RAVP Consultation Summary Report. Richmond Airport Vancouver Consultation

RAVP Consultation Summary Report
TA B L E O F CO N T E N T S
i 1. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1.1 Consultation Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 1.2 Consultation Methods and Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 1.3 How Public Feedback Will Be Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Consultation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2.1 Feedback Form Results (quantitative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2.1.1 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2.1.2 Comparison of Consultation Results (Quantitative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 with Attitude Survey Results (Synovate Research) 2.2 Feedback Form Results (qualitative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 2.2.1 Key-Theme Summary Vancouver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 2.2.2 Key-Theme Summary Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 2.3 Key-Theme Summary of Public Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 2.3.1 Key-Theme Summary Richmond Public Workshop (Mar.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 2.3.2 Key-Theme Summary Vancouver Public Workshop (Mar.12) . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 2.3.3 Key-Theme Summary Vancouver Public Workshop (Mar.15) . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 2.4 Key-Theme Summary of Small Group Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 2.5 Key-Theme Summary of Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Consultation Record (Appendices) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 3.1 Feedback Forms (quantitative) (breakdown by question) 3.2 Feedback Forms Comments (qualitative) 3.3 Public Workshops 3.4 Small Group Meetings 3.5 Correspondence 3.6 Consultation Materials Discussion Guide & Feedback Form Post Card Information Boards Website; English and Chinese www.ravprapidtransit.com Power-Point Presentation Public Notice (Sun, Province, Ming Pao, Sing Tao, Richmond News & Richmond Review) Newspaper Information Piece (Sun, Province, Ming Pao, Sing Tao)
2.
3.
KIRK & CO. CONSULTING LTD.
March, 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Consultation Summary Report This Consultation Summary Report is the record of public input related to the Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project community consultation held in March 2003. This summary provides consultation participants, the public, elected officials and agency decision makers with a quantitative and qualitative summary of community feedback regarding the proposed rail rapid transit line. The Proposed RAV Line The Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project (RAVP) is a proposed rail rapid transit line connecting central Richmond, the Airport and Sea Island, central Broadway and downtown Vancouver. While the exact alignment has not been selected, the proposed line follows No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way to the Airport, along Cambie Street into downtown Vancouver and along Granville Street, terminating at the existing Waterfront Station. The Purpose of the RAVP Community Consultation 2003 The purpose of the community consultation was to share the results of the RAVP Project Definition Phase through a consultation Discussion Guide and feedback form. Participants attended open houses, three public workshops, and 17 small group meetings. They also accessed information and provided feedback through the web, by fax, and through written correspondence. Consultation materials were available in English and Chinese. Consultation Results More than 1500 people participated in the RAVP Community Consultation. Overall, there is strong support for the proposed Richmond Airport Vancouver rail rapid transit line. Quantitative results from approximately 1300 feedback forms include: Support for Proceeding with the Proposed Line 82% somewhat or strongly agree with the project proceeding at an estimated cost of $1.5 to $1.7 billion. Support for the Route -- No. 3 Road, Grant McConachie Way, Cambie Street to Waterfront Station in downtown Vancouver 73.2% of consultation participants support the proposed route in its entirety. Underground, At Street, Above Street Level (elevated) 64.6 % of participants prefer elevated to at-street level if underground is not possible. 71.1 % of participants prefer underground to elevated if at-street level is not possible. 82.1 % of participants prefer underground to atstreet level if elevated is not possible. Qualitative results are summarized into key themes from the narrative comments collected from approximately one third of the feedback forms (400 of the1300) public workshop notes, small group meeting notes and correspondence. The qualitative comments generally fall into two groups. The first group supports the proposed project because they think it addresses issues of density and congestion. Many of these said that TransLink should get on with the project. The second group does not support the proposed project although they tend to support rapid transit to Richmond. This group wants the Arbutus Corridor used for rapid transit or they want TransLink to increase bus service to increase transit capacity. Members of both groups tend to have concerns about preserving the Cambie Heritage Boulevard and generally many think an underground system would address this concern. Some people commented on the need to support bicycle use by allowing bicycles on any new transit system and finally, some people had concerns about the role of the private sector in the proposed RAV line. How Public Feedback Will Be Used Feedback gathered through this consultation via the web, fax, newspaper information pieces, open houses, public workshops and small group meetings is recorded and summarized in this Consultation Summary Report, which will be presented with a Technical report to Contributing Agencies; TransLink, the Provincial Government, and the Airport Authority. It will also be presented to Participating Agencies; City of Vancouver, City of Richmond, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Consultation Summary Report will be posted on the web and distributed to consultation participants.
KIRK & CO. CONSULTING LTD. March, 2003
March, 2003
1. OVERVIEW
Consultation Summary Report This Consultation Summary Report is the public input record related to the Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project community consultation held in March 2003.This summary provides consultation participants, the public, elected officials and agency decision makers with a quantitative and qualitative summary of public feedback regarding the proposed rail rapid transit line. The Proposed RAV Line The Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project (RAVP) is a proposed rail rapid transit line connecting central Richmond, the Airport and Sea Island, central Broadway and downtown Vancouver. While the exact alignment has not been selected, the proposed line follows No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way to the Airport, along Cambie Street into downtown Vancouver and along Granville Street, terminating at the existing Waterfront Station. The Contributing and Participating Agencies The Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project is a collaboration of eight agencies; the Government of Canada, the Province of British Columbia, TransLink and the Vancouver International Airport Authority (Contributing Agencies) and the cities of Richmond and Vancouver, the Vancouver Port Authority and the Greater Vancouver Regional District (Participating Agencies). Why do we need a Richmond Airport Vancouver Rail Rapid Transit Line? The Vancouver/Richmond corridor is one of three trunk corridors identified for rapid transit in the GVRDs Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) and TransLinks Strategic Transportation Plan. It is also part of city planning policies in Richmond and Vancouver. In addition to transportation policy work, there have been many technical studies regarding a rapid transit connection in the north/south corridor, dating back to the 1970s. The north-south corridor between Richmond, the Airport and Vancouver is one of the busiest in the region. Over the next 20 years, population will grow significantly; by 50% in Vancouvers central business district and by 75% in central Richmond. By 2021, employment will grow by 25% in Vancouvers central business district, 70% in central Richmond and 70% at the airport. Congestion is increasing. Greater congestion slows down the movement of people and goods. It increases air pollution, hinders our economy and ultimately diminishes our overall quality-of-life. We need to add capacity in a sustainable way. How much will the Richmond Airport Vancouver Line Cost? It is estimated that a rail rapid transit line will cost $1.5 to $1.7 billion to build. Similar to virtually all transit systems in the world, a Richmond-AirportVancouver rapid transit system cannot pay for construction with fares alone and will require a significant amount of public funding. A project of this size will also require some private sector investment. TransLink, the Province and the Airport are discussing their respective contributions. These contributions, together with funding from the Federal Government, could provide sufficient public funding. The successful conclusion of these discussions will depend on funding from the Federal Government of approximately $450 million. A summary financial analysis completed by PricewaterhouseCoopers (available at www.ravprapidtransit.com) concluded that with these public sector contributions and a contribution from the private sector, the RAV rapid transit line is financially feasible. The study says that depending on the configuration, ridership will be approximately 26 38 million per year by 2010, which will produce enough fare revenue to cover operating costs in certain configurations. The RAVP Project Definition Phase The project team responsible for extensive technical and financial analysis of the proposed line over a two-year period completed the most recent phase of work, the Project Definition Phase, in February, 2003. The objective of this phase of work included: Defining the requirements of the rail rapid transit line connecting Vancouver, Richmond and the Airport; Identifying a structure to build and pay for the line; and Evaluating whether it was feasible to complete construction of the line by 2009.
March, 2003
1.1 Consultation purpose

The purpose of the community consultation was to share the results of the RAVP Project Definition Phase through a consultation Discussion Guide and feedback form. Public participation and feedback was sought through the web, a newspaper information piece, open houses, three public workshops and 17 small-group meetings during the month of March, 2003. Consultation materials were available in English and Chinese.
Feb. - Mar. Small Group Meetings 17 meetings with community organizations were scheduled in February and March. Consultation Summary Report Mar. 24-31 Consultation Summary Report will be presented with a Technical report to Contributing Agencies and Participating Agencies
1.3 How Public Feedback Will Be Used

Feedback gathered through this consultation via the web, fax, newspaper information pieces, open houses, public meetings and small group meetings is recorded and summarized in this Consultation Summary Report , which will be presented with a Technical report to Contributing Agencies; TransLink, the Provincial Government, and the Airport Authority. It will also be presented to Participating Agencies; City of Vancouver, City of Richmond, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Consultation Summary Report will be posted on the web and distributed to consultation participants.
1.2 Consultation Methods and Schedule

Public Consultation Discussion Guide & Feedback Form Mar. 3 Discussion Guide and feedback form launched on the web www.ravprapidtransit.com Mar. 3 Notice of Consultation in The Vancouver Sun, Province, Ming Pao, Sing Tao, Richmond Review and Richmond News Mar. 6 Newspaper information piece and feedback form in The Vancouver Sun & Province, Ming Pao, Sing Tao Open Houses and Public Workshops Mar. 3-14 Open Houses Open House materials displayed in Richmond and Vancouver City Halls, Vancouver International Airport and Richmond Centre Mall Mar. 8 Public Workshop Richmond. A half-day workshop using the Discussion Guide & Feedback form to focus discussion and collect feedback. Time and Location: 9:00 am 12:00 pm, Richmond City Hall No.3 Road & Granville, Council Chambers March 12 Public Workshop Vancouver. An evening public meeting included a presentation and question & answer session. The Discussion Guide was circulated and feedback collected through a feedback form. Time and Location: 6:00 pm 9:00 pm, Vancouver Public Library March 15 Public Workshop Vancouver. A half-day public meeting included a presentation and question & answer session. The Discussion Guide was circulated and feedback collected through a feedback form. Time and Location: 9:00 am 12:00 pm, Plaza 500 500 W. 12th Ave. Vancouver
March, 2003
2 . C O N S U LT A T I O N S U M M A R Y
More than 1500 people participated in the RAVP Community Consultation held in March, 2003. Participants attended open houses, three public workshops, and 17 small group meetings. They also accessed information and provided feedback through the web, by fax, and through written correspondence. Direct Travel 91.2% of participants somewhat or strongly agree, it is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not transfer between Richmond City Centre and downtown Vancouver. 89.4% of participants somewhat or strongly agree, it is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer between the airport and downtown Vancouver.
2.1 Feedback Form Results1 (quantitative)

An 18-page Discussion Guide provided consultation participants with information about the proposed rail rapid transit line and encouraged feedback through a two-page feedback form. The following summarizes quantitative feedback tabulated from 1334 feedback forms received during the RAVP Community Consultation in March 2003. 2.1.1 Summary Results2 Support for Proceeding with the Proposed Line 82 % somewhat or strongly agree with the project proceeding at an estimated cost of $1.5 to $1.7 billion.
Support for the Route -- No. 3 Road, Grant McConachie Way, Cambie Street to Waterfront Station in downtown Vancouver 73.2% of consultation participants support the proposed route in its entirety.
Travel Time 89.1% somewhat or strongly agree with the statement, with a new rail rapid transit line, the travel from Richmond Centre to Waterfront Station should be no more than 30 minutes. 87.4% somewhat or strongly agree with the statement, the travel time from the Airport to Waterfront Station should be no more than 25 minutes. (see graph, next page)
1. Refer to Appendix 3.1 for a detailed breakdown of feedback form quantitative results and Appendix 3.5 for the feedback form in the Discussion Guide and newspaper piece. 2. graphics use rounded numbers.
March, 2003
Transit use 79.5 % of participants would be somewhat or very likely to use the RAV line, if the rail rapid transit service is completed.
Underground, At Street, Above Street Level (elevated) 64.6 % of participants prefer elevated to at-street level if underground is not possible. 71.1 % of participants prefer underground to elevated if at-street level is not possible. 82.1 % of participants prefer underground to at-street level if elevated is not possible.
System Preferences Participants rate travel time, reliability of the system and easy connections as the three most important factors if they were to use the line.
10
20
30
50
60
70
80
March, 2003
Future Consultation Participants selected a variety of consultation methods for the future, showing a preference for newspaper information pieces.
The following comparison is provided by Synovate Research, a Vancouver-based international market research firm. 2.1.2 Comparison of Consultation Results (Quantitative) with Attitude Survey Results (Synovate Research)3 Total Number of Feedback Forms Attitude Survey Random Sample: 1334 501
Travel in the Corridor 62.1% of participants have taken transit within the last 30 days. 85% of participants have travelled between Vancouver and Richmond in the last 30 days.
When comparing results of two different methodologies, one needs to be cognizant of how respondents were selected for the study. In the case of the consultation Feedback Forms, participants selfselected into the process. For the Attitude Survey, it was a widely accepted random selection process. One should also be aware that in the case of feedback forms not everybody answers every question. Further, question order differences between the two studies may also play a role in yielding different responses. Typically, random samples are more statistically reliable than most forms of selfselect surveys Generally speaking, on two of the major issues; support for the project in general, and the route alignment, proportions of support or agreement are similar to that collected in the Attitude Survey. Concept Support In particular, support for the project concept is similar between the two study samples. A total of 82% of Feedback Form respondents support the RAV Project compared to 79% of the GVRD respondents in the Attitude Survey. What is worth noting, however, is that the level of strong support is markedly higher amongst Feedback Form respondents: 69% versus 45% in the Attitude Survey. Similarly,strong opposition to the project is markedly higher among Feedback Form respondents: 14% versus 7%. Route Alignment Eight-five percent of Feed back Form respondents support the route either in its entirely or at least part of it which is similar to the 79% recorded in the Attitude Survey. Again we see, however, that there is stronger support for the route in its entirety amongst Feedback Form respondents (73%) than GVRD residents in the Attitude Survey (50%).
3. Synovate has reviewed the tables that summarize the quantitative consutation results and found that the calculations are correct. Any minor differences are accounted for by rounding.
March, 2003
Grade Issues There were some differences between the two study response patterns when underground wasnt possible fewer Feedback Form respondents chose above street level than did Lower Mainland Residents in the Attitude Survey - 65% versus 71% respectively. The flip side of this is that more Feedback Form respondents chose the at street level option than did Lower Mainland Attitude Survey respondents: 35% compared to 23%. And when street level was not possible 71% of feedback Form respondents versus just 48% of Attitude Survey respondents chose underground rather than elevated . When above street level wasnt possible the results were quite similar - underground was chosen by 82% of Feedback Form Respondents compared to 70% of Attitude Survey Respondents. Likelihood to Use A markedly higher percentage of Feedback Form respondents (79%) appear to indicate they are more likely (somewhat or very) to use the new line than are Attitude Survey Lower Mainland residents (48%). Most Important Trip Aspect Comparison of results between the two studies suggest a very similar response pattern: Thirty-five percent of Lower Mainland Attitude Survey respondents said Travel Time was the most important aspect while a similar percentage (38% of those who made a first choice) of Feedback Form respondents stated that it, too, was the most important
aspect of the trip. However, it is worth noting that reliability and ease of connection receive considerably higher mentions as the most important aspect amongst Feedback Form respondents than they did amongst Attitude Survey respondents. Feedback Form respondents chose other responses from a list of responses while Attitude Survey respondents provided their responses unprompted. Direct Travel, No Transfer We observed very similar levels of agreement to the statement that it is important that passengers will not have to transfer either between Richmond to downtown or from the Airport to downtown. In the case of Richmond to downtown, 91% of Feedback Form respondents and 87% of Attitude Survey respondents either very or somewhat agreed to this statement. Eighty-nine percent of Feedback Form respondents compared to 88% of Attitude Survey respondents agreed to the statement as it relates to the Airport to downtown Travel Time from Richmond to Downtown A greater proportion of Feedback Form respondents (89%) than Attitude Survey respondents (83%) agreed that travel should be no more than 30 minutes. Travel Time from the Airport to Downtown A greater Number of Feedback Form respondents (87%) than Attitude Survey respondents (84%) agreed that travel time should be no more than 25 minutes.
2.2 Feedback Form Results (qualitative)

Of 1334 feedback forms, approximately 400 included qualitative comments. The following summarizes these narrative comments into key themes.
participants suggest that the Arbutus Corridor would be a better choice because a rail corridor already exists there. Arbutus Corridor Many of those who provided comments said that the Arbutus Corridor would be a superior choice for rail rapid transit relative to the Cambie Corridor. Some are of the opinion that it would be less expensive because of the existing rail corridor on Arbutus. Some participants were critical that they were presented with a proposed rail rapid transit line on Cambie rather than a full comparison of Cambie and Arbutus.
2.2.1 Key Theme Summary - Vancouver (feedback form narrative comments)

Cambie Corridor Many of those who provided comments support the Cambie Corridor as the proposed route saying it has the highest density and would serve the most people. Others oppose the use of the Cambie Corridor citing concern for boulevard trees and green space. In opposing the use of the Cambie Corridor, some
8
Buses and Rapid Transit Technology Buses were mentioned by many people as a rapid transit technology option worth considering rather than the proposed rail rapid transit project. A desire for improved bus service is mentioned by many people. Some participants express strong support for SkyTrain saying it has low operating costs and high carrying capacity. Some say SkyTrain is a safe and fast train that is very frequent - all things that make it attractive to users. Underground, at street level, above street (elevated) A preference for underground along Cambie is expressed by many in their feedback form comments and it is suggested by some that big cities such as Paris, London and New York preserve their character and beauty by going underground with their rapid transit systems. Others suggest that above-ground (elevated) systems provide better views. Still others do not want a street-level system because they are concerned about cross traffic and delays in travel time. Bicycles Many participants noted the importance of encouraging bicycle use and asked that bicycles be allowed on the proposed rapid transit line as well as existing SkyTrain lines. TransLink directors and RAV project managers were asked to seriously consider an arterial bicycle route adjacent to the RAV line plus a safe and convenient bicycle feeder network to and from the RAV line. Proceed with the Project Many comments said get on with building the Richmond Airport Vancouver rapid transit line as soon as possible. Some comments included the notion that Vancouver needs to catch up with other large cities in the world. Other comments highlight the need for financial accountability and transparency and some express concerns about the cost of the system saying they think the project should be built for under $1billion. Future Consultation Regarding future consultation if the project proceeds, some people said they think direct mail to households directly affected by the line should be
a method used in future consultation. Others questioned why any further consultation would be useful if a decision to go ahead is made. Some said consultation is not useful and is a waste of money. Private-Sector Involvement There was some concern expressed that the Richmond Airport Vancouver rapid transit line should be operated by the public sector. Economic Benefits Some participants commented about the economic benefits of the line saying it would serve employment destinations and create jobs for those involved in construction and operation of the line.
2.2.2 Key Theme Summary -- Richmond (feedback form narrative comments)

No. 3 Road Some participants have concerns that an at-grade system on No.3 Road will increase congestion and negatively effect businesses. Some say No.3 Road is too narrow to accommodate a rail rapid transit system. Proceed with the Project Comments focus on the need to get on with building the project. Some say the proposed rail rapid transit line is long overdue. Bicycles Some participants say the rapid transit line should be able to carry bicycles Arbutus Corridor Some participants said they believe the Arbutus Corridor would be cheaper and provide more direct access to UBC. Underground, at street level, above street (elevated) Some participants are concerned about the visual impacts of an elevated system. Others are concerned about the issues of congestion they believe would be caused by an at-street level system, particularly on No.3 Road in Richmond. Park & Ride Some participants suggest that Park & Ride facilities need to be integrated into the plans for the Richmond Airport Vancouver line -- in Richmond and Vancouver.
2.3 Key-Theme Summary of Public Workshops

The public workshops were designed to create an opportunity for residents to learn more about the Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project (RAVP). Each public workshop began with and overview of the regional transportation network followed by an overview of the proposed Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. Workshops included a question and answer session and participants were encouraged to complete feedback forms. A record was kept of each public workshop (appendix 3.3) Approximately 555 people attended the three public workshops; approximately 75 in Richmond, 180 at the Vancouver Public Library and approximately 300 at the Plaza 500 meeting in Vancouver.
