GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT PHASE 3 PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT MARCH 2016

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i 1. OVERVIEW... 1 1.1 About the Project... 1 1.2 Previous Consultation and Engagement... 1 1.3 About this Report... 2 2. PHASE 3 CONSULTATION PROCESS... 2 2.1 Overview... 2 2.2 Notification... 3 2.3 Engagement Methods... 3 3. PARTICIPATION... 5 4. SUMMARY OF INPUT... 5 4.1 Participant Mix... 5 4.2 Summary of Input from All Sources... 6 4.3 Stakeholder Meetings Summary... 7 4.4 Open Houses Summary... 10 4.5 Feedback Forms Summary... 10 4.6 Written Submissions Summary... 21 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Advertisements and Other Notifications APPENDIX 2 Feedback Form APPENDIX 3 Display Boards APPENDIX 4 Stakeholder Presentation Deck APPENDIX 5 Stakeholder Meeting Notes APPENDIX 6 Written Submissions APPENDIX 7 Verbatim Responses 1 1 Available under separate cover at the Project Office 29 Mar 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY About the Project The George Massey Tunnel (Tunnel) is an important link in the regional and provincial transportation system, connecting to key gateways that fuel our national, provincial and regional economies. The Tunnel is now at capacity during the morning and afternoon rush hours and near capacity throughout the rest of the day. Population and employment on both sides of the Tunnel is forecast to continue growing, with demand at the Tunnel increasing by about 20 per cent over the next 30 years. In response to growing concerns about the impact of congestion and recognizing the age and condition of the existing George Massey Tunnel, the Government of British Columbia announced in September 2012 that planning for a replacement would begin immediately. Following two phases of public consultation, technical analysis and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders for a period of approximately three years, the Project Definition Report and business case were released for public feedback on December 16, 2015. The project scope includes replacing the Tunnel with a new 10- lane bridge (eight lanes plus two dedicated transit/high-occupancy vehicle lanes) spanning the Fraser River South Arm, decommissioning the Tunnel, and improving Highway 99 from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to Highway 91 in Delta. Proposed improvements include replacing the Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges; widening Highway 99 to accommodate dedicated transit/highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; and providing multi-use pathways for cyclists and pedestrians across the bridge that connect with the existing cycling and pedestrian networks on either side. The general alignment of the Project will follow the existing Highway 99 corridor, including across the Fraser River. The Project is designed to reduce congestion and improve travel times and reliability for commuters, transit, commercial vehicles, and tourists; improve safety; provide new travel options for cyclists and pedestrians; and provide capacity for improved transit. Consultation Process The Ministry adopted phased public and external stakeholder consultation program to support project planning and development. This included: Phase 1: Understanding the Need (November to December 2012) Focused on understanding the need and potential constraints to develop the project scope and design requirements. Phase 2: Exploring the Options (March to April 2013) Based on Phase 1 consultation results and preliminary technical work, Phase 2 sought input on the draft project scope and goals, five potential replacement scenarios and on the criteria to evaluate these options. Phase 3: Project Definition Report (December 16, 2015 to January 28, 2016) Sought feedback on the full Project scope and business case, including Project goals, design features, benefit and cost analysis, draft performance evaluation/project success measures, and tolling to fund the Project. This report summarizes input received from Phase 3 consultation, which included participation from the public and stakeholders from across the Greater Vancouver region. Phase 1 and 2 results are available under separate cover and online at masseytunnel.ca. Participation 1,037 people submitted a feedback form 258 people signed up for project update emails (in addition to the 1,487 who had previously signed up) 750 people attended the open houses 102 people representing more than 60 organizations participated in the nine stakeholder meetings 11 organizations provided written submissions 266 people emailed the Project Office 29 Mar 2016 i

310 people visited the Project Office in Richmond 67 people called the Project Information Line The Project website had 14,218 visits; the most popular downloads were: o Project Definition Report (2,677 downloads) o Business Case (286 downloads) o PDR Draft Reference Concept (256 downloads) Summary of Feedback The following is a high level summary of feedback from all sources, including stakeholder meetings, open houses, feedback form respondents and written submissions. General support for the Project overall and interest in more detail about specific elements including interchange designs, traffic forecasts, and the upcoming environmental assessment General support for the following physical scope elements: o Strong support for proposed transit, cycling and pedestrian measures o Strong support for capacity improvements to address congestion o Support for the proposed interchange improvements o Miscellaneous recommendations for additional Project scope items Respondents from Delta and Richmond were more likely to be supportive of the Project as compared with Vancouver residents, who were more likely to say that the Project is not needed Mixed support for tolling as a funding mechanism: o Most participants who commented about tolls supported tolling as a funding mechanism; however, many participants suggested that tolling should be applied in the context of a regional tolling policy o Some participants opposed any toll, for a variety of reasons Strong support for use of other funding sources such as a federal funding contribution and contributions from Port Metro Vancouver Vancouver residents were more likely than residents of other areas to indicate support for tolls, while Richmond residents were more likely to suggest tolling of all bridges at a lower rate and Delta residents were more likely to oppose tolling Concerns about potential increased traffic congestion at the Oak Street Bridge and, to a lesser extent, other Fraser River North Arm crossings Keen interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and how the Project will contribute to this Questions about tunnel decommissioning and the potential effects of increased marine traffic/industrialization of the Fraser River if the Tunnel is removed Interest in additional transit improvements including timing of potential future rapid transit extension some participants expressed a preference for transit improvements instead of the Project Some participants asked for more information about previous phases of consultation and the rationale for a new bridge as compared to other alternatives explored in Phase 2 consultation About this Report Sections 1 to 3 of this report provide the overview and context for the Project and the consultation process as well as participation levels. Section 4 summarizes the key findings from each input source, including discussions at stakeholder meetings and open houses, feedback form responses, and written submissions. Additional information is available in the report appendices. The Ministry will consider this input along with technical, financial, environmental and policy considerations as Project planning continues. This includes preparing the Application for Environmental Assessment Review, which will be submitted in spring 2016, and in confirming the funding strategy for the Project. 29 Mar 2016 ii

