected during the engagement

sessions. These volumes are higher than the Province’s trade commodity forecasts, which have

been estimated at a more conservative growth rate. Whether these projected volumes can be

achieved is highly dependent on whether developments occur at the terminals as planned and

on the timeline to which they are implemented. Furthermore, throughput volumes do not

instantaneously increase over night; several operational and infrastructure changes in the

supply chain will be required to achieve the simulated 2030 volumes. Therefore, stakeholders

can benefit from the simulation results by taking appropriate action in advance to plan for the

necessary infrastructure.

Moreover, the results will help guide VFPA and its consultants on which infrastructure

improvements should be given the highest priority. Additional Gateway infrastructure and

operational changes have already been identified as potential solutions to alleviate the 2030 rail

network’s observed strain. However, further simulation is required to evaluate the effectiveness

of these additional changes which could potentially reprioritize projects for the next NTCF

application intake in 2020.

Analysis of the results also verified that five of the identified infrastructure project groups with

grade separation components (groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) are urgently required within the next few

years and are essential for the rail network to meet the anticipated near-term volume growth.



Table 3 provides an overview of the grade separation projects included in the project groups

and their respective rail infrastructure opportunities. The grade separation structures will be

designed to accommodate additional rail infrastructure opportunities if the rail components are

not immediately implemented after grade separation is complete.

Table 3: Infrastructure Project Groups for Near-Term Road and Rail Growth

Group No.

Road / Rail Grade Separation Project

Rail Infrastructure Opportunity Supported Trade Area

1 Douglas Road New 18,000 ft siding and Thornton Tunnel Ventilation Upgrade

NSTA/SSTA

2 Harris Road & Kennedy Road New 16,000 ft siding for added operational flexibility NSTA/SSTA/FRTA

3 Bell Road Extend existing Matsqui siding from 6,300 ft to accommodate up to 12,000 trains

All Trade Areas

4 Centennial Road & Commissioner Street

Various track reconfiguration and new tracks for increased throughput and efficient operations

SSTA

5 Pitt River Road & Colony Farm Road

Double tracking between Sapperton and MacAulay wyes on CP Westminster Subdivision

NSTA / FRTA

6 No. 8 Road / Portside Road / Blundell Road

Extend existing yard tracks to allow more efficient train handling and enable the addition of a new bulk facility

at VFPA’s Area 5 site in Richmond

FRTA

7 Westwood Street & Kingsway Avenue

Addition of parallel track to improve operational flexibility adjacent to CP’s main switching yard

NSTA/SSTA/FRTA

Proportional usage of the capacity-enabling infrastructure is summarized in Table 4 below. The

usage was allocated based on the future anticipated growth tonnages moved through the

Gateway to the various Trade Areas using assumed routings through the existing rail corridors.

Table 4: Usage breakdown of infrastructure improvement projects by Trade Areas

Usage Percentage (Split by Trade Areas)

Group No.

Infrastructure Projects North Shore Trade Area

South Shore Trade Area

Fraser River Trade Area

Roberts Bank Trade Area

1 Douglas Road Grade Separation 73% 27% --- ---

Thornton Tunnel Ventilation Upgrade 100% --- --- ---

2 Harris Road and Kennedy Road Grade Separations

31% 59% 10% ---

3 Bell Road Grade Separation 27% 20% 19% 34%

4 BIRRIP --- 100% --- ---

5 Pitt River Road and Colony Farm Road Grade Separations

76% --- 24% ---

6 No. 8 Road / Portside Road / Blundell Road Grade Separation

--- --- 100% ---

7 Westwood Street Grade Separation --- 100% --- ---

Kingsway Avenue Grade Separation 76% --- 24% ---

8 Mountain Highway Underpass 100% --- --- ---

Note: Whistle Cessation and Rail Crossing Information System Project has been excluded as it primarily benefits the surrounding residential communities as well as the road traffic users.

However, given the complex and potentially ever-changing environment that railroads operate

under, the proportional usage breakdown by Trade Area presented in Table 4 would change

should operations differ from those currently modelled and would warrant revisiting.



mottmac.com

Project: Second Narrows Rail Bridge Capacity Analysis

Our reference: 397107-MMD-05-P0-MO-RW-0001 Rev 0 Your reference: ---

Prepared by: W. Mak Date: 6 Nov 2020

Approved by: J. Sutcliffe Checked by: A. Wells

Subject: Summary of Rail Capacity Analysis Methodology

1 Introduction

The Second Narrows Rail Bridge (SNB) is a vertical-lift railway bridge that crosses the Burrard Inlet. It provides

the only viable rail link between the North Shore Trade Area (NSTA) and the rest of the Lower Mainland’s rail

network. The rail bridge’s 160 m lift span is raised to allow transit by a variety of marine vessels, including

trade-enabling commodity carriers, tugboats, patrol boats, and pleasure craft, during which no rail movements

can occur.