Generally, those involved in this discussion, were interested in the types of rail rapid transit technology being considered, safety issues and how the line would connect with Richmond Centre. There were concerns about local impacts (i.e. visual and traffic impacts) and suggestions for extension of the system at both ends (e.g. out to UBC and to Steveston). There was support for a wide range of consultative methods to address community concerns should the project proceed. More Information Regarding the Proposed RAV Line A second small group discussion focused on Vancouver issues. Generally, those involved in this discussion, wanted more information (e.g. about costs, the decision-making process etc.). They expressed support for the Arbutus route and felt that TransLink needed to develop the same quality of information for a proposed line on Arbutus as they had for Cambie so that a fair comparison could be made. This group did not oppose rapid transit but wanted a fuller range of options and technologies to be considered.
2.3.1 Key-Theme Summary of Richmond Public Workshop (March 8, 2003 Richmond City Hall)
Cambie Corridor or Arbutus Corridor In the first part of the meeting, some residents expressed a desire for a more extensive look at the option of using the Arbutus Corridor as the preferred route for a rapid transit line. Individuals holding this perspective would like TransLink to prepare a direct comparison between the two routes. Participants supporting this perspective expressed concern about trees on the Cambie Boulevard, potential for increased crime, potential impact on single-family residences, and impacts on local bus service (i.e. concern that the service would be reduced). Approximately an equal number of participants indicated that they wanted the proposed Cambie line built without delay. They favoured the proposal being presented and supported grade separation, specifically an elevated system wherever it was technically or financially feasible. No. 3 Road and Congestion A small group discussion focused on Richmond issues. Participants were concerned that No. 3 Road would be even more congested with a street level system, therefore most wanted the system elevated. There was also a concern about bus routing to the proposed bus terminal at Richmond Centre and concern about the terminal itself.
2.3.2 Key-Theme Summary of Vancouver Public Workshop (March 12, 2003 Vancouver Public Library)
Cambie Corridor or Arbutus Corridor Of the 32 speakers, approximately 19 offered support for the proposed project and 4 opposed it. Those supporting agreed with the proposal with respect to the population and employment centres that would be served and the potential benefits of reducing single occupant vehicle use. Some participants supported using SkyTrain technology and some supported the system running underground. Costs and Private Sector Involvement Several speakers expressed concern about the estimated cost of the proposed project. Most acknowledged that the costs were high and therefore the project required careful review and consideration. Concern was expressed about using a public-private partnership and whether the public interest would be protected. Consultation Process Some participants expressed concern about the RAVP consultation process. These speakers suggested that there was inadequate information
10
March, 2003
about impacts (e.g. on the bus system, on the aesthetics of the Cambie Corridor etc.). They also suggested that costing on alternative routes and systems was needed before the public could adequately participate. Several speakers suggested a referendum be held on the decision to proceed. Buses Many participants expressed support for the region's bus system. They did not oppose the RAV proposal, however, they wanted consideration given to expanding the bus system and especially the trolleys. Other Issues Crime, Bicycles, Technology Several participants expressed concern about a variety of other issues including, local impacts such as a potential for increased crime if the proposed line proceeds, the need for bicycle access to the system, and the visual impact of an at-grade or elevated system similar to SkyTrain.
to those living in Vancouver generally. Participants also talked about the boulevard's positive impression on tourists entering Vancouver. Cambie Corridor or Arbutus Corridor Many participants in this meeting supported the development of a rapid transit system between Vancouver and Richmond. However, there was significant disagreement about whether the proposed line should use the Cambie Corridor or the Arbutus Corridor. A significant number of participants at this meeting stated a preference for the Arbutus Corridor. Of those supporting the Cambie route, some wanted the project built as proposed, others suggested the line should be underground all the way to Marine Drive or should be designed so that any atgrade or elevated portions would not be on the Cambie Boulevard. Buses Of those opposing the use of Cambie for the proposed rail rapid transit line, most suggested enhanced bus service on Cambie to increase transit capacity. Other Issues Cost and Private Sector Involvement A few speakers expressed concern about cost estimates for the proposed line and several speakers expressed concern about the involvement of the private sector in the project.
2.3.3 Key-Theme Summary of Vancouver Public Workshop (March 15, 2003 Plaza 500, Vancouver)
Cambie Heritage Boulevard Preservation Of the 46 speakers, approximately 21 were opposed to the proposed project and 18 offered support. Two key themes stand out from this workshop; participants supported the preservation of the Cambie Heritage Boulevard and expressed the opinion that the boulevard is important to the quality of life of those living on Cambie Street and
March, 2003
11
2.4 Key-Theme Summary of Small Group Meetings

This summarizes 17 small group meetings held with community organizations in February and March 2003. Each of these meetings created an opportunity for participants to become better informed about the Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit project, to have their questions answered and to provide their feedback on the proposed project. Meetings 1. Greater Vancouver Chambers Transportation Planning Panel - February 13, 2003 2. Oakridge Centre, Ivanhoe Cambridge March 7, 2003 3. Richmond Centre, Ivanhoe Cambridge and Cadillac Fairview March 10, 2003 4. Langara College March 11, 2003 5. BEST - March 12, 2003 6. Kwantlen University College March 14, 2003 7. Greater Vancouver Gateway Council - March 18, 2003 8. Past President, Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society and Colleagues March 19, 2003 9. Lansdowne Centre March 19, 2003 10. Vancouver Economic Development Commission Board - March 19, 2003 11. UBC Transportation Advisory Committee March 19, 2003 12. Children and Womens Health Centre - March 20, 2003 13. Vancouver Regional Construction Association March 21, 2003 14. Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) March 21, 2003 15. Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition March 21, 2003 16. Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association (DVBIA) March 24, 2003 17. Transport 2000 BC March 24, 2003
Key Themes Support for Project In general there is support for rapid transit between Vancouver, Richmond and the Airport. Participants are most interested in specific details of the proposed project, details that would be addressed in the next consultation phase should a decision be taken to proceed. At several meetings (e.g. Greater Vancouver Gateway Council) suggestions were made on where to extend the lines after the initial system was complete. Stations Some participants express an interest in the number and location of stations. UBC, Langara College, Kwantlen University College and other public organizations want to ensure their students and employees are well served by the proposed line. Commercial enterprises (e.g. Ivanhoe Cambridge, Cadillac Fairview and Lansdowne Centre) are interested in the potential commercial opportunities that may be available in and around new stations and how revenues from these enterprises might be used to financially support the system. Parking and Bicycles Participants (e.g. Kwantlan University College and DVBIA) want the proposed rail rapid transit line to include parking close to stations to encourage those using their automobiles to park and ride. As well, many participants (e.g. Langara College and Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition) want the new system to be bicycle friendly and in particular want the ability to take their bicycles on the trains. Buses Participants (e.g. BEST), raised questions about the relationship between the proposed new line and the bus system. In particular, they indicate support for maintaining and, in some cases, expanding the bus system to make sure there are efficiencies for bus riders and those using the RAV Line. In addition, some participants express concern for those currently using the bus system (e.g. Granville Rapid Bus) and what might be done to ensure continuing service for these people. Private-Sector Involvement Participants (e.g. Vancouver Economic Development Commission, Vancouver Regional Construction Association and BEST) want to know
12
March, 2003
more about the role of the private sector in the proposed project. Some are concerned about who would pay for cost overruns and what ability a private partner might have to raise fares. Underground, at street level, above street (elevated) Participants in small group meetings who are from Richmond (e.g. Ivanhoe Cambridge) generally support an elevated system for the Richmond portion of the proposed line. Participants in the small group meetings who are from Vancouver tend to prefer an underground system (Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society and Greater Vancouver Gateway Council) in the Vancouver portion of the system. In
addition some participants (e.g. DVBIA and Transport 2000) want further information on the technical details that led to the decision to propose Cambie and details on the need for grade separation south of 12th Avenue to provide rapid transit between Richmond and Vancouver. Decision to Proceed & Ongoing role of the Public Participants (e.g. Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society and WCB) are interested in the decisionmaking process related to deciding to proceed and the on-going role of the public if the project proceeds.
2.5 Key-Theme Summary of Correspondence

The RAVP office received 45 emails and letters, 2074 postcards, 110 duplicate feedback forms, and 5 Cambie Heritage Boulevard Society feedback forms. The following summarizes the key themes contained in this correspondence. The 207 postcards said,We support the preservation of the Cambie Street Boulevard and We oppose the construction of a rapid transit system on Cambie Street. The 110 duplicate feedback forms said they opposed the line and that, "No rail on beautiful Cambie Heritage Boulevard. Use Arbutus or buses. Don't replace this beautiful boulevard with a cement monster."; In addition, the forms said "Rapid Transit says the line will save 15-20 minutes. Even Mr. Cadman said that time will be lost entering and exiting stations. $1.5 1.7 billion for nothing."; "Notify people who own property on Cambie by mail using tax statement mailing addresses"; and, "Don't ruin our beautiful treed Cambie Heritage Boulevard. Use Arbutus or buses." The 5 Cambie Heritage Boulevard Society feedback forms said,Rapid Buses for Cambie Light Rail for Arbutus and No monster stations needed .
4. 75 postcards were received at the RAVP office, 132 were received by the Hon. Judith Reid, Minister of Transportation.
From the remaining correspondence the following key themes emerge: Proceed with the Project Of the 45 emails and letters received, 27 supported the proposed Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. Most frequently, these participants supported an elevated SkyTrain where appropriate and they emphasized the need to fully integrate the proposed system with the exiting SkyTrain Expo and Millennium lines. In addition several participants noted their desire to use the system to the airport. Cambie Corridor or Arbutus Corridor Of the 45 emails and letters received, 6 opposed rapid transit on Cambie and stated a preference for the Arbutus Corridor as a route for rapid transit. A few people supported this preference by noting their experience with the system in Calgary, Alberta. Others supported the Arbutus Corridor because of the existing rail line along the corridor. Several people said they want the Cambie Heritage Boulevard protected. Other Issues Crime, Millennium extension Some people express concern about possible safety issues resulting from a proposed line on Cambie. Others want to have the Millennium line completed before adding a new project.
March, 2003
13
14
March, 2003
3 . C O N S U LTAT I O N R E C O R D ( A P P E N D I C E S ) 3.1 Feedback Form Results (quantitative)

1: No. 3 Road, Grant McConachie Way, Cambie Street to Waterfront Station. The proposed general alignment of the RAV line is No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island, Cambie Street into Downtown Vancouver along Davie and Granville Street terminating at the existing Waterfront Station. Support the route in its entirety Richmond Vancouver Other Total % 116 196 519 831 73.2% Support parts of the route 18 31 89 138 12.1% Oppose the route 2 53 112 167 14.7%
1136 100%
2. Direct Travel A. Do you agree with the following statement: It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between Richmond City Centre and downtown Vancouver. B. It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between the Airport and downtown Vancouver. 2A Richmond Vancouver Other Total % 2A Richmond Vancouver Other Total % Strongly agree 86 92 316 494 72.3% Strongly agree 77 91 297 465 68.4% Somewhat agree 6 32 91 129 18.9% Somewhat agree 13 29 101 143 21.0% Somewhat disagree 1 6 17 24 3.5% Somewhat disagree 3 7 19 29 4.3% Strongly disagree 1 16 19 36 5.3% Strongly disagree 1 16 26 43 6.3%
683 100%
680 100%
3. Travel Time A. By bus or car, the current travel time from Richmond Centre to downtown Vancouver is about 45 to 50 minutes, depending on the time of day and amount of traffic. Do you agree with the following statement: with a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from Richmond Centre to Waterfront Station should be no more than 30 minutes. B. With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from the Airport to Waterfront Station should be no more than 25 minutes
March, 2003
15
3A Richmond Vancouver Other Total %
Strongly agree 77 83 316 476 70.2%
Somewhat agree 11 34 83 128 18.9%
Somewhat disagree 3 9 16 28 4.1%
Strongly disagree 2 17 27 46 6.8%
678 100%
3B Richmond Vancouver Other Total %
Strongly agree 73 79 292 444 66.8%
Somewhat agree 14 31 92 137 20.6%
Somewhat disagree 4 12 22 38 5.7%
Strongly disagree 2 19 25 46 6.9%
665 100%
4. Underground, At Street Level, Above Street Level (elevated) Rail rapid transit systems can operate underground, at street level or above street level (elevated). The underground and above street level options are more expensive to build, and where elevated, have greater visual impacts. However, underground and elevated systems are cheaper to operate, faster, safer and more reliable than at street level systems because they dont cross road intersections. If approved, the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Line will probably have some underground segments, some street-level segments and some elevated segments depending on whether they are technically and financially feasible. 4.1. on those segments where operating underground is not possible, which alternative would you prefer?: a. at street level b. elevated 4.2. on those segments where operating at street level is not possible, which alternative would you prefer?: a. elevated b. underground 4.3. on those segments where operating above street level (elevated) is not possible, which alternative would you prefer?: a. underground b. at street level 4.1 Richmond Vancouver Other Total % At street level 33 45 148 226 35.4% Elevated 56 89 267 412 64.6%
638 100%
16
March, 2003
4.2 Richmond Vancouver Other Total % 4.3 Richmond Vancouver Other Total %
Elevated 26 23 141 190 28.9% Underground 64 127 345 536 82.1%
Underground 66 116 286 468 71.1% At street level 27 10 80 117 17.9%
658 100%
653 100%
5. Transit Use If this Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit service is completed how likely do you think you would be to use it? Very likely Richmond Vancouver Other Total % 124 136 497 757 60.3% Somewhat likely 12 67 162 241 19.2% Not very likely 6 46 61 113 9.0% Not at all likely 0 61 84 145 11.5%
1256 100%
6. If you were to use the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit line, which of the following would be most important to you? (indicate with a rating of 1, 2 or 3 your top three choices) Hours Richmond 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Total Vancouver 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Total Reliability Easy Connection 26 25 16 67 System Capacity 1 4 7 12 Station Access 4 19 24 47 Travel Time Views Reasonable Fares 23 9 17 49 Other
10 14 15 39
23 25 12 60
47 9 18 74
20 6 8 34
19 4 8 31
14 21 33 68
38 52 30 120
33 27 35 95
8 20 19 47
21 30 27 78
85 22 21 128
2 6 2 10
13 22 25 60
14 3 1 18
March, 2003
17
Hours Other 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Total
Reliability
Easy Connection
System Capacity
Station Access
Travel Time
Views
Reasonable Fares
Other
50 67 89 206
113 117 108 338
93 133 118 344
24 55 49 128
43 70 84 197
259 117 66 442
13 12 17 42
64 77 81 222
31 9 18 58
Overall Total 1st Choice 74 2nd Choice 102 3rd Choice 137 Total 313 % 30%
174 194 150 518 50%
152 185 169 506 49%
33 79 75 187 18%`
68 119 135 322 31%
391 148 105 644 63%
35 24 27 86 8%
100 108 123 331 32%
26 5 11 107 10%
10275
7. The Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rail Rapid Transit line This line is expected to cost between $1.5 and $1.7 billion, cost shared by the federal and provincial governments, TransLink, Vancouver International Airport and the private sector. Do you agree with the project proceeding? Strongly agree Richmond Vancouver Other Total % 131 171 586 888 69.2% Somewhat agree 14 49 101 164 12.8% Somewhat disagree 3 17 27 47 3.7% Strongly disagree 0 78 107 185 14.4%
1284 100%
8. RAVP Neighbourhood Consultation (future) How would you like to be consulted if this proposed rail rapid transit project proceeds? (check your choices) Neighborhood Richmond Vancouver Other Total % 17 43 84 144 21.8% Community 35 71 163 269 40.7% Web Surveys 30 53 214 297 44.9% Open Houses 43 60 199 302 45.7% Info in Newspaper 61 83 252 396 59.9% Other 0 1 2 3 0.5%
6625
Question 9: Additional Comments
5. This base represents the number of people who answered the question, not the sum of totals.
18
March, 2003
Travel in the Corridor 10. Have you taken transit in the last 30 days? (Yes, No) 11. Have you travelled between Vancouver & Richmond in the last 30 days (Yes, No) 10 Yes No 56 140 293 489 37.9% 11 Richmond Vancouver Other Total % Yes 138 250 685 1073 85% No 7 66 121 191 15%
Richmond 91 Vancouver 179 Other 30 Total 800 % 62.1%
1289 100%
1267 100%
3.2 Feedback Forms Comments (qualitative)

This appendix contains the written comments transcribed from the Feedback Forms. It is organized by the following site collection locations: (1) Vancouver, (2) Richmond, (3) Airport and (4) Other (no location was identified). 1. VANCOUVER 1. No. 3 Road, Grant McConachie Way, Cambie Street to Waterfront Station The proposed general alignment of the RAV line is No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island, Cambie Street into Downtown Vancouver along Davie and Granville Street terminating at the existing Waterfront Station. - I feel that the route should go down Arbutus Line. - What about Arbutus Corridor? - There are a lot of houses along the route that will feel the effect of lower resale value. - More town centers on Cambie. Would get used more here than Arbutus. - The system must not have intersections with road traffic. - Arbutus Line? Rapid Bus Line? Cost factors for both. - Prefer other forms of transit with less impact on communities i.e. crime. - Oppose the route too much money. It should go on Arbutus. This is totally biased! Only rail how about buses? - Arbutus should be looked at. - Arbutus corridor should be more fully utilized. - Would prefer that Arbutus Street, rather than Cambie Street, be used for that portion of the route. Arbutus Street already has a rail line in place. - I recommend the route goes from Waterfront up Granville to Broadway down Broadway to Hospital and up Cambie to Richmond. - Should use SkyTrain which may require slightly different route in downtown core. - Granville segment must be in tunnel, not at grade. All the RAV line should be in tunnel from Waterfront to S.W. Marine Drive then elevated south to Granville, with a branch at Cambie for RAV trains to access vehicle service facilities in Burnaby. - Arbutus
March, 2003
19
- I feel it is far too expensive, its a disaster to change Cambie St. which looks super at present. - Long overdue. Traffic congestion on Cambie. - Best route as it serves major users. - The downtown peninsula stations are wrong. Nothing at Stadiums, Davie and Howe too far east should be Davie and Granville to link with west end bus loop. - Routing the service along Cambie St. is not a good idea. - If you did a route down Granville (from Waterfront) to Broadway, eastbound on Broadway to Cambie, then southbound, could you better serve the Broadway corridor as well with this line? (Serve two objectives with one line). - I believe more citizen input is needed earlier in the process, not just at tendering stage of the project. - No trains on Cambie. - Please consider Granville & Oak routes. - Find cost-effective alternatives. - Keep the Cambie Heritage Blvd. intact. Go underground or choose another route. - I support good public transit on this route this may include rapid transit. - Until you can come up with a better solution that doesnt impact the communities negatively in any way, then this is not acceptable. - I believe that we should not build another subway downtown until the Waterfront Main Street section has met capacity. - Too expensive, not enough ridership, crime, drugs, litter, graffiti, vandalism, eyesore. Huge SkyTrain stations are an abomination. - SkyTrain down Cambie even from 41st to 63rd environmental vandalism. - Richmond Vancouver (Cambie) not bad but I support light rail and Im not sure Cambie Blvd. should be forfeited for such a project. - I support the Arbutus Route less crowded and fewer stations means faster travel time between the Airport, and Vancouver downtown. This route is not for use by local Vancouver passengers! (City Center to Vancouver). I needed to go to VGH last night at 3 a.m. No. buses! Example. Also there should be allnight night-owl bus service and dial-a-bus should be used on low usage bus routes to be used with small mini-buses or small vans. - The most obvious choice is Cambie Do it! - Oppose Cambie Street route. Oppose boulevard route. Oppose destroying green space. Oppose on ground or above ground transit. - If the entire route along Cambie could be underground (i.e. to Marine Drive) I would support it. However, if that isnt possible for capital cost reasons I would prefer either more B-Line buses and bus only lanes or the Arbutus corridor. - En-route from Davie to Cambie, the line could service the crowds who have the Granville Island Market as their destination. - I believe the Heritage Blvd. needs to be saved. If you insist on this corridor put all of it underground. - Underground all the way.