1. OVERVIEW 1.1 About the Project The George Massey Tunnel (Tunnel) is an important link in the regional and provincial transportation system, serving an average of 80,000 vehicles each day and connecting to key gateways that fuel our national, provincial and regional economies. Since the Tunnel opened in 1959, Metro Vancouver s population has grown considerably. The Tunnel is now at capacity during the morning and afternoon rush hours and near capacity throughout the rest of the day. Population and employment on both sides of the Tunnel is forecast to continue growing, with demand at the Tunnel increasing by about 20 per cent over the next 30 years. In response to growing concerns about the impact of congestion and recognizing the age and condition of the existing George Massey Tunnel, the Government of British Columbia announced in September 2012 that planning for a replacement would begin immediately. Since then, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (the Ministry) has been conducting technical work and consulting with municipalities, aboriginal groups, Metro Vancouver, TransLink, the agricultural community, first responders, recreational groups, local businesses, local residents, cyclists, marine users, other stakeholders, and the public to assist in developing a project scope and business case for proceeding, to ensure that Highway 99 continues to serve regional, provincial, and national transportation needs. The Project will replace the Tunnel with a new 10-lane bridge (eight lanes plus two dedicated transit/highoccupancy vehicle lanes) spanning the Fraser River South Arm, decommission the Tunnel, and improve Highway 99 from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to Highway 91 in Delta. Proposed improvements include replacing the Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges; widening Highway 99 to accommodate dedicated transit/high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; and providing multiuse pathways for cyclists and pedestrians across the bridge and to connect with the existing cycling and pedestrian networks on either side. The general alignment of the Project will follow the existing Highway 99 corridor, including across the Fraser River. The Project is designed to reduce congestion and improve travel times and reliability for commuters, transit, commercial vehicles, and tourists; improve safety; provide new travel options for cyclists and pedestrians; and provide capacity for improved transit. 1.2 Previous Consultation and Engagement Since announcement of the Project in September 2012, the Ministry has been conducting technical analysis, raising awareness about the Project, engaging interested parties in dialogue, and responding to Project-related enquiries. More than 2,000 people have participated in earlier phases of consultation as summarized below. More than 3,300 people have visited the Project Office in Richmond, and 1,745 people have signed up to receive Project e-updates. Phase 1: Understanding the Need (November to December 2012) Conducted early in the Project s planning process, this phase of consultation sought to understand travel demand, operating conditions, and opinions and interests on the importance of various design considerations. A total of 1,150 people participated in this phase of consultation. Participants identified congestion relief and economic growth as the most important factors when considering solutions for the Tunnel. Many participants strongly advocated moving forward quickly to replace the Tunnel, with many specifically indicating that doing nothing was not an option. Participants noted the importance of considering all users, including drivers, goods movers, transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians. Participants were also interested in short- term solutions while planning for a long-term solution continued. The consultation summary report and related consultation materials are available on the Project website. 29 Mar 2016 1