In 2017, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) and its partners sought and received federal funding for

infrastructure investments to improve the rail corridor leading to the North Shore Trade Area, of which the SNB

is a part. Implementation of these projects will support trade fluidity and growth on this corridor. However, the

raising of the SNB for marine traffic consumes valuable service windows for North Shore Trade Area trains,

thereby reducing available rail capacity to the trade area. Over the next 10 to 15 years, it is expected that both

marine and rail traffic will significantly increase, and these rail-vessel conflicts will become more common.

VFPA engaged Mott MacDonald to investigate and quantify the availability, capacity, and utilization of the SNB

for rail traffic.

This document is to summarize the assumptions and methodology undertaken by Mott MacDonald (MMCL) to

determine the SNB theoretical rail capacity. Moreover, VFPA’s interpretation of the analysis outputs are

detailed at the end of the memo.

2 Methodology

The utilization of the SNB is complex; it is affected by factors such as marine and rail traffic not running to strict

timetables and marine transits being constrained to tidal limitations. The methodology adopted by Mott

MacDonald to determine a theoretical rail capacity therefore required several assumptions.

Three horizon years, 2010, 2018, and 2030, were considered for this analysis. Each horizon year was

assessed using the following process:

1. Determine the annual and daily train movements required to achieve the cross-berth terminal throughput /

demand;

2. Determine a theoretical daily average for unconstrained SNB rail capacity – assess how many train

movements the rail bridge could support if there were no marine transits; and,

Technical Memo

Mott MacDonald

VFPA

2

3. Determine a theoretical daily average for constrained SNB rail capacity – consider marine traffic demand

and subsequent bridge raising / lowering processes to determine the constrained SNB rail capacity.

Each of these components are further discussed in the sections below.

2.1 Study Area and Infrastructure

The SNB is located at the east end of the Burrard Inlet

with a number of rail-served marine terminals to the north

and CN’s Thornton Tunnel immediately to the south.

MMCL’s study area spans from today’s train staging

location east of Douglas Road crossing, at the south end,

to the rail signals on the northern side of the SNB. The rail

segment assumed for the study, as illustrated in red on

Figure 2.1, is approximately 6.3 km long and, as it is

single-tracked, can only support uni-directional train

movements. This segment is a single entity where only

one train can occupy the “signal block” between each end

of the segment at a time.

Between Douglas Road and the SNB is the 3.4 km-long

Thornton Tunnel. Between successive trains servicing the

North Shore using the tunnel, exhaust fumes from

locomotives must be cleared.

Two infrastructure scenarios were considered for the

future 2030 horizon year:

1. Do nothing: rail-related infrastructure as understood during the 2019 analysis (as per Figure 2.1); and,

2. With infrastructure improvements: closing of the Douglas Road at-grade crossing, grade separation of

Holdom Avenue, addition of a new rail siding immediately east of the Willingdon Junction, and upgrades to

the Thornton Tunnel ventilation system.

– The road closure, grade separation, and the addition of the siding track will enable CN to stage trains

closer to Willingdon Junction, thereby increasing utilization of the signal block through reduction of the

block’s occupation time.

– The Thornton Tunnel ventilation upgrades would effectively halve the current time required to clear

exhaust fumes from the tunnel, thereby extending availability of the signal block for subsequent trains.

2.2 Rail Demand

Rail demand was determined through a combination of assumptions and datasets:

● Historical cross-berth throughput data provided by VFPA;

● 2030 terminal throughput aspirations and operational changes, as captured during 2017 industry

stakeholder engagement; and,

● Current and forecasted change in train consist trends (e.g. average grain trains increasing in length from

6,000 ft up towards 8,500 ft from 2019 onwards).

Figure 2.1: SNB study area, rail segmentin red

ThorntonTunnel

Willingdon Junction

DouglasRoad

BURRARD INLET

Second Narrows Rail Bridge

North Shore Signals

Mott MacDonald

VFPA

3

The rail demand, as expressed in number of trains required per day and separated out by terminal

destinations, was derived from each horizon year’s cross-berth throughput, typical train configuration, annual

days of terminal operation, and rail car variables, such as car length and cargo load capacity.

Train lengths have a direct impact on the time it takes for a train to entirely traverse the signal block identified

in Section 2.1. Commodity type, originating location, train carrier, and availability of equipment all have an

impact on the train sizes received at the NSTA terminals. Weighted averages of each horizon year’s train

lengths were assumed for all trains traversing the study’s rail segment.

2.3 Unconstrained Bridge Capacity

In order to quantify the impact of marine traffic on the bridge’s rail capacity, the unconstrained capacity for rail

movements across the signal block was determined for each horizon year over a 24-hour period.