20
March, 2003
- Billions for buses. No SkyTrain to Richmond. Billions for Buses. - Most likely will not use the system. - Main Street SkyTrain to No. 3 Road: No airport branch. - Arbutus line is most simple and money saved way to go. - No Cambie line, Arbutus line should go on which is faster and money saver. It would have the rail there. - Arbutus Corridor. - The Cambie route is not shorter. A more economical route (shorter) could go from Oak or Granville and be far more direct. The issue is downtown to Richmond. In between is not important. PARIS, LONDON, NEW YORK have preserved their Citys beauty and character by going underground for their rapid transit. Preserve the beautiful entrances to our city or will lose our tourists. Travel time is not the major issue, congestion, smog, pollution, environmental preservation are. Reduction of single vehicles passengers is. For that reason I agree with rapid transit. - Cambie has highest density and would serve most people. - The damage to the Cambie Boulevard is incalculable. - We want to preserve Cambie Boulevard. If residents of Richmond want ALRT they can be loaded on the train and sent to hell. - Use more buses on Arbutus corridor thats why it is there. - Other route possibilities besides Cambie or Arbutus. - What has taken you so long? To me it is 20 years late. I would like to see a connection from Airport to Horseshoe Bay Terminal. - I support the most economical, environmentally sound and respectful to First Nation land claims, cyclists, pedestrians. More bike routes and trolley buses. - Opt for more frequent bus services which will be efficient and cost-effective. - The route must service Granville Island and Granville at Broadway then go to the Hospital, City Hall and up Cambie. - (More Buses), More Trolleys! No private partnerships. - Align road with public transit continuation of Cambie across the Fraser. - However I have some concerns regarding how the City of Vancouver may change zoning along Cambie Street. Transit and urban planning need to be integrated. - I would suggest one less station in Richmond; that station density is excessive. - Please ensure that there is justification for 10 stations South of North Arm Fraser compared to 8 stations between Fraser and downtown. - I definitely think Cambie corridor alignment is superior to Arbutus because of many employment centers along corridor. - Match the Cambie route up with the Expo route at Main and Terminus. It would greatly reduce costs. - (1) Think you should consider going from Broadway Station (proposed) to Main Street (existing) and into downtown. No need for rapid transit to other part of downtown. Can walk or bus from Granville (a free shuttle on Granville a la Denver?) (2) You must address concerns of residential neighborhoods to be crossed. If you address the concerns (and it can be done!) then they will support it.
March, 2003
21
- Do not disrupt the Heritage Blvd. or impact the beauty of Queen Elizabeth Park. Keep Vancouver beautiful while improving North/South transit. - I would support the high speed train provided it is underground up to 49th. Otherwise, I would oppose it. - In addition to the advantages in the discussion document, Cambie is already a major bus transportation route and is optimal for lateral bus connections. - Route ought to be along Granville Street from south end to 16th Avenue, (elevated) then east to alley, south to the Granville Island (elevated) then underground once across False Creek. - I fully support the RAV line described here. I particularly appreciate the benefits that will accrue to Granville Street/Mall by running the RAV line under Granville from Davie Street. - Yes on Cambie corridor, shortest, 20 minutes closer to more major destinations as well as east side ridership easing Knight Street congestion. Route studied to death. Granville is a poor choice as mainly residential less employer destination. - Direct frequent service to the Airport important metro style system, underground. Strong support for Cambie alignment. Line should go south of the Massey Tunnel. - Undecided at current time. However, TransLink should pick a geographical route that is designed well for cycling and pedestrians. - I distinguish between the Cambie Corridor and Cambie Street . Corridor and underground allows greater ability to serve traffic generators like Children/Womens Hospitals. - The north/south corridor from Richmond and Vancouver to downtown Vancouver is desperately needed. Long overdue. - Would prefer interlining with existing line at Waterfront. - Need more information about Bridgeport would we need to change trains to go to the airport? Or is it a continuous route splitting the line 2 lines? - I have heard of no reports detailing ridership for the Arbutus line which should include Granville Island, 4th Avenue (business and shoppers), West Broadway, Arbutus new residential and businesses, UBC (a large employer and student body). Wealthy vehicle owners will not give up their status symbols to ride transit. Granville, Oak, Cambie and Knight already shoulder all the vehicular traffic. The transit corridor in Arbutus must be used. It is the same distance, would be cheaper, less disruption to build and would serve Granville Island, West 4th and UBC. - Get it built! And get Vancouver up to speed with other major North American cities! - Put it down the existing line on Arbutus at-grade better yet invest in buses. 2. Direct Travel Do you agree with the following statement: (a) It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between Richmond City Center and downtown Vancouver. (b) It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between the Airport and Downtown Vancouver. - 2(a) Direct travel from home to downtown would be better. Most Richmond riders do not live on No. 3 Road. - This could also be done by bus. - (b) Unless you can improve significantly frequencies.
22
March, 2003
- I especially want to see as much of the line elevated as possible. In the long term, this will have advantages concerning speed and safety, as well as providing a moving platform from which to view the magnificent that is Vancouvers natural surrounding. I very often see tourist riding SkyTrain for the view! - The key for me is the technology and its related costs. There is no need for this project to exceed $1 billion. 3. Travel Time By bus or car, the current travel time from Richmond Center to downtown Vancouver is about 45 to 50 minutes, depending on the time of day and amount of traffic. Do you agree with the following statement: (a) With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from Richmond Center to Waterfront Station should be no more than 30 minutes. (b) With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from the Airport to Waterfront Station should be no more than 25 minutes. - I dont know whats feasible making it as quick as possible is a priority. - (a) 30-40 minutes is okay. (b) 25-35 minutes is okay. - (a) ought to be less. By suburban bus from downtown to south end of Granville Street it is often 40-50 minutes. Should an elevated SkyTrain line be constructed along Granville Street to reduce the wait caused by vehicles and intersections? Yes. - (a) No more than 25 minutes. (b) No more than 20 minutes. - (a) 35-40 minutes is fine if technology is cheaper. (b) Ditto 30-35 minutes. 4. Underground, At Street Level, Above Street Level (Elevated) Rail rapid transit systems can operate underground, at street level or above street level (elevated). The underground and above street level options are more expensive to build, and where elevated, have greater visual impacts. However, underground and elevated systems are cheaper to operate, faster, safer and more reliable than at street level systems because they dont cross road intersections. If approved, the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Line will probably have some underground segments, some street-level segments and some elevated segments depending on whether they are technically and financially feasible. 4.1 on those segments where operating underground is not possible, which alternatives would you prefer (a) at street level (b) elevated; 4.2 on those segments where operating at street level is not possible, which alternative would you prefer (a) elevated (b) underground; 4.3 on those segments where operating above street level (elevated) is not possible which would prefer (a) underground (b) at street level. - Arbutus not Cambie. - 4.2 Elevated = nicer. Underground = quieter. - 4.1 Street would dive under. - 4.1 None at all, 4.2. Along Arbutus, 4.3 Not on Cambie on Arbutus. - All underground except where crossing water. - 4.3 Does this ever occur? - 4.1 Safer - My keyword is fun. I prefer SkyTrain which is fun, fast, and very reliable/frequent. If it isnt fun, why do it? Being in a daily sardine can is not fun. Not crowded. - 4.2 Bull - should have a box in feedback form for at street level. - 4.2 Depends! I want underground and preserve heritage value of Cambie and above ground somewhere else.
March, 2003
23
- It depends. - Depends on specific location. - 4.1 ditched open. 4.2 open ditch. - Use Arbutus or double car buses. - This question must be broken into sections. - 4.2 Neither. 5. Transit Use If this Richmond/Airport/Vancouver rapid transit service is completed how likely do you think you would be to use it? - Where bicycles will be accommodated. - Airport access. - Never. - By re-routing and discontinuing existing bus services, I will be FORCED to use it. - If I can bring my bike. 6. If you were to use the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit line, which of the following would be most important to you? Hours of operation, reliability of the system, easy connection to other parts of the transit system (i.e. Bus connections), being able to board (system capacity), easy station access, travel time, views from the train, reasonable fares and other, please specify. - Bicycle access is a priority. - There are too few stations in Vancouver between Broadway and Marine Drive. - Take my car. - Use Main Street. It has no trees and it would connect directly to SkyTrain. - Rapid transit should be totally separated from street routes to avoid conflicts and congestion. - I would never use the line. No big SkyTrain stations! - Being able to connect with existing rapid transit without going downtown. - Safety without juveniles and transients hanging around the line, waiting to mug you or panhandle. - Underground or not on Cambie Blvd. - Must permit bicycles aboard all 3 SkyTrain lines: Expo, Millennium, and the proposed RAV line. - Distance apart of train: 3 minutes minimum, 5 minutes maximum. - Keep it underground to make the impact minimal on our community. - Maintenance of Heritage Boulevard/Queen Elizabeth park. *No elevated SkyTrain* - Frequency of service; no crime/loitering in vicinity of terminals. - No crime in vicinity of terminals. - Bikes allowed on service, very important to integrate. - Bicycle access. - Bike access
24
March, 2003
- Bike friendly. - Arbutus is shorter distance to the Airport and should be used in a cut under major intersections. How may employees at VGH, C&W Hospital, City Hall and Langara actually commute from Richmond. - Frequency of service (intervals between trains). - Keep capital costs down, supervise. - Never would use. 7. The Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rail Rapid Transit Line This line is expected to cost between $1.5 and $1.7 billion, cost shared by the federal and provincial governments, TransLink, Vancouver International Airport Authority and the private sector. Do you agree with the project proceeding? - Arbutus. - Get on it with ASAP. - Strong disagree in its present form. - Less than $1 billion. - Fiscal responsibility and accountability is a must. - Where do they get the money? - AIFs? Fuel taxes? If the airport wants this so badly, they should foot the bill; they (airport) and Feds should share. Fares are already too high. 8. RAVP Neighborhood Consultation (future) How would you like to be consulted if this proposed rail rapid transit project proceeds? Neighborhood group, community meetings, web surveys, open houses, information in the newspaper and other. - With respect and action towards our needs as users. - List (unable to decipher), town halls, all reports at library, referendum. - Thanks, already arranged. - You must do all these to reach everyone its too important not to! Direct mail or just drop a flyer through the mail slots for all homeowners directly affected by the project! - Consulting with transit users on buses and at bus stops. - Keep off Cambie Blvd. - Open houses tonights was not long enough. (Vancouver Public Library). - Vancouver Cycling Coalition. - I would like to register as a delegation to present to Vancouver City Council. - Panel discussions with different views. - Respectfully and giving response to demands presented during consultation. - Respectfully. - If we proceed, why consult at all? The only ones to seemingly have impact are large business and government operated institutions i.e. City Hall, VGH, W & C Hospital and Langara! - Public meeting with presentation and answering questions.
March, 2003
25
9. Additional Comments - SkyTrain makes sense. Will be cheaper eventually. Already have the maintenance facility here. - Above ground (faster, safer) more expensive but most cost efficient and higher capacity for the future. - When will the Consultation Summary Report be completed and posted? - Why are you only suggesting Cambie? There are already tracks on Arbutus. Bus to downtown once 10 minutes to get there. - Would prefer to see the Arbutus Corridor used. - This project is so very important to our citys future . Please be wise in your decisions. - I strongly support this proposal. I hope this project will go ahead as soon as possible. - We need to service Granville to Broadway and across to City Hall and Hospitals. BICYCLE ACCESS IS ESSENTIAL AND 24 hour service. - The Cambie Heritage Boulevard issue is a NIMBY issue. Trees can be removed. This heritage tree business only came up years ago at the time that rapid transit to Richmond first under discussion. - Too much public consultation does not prove anything. It only lends to confusion, mixed ideas and lack of proper decisions. It also costs a lot of time and is a waste of money. - SkyTrain has low operating costs, high carrying capacity, and it is a safe and fast train that is very frequent - all things that make it attractive to users. - SkyTrain is best. Forget buses and streetcars as rapid transit. Also consider possible later extensions to North Vancouver and Delta to help more people bypass bottlenecks. - Bike friendly is important. This project is too expensive and will drain the rest of the busy system. If you have to do it, put bridge tolls in to (1) fund it or (2) reduce smog, energy waste, C02 etc. Very important better service to UBC. - I am skeptical about private sector partnership in this large public project. It is essential to add more stations in Vancouver between Broadway and Marine Drive. - I dont like the way Cambie Street line was presented to us without any information on the Arbutus line. It is obvious the speakers are from the west side of Cambie. - Transportation in the main north/south corridor will be one of the largest issues facing the GVRD. Project is required to allow continued economic growth. - (1) Would it be possible for a direction connection without traffic from GM Place/Stadium to RAV even if only for events? (2) In planning, is RAV considering an extension to White Rock and Tsawwassen in the future? 3) - Retain Arbutus Corridor for 2nd line from UBC south and Millennium extension. - No rapid transit on Cambie St. - No RAV on Cambie Street. - No rapid transit line on Cambie St. - No RAV on Cambie Street. - You have probably noticed that I favor a grade-separated line! Is there a cheaper option than SkyTrain to deliver grade-separated lines?
26
March, 2003
- I have concern for private companies determining the rail technology (i.e. LRT or SkyTrain). - How much of a role will demand-management play in getting drivers to use any new alternatives? There is a need to ensure bicycle facilities are included. - Was staff at the hospital etc. along Cambie asked if the line went down Cambie that they would use it? Incentives, same as university students to use transit. - We have considered the problem too long! Get going! Build! - No trains on Cambie. - This is an excellent project that needs to proceed to meet future demand and respond to development etc. - Balance the load of passengers to the expense of the project. Take to give. - A great loss in proposed rapid transit will be expected due to insufficient and less ridership in the line. - I support both corridors because of cost savings on the Arbutus Corridors. While infrastructures are in place already. So it is cheaper. - Alternate routes, such as extending Millennium Line to route down Quebec, Ontario, Heather, Fraser, or the lane next to them or Gondola System form Science World. - Is a big waste of money remember the ferry fiasco. - No train on Cambie Street period! - Segregated line, not at grade, current and future congestion, unacceptable. Is golf course, Cambie sidewalk, a consideration. Former Councilor Herbert left out resistance for bus only lanes for at-grade Granville. - Please consider the possibility of development more than just one north south transit corridor. - Must be publicly run by BCRTC, not by a private operator as all other systems are run by government. - Keep it public! No private corporations. - Do not build on Cambie Street at all. Why we spend so much money on Cambie as well as trouble when Arbutus is a simple way to go. - No train on Cambie, Please! - I am against train on Cambie. - Please consider the homeowners on Cambie and rail above ground will ruin the neighborhood, especially between 6th and 25th. - We need additional transit options, but PLEASE consider the homeowners who will have to see and hear an above ground line. No visible rail and please consider options other than SkyTrain. It is NOT the wonderful technology the politicians are trying to sell it as. - (1) Richmond-Vancouver may be viable; however a rapid transit to the airport will never attract sufficient riders to come close to a break-even just look at the always empty Airporter Bus currently servicing YVR. (2) Next time you print a questionnaire, I suggest that you use both sides of the paper Think Green! - Should be underground along Cambie Street. - Should be underground along Cambie.
March, 2003
27
- I do not trust GVRD data! - Requested the vehicle cost figures underline for the Arbutus corridor. - SkyTrain would be more effective than LRT or Rapid Bus. - Just get on with this! - (1) Please re-asses the Arbutus Corridor. (2) If using Cambie, all of it should be underground. (3) I dont trust the proposed budget. (4) I dont believe that using competition is the best way to determine the type of rail used. - This project has been studied for 25 years. Make a decision now so the project can proceed. - Any surface transit will only increase traffic congestion. Only elevated and underground will work. - No trains on Cambie necessary. - I believe that the Arbutus corridor should be further considered, given the existing right-of-way. The B-Line buses (and bus-only lanes) should be further considered for Cambie. - We dont want a beautiful route into the City ruined by a rapid transit line. Use a route that is not already a show piece for the city. - Bite the bullet, increase the budget and put the whole thing underground. - Pat Jacobsen (CEO TransLink) has suggested (to my great delight!) that street cars (like the interurban Granville Island to Science World) would be used on Arbutus RAV line in the future. Great idea. March 15, 2003 Dear TransLink: Here is my suggestion for rapid transit, to Vancouver, Airport based on U shaped loop configuration, used in the Toronto Subway system. *Note: it is only a 3 _ to 4 minute car ride currently from Airport Station (Bus Loop) to the Vancouver Airport. Therefore a U-ShapedTransit will not add very much travel time Richmond center to Vancouver. *Advantage of the U-Shaped loop is: Airline passengers will not have to transfer to another rapid transit line. This would be world-class transit solution for world-wide travelers. Air passengers do not want to worry about such things as transferring from one transit system to another! To get downtown from the airport. Other Suggestions: *Please keep the new rapid transit line (Richmond to Vancouver) completely separated! From automobile roads. (For safety and to save commute times). E.g. last Saturday afternoon, it took the bus I was on a good 15 (FIFTEEN) minutes to go (NORTHBOUND) from Richmond Center, on No. 3 Road to Cambie Ave. in Richmond! I was completely surprised! At how long it took us to go this very short distance. Our bus was completely caught in the TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK. This is why rapid transit needs a complete separation from the road/street traffic! The LRT system in Calgary, Alberta (at street level) conflicts and causes conflict and severe annoyance with street traffic/car drivers thus, a partly UNDERGROUND and partly elevated transit is a much better solution. Here. Please keep the 98-B Line rapid buses (i.e. have many alternative ways to go!) on Granville Street. (Richmond Center to Waterfront Station in Vancouver). This route is working quite well at present. Also, the more routes the better transit works. E.g. Ive heard, that big Cities, such as New York City and London, England have about 10 subway lines, going in all directions, all simultaneously. E.g. For Greater Vancouver I suggest transit lines (rapid) North & West Vancouver UBC Vancouver Coquitlam Surrey
Richmond Center
28
Also, please re-instate the #151 and/or #152 bus route(s) from Lougheed Mall to down town Vancouver. This is better than the Millennium Sky Train for some passengers. Thanks. - Heavy rail isnt necessary. Buses and light rail could do the job fine. Money needs to be spent improving bus right-of-ways and minimizing wait times for the current bus systems. - Travelers will not use the airport line due to location. Ridership figures are inflated. - If we use existing SkyTrain technology we could use the existing subway from Main Street Station to Waterfront Station example is San Francisco BART system. - The proposal will only force the communities impacted negatively to shoulder the burden, not share in any benefits whatsoever. (I take the bus until they piss me off enough to take my Mercedes.) (I shop there all the time.you cant take groceries on the bus!). - I strongly oppose private public partnerships in the transit system. - Dont wreck the heritage boulevard with some eyesore transit nightmare. - (1) I want immediately to see a decision on bikes allowed on SkyTrain and that this new rail mode will from the outset integrate with bike network. (2) Must include frequencies and same as Expo line or better wait time is a huge discouragement. - In think in terms of mode-changes and seamless, I strongly support interlining with the existing SkyTrain system. - If Vancouver really needs to build a new SkyTrain please build it underground because TransLink should think about the residents who live on the Cambie Street. If you live on Cambie, what you think? Can you sleep well at night. - The RAV line is extremely important to the GVRD/BC economy. No further studies are required. It should be built as soon as possible. - This was the 1993 Plan that was halted due to political interference. Get on with building the N-S route. - TransLink Directors and RAV project managers need to seriously factor in an arterial bicycle route adjacent to RAV line plus a safe and convenient bicycle feeder network to/from RAV line. - Cycling and pedestrian feeder systems to rapid transit station built as part of RAV project. - SkyTrain is not an eyesore, bridge congestion, a 10-lane bridge is. Congestion is normal south of 49th and north of Westminster Highway. Route slide shows Gilbert not No. 3 Road missing Marine Drive future developments. Would like to see workshops, not endless speakers. - I strongly approve of the RAVP as shown. Vancouver does not have freeways and with implementation of this RAVP we will continue to keep Vancouver a FREEWAY FREE CITY. - Building this will provide jobs for trades and professionals, maintain trade skill levels, and export potential for the professionals. - Im afraid to support the train only to find out later that the plans will change to become elevated or street level before Queen Elizabeth Park. Assure me that it will not change and I am okay with it. - Proactive or crime prevention/policing of the new line. - You should have an extra stop between King Edward and Broadway. Communities and neighborhoods, along the route will support the route, provided the neighborhoods are preserved. Controlling zoning is critical. Sprawl and undue density are to be avoided. - (1) My travel time by transit to Richmond will be lengthened by the additional time required to get from Granville to Cambie. (2) As a cyclist; each time a rapid transit line goes in inter-modal bike/bus/transit is removed. I can no longer get to North Surrey, New Westminster or Lougheed Mall already. This route will eliminate Richmond, South Surrey and South Delta.