Phase 2: Exploring the Options (March to April 2013) Sought input on five potential Tunnel replacement scenarios and the criteria to evaluate these scenarios. More than 1,000 people participated. Participants expressed general support for Project goals and evaluation criteria. There was an overall preference for a new bridge on the existing corridor (Scenario 2), with strong opinions for and against other options, particularly maintaining and upgrading the Tunnel (Scenario 1), as well as constructing a new crossing along a new corridor to the east (Scenario 5). Participants asked questions and expressed concerns about the safety of tunnels and sought confirmation that plans for the new bridge would allow for future rapid transit. Participants also requested more information about cost and funding options. The consultation summary report and related consultation materials are available on the Project website. Community and Stakeholder Engagement (ongoing) Following completion of Phase 2 consultation, the Ministry has continued to engage with stakeholders and community members as Project planning continued. This has included: More than 90 presentations to business, professional and community groups Meetings with City of Richmond and Corporation of Delta representatives (more than 60 meetings held with each municipality since December 2012) More than 180 meetings with other municipalities, regulatory agencies, elected officials, regional government agencies, agricultural organizations, business organizations, community and resident groups, commercial and recreational marine users, cycling groups, and first responders Meetings with First Nations as part of a separate, but related, Aboriginal Engagement program 1.3 About this Report This report provides a summary of feedback received during Phase 3: Project Definition Report (December 16, 2015 January 28, 2016), which sought feedback on the full Project scope and business case, including Project goals, design features, benefit and cost analysis, draft performance evaluation/project success measures, and tolling to fund the Project. The Project Definition Report and related documents including consultation display boards, a technical presentation, draft reference concept drawings, and the feedback form are available on the Project website. Feedback was gathered through the feedback form, stakeholder group meetings, open houses and written submissions. 2. PHASE 3 CONSULTATION PROCESS 2.1 Overview The Ministry undertook Phase 3 consultation (December 16, 2015 to January 28, 2016) to seek feedback on the Project Definition Report, the business case and tolling as a funding source. Key tools and activities during the six-week consultation period included advertising and notification, email and social media engagement, stakeholder meetings, two open houses, and a feedback form available in print and online. Details about the forms of notification and timing for each are presented in the subsections below. The Ministry will consider this input along with technical, financial, environmental and policy considerations as Project planning continues. This includes preparing the Application for Environmental Assessment Review, which will be submitted in spring 2016, and in confirming the funding strategy for the Project. 29 Mar 2016 2

2.2 Notification The Ministry invited public participation through a variety of communication techniques as identified in the following table. Copies of all notification materials are included in Appendix 1. Form of Notification Newspaper advertising Description Consultation launch public notices in the Vancouver Sun, The Province, the Richmond News and the Delta Optimist Date(s) 17-18 December, 2015 Media event and release Public notices placed in the Vancouver Sun and The Province, and eight Lower Mainland community newspapers including one Punjabi language and two Chinese language newspapers, to announce open house dates Media event at the Project Office in Richmond to launch consultation, as well as a media release and two backgrounders distributed to Lower Mainland media outlets, which generated significant media coverage 11-14 January 2016 16 December 2015 Media release Media release to announce consultation open house dates 14 January 2016 Website Three public notices posted online at masseytunnel.ca 16 December 2015 4 & 26 January 2016 Social media 17 tweets @TranBC 16 December 2015-28 January 2016 Project Information Office Email and letter drop notices Stakeholder meeting invitations Follow Up Phone Calls Office hours: 8:30 4:30 p.m. (Mon-Fri) Information line: 1-8-555-MASSEY staffed during regular office hours, with target response call within two business days or less Email: masseytunnel@gov.bc.ca 3 emails sent to the 1,700+ Project database subscribers 21 letters distributed to residents living at Riverwoods in Delta, adjacent to the Tunnel Invitations to 28 stakeholder groups as well as elected officials in Delta and Richmond Follow up phone calls and emails were made to remind stakeholders about the open houses and feedback opportunities Office opened January 2014 Phone/email since November 2012 16 &17 December 2015 26 January 2016 22 January 2016 16 December 2015 Weeks of 16 December 2015 and 28 January 2016 2.3 Engagement Methods 2.3.1 Online Engagement As with previous phases of consultation, the primary hub for Phase 3 information was the Project website, masseytunnel.ca, which was built and promoted on the GovTogetherBC engagement platform. 29 Mar 2016 3

2.3.2 Consultation Discussion Guide and Feedback Form The 40-page Project Definition Report served as the consultation discussion guide, providing information about the Project and the consultation topics. A 20-question feedback form invited questions and comments about the project scope, traffic management during construction, the upcoming environmental review, level of agreement with specific Project elements, draft Project evaluation/success measures, and tolling as a funding source. The Project Definition Report and feedback form were available in hard copy at the open houses, stakeholder meetings, and the Project Office as well as online throughout the consultation period. 2.3.3 Stakeholder Meetings The Ministry hosted nine meetings with stakeholder groups who requested an opportunity to discuss the Project in more detail, including two City of Richmond committees, as noted in the following table: Stakeholder Group Date Vancouver Board of Trade Transportation Committee 18 December 2015 Richmond Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors 12 January 2016 Cycling groups 12 January 2016 BC Trucking Association 13 January 2016 City of Richmond Active Transportation Committee 13 January 2016 Steveston 20-20 Group (a group representing Steveston Village non-profit organizations) 18 January 2016 City of Richmond General Purposes Committee 18 January 2016 Rotary Club of Steveston 19 January 2016 Richmond Farmers Institute 25 January 2016 Meetings included a presentation from Project staff followed by a facilitated discussion. Meeting notes were taken to capture the key themes and discussion at each meeting (see Appendix 5). 2.3.4 Open Houses The Ministry hosted two open houses, as noted in the table below. These open houses were jointly hosted by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) and the Ministry, and provided participants an opportunity to ask questions and to comment on the Project Definition Report (Phase 3 consultation) and the Project Description and Key Areas of Study (pre-application for the environmental review). Each open house included an informal drop-in style session where participants could view display boards and Project design reference concepts, and speak with Project staff. Each participant was asked to sign in and was offered a copy of the Project Definition Report guide and hard copy feedback form. Open houses were scheduled late in the Phase 3 consultation period to run concurrent with the environmental assessment public comment period, which commenced on 15 January 2016. This ensured that interested parties would not have to attend two consultation events in short succession. Community Date/Time Venue Richmond Tuesday, January 26, 2016 2:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Delta Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Sandman Signature Hotel Vancouver Airport Round Room 10251 St. Edwards Drive, Richmond, BC Delta Town & Country Inn Ballroom 6005 Highway 17A, Delta, BC 29 Mar 2016 4