The terminal handling and rail operations outside of the study area were ignored or “blackholed”. The analysis

also assumed that trains are readily available on both ends of the rail segment and would alternate between

north-bound and south-bound movements. The assumed “one train in, one train out” philosophy was a

conservative assumption to not overinflate benefits of flighting multiple trains in the same direction and served

as effectively metering trains. Travel times were determined for north- and south-bound traffic. An average of

both travel times was assumed to determine the SNB rail capacity.

The first train travelling through the Thornton Tunnel for the day assumes that no tunnel ventilation is required.

Each successive train is required to wait for the clearing of exhaust fumes from the tunnel. Both infrastructure

scenarios were considered for the 2030 horizon year to assess capacity with and without improvements.

2.4 Constrained Bridge Capacity

In advance of MMCL’s analysis of the SNB rail capacity, VFPA commissioned Ausenco to carry out a separate

marine traffic simulation study to understand marine demand across the SNB. One set of marine simulation

outputs for the three horizon years was provided by Ausenco to MMCL for assessing against the rail traffic.

As tidal cycles vary day by day, MMCL’s study was completed by analysing the average day. Moreover, it is

understood that marine transits take priority over rail traffic as there are limited number of tidal windows

available to marine vessels. The remaining windows available for rail traffic were then used to determine the

number of train movements that could be supported. Any time that the bridge is available for a train movement,

but the bridge availability is insufficient for a train to fully traverse the segment, this was recorded and

considered as lost rail capacity. These three components (marine utilization, rail utilization and lost rail

capacity) are further illustrated for a sample analysis day on Figure 2.2 below.

Figure 2.2: Sample 24-hour period of SNB utilization

Mott MacDonald

VFPA

4

Once all three horizon years and 2030’s two separate infrastructure scenarios were assessed, the following

metrics were averaged over each of the horizon years:

● Bridge capacity utilization by marine traffic;

● Bridge capacity availability to rail traffic;

● Bridge capacity required to accommodate rail traffic demand; and,

● Bridge capacity lost.

3 Application of Outputs

The North Shore Trade Area is unique in having only one rail connection to the rest of the rail network. As a

result, it has a heavy reliance on the capacity of the Second Narrows Rail Bridge to meet throughput targets

and continue accommodate growth in the trade area. Despite introducing additional rail capacity to the trade

area, bridge openings to support marine activities will reduce rail capacity benefits enabled by the proposed

infrastructure.

Using the outputs from the rail bridge capacity analysis, VFPA has determined that:

● The marine traffic demand will be responsible for 37% of the available capacity of the Second Narrows Rail

Bridge; and,

● Rail movements to / from the North Shore Trade Area will be responsible for 63% of the bridge’s available

capacity.

Disclaimer:

This Report has been prepared solely for use by the party which commissioned it (the 'Client') in connection with the captioned project. It

should not be used for any other purpose. No person other than the Client or any party who has expressly agreed terms of reliance with us (the

'Recipient(s)') may rely on the content, information or any views expressed in the Report. This Report is confidential and contains proprietary

intellectual property and we accept no duty of care, responsibility or liability to any other recipient of this Report. No representation, warranty or

undertaking, express or implied, is made and no responsibility or liability is accepted by us to any party other than the Client or any

Recipient(s), as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this Report. For the avoidance of doubt this Report does not in

any way purport to include any legal, insurance or financial advice or opinion.

We disclaim all and any liability whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise which we might otherwise have to any party other than the Client

or the Recipient(s), in respect of this Report, or any information contained in it. We accept no responsibility for any error or omission in the

Report which is due to an error or omission in data, information or statements supplied to us by other parties including the Client (the 'Data').

We have not independently verified the Data or otherwise examined it to determine the accuracy, completeness, sufficiency for any purpose or

feasibility for any particular outcome including financial.

Forecasts presented in this document were prepared using the Data and the Report is dependent or based on the Data. Inevitably, some of the

assumptions used to develop the forecasts will not be realised and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Consequently, we do

not guarantee or warrant the conclusions contained in the Report as there are likely to be differences between the forecasts and the actual

results and those differences may be material. While we consider that the information and opinions given in this Report are sound all parties

must rely on their own skill and judgement when making use of it.

Information and opinions are current only as of the date of the Report and we accept no responsibility for updating such information or opinion.

It should, therefore, not be assumed that any such information or opinion continues to be accurate subsequent to the date of the Report. Under

no circumstances may this Report or any extract or summary thereof be used in connection with any public or private securities offering

including any related memorandum or prospectus for any securities offering or stock exchange listing or announcement.

By acceptance of this Report you agree to be bound by this disclaimer. This disclaimer and any issues, disputes or claims arising out of or in

connection with it (whether contractual or non-contractual in nature such as claims in tort, from breach of statute or regulation or otherwise)

shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of Canada to the exclusion of all conflict of laws principles and rules. All

disputes or claims arising out of or relating to this disclaimer shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian courts to which the

parties irrevocably submit.

Summary of cost-benefit/impact analyses

Documents

Transcript of Summary of cost-benefit/impact analyses