29
- It is really important to me to be able to take my bike on this service. Also, travel time and reliability are critical and should not be undervalued. Please complete prior to the Olympics! - Should consider interlining at Waterfront to effectively remove one stop from each line and allow direct travel to Burrard Station. - I suggest emphasizing that funding from government is only for this project and it has conditional requirements. This would alleviate concerns over route, cost and removing funding from other regions. - Performance standards should include visual and aesthetic considerations. Elevated SkyTrain (Millennium Line) track is ugly and not acceptable to me. I would sacrifice some speed for visual considerations. At grade or underground is best. Integrate planning of bike routes with transit planning and allow bikes on SkyTrain. - Does this route go ahead if Vancouver does not get the Olympics? This was a big PR exercise. - Bicycles designed in from the beginning in every drawing, every plan: key priority. Also need a bike highway for commuters. - The last car should have no seats or pull down seats giving access to luggage and bicycles. - Preserve the environment and natural beauty of the boulevard if you do proceed. - Have bike access on trains/buses. - It would be nice to actually allow Vancouverites the final say. You are contemplating destroying Cambie Boulevard for the Airport and Richmond commuters with only 5 City stops and a reduction in bus service. When a viable transportation corridor sits unused and should be expropriated!!! (at the $400,000 value they have been taxed on). - Please hurry up! - Please ignore the parochial residents living along Cambie and those who are pushing for an Arbutus line. Just get going on it! - Consultation time is not long enough. A more accurate cost break down (including land acquisition) would be nice. Think open tender and cost-effective technology . -- Lets not have dozens of public forums for all the squeaky wheels to complain. 10. Travel in the Corridor - My children take it daily. - Daily bus rider. 2. RICHMOND 1. No. 3 Road, Grant McConachie Way, Cambie Street to Waterfront Station The proposed general alignment of the RAV line is No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island, Cambie Street into Downtown Vancouver along Davie and Granville Street terminating at the existing Waterfront Station. - Wait time for feeder buses at Richmond Center must be less than 10 minutes or overall travel time advantage is lost. - As a resident of the Cambie Street area I support the route as long there is NO elevated sections. At grade can be done very nicely, go see Brussels with their grass between the tracks, quite nicely done.
30
March, 2003
- Cook and No. 3 should be a station on the line NOT the south terminus. - But use Arbutus Route. - Question-Why dont you use 3-D virtual reality computer technology to show us the virtual dynamics of Arbutus Line versus Cambie Line? (Distance and time required). I have not heard any mention of the routes along Grant McConachie Way (on Sea Island) or along Davie Street in Vancouver. Also why not put rapid transit underground under Granville Street - Richmond to Vancouver Center? (I.e. 98 B-Line Route). - Should eventually extend south of Richmond Center. - Even though the bulk of commercial area is located on No. 3 Road it is too narrow for the proposed RAV line; Garden City Road might be a better idea. - Definitely elevated. - The rapid line is long over due for there is too much congestion on No. 3 Road in Richmond and Granville in Vancouver. - Please plan for long term No. 3 Road surface system, reliability suffers from cross traffic conflict bus, car, pedestrian, bikes, etc. Note existing No. 3 Road structure and lost access to business increased pollution from inefficient traffic flow. Park and Ride is very important feature. - One cost above the wrong route close. The Arbutus corridor is already graded. - The Arbutus line should be utilized. The land is plentiful so there would be little disturbance. The line is (almost indirect line with the airport) and _ of route in place saving costs that are significant. UBC would be better served also Kerrisdale, Arbutus, and downtown density living as opposed to Cambie. - What ever happened to the Arbutus option? New bridge at the end of Cambie going south? - This is important for the airport and Richmond. - Its about time. Too bad its for the Olympics. - Richmond has needed rapid transit for a long time. - Richmond line should be made as to have little visual impact or not made at all. - Long time overdue! Good plan! - What is the cost differential between Arbutus route and Cambie? Plus, which line will take a shorter time to complete. 2. Direct Travel Do you agree with the following statement: (a) It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between Richmond City Center and downtown Vancouver. (b) It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between the Airport and Downtown Vancouver. - Is now less than 45 minutes already. 3. Travel Time By bus or car, the current travel time from Richmond Center to downtown Vancouver is about 45 to 50 minutes, depending on the time of day and amount of traffic. Do you agree with the following statement: (a) With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from Richmond Center to Waterfront Station should be no more than 30 minutes. (b) With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from the Airport to Waterfront Station should be no more than 25 minutes. - Depends on site. - Poor question design.
March, 2003
31
4. Underground, At Street level, Above Street Level (Elevated) Rail rapid transit systems can operate underground, at street level or above street level (elevated). The underground and above street level options are more expensive to build, and where elevated, have greater visual impacts. However, underground and elevated systems are cheaper to operate, faster, safer and more reliable than at street level systems because they dont cross road intersections. If approved, the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Line will probably have some underground segments, some street-level segments and some elevated segments depending on whether they are technically and financially feasible. 4.1 on those segments where operating underground is not possible, which alternatives would you prefer (a) at street level (b) elevated; 4.2 on those segments where operating at street level is not possible, which alternative would you prefer (a) elevated (b) underground; 4.3 on those segments where operating above street level (elevated) is not possible which would prefer (a) underground (b) at street level. - Should have asked how frequently. Im retired and might go into Vancouver twice/month. - Only. - I no longer work downtown. 5. Transit Use If this Richmond/Airport/Vancouver rapid transit service is completed how likely do you think you would be to use it? - East west bus connections important in Richmond and to UBC; still need Richmond-UBC direct buses. - Cost of engineering of Cambie Street as opposed to Arbutus Line which is already in place and I believe a more direct route. 6. If you were to use the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit line, which of the following would be most important to you? Hours of operation, reliability of the system, easy connection to other parts of the transit system (i.e. Bus connections), being able to board (system capacity), easy station access, travel time, views from the train, reasonable fares and other, please specify. - Not with private funding. 7. The Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rail Rapid Transit Line This line is expected to cost between $1.5 and $1.7 billion, cost shared by the federal and provincial governments, TransLink, Vancouver International Airport Authority and the private sector. Do you agree with the project proceeding? No comments received. 8. RAVP Neighborhood Consultation (future) How would you like to be consulted if this proposed rail rapid transit project proceeds? Neighborhood group, community meetings, web surveys, open houses, information in the newspaper and other. - Use Community Centers for meetings. 9. Additional Comments - It would be good to have a connection at Broadway with the Millennium Line. - Lets get on with it now. - 10-15 years overdue. - Reduced service on Sat. & Sun. should not be. People work on all 7 days. - This would be nice, but completing the Millennium Line to Granville should be higher priority. - Sardine can loading should be the exception not the rush hour rule.
32
March, 2003
- Must take bikes - all the time - buses take them all the time. Be innovative must keep some buses going to Vancouver not all eggs in one basket. - RAVP must be able to carry bikes. An express bus from Oakridge Station to UBC is essential. - Strongly favor elevated system with architectural stations and easy access to trains at transfer points. - Richmond at grade requires a vehicle driver, elevated can be driverless where does operational savings overcome capital cost in Richmond? Run 491/496 to Bridgeport Station . - I want to see a lot more information and aerial pictures and diagrams comparing and contrasting the Arbutus Line versus Cambie Line. - Elevated as this will not interfere with traffic lights and traffic on street! Enough studies, just do it elevated! - How much development has been pre-empted with existing SkyTrain (surface above surface) when underground was possible? What is annual loss of tax revenues from those lost opportunities? Population growth of 40% by 2021 will it stop after that please plan for the long term. - The Arbutus line must cost a great deal less than the Cambie. It is closely connected to the University and 20 years ago was the subject of a very close study. - The alternative route was not part of this display or was the questionnaire partly to see input into the alternative of Arbutus Corridor as a means of direct access from Airport/Downtown. I would be interested in learning what the population is residing in Richmond via Arbutus to Waterfront? And Cambie to Waterfront? - New Bridge at the Moray Bridge crossing? - Bring the line straight down Cambie in Richmond to Lansdowne and straight across the airport. - As a world class city this is needed especially to the airport. - Do you expect to use the taxpayer exclusively for this project? - It should be built with taste and moderation. - I think the project would be good and convenient to all people who are traveling by bus. - I think this project will help for the majority of the people for the future. Im hoping to see it accomplished in its expected time. - It is time that we had a more efficient transportation system for workers. - I strongly agree with this proposal as long as its not causing too much interruption to the residential area. - Keep going is better for everyone who lives in GVRD. - To start the project as soon as possible. - All sizable cities have rapid mass transit e.g. Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing, Moscow. Why is Vancouver still without one? - It will bring a good future for Richmond. - Make it cheaply and a part of the community. Dont hide it underground. 10. Travel in the Corridor - 3-5 times/week
March, 2003
33
3. AIRPORT 1. No. 3 Road, Grant McConachie Way, Cambie Street to Waterfront Station The proposed general alignment of the RAV line is No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island, Cambie Street into Downtown Vancouver along Davie and Granville Street terminating at the existing Waterfront Station. - Route should use existing rail line along Arbutus as much as possible the people opposing the line can move if they dont like the rail. Someone has to give up something this option is the most costeffective. - Should be underground all along Cambie not part overhead. - I think it is about time to have airport connected to the rest of Greater Vancouver. - Why not Arbutus barter with CPR for property! This is our future! Cambie Street an asset to city appearance. Arbutus = nix. - Cambie Street good choice because of its location to Malls, Hospital, Langara (runs down center of Vancouver giving easy access to both east side and west side residents.) - I think the section along Cambie should also run along parts of South Granville. - Any part of route which would spoil the boulevard on Cambie is unacceptable. - It would be nice to pick up Granville Island. - As a resident bus rider of East Vancouver I am daily affected by a shortage of buses, overcrowded buses and no night service. Money should FIRST be spent to correct this. 2. Direct Travel Do you agree with the following statement: (a) It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between Richmond City Center and downtown Vancouver. (b) It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between the Airport and Downtown Vancouver. No comments received. 3. Travel Time By bus or car, the current travel time from Richmond Center to downtown Vancouver is about 45 to 50 minutes, depending on the time of day and amount of traffic. Do you agree with the following statement: (a) With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from Richmond Center to Waterfront Station should be no more than 30 minutes. (b) With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from the Airport to Waterfront Station should be no more than 25 minutes. No comments received. 4. Underground, At Street level, Above Street Level (Elevated) Rail rapid transit systems can operate underground, at street level or above street level (elevated). The underground and above street level options are more expensive to build, and where elevated, have greater visual impacts. However, underground and elevated systems are cheaper to operate, faster, safer and more reliable than at street level systems because they dont cross road intersections. If approved, the Richmond/ Airport/Vancouver Line will probably have some underground segments, some street-level segments and some elevated segments depending on whether they are technically and financially feasible. 4.1 on those segments where operating underground is not possible, which alternatives would you prefer (a) at street level (b) elevated; 4.2 on those segments where operating at street level is not possible, which alternative would you prefer (a) elevated (b) underground; 4.3 on those segments where operating above street level (elevated) is not possible which would prefer (a) underground (b) at street level. - Cheapest way should be taken. - 4.2 Either.
34
March, 2003
- But note that the real question is grade separation. At grade running O.K. If all crossings were grade separated like Expo Line at Nanaimo. 5. Transit Use If this Richmond/Airport/Vancouver rapid transit service is completed how likely do you think you would be to use it? - I dont live near the line if you had an Arbutus Line I would use it. 6. If you were to use the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit line, which of the following would be most important to you? Hours of operation, reliability of the system, easy connection to other parts of the transit system (i.e. Bus connections), being able to board (system capacity), easy station access, travel time, views from the train, reasonable fares and other, please specify. - Park & Rides on the Vancouver side. 7. The Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rail Rapid Transit Line - This line is expected to cost between $1.5 and $1.7 billion, cost shared by the federal and provincial governments, TransLink, Vancouver International Airport Authority and the private sector. Do you agree with the project proceeding? - Except ambivalent about private sector. 8. RAVP Neighborhood Consultation (future) - How would you like to be consulted if this proposed rail rapid transit project proceeds? Neighborhood group, community meetings, web surveys, open houses, information in the newspaper and other. No comments received. 9. Additional Comments - Need a line to UBC desperately! - Need to get with the times! Europe, Australia, Britain all make us look archaic when it comes to transportation. - Im surprised how long it has taken to build this when planning started way back in the 1970s. - Its a very good idea and has to be done even if we dont have 2010 (Olympics). - I think this project is essential to the growth and infrastructure of Richmond/Vancouver. - Get on with it! - Design cross platform transfer stations/Broadway and Lougheed very bad permit extension from waterfront to North Vancouver (Lonsdale). - Put money first into number of right buses; leaving people stranded and for the storage of buses. - Its a good idea. 10. Travel in the Corridor
March, 2003
35
3. OTHER 1. No. 3 Road, Grant McConachie Way, Cambie Street to Waterfront Station The proposed general alignment of the RAV line is No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island, Cambie Street into Downtown Vancouver along Davie and Granville Street terminating at the existing Waterfront Station. - Yes, I oppose the route the way it is phrased. The no would be in favor of the route. Save the money and provide service from south of the Fraser River to the Airport (from North Delta it is a two-hour trip disgusting). - Its about 10 years too late but better now than never. - Forget Arbutus Line. No one works there. - Would like to see a careful analysis of Arbutus Corridor. I understand the Cambie Street advantages but capital cost might be considerably lower on an already existing right of way. - The time to act is now! We need to reduce traffic and air pollution. - My biggest concern is the removal of trees from the Cambie Blvd. Some of these trees are many (many) years old and it would be a shame to lose them. - The use of Cambie is no go. The Arbutus route makes perfect sense. - (1) Garden City and Alderbridge, should replace Capstan and No. 3 Road. (2) The Bridgeport Station should be moved to Cambie Street and St. Edwards/Shell. (3) Hornby Street should replace Granville. (4) Add station at BC Place/GM Place. (5) 98 B Line should continue from Airport to Downtown via Granville. - Prefer Arbutus routing: High density residential already exists in Kerrisdale, but not as great in Oakridge area. Arbutus routing would not require the separate Richmond UBC bus as 41st or Broadway express buses would serve the students as a connector. Right of way already exists i.e. cheaper construction, specifically for light-rail at surface (overpasses/underpasses can be built at major cross streets.). The people who live along the Arbutus corridor already knew of the railway line being there when they moved to the area. - Should have future line changed to go through SFU. - Support fully if underground. - Should also use Arbutus Corridor. - West Blvd./Arbutus Corridor would be better. Existing tracks to start. Cost less. - Rapid Transit is needed from the Fraser Valley (Langley etc.) to the Airport. - Stop destroying our green spaces. - Do not tear out the Beautiful Boulevard. - Keep Cambie Boulevard intact. - Preserve the Cambie Heritage Boulevard. - Forget Arbutus Route (not near any employment centers or attractions). People will not make extra bus connections. - Use Arbutus on a bus system. - Long overdue. - I feel if the train system is watched carefully at stations for criminal activity then there should be no reason the train shouldnt go through as long as its fast and efficient.
36
March, 2003
- Just do it. - It is a necessity to improve the convenience and efficiency of B.C. Transit for its citizens. - Any other road than No. 3 Road in Richmond would be impractical and very inconvenient. - Agree that Cambie Road would be the best route to service the most people. - I would like to see the route to go even further south (into Steveston). - I dont think it is necessary to build that many stations on No. 3 Road; the 98 B-Line covers it very well. - Better thought to downtown stops. - Going down No. 3 Road is nuts! 98 B-Line is a disaster. There is no space for it! Garden City or #4 to Granville Avenue maybe. - Where is the display in French? The other official language? - We have needed this for a long time. - Provided it is most cost effective route. - Keep open mind/planning for future extension of this line. - Should use Arbutus track to cut cost down. - There is railway tracks down Arbutus, put them to use for public transit. - Makes sense to me, serves Richmond and Vancouver citizens well. Would also support Arbutus corridor route if suitable for Vancouver. - Re the downtown route: consider Symthe to Cambie to Gastown, then along waterfront to Waterfront Station; this would allow SkyTrain (if chosen) to loop around into the Expo and Millennium lines; this is the shortest route; least impact on local areas. This downtown route provides RAV line with every access to key destinations such as False Creek/Plaza of Nations, Robson and BC Place/GM Stations; also station at Hasting and Cambie has access to Chinatown; and then Waterfront Coal Harbour. - Bridgeport or YVR #1 should be terminus for Richmond with businesses serving Richmond from there. No need to go down No. 3 Road with the train. Later a light rail can serve Richmond, Delta, White Rock from Bridgeport or YVR #1. - No rail on beautiful Cambie Heritage Boulevard. Use Arbutus or buses. Dont replace this beautiful boulevard with a cement monster. - Should include Granville Island. - Get on with it, but spend some money/time on aesthetics along Cambie. - I prefer Arbutus corridor. - Extend line to Steveston. - Is it not possible to use an existing crossing, say Arthur Laing or Oak Street Bridge and have the rail suspended within the structure? - Prefer Arbutus route using existing rail line because 1) reduce building cost since dont have build a new transit line; 2) implement earlier i.e. just place rail cars on the existing line dont have to wait until 2009; 3) money saved from building a new line can be used for health care, education and to reduce taxes. - Rather than Davie Street use Symthe can provide access to BC and GM Places.
March, 2003
37
- Think Cambie is the right route. More businesses, higher ridership than Arbutus. - What about going along Granville Street from King Edward? - This is a project that has been a long time coming yet we are a major city without rapid transit connecting to our airport. - The only logical route. - Should go Arbutus, leave Cambie as is. - Really the best route. Faster is better. More places people want to get to are along this route. Must be a fast trip to get more riders. - The Richmond part of the line is good because it goes through the main part of the city, but I believe that the Vancouver section would benefit from being further west (Arbutus or Granville) so that it would be useful to both those going downtown and those going to UBC. - Makes sense to put the route through the areas where there are useful stops like Oakridge, City Hall, etc. - Long overdue. - Why a tunnel under False Creek? How about a bridge alongside Cambie Street Bridge? - It is very important to choose a route that is the fastest and most convenient (i.e. easy access to the largest number of potential users) so as to encourage and motivate automobiles users to switch to taking the RAV instead of an automobile. - Arbutus with the rail line already there is the best route for a LIGHT rapid transit. Check the new street cars available. They are beautiful and quiet. Several can be joined together to make a train. - Dont know. - I support the Arbutus Corridor versus the Cambie Corridor. - Why not use the existing rail corridor on Arbutus? - Id like to see the route go all the way to Tsawwassen terminal (the ferries) which will make the long commute shorter. Transportation has to be way better between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay. - I was thinking it would be good to use the Arbutus Corridor, but seeing that Cambie has a much larger number of employment centers, Cambie should not be overlooked. - I live in Kits and work at the airport and I take a 4 or 7 bus to Granville then a 98B to airport station then a 424 to the airport. The 98B is stand up only its always busy due to the high population density of the west side and west end and the new transit line should be down the Arbutus line this is where the population is not the Cambie Line which is surrounded by single family homes. If Cambie gets it what will happen to all the people on the west side and west end will the 98B get cut back on Granville. Cambie is the way out for these people to go. I might as well buy a car. Put transit where the areas are. Thanks Paul Morgan. - This is the most logical direct route for the system to feed the greatest number of people traveling to and from Richmond and the Airport. - Reaching the employment/shopping centers is very important to ensure enough ridership. - I support this route and I strongly support full grade-separation. - Cambie is too beautiful to be disfigured by the SkyTrain route. Arbutus already has a railway: use that instead. - Its a GREAT IDEA! Less cars, cleaner air! And perhaps ICBC will lower the insurance rates!