2.3.5 Other Methods Throughout the Phase 3 consultation, members of the public continued to visit the Project Office and the telephone and email enquiry program established in November 2012 to manage and respond to Projectrelated questions. Project staff responded to email inquiries, generally within two business days. 3. PARTICIPATION Format Website Open Houses Stakeholder Meetings Feedback Forms Project Office Written Submissions Participation More than 14,200 website visits during the consultation period 258 people signed up for Project update emails (in addition to the 1,487 people who had previously signed up) 750 people attended the open houses, which were reported by 19 media outlets 102 attendees representing at least 60 organizations participated 1,037 people completed feedback forms, of which 905 were completed online 310 people visited the Project Office 67 people called the Project Information Line 266 people sent emails 11 organizations provided written submissions 4. SUMMARY OF INPUT Input was collected through four key sources stakeholder meetings, open houses, the feedback form and written submissions. Key theme summary results from each of these sources are described in the subsections that follow. 4.1 Participant Mix Most stakeholder meeting and open house participants live in Delta and Richmond; 42 per cent of feedback form respondents were from these municipalities. Approximately one quarter of feedback form respondents who live in Delta work in Vancouver and about 13 per cent work in Richmond. Richmond respondents work primarily in Richmond (41 per cent) or Vancouver (15 per cent). Of the 20 per cent of feedback form respondents from Vancouver, most (75 per cent) work in locations that don t require use of the Tunnel. Stakeholder meeting participants tended to be frequent users of the Tunnel, and just over half (54 per cent) of feedback form respondents use the Tunnel at least once per week. Most (63 per cent) of respondents indicated they will use the new crossing about the same amount of time as they do today, while 13 per cent will use it more and 19 per cent will use it less frequently once the Project is complete. Participants from all sources represented a broad mix of mode shares. Feedback form respondents were primarily transit or carpool users (53 per cent), followed by single occupant vehicle drivers (39 per cent). 29 Mar 2016 5

4.2 Summary of Input from All Sources 4.2.1 Project Scope General support for the Project overall and interest in more detail about specific elements including interchange designs, traffic forecasts, and the upcoming environmental assessment General support for the following physical scope elements: o Strong support for proposed transit, cycling and pedestrian measures o Strong support for capacity improvements to address congestion o Support for the proposed interchange improvements o Miscellaneous recommendations for additional Project scope items Respondents from Delta and Richmond were more likely to be supportive of the Project as compared with Vancouver residents, who were more likely to say that the Project is not needed 4.2.2 Funding Mixed support for tolling as a funding mechanism: o Most participants who commented about tolls supported tolling as a funding mechanism; however, many participants suggested that tolling should be applied in the context of a regional tolling policy some for reasons of equity and others as a potential means to lower the cost of the toll o Some participants opposed any toll, for a variety of reasons Strong support for use of other funding sources such as a federal funding contribution and contributions from Port Metro Vancouver Vancouver residents were more likely than residents of other areas to indicate support for tolls, while Richmond residents were more likely to suggest tolling of all bridges at a lower rate and Delta residents were more likely to oppose tolling 4.2.3 Other Themes Concerns about potential increased traffic congestion at the Oak Street Bridge and, to a lesser extent, other Fraser River North Arm crossings Keen interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and how the Project will contribute to this Questions about tunnel decommissioning and the potential effects of increased marine traffic/industrialization of the Fraser River if the Tunnel is removed Interest in additional transit improvements including timing of potential future rapid transit extension some participants expressed a preference for transit improvements instead of the Project Some participants asked for more information about previous phases of consultation and the rationale for a new bridge as compared to other alternatives explored in Phase 2 consultation 29 Mar 2016 6