38
March, 2003
- I believe that it would be far cheaper and make overall better sense (i.e. better connections to UBC) to use the existing rail corridor along Arbutus. - I think that the extension should run down Broadway (extended from Commercial Station) to Cambie and then follow your proposed routing. - The downtown Vancouver portion of the line needs to pass through a more central area. Perhaps Burrard, not Seymour. At the very least it needs to have a stop at Burrard and Georgia. - I would like to see the downtown section travel beneath Burrard Station or better, Thurlow, stopping at Burrard Stations, Robson, Davie (at Burrard), Davie at Granville, Davie at Homer/Mainland. More stations are needed on Cambie, especially if bus service will be reduced along the route. - Major crime problem with SkyTrain. Crime follows the SkyTrain route. The project costs too much. No. 3 Road is too congested already!!! - I suggest that the system to be used for this line be the same as that used for SkyTrain. - Why not consider the Arbutus corridor which already has a railway? - Since neither the proposed RAV line nor the bus system will ever approach offering door-to-door service, you will need huge automobile parking facilities at some of the Richmond and South Vancouver RAV stations so that people could drive from home to use the RAV line. - Downtown Richmond is very congested and construction may affect the businesses around the construction zones. Also, maintaining the beauty of the urban environment is essential. It would be important to keep that in mind when constructing the RAV rapid transit line to Richmond Center. - Cambie route makes the most sense due to employment centers and shorter distance. Richmond routes look good too. - What is the problem with residents living on Cambie trying to protect the street? Its nothing really and all they care about is maintaining the status quo for themselves and increasing their real estate values. RAV should not be held hostage by a few dozen homeowners. These people should be more concerned with more serious matters like people dying and overdosing in the east end. - MUST be UNDERGROUND or FULLY GRADE-SEPARATED from DOWNTOWN to CAMBIE/41ST. - Granville segment must be in tunnel not at grade. All the RAV line should be in tunnel from Waterfront to West 64 Ave. then elevated south to Airport and Richmond. Also extend the Millennium Line west under 10th Ave. to Granville with a branch at Cambie for RAV trains to access existing vehicle facilities in Burnaby. (see attached correspondence and map in Appendix. - Use Arbutus Street instead of Cambie Street. - Arbutus railroad instead of Cambie. - Oppose if in a subway or elevated. - As long as the line is done underground from downtown to around West 50th. - Keep RAV below grade north of Cambie. - Why does everyone assume we need to go downtown? How about the people going eastbound in Vancouver? - Support Vancouver portion with direct link to the airport, and spur to No. 3 Road. - It is the shortest, most direct and most convenient to major centers. - Ensure bike users/cyclists have a place to put bikes on board suggests a survey for how many transit users would use bike/car.
March, 2003
39
- Do not agree with running a line down Cambie Street use Granville or Arbutus they are already a mess. - Cambie is not the best route. Use the existing right of way. Enhance the Broadway and 41st and 49th feeder, this also gets people south of Vancouver to UBC, Metrotown and Kerrisdale. - The Arbutus Corridor should be used, not Cambie Street. Why spend a fortune and snarl traffic for years digging up a major thoroughfare when an unused, perfectly located former rail corridor is virtually ready for use? - Should not come into downtown core of Richmond (No. 3 Road) as it will only create further traffic problems and bring increased crime to area. - I believe the route would be better served by following/using the Arbutus Corridor railway right-of-way. - You are not taking into consideration the community that lives on and around the proposed route. For example you are willing to destroy Cambie Street one of the most beautiful streets in Vancouver also a heritage boulevard. You are planning the route where people are living in family homes and apartment buildings not taking into account, totally ignoring the effect the RAV line will have on their lives and the value decrease on the price of their properties. All this is because you do not want to disturb the rich who lives on Arbutus corridor where the environment is much better suited for the RAV line with already having train tracks and plenty of un-maintained space for something like this. This project ignores the people, the community who currently lives along this route. You do not care how will the added noise effect our lives by placing SkyTrain stations and tracks under our windows and reducing the value of our houses, apartments, this is one of the most unfair project proposed in the city (among many others) I have seen so far in order to protect the interest of the rich. - Best possible route for time and the number of places people want to get to! Arbutus is a slower route and there is virtually nothing along Arbutus where people want to go! - I would also suggest the crme de la crme route. My main objective is downtown to airport service regardless of the route. - Unnecessary use of funds. Enhanced B-Line would be more to the point. - Why are we duplicating a north/south line from Broadway to downtown Vancouver? Tunneling is way too expensive. - Begin - Seems to me it would make more sense to run it up Arbutus where a rail corridor already exists, and where it would be easier to transfer to a UBC bus (or extend the line out to UBC), but I realize the rich folks who live there are hard to convince! - Arbutus is the obvious choice not Cambie. Why destroy all those beautiful trees on Cambie when there is existing rail on Arbutus? The Cambie Street proposal appears to be giving into the demands of the residents of Arbutus Street. These people are not more important than other Vancouverites. - It would make more sense to me, if the line is underground, to run beneath Granville, an already-established transit corridor where businesses and residences already are used to heavy transit use. Cambie or Arbutus are good routes, however, the routes have never been subject to very heavy transit use on the trolley-only routes. I oppose both those options. A serious study should be done on Granville for an underground line. For an at-grade line, I support the Arbutus line due to the existence of a right-of-way. I do not believe it to be economically viable to turn a perfectly usable right-of-way that has already been surveyed to be at a level grade into some sort of park while Cambie would need to be re-surveyed. For a direct high-speed transit line to Richmond and the airport, Arbutus is the sound choice, and connects major destinations at Broadway and Kerrisdale, places that actually have room to develop
40
March, 2003
and grow. Overall, I support a below-grade heavy rail line along Granville that would connect to the Expo line at Waterfront. - I support all the routes! - For 30 years I have been waiting for the Arbutus train tracks to be used for rapid transit to Richmond. Its time to get on with it. - STOP this insanity now. You have no support for this line aside from a handful of corporations that stand to make an enormous profit and a premier that drinks too much and has no conception of what the truth is. We, the taxpayers, are already billions in debt because of your belligerent refusal to hear that the Millennium line was not what was needed, nor now, will be used. First improve bus service by buying more trolleys and reinstating all night service. Then eliminate fares by charging businesses a dollar per day per employee. Then create transit only lanes that run the length of entire routes. When all of that is accomplished, lets talk about street-level rapid transit. - At first I thought that the line running up Davie to Granville was kind of strange, but I guess with the increasing population density of Yaletown, it makes sense to be at least one station down there. - Cambie will provide the best business access. - Above ground in order to be rapid transit . Definite above ground in Richmond. No more studies, time we get rapid transit..long overdue! - The route should not go to the airport, which lacks the numbers of the frequent regular commuters to make that part of the route profitable. A line to Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal would make sense. - Cambie Street is the best route, so the people of Vancouver can use the system also to access locations on Cambie, shopping, City Hall, Little Mountain, sports-hockey, football etc. not just a route through Vancouver for Richmond to get into Vancouver. I think a station at 16th Avenue would be good also. There is a large amount of apartments there rides. - The idea of a rapid bus line: and light rail system thought up by city councils members are just stupid. Wonder whats in their brains.Bus idea? (hasnt it already existed called 98-B line?) Light Rail? (whats the difference between taking RAV line and driving a car if both are affected by traffic lights?) We want a fxxxing high-end system that costs the shortest time. - Prefer improved bus or LRT and tolls on private autos. - This is the shortest and most direct route anything else would be ridiculous. - Use Arbutus existing rail. Why damage the beautiful Cambie Blvd.? - If underground on Cambie. - It seems obvious given the retail, commercial, public services it would pass. - Arbutus Corridor is better for my family. Use the existing right of way down Arbutus. - VGH et al can easily be reached by Broadway. - I live in Ladner and work in Burnaby and want to use public transit and by far, this Richmond-Vancouver rapid transit is the most efficient route for me. - More bus routes instead less money, plus greater flexibility. - Arbutus corridor makes more sense. - Is it cheaper to follow an existing rail on Arbutus? Why go Cambie over Arbutus? I live in Surrey and commute to Richmond via tunnel and 3 person car pool.
March, 2003
41
- Cost too high. Not much passenger. - What about Arbutus? - Communicating time saving and avoid car position/congesting traffic/gasoline cost. - Should be considered i.e. Arbutus, Granvillebut feel this is not affordable. - Totally not required. - Better get done ASAP. - Opposed to Cambie Route. - Not along Cambie. - Would prefer downtown section to be underground. - Should be SkyTrain! - I cant support if benefits are greater than the costs. - If we need it this is the best route. - Most of it along Cambie should be underground. - Don cave into Cambie Street NIMBYS . - Cambie route is the only logical option! For all the reasons which are discussed. The Memorial Boulevard is a totally trumped up farce. My great grandfather helped design this City in 18861910. Boulevard medians are always for future rights-of-way. If Cambie or King-Ed medians are so sacred then why were the tracks in front of my Grandfathers house on King Edward in the 1940s???? Over to you. - I would like to see it extended to the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal and a possible stop in Delta, Tsawwassen, outside Splashdown Park and the ferry, if hundreds of millions are going to be spent, whats an extra couple of stops. - Arbutus corridor. - The Arbutus route is shorter. No. 3 Road is congested. - One stop at Queen Elizabeth Park. - Prefer Arbutus Corridor. - This is big dont do half measures. - No. 3 Road too busy Garden City would be better. - Someone in this house uses it every day. - In Vancouver there are no tourist places along your route. Wouldnt Kits/Vanier Park/Granville Island along Arbutus rail line to Marpole at the Coast Hotel be better? - Why not SkyTrain? - Use buses not rapid transit. Oppose route. Should be more direct route via Arbutus. Also the cost of underground is prohibitive. - No. 3 Road is already a disaster thanks to Transit. Granville/Garden City would be preferable. - Only logical route as to destinations. - Too many stops in Richmond Centre (forget Westminster and Capstan).
42
March, 2003
- Cambie Heritage Boulevard over old Tram line tracts and should not require $$$ to develop already city owned. - Support Arbutus route. - Better to use No. 2 Road, Garden City, Knight Street routes. If you avoided going to No. 3 Road and Richmond Centre and instead went directly on No. 1 route, it makes sense. - Transit in downtown must go through business area like Georgia Street. - Cambie section I oppose. - Must go the Airport Terminal as close as possible to the parking garage. - Start it nowdont wait. - Should be all underground. - Cambie is the most beautiful street. - Cut and fill down Granville Street? - I opt for the Arbutus route. Already set-up. Go through Kits. - Great idea I was thinking of moving to Richmond. Strongly agree. - Arbutus already has some infrastructure in place; less damage to area. - If benefits a small group of people only. Why does every taxpayer have to pay for it. This is made for the Games. - Rapid transit is a wonderful idea but not at the cost of 100 year old trees. Cambie Street is a heritage boulevard. - I still think it is better to use the Arbutus line its there and would be cheaper. - If C.P.R. is not prepared to use the line to transport people give land back to the government. - Strong consideration should be given to existing track along Arbutus! - Use Arbutus, not Cambie! - Stupid waste of taxpayers money. Youll destroy the neighborhood so some air travelers can go down town. Not wasting a lot of money when buses are cheaper and better to run on Cambie/ - Richmond OK, use Arbutus in Vancouver. - Airport connection critical. - Rail rapid transit is superior. - I have two teenagers and they would likely use it the coming years. - Underground. - Use the Arbutus Street access, not Cambie! - No information is provided about alternate routes studied why not? I might support the Cambie Street option if I knew no others were viable. - Would like the Capstan Way Station to be open immediately. - How many zones would this route be? *Two zones would be fair! - No mention of system integration with a tunnel system to the North Shore, possible portal at Pacific Boulevard and Quebec Street which would alter configurations.
March, 2003
43
- Please first solve the traffic problem on No. 3 Road in Richmond. - What would be the frequency of this run? - The project costs too much and where theres SkyTrain, there is crime!! Major problem. - Support only if underground along Cambie. - Construct Airport Downtown at least. - Only the Arbutus Corridor makes sense in every way! Please call me. - Only on Arbutus. - Use existing West Boulevard line fraction of the cost! - No SkyTrain on Cambie. - Should be Arbutus. - Do you want this route? Clearer. - On condition that same provisions are made for people who need to drive to a station and take the RAV the rest of the way, north or south. - My greatest interest is to see the line to Richmond Center completed. - Go for it all. - We dont have the population to support the whole system. The cost is so high and the ridership is so low, use the money somewhere else, you want to make money as well, not to lose money. - Do it all underground! Other Cities can do it so can we! - Too many stops in Richmond! This will slow down the service. Drop _ of them and use shuttle buses same thing for the airport. You can run a lot of shuttles for the price of a station! - Servicing major employment centers in Vancouver is key to ensuring good ridership numbers. - Arbutus corridor is preferred. - Use Arbutus existing line. - Dont destroy this beautiful, unique heritage boulevard. Traffic congestion is a control mechanism. - Not No. 3 Road; utilize Garden City Road as an alternative. - We like our Boulevard. Use the natural corridor Arbutus. - Later extend to Railway and Steveston. - Ridership should be high with Langara College, Oakridge, City Hall and Vancouver General Hospital all on the route proposed. - No Cambie Street. - Against Cambie Street. - If SkyTrain use Stadium Station. - Add stations at 16th and Cambie and False Creek south. - But if I had my way I would choose Granville Street. - Would hate to see the beautiful Cambie Heritage Boulevard destroyed.
44
March, 2003
- I support a Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit Line along the Arbutus Corridor. - Build it already. - Terminal Bridgeport Main Street Train Station. - Totally against the Cambie section. Costly go Arbutus and the communities grow. - Use Arbutus rail line instead of Cambie. - If majority opposed then build it on Main Street. - Build routes to Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam first. These are more important commuter lines and more important to getting individual cars off the roads. - We have waited too long for this! - Davie down Granville questionable. - A must for the Village of Vancouver. - The better transportation the less traffic on street/road. - Definitely oppose! I have lived at my 61st address since 49 and helped fight to get the Heritage designation and dont want it ugly with cement. Even when I travel, at my age, I would always take a case. Baggage would be a problem on SkyTrain. - Do not use Cambie Street. The Richmond portion I have no opinion on. - If this train goes down Cambie it must go underground to Marine Drive. P.S. How can Premier Campbell betray us after declaring Cambie a Heritage Boulevard (when he was Mayor). This is how he received our vote! If TransLink is to come down Cambie it must be underground to Marine Drive to preserve our heritage trees. - Long overdue. Get on with it! There is too much democracy in this City which is why it takes forever to get things done. I dont have a FAX machine, silly. - Cambie route is only route I support! - Seems to me the Arbutus Corridor already has the land and would be closer to the airport. Put it under that corridor underground, out of the weather. - The route, as proposed, seems the most logical and serves the greatest population. - The system should be the same as the ones we have already. - No. 3 Road is a mess. If RAV goes down No. 3 where will other buses go, or will there be no buses on No. 3 Road Granville to Bridgeport? Poor planning. - Cambie Heritage Blvd. must be preserved in its entirety. - Route needs to extend south to Steveston using Railway. There is a large scale development happening in South Steveston at Moncton and Railway. There will be a population explosion and rapid transit will be crucial. Planning for the future of this area needs to occur now. - Downtown segment must be underground. Cambie Street until Marine Drive also underground preferably. - There is no point using Arbutus. There are not enough industries, services or shopping areas to support this route. - The Cambie section should be underground for as long as is financially possible. - I DO NOT LIKE THE IDEA AT ALL! SAVE THE CAMBIE HERITAGE! - Cambie is a poor choice far too much damage to one of the prettiest streets in our city!
45
2. Direct Travel Do you agree with the following statement: (a) It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between Richmond City Center and downtown Vancouver. (b) It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between the Airport and Downtown Vancouver. - Must be an easy transfer. - Same question for 2(a) and 2(b). - Use cabs or buses. - You could have 2 of every 3 trains southbound to Richmond Center. - You could have 1 of every 3 trains southbound go to Bridgeport Station, then direct to airport. - (b) people have to transfer now on Millennium Line at Broadway. No big deal to do it on Richmond line too. - It has to be grade separated --- faster, safer, and reliable. I love SkyTrain its the only way to go (fast). If youre going to build it, built it right and give us first class service, please! - Why are there are no proposed park n ride lots at the stations along the route? - (a) No passengers allowed on in Vancouver. (b) What about bags and skis? 3. Travel Time By bus or car, the current travel time from Richmond Center to downtown Vancouver is about 45 to 50 minutes, depending on the time of day and amount of traffic. Do you agree with the following statement: (a) With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from Richmond Center to Waterfront Station should be no more than 30 minutes. (b) With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from the Airport to Waterfront Station should be no more than 25 minutes. - (a) If we are paying billions it better be way quicker than transit (buses). (b) Dont know. What is the time it takes now via bus? Should be much less on an expensive rail line. - Whose watch do you use? - No rails. - No way. - (a) exaggerated except for rush hour times! 4. Underground, At Street level, Above Street Level (Elevated) Rail rapid transit systems can operate underground, at street level or above street level (elevated). The underground and above street level options are more expensive to build, and where elevated, have greater visual impacts. However, underground and elevated systems are cheaper to operate, faster, safer and more reliable than at street level systems because they dont cross road intersections. If approved, the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Line will probably have some underground segments, some street-level segments and some elevated segments depending on whether they are technically and financially feasible. 4.1 on those segments where operating underground is not possible, which alternatives would you prefer (a) at street level (b) elevated; 4.2 on those segments where operating at street level is not possible, which alternative would you prefer (a) elevated (b) underground; 4.3 on those segments where operating above street level (elevated) is not possible which would prefer (a) underground (b) at street level. - No rail on Cambie, use Arbutus or buses. - Always prefer underground. - Cheaper to operate how is that? 4.1. Unless it has to stop at intersections then should be elevated.
46
March, 2003
- Elevated safer and less costly to maintain. - Street Level in Calgary creates traffic problems. - No trains - No SkyTrain. - The SkyTrain elevated terminals are ugly. The one near Brentwood Mall looks like a giant cockroach. - Because street level along No. 3 Road would be dangerous to cars and pedestrians and too slow. How would traffic turn left beside a train? - No rail on Cambie, use Arbutus or buses. - Having it access the Arbutus corridor. - 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Only underground in Vancouver. Richmond: elevated because not primarily residential neighborhoods. 5. Transit Use If this Richmond/Airport/Vancouver rapid transit service is completed how likely do you think you would be to use it? - Tie in with other SkyTrain at waterfront (same track). - Depending on the time savings. - If accessed via Arbutus Corridor. - Never. 6. If you were to use the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit line, which of the following would be most important to you? Hours of operation, reliability of the system, easy connection to other parts of the transit system (i.e. Bus connections), being able to board (system capacity), easy station access, travel time, views from the train, reasonable fares and other, please specify. - Not destroying other peoples lives by building a monstrous elevated system right under their windows so they couldnt sleep from the constant noise and losing the value of their present homes. - Good stations, a la the Millennium Line. - Places along route I want to get to. - Will not use. - Safety in stations and on train. - Not likely. - Out of Cambie on to Arbutus. - Cost of bus fare stays the same. - Enough parking place. - Late hours on weekends Friday/Saturday for people leaving downtown bars (i.e. until 2:30 a.m.) Also need to consider start/finish times of service for shift workers at airport and hospitals. - Rapid transit says the line will save 15 to 20 minutes. Even Mr. Cadman said that time will be lost entering and exiting stations. $1.5 - $1.7 million for NOTHING. - Bicycle accessible. - Would not use. Should be on existing rail line.
March, 2003
47
- Security - I am very concerned about what happened with SkyTrain in the Whalley area and I dont want that to happen in central Richmond and the Airport. - Parking at stations is a must buses defeat rapid transit. - Take cars off the road. - Underground. - More relaxed, avoid nutty drivers. - Speed wins ridership/please make it bike friendly. - Safety. - Safety. - Fare must be part of an existing transit fare. All above are important. View least important. No point in a reliable system if you cant get on (capacity). - Safety especially at night will never, never use it if it destroys this beautiful boulevard. - Facilities for luggage including more elevators. - Oppose the whole project. - Available parking to park car near stations. - Comfort. - Security and safety. Presently I can cross Cambie and catch the bus, where if your stations were far apart I would not be able to walk the extra distance. - Reduced vehicle use. - Time is very important buses take far too long and are not very reliable. - Reduce the traffic jam from all sorts of transportation. Its a must for the urban city. - Below ground Cambie Blvd. Airport Route should run 24 hours. - I need a good Cambie bus system, not less local bus service! - Forget the view. Get me there quickly, safely and economically. 7. The Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rail Rapid Transit Line This line is expected to cost between $1.5 and $1.7 billion, cost shared by the federal and provincial governments, TransLink, Vancouver International Airport Authority and the private sector. Do you agree with the project proceeding? - If insufficient funds are available from the sources mentioned, then increasing the tax on gasoline should be considered. Such an increase in the gas tax should also be considered to subsidize operating costs in order to keep fares at a level that would encourage automobile users to use the RAV service. - Depending on ridership numbers and time savings over bus. - But not down Cambie. - Agree only without private sector involved. - Parking by stations. Drive and Rides. Fewer stations, too much time and only benefits developers, like what you did on the Millennium Line. Stations in the middle of nothing, great place to build houses? - No desecration of Cambie Heritage Boulevard. - No damaging the Cambie Heritage Boulevard.