4.3 Stakeholder Meetings Summary The Project Team attended meetings with stakeholder groups on request. The following table provides a summary of key themes from each of these meetings. Organization Vancouver Board of Trade Transportation Committee (18 December 2015) Richmond Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors (12 January 2016) Cycling groups (12 January 2016) Date Strong support for the Project Appreciation for the full Project scope, particularly improvements at Highway 91/Westminster Highway Discussion of Highway 99 as an important national and provincial trade and tourism corridor, and the need for efficient goods movement Support for tolling and suggestion that tolls collected should also be used to help fund the next phase of improvements in the future Questions about plans to review the provincial tolling policy and consideration of regional tolling Questions about potential effects on congestion at the Oak Street Bridge given that traffic is primarily regulated by the traffic lights at 70 th Avenue in Vancouver Questions about HOV traffic merging to and from designated HOV lanes Strong support for the Project Questions about funding, including how much will be funded through user tolls, how much federal funding can be anticipated, if any, and potential future plans for regional tolling Questions about how the Project benefits were quantified Questions about soil conditions in the area Preference for a Blundell interchange, but expectation that highway widening between Steveston Highway and Westminster Highway may go a long way to addressing congestion in this area of the Highway 99 corridor The meeting included a detailed discussion of proposed cycling improvements at Bridgeport, Odlin/Shell Road, Westminster Highway, Blundell Road, Steveston Highway and River Road, and across the new bridge. Key themes were: Strong support for the proposed improvements, and preference for considering additional improvements within the Highway 99 corridor Preference for bi-directional multi-use paths on both sides of the bridge, for convenience and as a traffic calming measure; if path is only on one side of the bridge, ensure efficient cross access routes to and from it Preference for the multi-use path(s) to be under the bridge, as a weather protection measure Suggestion to use the Golden Ears Bridge cycling access/connections as a best practice guide, including signs, sight lines, grades, etc. Recommended using a skid-resistant surface and reflective markings, given the planned grade (5 per cent) of the new bridge Request to design connections to cycling networks and to the integrated transit stops in a manner that appropriately considers the needs of all cyclists (all ages and abilities) Suggested adding zero fatality as a specific goal and to include cycling incidents in the Project s performance measures Request for more information about the cycling connections planned on the south side of the river 29 Mar 2016 7

Organization BC Trucking Association (13 January 2016) City of Richmond Active Transportation Committee (13 January 2016) Steveston 20-20 Group (18 January 2016) Date Strong support for the Project, including the new Rice Mill Road accesses at Steveston Highway/Highway 99 Questions about traffic management during construction, and recommendation to convene a traffic management advisory committee to assist in planning and evaluating traffic management measures Questions about soil conditions Specific questions about the reference concept Questions about procurement timing and use of local suppliers Questions about what future developments are included in traffic forecasts (e.g. build out of Deltaport Terminal 2) Questions about traffic forecasts with respect to tolling Questions about Tunnel decommissioning The meeting included a detailed discussion of proposed cycling improvements at Bridgeport, Odlin/Shell Road, Westminster Highway, Blundell Road, Steveston Highway and River Road, and across the new bridge. Key themes were: Strong support for the proposed cycling improvements, particularly at Westminster Highway and Steveston Highway Recommended additional improvements at Bridgeport/Van Horne Discussion of options for ramp connections to/from the new bridge some prefer spirals, while some prefer switchbacks provided that the turning radii are large enough Suggestion to have one-way cycling traffic similar to the Burrard Street Bridge, given the likelihood for significantly increased demand; would require good connections and clear information signs Recommendations for human scale lighting along the bridge suggestion to use the City of Richmond s trail system lighting standards Support for proposed transit improvements and questions about when rapid transit will be extended Questions about feedback to date on tolling measures and potential consideration of region-wide tolling Questions about the toll rate and potential effects on Alex Fraser Bridge as a free alternative Questions about how the Tunnel will be decommissioned Questions about the traffic forecasting methodology and how traffic volumes on other tolled bridges compare with forecasts Questions about trucks/heavy construction equipment and potential effects on traffic during construction Appreciation for the presentation and the level of information provided Questions about traffic volumes and how the most recent origindestination data was collected Questions about the Steveston Highway interchange design and where the additional Highway 99 lanes will pick up and drop off Questions about the toll payback period assumptions, how much federal funding and municipal funding is anticipated, and if the Project can proceed without a federal contribution Questions about Tunnel decommissioning and whether the decommissioned tunnel could remain in place rather than be removed Questions about how rapid transit will be incorporated in the future Questions about the potential popularity of the new multi-use paths and anticipated volume of cyclists and pedestrians as well as suicide prevention measures on the new bridge 29 Mar 2016 8

Organization City of Richmond General Purposes Committee (18 January 2016) Rotary Club of Steveston (19 January 2016) Richmond Farmers Institute (25 January 2016) Date Preference for an upgraded tunnel instead of a new bridge Questions about impacts to agricultural land and request for confirmation that the Project will result in no net loss of ALR as well as information about the quality of land expected to be returned for agricultural use Concern that the Project may negatively affect plans for agricultural development as part of the City of Richmond s Back Lands policy Concerns about potential impacts to Oak Street Bridge and questions about the validity of recent origin-destination traffic statistics Recommendation that the Ministry work with the City of Vancouver to improve timing of signal lights at 70 th Avenue Questions about the benefits of a new bridge as compared with a new tunnel and about constructability given soil conditions in the area Preference to extend rapid transit as part of, or instead of, the Project Desire for assurances that TransLink will deliver improved transit service to make use of the transit infrastructure improvements planned as part of the Project Concern about potential impacts to Richmond roads and questions about whether the Project includes funding for local road improvements Concerns about potential increased shipping/industrialization of the Fraser River General support for the Project and appreciation for the cycling, transit and pedestrian scope elements Questions about how a new bridge was selected as the preferred option as compared with a new tunnel Questions about seismic challenges with the Tunnel and the improved seismic standards of a new bridge Questions about how the traffic data was collected Questions about when rapid transit will be incorporated in the future Questions about traffic management during construction and how impacts will be avoided Suggestion to include new park and ride facilities as part of the Project Suggestion to consider improved access to the Vancouver International Airport as part of the Project scope General support for the Project, given plans for no net loss of agricultural land, improved drainage on Highway 99 and better access within Richmond Strong support for plans to use median barriers on Highway 99, which will also help with flood control and avoid the need for construction of a mid-island dike elsewhere Discussion of potential salt wedge effects associated if deeper dredging happens in the future (Ministry and RFI studies are ongoing) Preference for an interchange at Blundell Road as part of the Project Request to ensure that the Rice Mill Road access under the new bridge be wide enough to accommodate farm vehicles Request to ensure that all new underpasses/overpasses are built to accommodate farm vehicles Questions about seismic risk 29 Mar 2016 9

4.4 Open Houses Summary Two open houses were held during which participants had the opportunity to speak with Project staff and technical specialists as well as EAO staff. Project staff made note of their interactions with participants, which are summarized in the following table. Event Richmond (26 January 2016) Delta (27 January 2016) Key Themes General support for the Project, particularly with respect to Steveston Highway interchange improvements and transit improvements at Bridgeport Road Questions of clarification about the Project scope, including height/footprint of the new Steveston interchange Concerns about potential impacts to the Oak Street Bridge and other North Arm crossings between Richmond and Vancouver Concerns about potential effects to agricultural land Questions about the origin-destination traffic data Concerns about increased industrialization of the Fraser River Most people support the Project but many had concerns about tolling and related effects for people living south of the Fraser River Concerns about port expansion and the potential for larger vessels to begin using this area of the Fraser River Suggestions that Port Metro Vancouver should assist in funding the Project Concerns about temporary construction impacts, given the amount of construction that has happened in Delta over the past several years Questions about potential effects to migratory birds Questions about implications for the salt wedge Questions about increased transit and potential new park and ride areas Questions about how impacts to Deas Island Regional Park and the neighbouring sloughs will be avoided Concerns about potential increased noise levels during construction and long-term operation of the new bridge Questions about access to/from Highway 99, especially at River Road 4.5 Feedback Forms Summary The Ministry received 1,037 feedback form responses during the consultation period. Nine people sent in feedback forms from previous phases of consultation and these have been recorded as input but are not incorporated into the response summaries included below. It is important to note that almost all respondents answered questions about the Project scope elements and tolling (questions 5-7 and 9), and most responded to the demographic questions. Significantly fewer respondents provided comments or questions about other aspects about the Project. The number of respondents is noted for each question in the sections that follow. 29 Mar 2016 10

4.5.1 Project Scope Elements Participants were invited to provide comments or questions about the Project scope. Q1. The Project includes a new 10-lane bridge to replace the Tunnel, reconstructing the Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges, a multi-use pathway for cyclists and pedestrians on the new bridge, new transit/hov lanes and improvements to Highway 99 between Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91 in Delta. What questions do you have, if any, about the draft project scope? 309 respondents (30%) provided no comments 55 respondents (5%) specifically stated they have no concerns 664 respondents (65%) provided comments or questions o 24% were generally supportive o 31% indicated conditional support o 10% were generally opposed Key themes are summarized in the following table. Comments/Questions About Project Scope (n=1,028) Top Key Themes # Respondents % Did not answer 309 30% Requests for improvements to rapid transit as part of Project scope 103 10% Concerns about Oak Street Bridge traffic effects 69 7% Other Key Themes Comments that the bridge is too big/too many lanes 62 6% Statements that respondent has no comments/concerns 55 5% Requests for improvements to other highways and bridges in region 50 5% Questions about bridge exits/entrances and highway interchanges 41 4% Comments about tolling 33 3% Questions about potential traffic and noise management during construction 31 3% Comments about the pedestrian and bike multi-use pathway 29 3% Preference for an updated tunnel instead of a new bridge 29 3% Suggestion to toll all bridges 24 2% Statements of support for the Project 23 2% Questions about construction and procurement 23 2% Questions about why the Project did not go to plebiscite/referendum 23 2% Note: Respondents may have commented on more than one topic. 29 Mar 2016 11