48
March, 2003
- Need more Federal money, less Provincial for Games. - Optimize getting to Richmond not airport. Make use of undeveloped land to finance. - Should be underground north of Fraser River. - What about Arbutus? This is just like the previous exercise A. Griffith hired to examine light rail and we had SkyTrain imposed. Typical TransLink an exercise in B.S. - I refuse to buy a second car because Im a big fan of how quickly I can get around by SkyTrain for $3 dollars! Please give us more Millennium Line rail service. - If Marine Drive Waterfront as a subway. I recommend to (that you) visit Prague, Czech Republic to see TransLink in an old city. - Must be RAIL transit system, no buses like the B-Line please. - Let airport users find away. Deal with local transit users first. - Too expensive, use Arbutus line and light rail. - I dont believe the ridership level will justify the cost. - Work at Childrens Hospital. Oak bus is only 20 minutes after rush hour, also never on time. - Should use Arbutus corridor not the Cambie Heritage Boulevard route. - I have lived at Cambie and 49th Avenue for 10 years and Cambie Street for a total of 40 years. This train must go underground if at all. - However use Arbutus Line people who own homes on Arbutus know the tracks were there when they bought homes. Leave Cambie alone. 8. RAVP Neighborhood Consultation (future) How would you like to be consulted if this proposed rail rapid transit project proceeds? Neighborhood group, community meetings, web surveys, open houses, information in the newspaper and other. - By personally being addressed and consulted as a community member and TAX PAYER whose life will be tremendously effected and destroyed by this project. - Raise a reader action inform young folks. - Surveys that allow you to NOT fill in parts that dont make any sense, like Section 4, (I dont support this line at all so why require me to choose options that I oppose) and 6 (there is only 1 priority, not building it). - Not local Richmond Vancouver but Vancouver Sun and Province. - Post (mail), high priority, 3rd choice low priority. - Binding plebiscite (choice Arbutus or Cambie) - Consult all areas of GVRD as it will impact all of us. - All serve all people. - Meet with Cambie Heritage Boulevard Society (321-8100). - All of the above area excellent; give people as many ways to communicate and listen to the proposals as possible so there is no excuses that they didnt know! - Keep Cambie Heritage Blvd. informed. Have City Council hear concerns of citizens directly (Vancouver).
March, 2003
49
9. Additional Comments - I hope this gets done before I retire. - A rapid transit line to the Airport is long overdue bus service or at grade rail service will not provide the needed capacity. - As a west coast major city a reliable, convenient, transportation system is needed. - An elevated system with architecturally stunning stations like the Millennium Line would be best suited for Richmond. - Would like the rapid transit line put in place ASAP at the least cost to taxpayers. - I think if transit is kept elevated it will free up the road traffic and possibly use existing rail line if it doesnt affect intersections use both options to save money but not if it hinders the speed of the system. - Richmond Airport Corridor has been too long neglected as part of the regions transportation infrastructure. Not only is there no rapid transit between Richmond and Vancouver but there is also a highway. - Start building. - Additional station needed at 57th Avenue. King Edward Station should be further south (i.e. Midlothian (sic)) to accommodate better access to hospitals, Queen Elizabeth Park, Nat Bailey Stadium, Riley Park. - While I support plans for rapid transit to the east of the GVRD, feel it is important to serve existing population and employment bases. This is a major corridor with equal transit demand both north and south. Airport job center will grow. The line is needed. - I dont feel strongly vis--vis Cambie or Arbutus. My main concern is travel time to downtown Vancouver. - The continued improvements to the entire road transit system could eliminate the need for any automobiles in the downtown core. - Great idea but lets get on with it. Too many studies. Cambie Route and SkyTrain underground as much as possible is the way to go. - This transit line will certainly be useful because it connects (unreadable) of the major destinations in this city. It would be even more useful, however, if it also connected to another major destination, UBC, or at least to a bus system which provided faster service to UBC. - Find Discussion Guide and Feedback Form not very useful because there are no specific details re: where line will be underground, at street level or above street. Difficult to form an opinion based on lack of information. - Huge on rail, have read everything, love SkyTrain, Vancouver-YVR focus on bus not a good idea, Millennium Line style rail is best, daily SkyTrain user, environmentally friendly, safer to commute, cheaper, times is number one, ridership will increase if bikes on rail. - Calgary has a reliable and successful street level and underground (with few bridges) light rapid transit system, as do many cities in North America and Europe. Construction costs are cheaper, but capacity and longevity seem to be excellent. Rather than a SkyTrain technology, at-grade rail can be user friendly, more attractive and useful to commuters. From Richmond, it could be run at grade along No. 3 Road, with priority signaling at intersections for the trains, as it is in Calgary. After crossing the river, alignment could be at grade all the way to King Edward, with the exception of tunnels through Marine Drive and Oakridge. From King Edward to 1st Avenue should be below ground. But through the False Creek bottom lands it may be better to be at grade with a bridge over the creek. In downtown, the tunnel to Waterfront Station is the best alignment, serving the major business areas in the Central Business
50
March, 2003
District. HOWEVER, a cheaper alternative may be a combination elevated/at grade route around BC Place and GM Place, under the Georgia Viaduct, under SkyTrain, (with a Stadium Station Junction) in a short tunnel under Abbot Street emerging close to the CP rail yards, then following the rail yards to Waterfront Station. This would alleviate the massive tunneling required under downtown. - A dining car where they serve canaps, tapas and other light appetizers would be nice. It should also be licensed. - I would suggest that wherever feasible and practical along the proposed route, that the SkyTrain technology be used because the technology already exists, it would match the existing SkyTrain lines in the city and it affords transit users with splendid views of the city and its spectacular geographic setting. - No matter what I think SkyTrain technology should be used. Its technology that debuted right here and by having SkyTrain to the airport, we can showcase our technology to the world. Itll also be faster and most Vancouverites are already used to how SkyTrain operates. Also, we have to get that Bombardier factory in use which seems to be idle at the moment. Maybe they can build our new trolley buses as well. - I will repeat. A light rapid transit is the best solution. One thing that must not be done is to destroy Cambie Street. The tracks are already in place on Arbutus and should be utilized, even if required. The cost will not, I am sure, be in the billions of dollars. - I think we are taxed enough in this province, and I hope it can pay for itself by the people who will be using it rather than hidden and or gas and or property tax, etc, etc. My only other concern is that this much awaited infrastructure seems to be coming around the Olympic bid and not on its own. - Im a Surrey resident and that is why I wont most likely use the route. I do believe though a lot of others will benefit. If you want to see fewer cars on the road then we have to start somewhere. The route I would also like to see is: improvement from Surrey to Richmond. Shouldnt take 3 hours on 3 different buses. Think about the people who work shifts and how much time they are expected to spend on traveling. - Why not consider the Arbutus Line? 1. The cost will be significantly reduced! 2. The majority of the atgrade alignment already exists with wide buffer strips to the adjacent neighborhoods. 3. UBC is the second largest employer in the region next to the airport and is better served by the Arbutus Line. What is the problem with community leaders who can see the obvious benefits to the Arbutus versus the Cambie corridor. - Richmond has the highest per capita car ownership in Canada do you really think they are going to be lining up to take public transportation if this goes through? Who is going to be using it? In almost every country which has rapid transit to/from airports, it has been an abysmal failure, unless there is no car access to it at all. Check out the record loss margins for the one in Sydney, Australia. - I think if you build the rapid transit link to Richmond and the Airport you should extend to Tsawwassen Terminal as it is a very high traffic area going through the Massey Tunnel when trying to go and catch a ferry. It would also shorten the travel time when traveling with public transit from Victoria to Vancouver. I think transportation between Victoria and the mainland need big improvements why not extend the rapid transit line to the Island??? If that is not possible at least extend to Tsawwassen Terminal that way travel time to Vancouver and other parts of the lower mainland would be shorter than a 3 to 4 hour travel time.especially for business people who travel on a daily basis from the Island to Vancouver. This something that needs great attention. - Please dont ignore cyclists as TransLink has done with the Expo and Millennium Lines despite promises to the contrary. Public transport needs to be fluid and accessible to all and it has to help support other modes of city transportation like bikes that are part of the solution.
March, 2003
51
- Top priority for TransLink should be: 1. Rapid transit from Commercial Drive to UBC. I understand the Millennium Line is being proposed to be extended from Commercial Drive to Arbutus/Granville and Broadway. This is a horrible corridor to drive or take buses through, so it makes sense to have rapid transit. It should be subway-style (underground) to avoid disrupting the appearance of Broadway. 2. Rapid transit from downtown Vancouver to Richmond and the Airport. As you mention on this website, this is a heavily used corridor, which will only get more heavily used and only rapid transit will solve this. I question the need for the proposed Port Moody-Coquitlam Line from Lougheed Station to Coquitlam Center. Since it would essentially replace the 97 B-Line, it should be found out how many of those riders go to downtown Vancouver. If its a high percentage, couldnt the same result be achieved by having high frequency trains traveling back and forth from Waterfront and Coquitlam Center on the West Cost Express tracks? - In conjunction with the development of the RAV Rapid Transit Line, the Arbutus Corridor land should be purchased from CP Rail and turned into a multi-use park for cycling, roller-blading, walking, jogging, handicap/wheelchair use, etc., connecting Downtown Vancouver, Stanley Park with the Fraser River and beyond. This would create a wonderful legacy for all citizens of Vancouver to enjoy and further complement our 2010 Olympic bid. - Re question 3, I would most likely use it to go to the airport, in which case all expect the last two items are REQUIRED Id have to be able to get to line on the bus with a suitcase too heavy for me to lift, would need it early in the morning and around midnight (based on the hours of my usual trips), and Id have to KNOW Id be able to count on the timing and availability. Its less convenient than the Airporter, so it would have to be significantly cheaper and would have to run more often. Re: question 5, Id more likely use the line to get to Kerrisdale (Arbutus route), were parking is so difficult and the current bus runs so infrequently. The line is of less interest to me along Cambie, as Oakridge has plenty of parking. I dont go to Richmond and it seems there are dozens of buses already, including a B-Line that goes directly there. Re: question 2, as stated, I agree that its important to provide transportation to downtown Richmond without having to transfer, but I think that already available. I dont think its important to provide it by rail instead of by B-Line. Re: question 11, I have traveled from the airport by taxi in the last 30 days. Does that change my answer? - We have waited long enough and too much time and effort and surveys have gone into to this already. It is time that those responsible got off their collective butts and showed some leadership and get this project in construction instead of waffling to protect their political backside. ACT NOW and answer the questions late; you will not please more than 60% of the people any time. In BC it is noted for every 10 people there are 10 different versions of any project and never any agreement. Now that Winter 2010 is upon us with a certain amount of agreement lets get going and do it regardless of the NIMBY attitude in Vancouver. - First, I think we should build the entire line in Vancouver underground. Keep the Cambie boulevard as it is. People like it. An elevated line along Cambie does not fit in the neighborhood. Second, I also think the underground system should have some spurs for future growth. There should be a spur line that could one day connect to the Arbutus Line running north/south and a spur line that could one day connect to an Arbutus line running north/south and a spur line that connects to a future Broadway line running east/west. Third, we have express lines like there are in New York City. That is to say, there could a third line to run express trains that go direct from the airport to downtown Vancouver non-stop. Trips like these could take 10 minutes. Finally, lets continue with SkyTrain technology. People like the driverless cars and the speed of them. - (1) I prefer existing SkyTrain rather than light rail. A separated and elevated system like SkyTrain is safer and faster. Although it is more expensive that at-grade light rail, it is still cheaper than underground system. (2) Both Richmond-Vancouver and Airport-Vancouver services should be direct services, without
52
March, 2003
any interchange. This is particularly important to attract airport passengers who are carrying baggage. Depending on the amount of passengers, the ratio of direct trains, the ratio of direct trains between Vancouver-Richmond and Vancouver-Airport can be say 2:1 or 3:1. - I am a new mom and therefore have a car seat, stroller etc. so thats why I havent taken transit lately to the airport. I see the CROWDS on the B-Line to Richmond and I see the traffic on the roads so the transit would be a good idea. Plus itd be great for airport accessI would certainly use it to get to the airport! - RAV transit proposed is generally good. Just wondering, that many of Richmond residents are also like to go to Burnaby (shown from the always full 410 b uses. Please consider connection between Richmond and Burnaby, East Vancouver in mind. - We already have SkyTrain in the Lower Mainland. Going to another type of technology doesnt make sense. With one type of technology cars can be shared among the lines, operating costs should be cheaper because maintenance crews only need to be trained on one type of technology etc. It would be short-sighted to use another technology for capital savings reasons. - I would like to know if there is a possibility of having either a rapid transit line on Oak Street if in the event that Cambie Street or Arbutus Corridor are both opposed. - I strongly think that the downtown portion should connect fairly well at both Granville and Waterfront. I also STRONGLY think that the system should be interlined with the M-Line. This adds capacity, makes it more attractive (no transfers). If TransLink is serious about the PMC line, then this line should share the M-Line and branch off downtown. This would probably branch off just after Cambie. However, there SHOULD be interlining from the PMC/M-Line from either the West or the East side, which side would benefit more from the lack of a transfer. Marine Drive should have an entrance on the South and North sides of the street.and the part south of QE Park should elevated and surrounded by deciduous trees, to lessen visual impact. - 1) Traffic Congestion/Cost: The government should consider improving the current bus transit system (e.g. using smaller buses/van at low times) instead of spending a fortune in another project. The new Richmond No. 3 Road transit line already cost taxpayers lots of money. As a result, the traffic in Richmonds only major road became so congested every day; and business is affected as well. 2) Crime: The security at SkyTrain stations is minimal. SkyTrain brings crime along its route; just take a look at East Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. Vancouver west and Richmond do NOT need more crime!!! - More stations should be planned for the Cambie street sector between 15th and 18th Avenue and possibly at the False Creek seaway (south side). The downtown segment should be aligned to better serve the West End, either via Thurlow or Burrard Streets. Trains should stop at Burrard station, Robson Street, Davie (at Thurlow or Burrard), Davie at Granville, and Davie between Homer and Mainland Streets. - Can you call it SkyTrain like Millennium Line and Expo Line Can we let RAV line have same technology as SkyTrain? - Congratulations to Pat Jacobsen and Jane Bird for fielding the variety of special interest questions at todays forum in Richmond. Some doubts about the Cambie alignment could be dispelled if statistics on the home (origin) locations of employees at the major employment/school centers along the line could be identified. This could be done by surveying the employers or other means. This is not an O-D survey, just a summary of where these people are traveling from. Secondly, the majority of todays attendees were more focused on technology. If links to websites of technology suppliers were on the website, this might console people that SkyTrain is not being forced onto them. Personally, I think that frequent stops along downtown Vancouver (i.e. along Granville and No. 3 Road in Richmond will generate the most users. Even if this was done like in Amsterdam on its own ROW (existing on both Granville and No. 3 Road, at grade level) and in its own ROW, grade separated! At major crossings for the balance
March, 2003
53
of the route (tunnel, elevated, or grade separated as seems fit). Whatever technology will fit that need should be considered. If a caveat were included in the P3 bid documents to recommend a technology that could be sued to expand service around Vancouver (to UBC, around False Creek, or even down Arbutus) greater support could be found for the project. I look forward to receiving more information about the project as it progresses and to participate in the decision making process more fully. - Personally, I think choosing anything but SkyTrain that will function seamlessly with the existing lines is a waste of money. The various forms of government have already invested enough in the current systems and the new Millennium Line seems to work quite well with the old Expo Line. Having a system that for instance allows people to get into a train from Waterfront to go the airport, Simon Fraser University or Surrey may be a bit confusing at first, but I am sure the convenience of not having to run to different parts of a very busy part of town will be worth that confusion. The Millennium Line is still in its early days and while it is a bit of a blight on the view I use it 5 days a week at the very least and it has dramatically sped up my travel and perhaps more importantly, has put much further areas within my reach in a much shorter period of time without having to drive, find parking, pay for parking and so on. The new stations are indeed a much better design than the older ones, at least esthetically and are certainly brighter and cleaner. Having extensive parts of the proposed line at street level would certainly inconvenience the road users and having most of the line underground would probably cost a lot more and probably take longer to build. That leaves the elevated guide way as a real option. If it were to be made in such a way as to minimize the destruction of the scenic view (and perhaps augment by planting gardens under the guide way) it would be a viable option. Of course it also depends on whether all the parties concerned are willing to accept the SkyTrain as the method of transportation. If they do, and Bombardier gets the contract it would also help out a Canadian Company, and use their expertise from the two previous lines they have built here. I do hope this line does get built in the best possible manner integrating the new line with the existing one. - Please dont forget extending the Broadway line beyond Cambie Street. In fact, please extend it to UBC. Please design the station at Broadway and Cambie such that the majority of passengers needing to transfer lines only need to cross the platform, such as Montreals Lionel-Groulix Metro Station. - I feel that most non-daily commuter travelers to downtown will be reluctant to use public transit unless it is as convenient as traveling by automobile is. This means that public transit must somehow be as fast, overall, as a car, and that it be able to take people within a block or two of their destination. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see the proposed system coming even close to this level of convenience. - If its over 30 minutes, Ill stick with my car. I wouldnt use rapid bus either -- its no better than B-Line. Stick with SkyTrain technology. - As a consistent commuter between Richmond to downtown Vancouver, I have been very interested in the whole idea of developing a rapid transit system. In my opinion the city of Vancouver needs an alternate mode of transportation to and from these locations. Im sure this idea, if it goes ahead, would prove very popular. To me the most important issues would be reliability of the system, and a significant improvement in travel time. To me this would encourage people to utilize the system the most. This idea is vital to the development and growth of Vancouver as whole, and as a resident of Richmond you have my approval. - What is the problem with residents living on Cambie trying to protect the street? Its nothing really and all they care about is maintaining the status quo for themselves and increasing their real estate values. RAV should not be held hostage by a few dozen homeowners. These people should be more concerned with more serious matters like people dying and overdosing on the east end. - SkyTrain is best. Forget buses and street cars as Rapid Transit. Also see attached maps of possible later extensions to North Vancouver and Delta to help more people bypass bottlenecks.