Q5. Please rate your level of agreement with the proposed transit/hov lane extensions, which would add one lane in each direction to the new crossing for use by transit and carpool vehicles with two or more persons. 73% of respondents agree (49% strongly, 24% somewhat) with transit/hov lanes 12% of respondents disagree (8% strongly, 4% somewhat) 9% neither agree nor disagree 6% of respondents did not answer the question Disagree 4% Neither Agree nor Disagree 9% Strongly Disagree 8% No answer 6% Strongly Agree 49% Agree 24% Respondent base = 1,028 Q6. Please rate your level of agreement with the proposed addition of one general-purpose traffic lane in each direction, which would provide room for slower-moving and merging traffic, and accommodate for future growth, while maintaining the three lanes in each direction for other traffic that exist in the peak direction today. 54% of respondents agree (34% strongly, 20% somewhat) with the additional general purpose lanes No answer 7% 24% of respondents disagree (17% strongly, 7% somewhat) 15% neither agree nor disagree 7% of respondents did not answer the question Disagree 7% Strongly Disagree 17% Strongly Agree 34% Neither Agree nor Disagree 15% Agree 20% Respondent base = 1,028 29 Mar 2016 12

Q7. Please rate your level of agreement with the proposed multi-use pathway on the bridge for cyclists and pedestrians, connecting to Steveston Highway in Richmond and River Road in Delta. 69% of respondents agree (48% strongly, 21% somewhat) with the proposed multi-use pathway 14% of respondents disagree (8% strongly, 6% somewhat) 11% neither agree nor disagree 6% of respondents did not answer the question Strongly Disagree 8% Disagree 6% Neither Agree nor Disagree 11% No answer 6% Strongly Agree 48% Agree 21% Respondent base = 1,028 4.5.2 Traffic Management During Construction Participants were invited comment or ask questions about traffic management during construction. Q2. The new bridge and Highway 99 improvements will be constructed while keeping traffic as it does today. This includes maintaining counterflow operations throughout construction. What questions do you have, if any, about traffic management during construction? 559 respondents (54%) provided no comments 104 respondents (10%) specifically stated they have no concerns 365 respondents (36%) provided comments or questions, as highlighted in the table below: Comments/Questions About Traffic Management During Construction (n=1,028) Top Key Themes # Respondents % Did not answer 559 54% Statements that respondent has no comments/concerns 104 10% Questions about the traffic management plan 68 7% Other Key Themes Questions about Tunnel operations during construction 27 3% Questions about congestion impacts during construction 27 3% Statements of opposition to the Project 26 3% Questions about impacts to interchange traffic flow during construction 24 2% Concern about increased traffic on alternate routes during construction 23 2% Questions/suggestions for increased/improved transit during construction 23 2% Questions about construction hours of work/time of day 19 2% Other Key Themes # Respondents % Concerns about construction delays 16 2% Concern about traffic flow in Ladner during construction 15 1% Concern about environmental impacts during construction 12 1% Statements of support for the Project 10 1% Note: Respondents may have commented on more than one topic. 29 Mar 2016 13

4.5.3 Environmental Assessment Review Participants were invited to provide comments or questions for the Ministry and the EAO to consider during the upcoming environmental assessment review. Q3. The Project will undergo Provincial Environmental Assessment review, which will consider the potential effects of the Project and how to appropriately address them. What questions do you have, if any, about the environmental review for this Project? 509 respondents (50%) provided no comments 95 respondents (9%) specifically stated they have no concerns or comments 424 respondents (41%) provided comments or questions. Of these: o 33% were generally supportive o 22% indicated conditional support o 13% were generally opposed Key themes are summarized in the following table. Comments/Questions About Environmental Assessment Review (n=1,028) Top Key Themes # Respondents % Did not answer 509 50% Statements that respondent has no comments/concerns 95 9% Questions and comments about the transparency of the process 60 6% Questions about the Environmental Assessment review process 60 6% Other Key Themes Questions about impacts to farm land (Agricultural Land Reserve) 52 5% Questions about climate change, GHG and emissions 50 5% Comments and questions about impacts to wildlife 31 3% Questions about increased traffic on the corridor 23 2% Questions about potential increases in marine traffic 21 2% Questions about tunnel decommissioning 19 2% Comments and suggestions for improvements to rapid transit 17 2% Comments and questions about impacts to fish and fish habitat 16 1% Questions about potential noise impacts during construction 14 1% Questions about impacts of construction 13 1% Statements of support for the Project 13 1% Note: Respondents may have commented on more than one topic. Specific comments and questions related to the environment are being considered as part of the Environmental Review process. Many comments mirror those sent directly to the Environmental Assessment Office during the concurrent public comment period for the Project Description and Key Areas of Study. The Ministry will prepare an overview of comments received during PDR consultation and submit this to the EAO. 29 Mar 2016 14