54
March, 2003
- Great website! Hope this project goes through! - My husband has to travel everyday from Richmond to Vancouver for the next 2 months. RAVP would be great. - I am opposed to the Richmond Airport Rapid Transit line going down Cambie Street. I think it should be the Arbutus corridor. - Should start before 2005! - With over 8,000 students a station at 49th and Cambie will be appreciated by students and employees. - Stations must be easily reached by other transit systems or large parking lot near by for park and ride. - Consider extension/connector to Coquitlam and other neighbors. - Why does the line have to always go down Granville St. (west side) could it not be more accessible to the east side of Vancouver and Burnaby areas. - I think this line is important, but the line to the Tri-Cities is also important, and was promised long ago. I think a connection from Coquitlam Center to the Millennium Line could be very well traveled. - It is hard to imagine a successful Vancouver region without a downtown-airport rail link in the long term nor is there a better opportunity to overcome our inertial resistance to large capital projects go for it. - I have lived over 40 years in Richmond, and for the most of that time have been hearing rapid transit proposals and promises it is long past time. - It is important that the transit line is part of the street scape easy to jump on and off. That way it will be used in Richmond. Also to go from station to station. - Need cyclists to be able to use the line. - It would be preferable if impacts to the Cambie Heritage Boulevard could be subsided perhaps by having the line underground through this section. - I would like to see rapid transit to South Surrey/North Delta/White Rock/Cloverdale area. There seems to be very rapid growth in this area, but not enough transit to support this growth. The result is many vehicles commuting to Vancouver/Richmond daily. - Lets build this thing! We need some proper transportation and more use of Public Transit like Europe has. - I think SkyTrain is the best and more reliable. Remember you get what you pay for. - I am and all people in my community, we are totally upset about the citys decision on bringing the RAV line on this route. You are not taking into consideration the community that lives on and around the proposed route. For example you are willing to destroy Cambie Street one of the most beautiful streets in Vancouver also a heritage boulevard. You are planning the route where people are living in family homes and apartment buildings not taking into account, totally ignoring the effect the RAV line will have on their lives and the value decrease on the price of their properties. All this is because you do not want to disturb the rich who lives on Arbutus corridor where the environment is much better suited for the RAV line with already having train tracks and plenty of un-maintained space for something like this. This project ignores the people, the community who currently lives along this route. You do not care how will the added noise effect our lives by placing SkyTrain stations and tracks under our windows and reducing the value of our houses, apartments, this is one of the most unfair project proposed in the city (among many others) I have seen so far in order to protect the interest of the rich. You can help us by not destroying other peoples lives by building a monstrous elevated system right under their windows so they couldnt sleep from the constant noise and losing the value of their present homes. I would like
March, 2003
55
to be personally being addressed and consulted as a community member and TAX PAYER whose life will be tremendously affected and destroyed by this project. What is most insulting about this project that once again in Vancouver the City is serving the interest of the rich and let them decide for us. SHAME! - Best possible route for time and the number of places people want to get to! Arbutus is a slower route and there is virtually nothing along Arbutus where people want to go! - Include your address I dont have, nor do most people, a fax machine. P.S. Hurry up. Im not getting any younger. - Being it. - In all cases, the utmost attention should be paid to keeping property owners free from destruction or devaluing of their property. Above ground lines tarnish a neighborhood in many ways. Ensure that consultations are conducted with integrity not just optics. - STOP this insanity now. You have no support for this line aside from a handful of corporations that stand to make an enormous profit and a premier that drinks too much and has no conception of what the truth is. We, the taxpayers, are already billions in debt because of your belligerent refusal to hear that the Millennium line was not what was needed, nor now, will be used. First improve bus service by buying more trolleys and reinstating all night service. Then eliminate fares by charging businesses a dollar per day per employee. Then create transit only lanes that run the length of entire routes. When all of that is accomplished, lets talk about street-level rapid transit. - The idea of a rapid bus line: and light rail system thought up by city council members are just stupid. Wonder whats in their brains.Bus idea? That so 20th century. Light Rail? (whats the difference between taking RAV line and driving a car if both are affected by traffic lights?) People would rather drive to avoid crowd. (Fare will be relatively a bit more expensive than gas). We want a fxxxing high-end system that costs the shortest time. - Focus has to be put on improving service. Drivers appear to be more interested in beating (not keeping) a schedule, leaving people running for a bus or leaving a stop before a connector bus reaches the stop. SOME drivers are rude, racist, read the paper or talk on the phone while driving and miss stops. Few better trained drivers on the more expensive system would increase passenger use. There has to be increased effort to move people within a community. It can take two hours to go from one shopping center to the other in Richmond as there is almost no east west service. The proposed east west service next year duplicates some areas already served. Key locations need to be identified with guaranteed connections, i.e. shopping center to shopping center, tourist attractions i.e. 20 minute wait and a walk from the 98B (Richmond Hotels to Stanley Park). Sea Bus to Grouse Mountain. Fix the zone problem. People working at the airport and live in Marpole pay a two zone fare for a six minutes ride. There are times during the day, I can not get to Surrey without going into Vancouver and paying an extra zone. To go from South Vancouver to the Telus Building a major employment center, the fastest way is to Metrotown and back on Kingsway, an extra one fare for a destination within one zone. Lower the cost during the day when bus service is reduced and there is room on most buses. - The project should proceed based on two arguments: (1) From regional transportation authoritys point of view, this is clearly a long term transportation solution to our congestion problems which would likely yield a positive financial return (given that the regions financial share is only a portion of the real system cost) as opposed to the alternative of Best Bus which is a money losing scenario. This is financial accountability every regional stakeholder should appreciate. (2) More importantly, the rapid transit system would give us a more efficient clean air alternative, reducing out reliance on air polluting diesel buses.
56
March, 2003
- First, why has a non-rail solution already been eliminated from the debate? Express buses or with a dedicated lane could achieve adequate results far more efficiently and at less cost. Additionally, I have to protest the use of Cambie Street. We have a perfectly good rail line to Richmond already: the Arbutus Corridor. The merest glance at a map reveals this to be the logical choice. NIMBY protestations should not be allowed to hijack this project at the expense of the rest of Vancouverites. - I dont really see the point of asking this information, when it appears that this project will go through whether or not, or even how we want it. It will be interesting to see if those decisions truly reflect the answers provided by those who submit. - I am concerned about the lack of park and ride facilities in the Richmond Center area that the Rapid Transit line would begin. If passengers first get to a nearby bus stop, wait in the cold, then bus to Richmond Center and then wait again, I think it would turn some people off. If there was a park and ride to connect directly onto the train in Richmond, it would be better. Also I prefer a light rail to SkyTrain. Thank you. - Lets get on with it! Too many studies have been done! - What a fantastic idea! Rapid transit is needed for Vancouver. Areas to grow into a world classed city. Please proceed! - I could not find any part of the report that deals with the possibility of earthquake in this region. What experiences of damage and repair they have had in Japan, US, South America to their rapid transit, etc. We might as well learn from them and limit our casualties to the system that is the least destructive. By the way Question 11, was by car, as it doesnt say whether you mean by car or transit. - Why isnt Arbutus being looked at? Is it because that is where rich people live, and these people are influencing the project? Thats sure what it looks like. As a Vancouverite and a transit user I demand an explanation. - I strongly agree for building the Richmond Airport Vancouver rapid transit because this transportation for Richmond to Vancouver traffic is reliable for more than 50 years. In addition, the communitys development is greatly useful. The economy and environments relation between these two are effective. P.S. For Question 6.1 = very important. - I am concerned about trees on the Cambie route. I am very disturbed that the Arbutus corridor route which is available and wide is not recommended. Why isnt it? The railroad companies got billions in free land and benefits on the promise to maintain the lines. Our politicians need the guts to tell the companies to fork over the land or pay billions for breaking the contract . - Vancouver is known for its beauty and splendor, all riders should be able to see our city for the entire experience, and none of the line should be underground. This especially would have a great visual impact upon visitors to our city, but even regular riders would not be appreciative. - Begin construction as soon as possible. In Richmond, highly prefers the rapid transit to be elevated and ensure good view of the mountains from the train. Frequency of travel and extended past midnight. Ensure security of passengers at transfer stations. - I think this would greatly cut down on number of vehicles used to Airport/Richmond. As an airline employee I would definitely consider leaving my vehicles at home.please consider luggage racks on trains important as a lot of passengers/crew will most likely use this service. - Technology choice is SkyTrain its beautiful to see! Do it right it here for a long time. - Elevated system in order to work as this would not comply with traffic signals and traffic on street level like SkyTrain!
March, 2003
57
- What do traffic concerns include? Impeding other traffic, such as street-level light rail might do? Given that you want to get people onto transit (presumably from their cars) why, should impeding other traffic be a concern? - Need a station at 16th and Cambie (the start of a shopping, movie house and restaurant area - riders), with out easy access to stations people will not walk 6 extra blocks to the line. Walking from Broadway to 16th is uphill (very hard for a lot of people), whats the point of taking the line if you have to take that walk in the rain. Need access to the line, more stations in Vancouver, let us use the line, and not have it just cut through us and for the use of other communities. - Using mini bus to transfer people from one location to others especially in Richmond Center, I support. That will save the bigger bus for other routes. - What about the North Shore? - Vancouver transit is pathetic. Get politics out of it, get some imagination and start to put it in operation. Buses should be feeders, not mainline. You need transit right-of-ways. - Any ski train would be a disaster. - I support the idea of a RAV line but would like to hear more about the possible effects to the current environment i.e. the trees. - Why dont they have future expansion of rapid transit linking Surrey perhaps from Scott Road long River Road to Richmond? - I believe it is important to go underground north of 37th Avenue and Cambie so as to no impede the view from Queen Elizabeth Park. - The line must be implemented correctly the first time. This will save money and build confidence in the project. - Not down Cambie. Go down Arbutus. Stop pandering to the crme de la crme . - I have concerns with a street level rapid transit system running down No. 3 Road. Accidents: both pedestrian and vehicular are my concern. How fast and safe can it be if the frequency will be every 6-7 minutes. Elevated system is much safer. What will become of the 98 B-Line? - I strongly support the rapid rail/SkyTrain concept/costs which in the long run reduce pollution and operating costs. - Re routing How many Richmond residents have Vancouver City Hall as a destination? Vancouver General Hospital is still a major walk from Cambie Street. No SkyTrain please it is an eyesore. - Should have been built 10 years ago. - If Vancouver wants underground or raised than let pay the difference. - Greater Vancouver is moving east not north to south. - Please use SkyTrain technology. Do not use at grade, too many crossing, too slow (it is not rapid transit), too prone to traffic tie ups. - Where are the comparative studies of Cambie/Arbutus and bus/rail. - No Cambie route use Arbutus on buses. - Make sure safety is addressed and plate checkpoints or automatic fare collection system. - I am pleased to see that TransLink is finally considering alternatives to elevated trains that bisect communities and hurt neighborhoods. Ground oriented and subway way to go (Toronto, Montreal, New York).
58
March, 2003
- SkyTrain would not be feasible. - This is a much needed system in the lower mainland. I have always wanted a train, but am afraid of the consequences of the criminal activity if brought here. - A great idea, but street-level in Richmond would not be sensible. It should be elevated. - I strongly agree and in favor of this fast rapid line. - Strongly disapprove of an elevated rapid transit system. - I really want to build transit line in this area. It will be convenient and will have an easy network and will be happy. - Agree with need for line to the airport and between Vancouver with Richmond, however totally disagree with the choice of No. 3 Road. - Would love to see it happen soon as possible. - Will it bring more crime to Richmond i.e. New Westminster? - I strongly support a transit link directly from the airport to Vancouver. - It is really needed and will generate revenue to use with other TransLink venues. - I think the SkyTrain systems in general need more security, tired of already seeing graffiti and litter all over our new cars. Also the way people abuse it, i.e. feet on the cloth seats etc. - Concerned about the movement of homeless people and break ins that will come to /occur as a result of an easy transit system. - Every major city has fast, efficient, cheap transit to commute around the citys surrounding areas. Why not Vancouver? Only improve our city. - Does the building, operation and maintaining of a rail system such as this require approval of the Federal Ministry of Transport? - A major park and ride is essential at the Bridgeport/Highway 99 station to accommodate commuters from Delta and Surrey. - All tracks in Richmond should be at ground level. We have a beautiful city dont spoil it with elevated towers. - I commute 5 days a week from Steveston to Vancouver (Quebec/Terminal Main Street SkyTrain station) I drive, because buses take too long and I have to transfer at least twice. - Would prefer to see SkyTrain to maintain consistency, quality and speed of rapid transit in the GVRD. Strongly support major bus station at Bridgeport; with express buses for Delta, Surrey, Langley and UBC connecting at this station. This results in higher ridership and profits for RAV line; and kept too many buses off of Granville Street and out of the downtown core thus freeing up roads for better flow of cars, trucks and emergency vehicles. Would be willing to help communicate or organize meetings, do research etc. - The bus service is fine for Richmond. The reason for the line is to take traffic of Granville. Delta and White Rock buses can feed the line at Bridgeport area for now. My opinion: drill a tunnel down Granville or Cambie. - As a world class city this is needed especially to the airport. - Do expect to use the taxpayer exclusively for this project.
March, 2003
59
- It should be built with taste and moderation. - I think the project would be good and convenient to all people who are traveling by bus. - I think this project will help for majority of people for the future. Im hoping to see it accomplished on expected time. - It is time that we have a more efficient transportation system for workers. - I strongly agree with this proposal as long as its not causing too much interruption to the residential area. - Keep going is better for everyone who lives in GVRD. - To start the project as soon as possible. - All sizable cities have rapid mass transit e.g. Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing, Moscow. Why is Vancouver still without one? - It will bring a good future for Richmond. - Make it cheaply and apart of the community. Dont hide it underground. - I understand the Arbutus Corridor is expensive to buy. It is worth it. The only way not beautiful like Cambie already a rail link was the old tram line and is a straight line. It makes so much sense. Money is not always the answer. - Consider allocating some capacity to delivery of goods from the airport to downtown Vancouver. - Mail? Why only fax? Not everyone has a fax and some of this text wont show up. Bad move. - But I live in Vancouver. Vancouver does not need this. Richmond does. - I live on the North Shore and work in Richmond. If convenient I would take it daily. - I need service to start at 4:45 a.m. - Whats wrong with Arbutus Line? - Not everyday commuter. - I work at Vancouver City Hall and live the 9000 block of Capstan Way, Richmond. - I just HATE the bus ride. We want more rail. - I use public transit exclusively. Please no more SkyTrains. We need more buses. - What is your postal address for those without FAX or email? - I strongly opposed this line in any form. I have never had difficulty taking public transit to and from the airport and find that the system already exceeds that found in many North American cities. Richmond residents already have an express bus (of higher quality than any line in Vancouver) that services their needs sufficiently and it is not utilized to its maximum capacity. I see no reason why residents of that city would suddenly switch from using single occupancy vehicles to a rapid transit line. Furthermore, those who cannot afford to take taxis to, or park at, the airport already take public transit. Those who have the money will continue to drive or take taxis rather than public transit, no matter what its form. These folks are often able to write off the cost to their corporations, and I see no reason why this would change with the introduction of rapid transit. $1.5 billion could be put to far better use by strengthening transit service in areas where it is us and where it has been cut back in recent years. Moreover, I think reward people (i.e. spending billions on trying to get them from Richmond to Vancouver) who do
60
March, 2003
make the effort to live close to where they work is offensive at a time when basic transit services are being cut back in Vancouver. - TransLink is not considering the soft costs of a train system on the Cambie neighborhoods Heritage Boulevard. - The Arbutus Corridor is not a viable alternative for the following reasons: (1) No important work centers within walking distance. (2) The existing track is a hindrance to new construction; on the other hand LRT zooming merrily at ground level raised my hair. (2) This route is not as direct as the Cambie Corridor. - It is important to take this step forward. It is a fundamental characteristic of a world-class city to have a large, efficient, reliable transportation system. Vancouver does not fit this description. However, it could with the construction of the RAV line. The current SkyTrain infrastructure was fine for the Lower Mainland of 1.5 million people. Now, with an ever-increasing population of over 2 million, transportation should be a key priority. Because of the jobs and people that exist in this corridor, the RAV line should be built along Cambie/No. 3 Road alignment, using SkyTrain technology. The line should be underground, and elevated where necessary. It should not be at street level. We need this line now and cannot afford to delay it any longer. - I highly recommend a rapid transit system. TransLink is planning a study of a rapid? bus system. If this is supposed to be RAPID TRANSIT, it should NOT stop at every traffic light crossing. At present a passenger vehicle travels faster than the express? bus. Therefore, above ground or underground is more feasible for RAPID movement to ones destination. Otherwise it is a waste of money. Further, since this service is also an airport transit system, it is imperative that enough seating be available for weary travelers having flown a long distance. Also of importance is plenty of space for luggage. Airport passengers will not use a transit system if they are unable to embark and disembark freely with their luggage. (Quotes and caps used for emphasis only.) Thank you. - Grade separation is crucial. If mixed with traffic the reliability is greatly compromised. Underground downtown is the only feasible option. A station should be added just south of False Creek north of Broadway to support continued development in this area. Along the entire route, but especially on Cambie, the environmental aspect should be a high priority. I would not support cutting down any trees. However, a view from the train along the route would be nice if it could be integrated nicely. Otherwise underground would be perfectly acceptable. A station at both Davie/Granville and Lower Yaletown would be nice. - I envision the rapid transit line going direct from No. 3 Road to downtown with a major exchange/transfer at Bridgepoint. This would be a great place to build the adjoining line to YVR. Future extension of the YVR segment could proceed east toward New West/Surrey lines and further connect the existing SkyTrain routes. Perhaps another future extension would be the No. 3 portion extending south bound to Tsawwassen ferry terminal or the US Border at Peace Arch. Judging by the traffic through the tunnel, this would be something to consider. - I would like to see a report indicating the projected population increase in Steveston. I would like the report to investigate the anticipated transit needs of this population. I would like consideration for a SkyTrain to link Steveston to Richmond Center, Airport and Downtown. - Who will be using this line from Airport? What about baggage, skis, etc, for passengers from airport. - Re: Question 4. A portion will have to be elevated to marry up to Airport Terminal points. - The concept of incorporating local and unique architectural designs in the new stations (similar to the Millennium Line) should be considered for RAV.
March, 2003
61
- Do not put it at grade. It will interfere with other traffic. Bite the bullet now, make it safe and put it underground wherever at all possible! Out of the weather not cluttering up the limited above ground space. 10. Travel in the Corridor - This so-called money is our (taxpayers) money. What arrogance! - This is not consultation you have picked Cambie and SkyTrain. - Lets build real subway line like Paris, for the future! - With thanks for all your work! - No direct bus Vancouver to Airport. - Daily, work at the airport, live in East Vancouver.
62
March, 2003
3.3 Public Workshop Notes

This appendix contains the notes from the three public workshops: Richmond City Hall, Vancouver Public Library and Plaza 500 Hotel RICHMOND PUBLIC WORKSHOP RICHMOND CITY HALL MARCH 8, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a public workshop held with members of the public and the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Saturday, March 8, 2003 at Richmond City Hall, 6911 No. 3 Road, Richmond, BC. Present: The following members of the public signed the Registration Sheet5: Bob Cowan Ian Clements Raymond Ma John Ma Michael Chen Chi-Nan Chen Paulina Cheng Walt Cheng Violet Castle N. Lum Marion Smith Lucille Lashman Ian Samson Jenkin Chung Gordon Boleen Alan Johnson Yaroslav Stephanyak Paul Weber Vincent Ng David Magown J. Stephens M. Laird Kuo Wong George Jameson Chris Parkin Stewart Cohen Roger Nathan Dave Morley Graham Hamilton Doug Symons Sean Love Vic Sharman Colin Stark Ron Rowley G. Tse Melissa Friesen Jim Jiang Jose Gonzalez Anita Barker Evan Colpitts Peter Mitchell Marguerite Raine Evelyn Feller E. Karmel Ursula Schmelcher J. Sonnendrucker Ron Climenhaga Lynnea Climenhaga Chris Masterman Lorne OConnor Kush Panatch Tom Dallimore Peter Miller Nettie Aronius L. Fralin S. Gater Grace Chen TRANSLINK: CHAIR, Pat Jacobsen, CEO, TransLink RICHMOND CITY STAFF: David McLennan, Acting CEO and General Manager Urban Development Gordon Chan, Director, Transportation Department Victor Wei, Manager, Transportation Planning RAVP TEAM: Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP John Eastman, Technical Director, RAVP Jonathan Stevens, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Scott Hanna, Environmental Consultant, RAVP David Rowat, Procurement Manager, RAVP Raymond Louie, Technical Manager, RAVP RESOURCE: Susan Campbell, Recording Clerk, RAVP
5. Registration was optional and represents only a portion of those in attendance.
63
The workshop commenced at 9:00 a.m. Approximately 100 members of the public were in attendance. 1. Welcome and Introduction Chair Pat Jacobsen, CEO, TransLink, welcomed everyone and reviewed the agenda for the workshop. As well, the record notes that the following information package was provided: (a) RAVP Postcard; and (b) Community Consultation Discussion Guide and Feedback Form, March, 2003. 2. Regional Transportation Overview Continuing, Chair Jacobsen provided a regional transportation overview augmenting her comments with a power-point presentation. 3. RAVP Project Overview Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP, provided the RAVP Project Overview presentation augmenting her comments with a power point presentation. 4. Introduction of RAVP Team and Questions and Answers: (the record notes that the questions and answers are identified as Q: & A: and Comments as C:) The following members of the RAVP Team were introduced: John Eastman, Technical Director Scott Hanna, Environment Consultant David Rowat, Procurement Manager Jonathan Stevens, PricewaterhouseCoopers Q: What really bothers me, fundamentally, is the absence of the discussion of the line down Arbutus. I didnt see any comparison of those two routes in the presentation. All I see is financial projections in the order of $1.7 billion, for the Cambie corridor, all funded by government agencies directly or indirectly. I think you should have put the Arbutus extension up for consideration. While Cambie has the employment centers what about the living centers, for example, Kitsilano, Marpole and Kerrisdale, etc.? A: There have been significant studies completed over the years on both of the corridors. For this project, the funding partners decided to go forward with one alignment. The comparison was an examination of full cost accounting or life-cycle costs. The Arbutus line could cost, approximately $1.1 to $1.2 billion. Cambie was the preferred option because it would drive significantly more ridership than an Arbutus line and Cambie would be self-sustaining in terms of operating costs. Arbutus is slow, longer and doesnt fit where people are going. Over the life of the project, 30-35 years, we asked which the better business case was and the answer was Cambie. Furthermore, the Cambie line would not require an operating subsidy over the 30-year period of the asset life. Q: All of the comments that have been made seem to me like backroom deals, and I would like to see all the facts you have been talking about and spoke of in the presentation. You should come back, to the public, with a presentation that includes an Arbutus comparison. I think that the $600 million (difference between the Arbutus and Cambie Lines) is a significant amount of money and could pay for a lot things in the region, like completing the Millennium Line. A: Members of the workshop were advised that on the TransLink website, the Best Bus Report was available which discusses the Arbutus line. Q: In 1989-90 extensive studies were undertaken and the Cambie corridor was identified as the corridor of choice. At that time the Project didnt go ahead and Richmond didnt get rapid transit. The longer we delay the more likely it is we wont get this project. In terms of risk management, how are you doing to deal with that?