4.5.4 Project Success Measures Participants were invited to provide comments or recommended changes to draft performance/project success measures in determining success in achieving each of the Project goals as identified in the Project Definition Report. Q8. Page 30 of the Project Definition Report provides information on how each of the Project goals will be measured and evaluated. Would you add or change any measurements to help determine the Project s success? 529 respondents (51%) provided no comments 90 respondents (9%) specifically stated they have no concerns 409 respondents (40%) provided comments or questions Comments specifically related to recommended changes or new project success measures include: Traffic Measures Increased transit capacity and ridership Change in mode share including cycling and walking Change in transit travel time Change in emergency response times Change in vehicle-kilometres travelled Change in vehicle idling times Change in traffic volumes on other crossings Number of cars per capita Environmental Measures Air quality Carbon footprint/greenhouse Gas emissions Farmland protection Silt levels in Green Slough/changes in water quality Drainage and stormwater runoff General comments about a need for more specific environmental success measures Economic Measures Improved goods movement flow Economic benefit of construction jobs Economic impact of tolls on south of Fraser residents Toll payback period Community Development Measures Change in residential/industrial development patterns Surveys of business customers in Richmond and Delta Aesthetic design of the new bridge Construction Performance Measures On time/early completion On or under budget at completion Keeping traffic moving during construction Many respondents used this question as an opportunity to reinforce earlier comments rather than to recommend new measures. Results of the key themes are as follows: Comments/Questions About Project Success Measurements (n=1,028) Top Key Themes # Respondents % Did not answer 529 51% Statements that respondent has no comments/concerns 90 9% Requests for improvements to rapid transit 70 7% Other Key Themes Comments about reduced traffic congestion 42 4% Comments about increased traffic on alternate routes 35 3% Comments and complaints about process and transparency 31 3% Comments about bridge usage by cyclists and pedestrians 28 3% Statements of opposition to the Project 28 3% Miscellaneous comments about the Project scope 27 3% Comments about alternate crossing options 26 3% Comments about climate change, GHG and emissions 26 3% Comments about the overall Project budget 25 2% 29 Mar 2016 15

Comments/Questions About Project Success Measurements (n=1,028) Comments about potential environmental impacts 24 2% Requests for no tolls 21 2% Comments on tolling 18 2% Note: Respondents may have commented on more than one topic. 4.5.5 Other Comments and Questions The Project Definition Report outlines the proposed Project scope, rationale, and the business case for the Project moving forward. Participants were invited to offer any specific questions. Q4. What other questions do you have, if any, as the Project moves forward? 432 respondents (42%) did not have any questions 28 respondents (3%) specifically stated they have no concerns 568 respondents (55%) provided comments or questions Key themes of questions are summarized in the following table. Key Comments/Questions as the Project Moves Forward (n=1,028) Top Key Themes # Respondents % Did not answer 432 42% Questions about tolling operations and costs 82 8% Questions about transit improvements and increased service 80 8% Other Key Themes Questions about Project funding and budget 60 6% Statements of opposition to the Project 45 4% Statements of opposition to tolling 36 4% Questions about the why the Project did not go to plebiscite/referendum 35 3% Questions and comments about the Project planning process and transparency 32 3% Questions about Project scope 31 3% Suggestions to toll all bridges 30 3% Statements that respondent has no comments/concerns 28 3% Questions about potential increased congestion at Oak Street Bridge 23 2% Questions and comments about the consultation process 21 2% Statements of support for the Project 20 2% Questions/comments about specific highway interchanges 20 2% Concerns about increased traffic on alternate routes 20 2% Questions about alternate crossing options 20 2% Note: Respondents may have commented on more than one topic. In addition, some participants took the opportunity to provide additional comments (Q20). 446 respondents (43%) did not provide additional comments 582 respondents (57%) provided comments 29 Mar 2016 16

Key themes of these comments are summarized below. Additional Comments/Questions (n=1,028) Top Key Themes # Respondents % Did not answer 446 43% Statements of opposition to tolling 180 18% Other Key Themes Appreciation for opportunity to comment and consultation process 96 9% Recommendations for various transit improvements and service increases 75 7% General concerns about potential environmental impacts 66 6% Recommend lower toll rates/discounted toll rates 43 4% Concerns about increased traffic on alternate routes 40 4% Comments about the Project process and transparency 27 3% Comments about the size of the new bridge (too many lanes) 25 2% Comments about the bridge design 17 2% Comments about the pedestrian and bike multi-use pathway 12 1% Statements of support for the Project 12 1% Questions about potential for increased marine traffic 12 1% Statements of opposition to the Project 10 1% Suggestions to toll all bridges 9 1% Note: Respondents may have commented on more than one topic. 4.5.6 Tolling as a Funding Source Participants were invited to provide comments about tolling as a funding source. Q9. The Province intends to fund the Project through user tolls and is working with the federal government to determine potential funding partnerships. Please provide your comments about tolling as a funding source. 154 respondents (15%) provided no comments 874 respondents (85%) provided comments or questions. Of these: o 13% support of tolling as proposed o 44% indicated conditional support for tolling (lower toll or toll all bridges) o 14% recommended alternative sources of funding o 22% opposed tolling Vancouver residents were more likely than residents of other areas to indicate support for tolls as a funding source generally. Richmond residents were more likely to indicate support for tolling if all bridges were tolled at a lower rate, while Delta residents were more likely than other respondents to oppose tolling about 26 per cent of respondents from Delta indicated a preference for no tolls. 29 Mar 2016 17