64
March, 2003
A: Excellent question. With respect to risk management what we are talking about is construction risk or cost over-runs and they have been extensively examined by PwC. We intend, by contract, that most of the risk will be transferred to the private sector. A design-build-operate contract over approximately a 30-year period and any risk over that period will be with the private sector. There are also other risks such as maintenance and the private sector will be accountable for maintaining the line over the long period. Ridership is generally a transportation risk however this corridor is a very heavily traveled corridor. This secured, sound ridership base reduces the risk. Q: Bombardier had a very lucrative contract in the past and I hope that you are going to avoid this trap in the future. A: A competitive process will enable the whole region to determine the best overall business case for the line. The speaker requested the following yes or no answers: Q: On the line, there are 5 designated stops, outside of that will there be a continuation of trolleys down Cambie? A: Yes. Q: Will they continue to stop every 2 or 3 stops? A: Yes. Q: Why are you copying that service? A: It doesnt copy the local service as the rapid rail will replace the rapid bus B-Line. Q: So the B-Line will cease to exist on Granville? A: TransLink will be improving/augmenting the service on Granville Street, replacing the B-Line with various augmented bus services. C: This will be an inconvenience. New Speaker: Q: I recently noticed news reports of wrangling between TransLink and the City of Vancouver. Can you comment on that? A: Part of Vancouvers Council mandate is to bring themselves up to speed with respect to consideration of new projects particularly in light of the recent change in Council membership (municipal elections in November). They requested an independent assessment of the proposal. Decisions around the analysis taken by the funding partners were made on the basis of what is the best business case. No decisions have been made around technology. Q: Will you have a referendum on this before you go ahead with the project? I am very concerned about the lack of genuine information available in the public domain. I am an advocate of referendums. This is about accountability and my own experience of not able to secure the facts. I am not against SkyTrain to the airport will you assure me that there will be a referendum? A: Those are very strong words and maligning integrity of past staff is not the way to approach an issue. There will not be a referendum in the region and I made no past commitment to hold a referendum. This project needs to be approved by the Province, the Airport and the TransLink Board (funding partners) and the issues raised at these public workshop meetings will be available to those agencies prior to the consideration of the project. Further we will be doing polling which will indicate the publics position.
March, 2003
65
Q: I wish people would do a web search before they get up and speak. Forget about streetcars and buses as these are stop gap measures. I see on the map that Bridgeport Road seems to be the juncture - have you considered Van Horn Way, as it is more direct? With respect to Cambie from 49th to 64th Streets, is there any technical reason why it cant be cut and cover? In closing I think you should respect the views of the residents along the line. A: The alignment is exactly where you are suggesting. Technically, cut and cover could be done, however we may not have the financial envelope for that section. Q: What type of automated technologies are available? Was Cambie selected because of the amount of people that will use the line or the projected speed of the line? Could Arbutus be used for fast heavy rail? A: There are a number of manufacturers for automated technologies in the world and what they have in common is generally all their systems are fully separated from the street and are automated. This provides a flexibility of service. Yes, there is a range of suppliers world-wide. Cambie was chosen because it is shorter and more direct. Q: With respect to the route which part of Capstan does it go along? As well, I am concerned about an increase in crime around the stations - stations should be made safe at night. With respect to the new bridge, which side of the Oak Street Bridge will it be on? A: The route doesnt actually go along Capstan. The future station is projected to be at Capstan and No. 3 Road. The safety and security of the system is a precursor in determining the future location of stations recognizing the neighborhood before the station is located. At TransLink we have doubled our security at the stations. The new bridge will be east of the Oak Street Bridge. C: This is an excellent proposal and I think we should adopt the SkyTrain system. Adopt it and get on with the job. Q: As No.3 Road is part of the new line will the train be at-grade, elevated or underground? Is it possible to be underground in Richmond? The most likely scenario is elevated. If the train is going to be on the street would it occupy the same lanes as the B-Line bus does now? A: Technically we could go underground in Richmond but it would be at great expense especially preparedness for seismic events. The rapid rail could be at grade and could operate like the B-Line bus does today. It would run where the B-Line is today. Q: How will you incorporate public values into a private consideration for the line, for example, design or type of technology chosen and will it have carry over benefits to the system and environmental benefits? How will you incorporate social benefits into the project? A: In the RFP we have required a demonstration of the proponents capacity to work within a public consultation process and design something with how it fits within the communities. If the project proceeds, there will be a second level of detailed public consultation processes that will be localized around the stations and final alignments. The environmental process will undertake specific studies and hear concerns from the community that will be incorporated into the requirements for the private sector. The proponent would be expected to participate in the environmental assessment. The overall impact of ridership, for example, will be weighted in the context of the overall design-build-operate-maintain project. Q: Cambie is a heritage landscape and this has been overlooked. The Cambie Boulevard represents a treasury of trees. This should be valued and I dont understand why this is not on the table. With respect to ridership where are the people coming from? You will disturb the lives of the seniors that live along that line. We are the scapegoats for the line, in Richmond the line will go through commercial developments while in Vancouver residents live along the Cambie line.
66
March, 2003
A: Part of the funding partners consideration was the beauty and richness of the boulevard and the bulk of the boulevard is totally protected in the project. These public meetings will determine whether this is sufficient for the public. King Edward to Marine Drive is the heritage designation. Part of the discussion here is the publics commentary on the option to stay in tunnel until 49th Avenue. Thereafter the boulevard from 49th to Marine Drive may be developed and we want to hear from the public on what is sufficient. With respect to the environmental assessment and what could be undertaken, members of the workshop were advised that opportunities exist to relocate some trees, remove parking on Cambie and put the line in traffic. Other options could result in the boulevard not being disturbed at all. However everyone must recognize that we are in the early part of the process. With respect to the question regarding ridership, it is based on 80% of the current riders of the B-Line and we know that this north/south corridor will continue to be very heavily used. These are neither developmental nor speculative ridership figures. Q: With respect to the suburban buses, will the White Rock buses and others terminate at Richmond Center or will they continue to go downtown? Would you comment on the alignment of the downtown tunnel will it be underground all the way? A: A significant number of suburban buses will not continue to operate, however the design will ensure seamless transfers. We are looking at coming to grade in the Transit Mall at Robson Street however there are significant trade-offs should this occur. Technically, this is possible and we are discussing with the public as to whether this option should be pursued. There are a number of different alignments that will be explored. Q: With respect to the removal of the rapid buses (B-Line from No. 3 Road), will the new rapid rail have a provision for bicycles? A: Yes, we are looking to have a provision for off-peak hours for bicycles on the Millennium Line and would look at this for the RAV line as well. Q: How much time is saved by rapid rail - how much time would I save from driving? How much travel time would be saved on Arbutus? How can you say Arbutus is longer if you cant tell me how much time I would save? Are you seriously considering cut and cover on Cambie? A: A good comparison is the rapid bus travel times and it varies from mid-day times of around 49 minutes, however it is often in excess of that. Rapid rail would be 30 minutes. On Arbutus it is difficult to predict given the number of cross-streets and how they are treated - a detailed analysis hasnt been undertaken. Cambie has been identified because of the large employment centers on Cambie. The Arbutus alignment would be faster than a bus. The initial review gives an estimate of the travel times on the two corridors. Yes, we are considering the possibility of cut and cover. Q: With respect to the comment regarding seniors, I note there is a 20 minute savings for students traveling on the Cambie line. Right now traffic congestion has cars lined up every morning and afternoon on the bridges. With respect to the disabled they can wheel right on as opposed to the present arrangement on the B-Line. Have you ever considered Heather Street etc. rather than Cambie Street? In closing I am a strong supporter of rail being segregated from the traffic.
March, 2003
67
Q: I am a resident of Richmond and am interested in ridership. Rapid Rail is long overdue and I have personally experienced the impacts of the congestion. Have you reviewed the demand for new bridges? The do nothing option is not an option. A: This is starting from a very healthy ridership base (the proposed RAV line). Ridership is looked at two ways: one being computer modeling and the second look is at what is happening elsewhere in the region, the reality check. Yes, the choke points have been examined and the bridges are at capacity today. We could include the growing congestion, on the bridges, in future slide presentations. That was a good point. 5. Breakout Groups At this point, following a brief discussion on process, the workshop dissolved into two small groups, one for Richmond issues and one for Vancouver issues, for the purpose of using the Discussion Guide and completing the feedback forms on: alignment, under/on/above (technology), bus connections and neighborhood consultation. 6. Report Back Summaries The breakout tables reported back: Group 1 (Summaries from the Flip Charts) Type of bridge crossing Alignment around Bridgeport Navigation clearances of bridges Terminus at Richmond Center Effects on residential areas Bus exchange Configuration/bus routes Land requirements Security Land Values Why stop at Richmond Center Should be future extension south of Cook Service configuration to address areas of high demand At-Grade versus Elevated How is at-grade alignment on No. 3 between Westminster and Richmond Center Need more capacity on rail Comfort, attract more riders Support elevated in commercial No. 3 automated less impact from traffic congestion Ensure accessibility for disabled Concerns about service reliability of at-grade LRT due to traffic accidents Concerns about at-grade LRT and the number of traffic signals support elevated At-Grade LRT concerns with U-turns/signals/need more speed Only section at-grade YVR At-grade --- safety concerns Vehicle accidents Faster elevated --- more riders Less property impacts
68
March, 2003
Bus Routes Termination of express buses Transfer of buses to rail Extend line and integrate buses at Steveston Direct buses Richmond Center to UBC Steveston to YVR Park & Ride Neighborhood Consultation Ads in local papers Focus on community consultation People directly impacted Meeting with identified interest groups Meetings in schools/evenings Notify/updates on project Start consultation early and continue through project Got to use the community centers Workshop approach on key issues Report feedback to the public Dialogue with the public Notification of public meetings Impact on municipal and regional taxes Closing: In closing, the spokesperson characterized the Group 1 discussion as generally one that focused on the type of technology used, safety issues and how the line will interconnect with Richmond Center. Group 2 (Summaries from the Flip Charts) Three topics of todays discussion: Arbutus Corridor for south/north transit Want hard facts on comparison Technology Automated versus Fully separated Sky versus grade --- running at grade Finance Taxes where does it all come from More expensive for better system Vancouver Group Jonathan Stevens Jane Bird/Pat Jacobsen Edward Lefluffy Topics: Arbutus Line SkyTrain appropriate on Granville Mall Inter-relation of Broadway to UBC Technology types and styles
March, 2003
69
Finance Crime/Polling/Effects to health on people that live under SkyTrain Light rail can serve today and into the future Tiny rails, small cars (why not light rail). SkyTrain is not even used in any other part of the world. 1. Option SkyTrain many manufacturers out there. Can be similar technology. SkyTrain appropriate on Granville Mall Lots of study underground there already No overhead power or driver automated system would be hard/difficult Performance Standards not preclude SkyTrain or light rail. Want a fully competitive process. Consulted with City of Vancouver plans for downtown transportation plans. Yes, they are/have done this. San Francisco a good example of technology. A couple of different tunneling options downtown. No elevated structure on Granville Mall To look at transit technology. SkyTrain is automated, system needs a dedicated way/route 7 10 people lost at level crossings in Calgary per year Elevate over Marine Drive Cost to tunnels cannot use SkyTrain for surface. A 3rd rail where cars are also going needs to be separate. Overhead trolleys Can run those in tunnels. Two other considerations separation with automated system increases time and adds capacity. If full control of right-of-way you do have greater capacity capability. Auto train can run closer together. Tunnel to 49th and then put grade rail or continue tunnel to 63rd Tunnel is too expensive 49th to 63rd. Possible grade or trench see diagram display For this cost --- 30-35% more ridership Langara only receives 7% of students North/South Students and hospitals are higher transit users Price VERY IMPORTANT Technology Over Fraser River will have to be above ground over a bridge. How far do you for the approach? 1.8 million metro region Effect is to hear from many people When this started in 1989 no one thought of closeness to airport and UBC? Colinette concerns only airport to downtown B-Line down Broadway and Granville Wont work from east/west commuters SkyTrain horrible technology Arbutus a transportation corridor for the future Airport will pay for this Brussels point of low grade rail Vancouver designed differently Arbutus Cross False Creek in tunnel Why still taking about this? Rail is there 4 major pods of population Marpole/Kerrisdale/16th to Broadway to Burrard Focus on where people live Cost: Waterfront to 41st? Has there been a true evaluation of both lines Arbutus versus Cambie
70
March, 2003
Crossings 3 km between Arbutus and Cambie Extend Commercial to Granville underground? Major employment centers Hospital would be picked up City Hall listed should pull off Oakridge people work in Kerrisdale probably equal City Hall quietly putting the focus on Cambie
Line to UBC $700 million Granville to Commercial link Take Cambie to Alma and take train west to UBC. Design a station at Broadway to accommodate this in the future. Finance Fed/BC/City who are private groups? Including revenues $200 to $300 million from private Transit would control fares Who was polled on Cambie? East/West 3 blocks were polled Why has not any police departments been asked about crime etc. TransLink has been engaged Several years of detailed study Millennium Line. Many changes have been made. Burnaby and Coquitlam have seen a significant change of people, frequently neighbors Property values have been studied No mental health studies to date The spokesperson provided the following summary which was not agreed to by all members of the group: Arbutus comparison route should be looked at Technical aspects (automated, LRT, at grade) Arbutus apartments, shops Some interest in at-grade rail line on Arbutus Cambie in a straight line Concern it (line) may be visible Finance Cambie is cost-effective Automated advantages head ways times, more trains, (passenger carrier from outside Vancouver to downtown Vancouver) Noted there was no stop at Pearson Hospital (no linkage to local buses) LRT preferred by some For people that work in Vancouver from Richmond No support for at grade at Granville Mall Q: Why not put the whole system underground down Granville Street? A: Granville has been examined, in the past (1992 study), and on balance Cambie best serves the large employment centers. A: Granville does not have the nodes of population, mainly residential.
March, 2003
71
7. Next Steps Chair Jacobsen thanked everyone for coming and participating. The next public workshop will be held March 12 at the Vancouver Public Library and March 15 at the Plaza 500 Hotel, Vancouver. 8. Conclusion The workshop concluded at 12:20 p.m.
VANCOUVER PUBLIC WORKSHOP VANCOUVER PUBLIC LIBRARY MARCH 12, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a public workshop held with members of the public and the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at the Vancouver Public Library, Alice MacKay Room, 350 West Georgia, Vancouver, BC. PRESENT: 5 The following members of the public signed the Registration Sheet : Doug MacDougall Stanley King V. Hollingum Lian Li Seve Warner Melina Scholefield Rob Innes Janice Douglas Jonathan Burke Nelson Fong Cheung, Shek Kan Kevin Pankratz John Emard Robert Miles Scott Erdman Jean Blais Mathieu Jessica Sutherland Peter Hanssens Chris Newcomb Albert Tens Loren OConnor Colin Weston Dave Park G. Jameson F. Touche Maurizio Grande D Friesen R. Spaxman S. Alexander Ian Fisher Hjeb Becker Glen Brooks Hugh (last name crossed out) Darlene Brooks Hiroko King Alison Manley John Oliver Peter Miller Keith Pilipchun Michel Morin Rick Compton TRANSLINK: CHAIR, Doug McCallum, Chair of the TransLink Board of Directors Bob Paddon, Vice President, Corporate and Public Affairs Glen Leicester, Director of Implementation Planning VANCOUVER CITY STAFF: Dave Rudberg, Director of Engineering Ann McAfee, Director of Planning RICHMOND CITY STAFF: Gordon Chan, Director, Transportation Department Victor Wei, Manager, Transportation Planning RAVP TEAM: Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP John Eastman, Technical Director, RAVP Jonathan Stevens, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Scott Hanna, Environmental Consultant, RAVP David Rowat, Procurement Manager, RAVP Raymond Louie, Technical Manager, RAVP
5. Registration was optional and represents only a portion of those in attendance..
72
March, 2003
RESOURCE: Susan Campbell, Recording Clerk, RAVP The workshop commenced at 6:35 p.m. There were approximately 200 members of the public in attendance. 1. Welcome and Introduction Doug McCallum, Chair, TransLink, welcomed and thanked everyone for attending this evenings meeting. He explained that he and Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP, were here to listen to the public and that both of their presentations were going to be short. They were here to listen and receive the publics input on the proposed rapid rail line. A Speakers List has been established and only speakers who have signed the list will be called on for presentations. In the interests of time and to allow all speakers an opportunity to be heard speakers were requested to keep their questions and or comments limited to approximately two minutes. It was intent of the workshop, once the speakers have all been heard to move into small group meetings for the purpose of discussing and completing the feedback forms. The record notes that tonights public workshop is part of a broad-based consultation, seeking public feedback about the proposed rapid transit, that has included a newspaper information piece in the Vancouver Sun, Province and two Chinese newspapers, web-based consultation utilizing an on-line feedback form and email, open houses in Richmond, Vancouver and the Airport, 15 20 small-group meetings and three public workshops. There will be another public workshop on Saturday morning, March 15th, at the Plaza 500 Hotel at Cambie and West 12th (near Vancouver City Hall). As well, the record notes that a copy of the Community Consultation Discussion Guide and Feedback Form, dated March, 2003 was provided to all participants at the workshop. 2. Regional Transportation Overview Chair McCallum provided the regional transportation overview augmenting his comments with a power point presentation. 3. RAVP Project Overview Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP, provided the RAVP Project Overview presentation augmenting her comments with a power point presentation. In closing her presentation, Ms. Bird explained that this is a Richmond, Vancouver service with a service that addresses the employment center at the airport. She noted that work had examined a premium service from the airport however it was determined in the short-term airport passengers will pay the regular (transit) fare. 4. Speakers List: (1) David Hawkins Mr. Hawkins identified himself as the Chair of the Lower Mainland Eazeway Council and a forensic engineer. He explained that as a forensic engineer he used valuable engineering techniques looking at proven technology and then applied reverse engineering to the process. With respect to the proposed line it was 19.5 kilometers in length and projected to cost $1.7 billion. Looking at that projected cost was very sobering and gave rise to concern. The need for transparency in projects such as these was important as in his experience projects of that size generally suffer from the publics inability to follow the flow of funds through the project. For example, the projected Federal Government contribution of $450 million and the need for transparency with respect to the follow through of that contribution was noted. He further explained that his organization, the Lower Mainland Eazeway Council, intends to put together a shadow bid which would function as a template or benchmark and which would allow the public to decide. Essentially, a shadow bid was a mechanism that could have significant cost savings for a project. The community would determine alternatives that the community at large supports and there would be no hidden liability that comes back to the project. In closing, he observed that within about 30 days the world will change with the war in Iraq and
March, 2003
73
given that he would guarantee that this project would become inappropriate in three years. He reiterated that the role of the shadow bid was to provide flexibility to the public. With that context, he asked Ms. Bird if she would consider sponsoring, for approximately .1% of the cost of the total project, the shadow bid. Ms. Bird requested that Mr. Hawkins send the proposal to her attention. (2) Chris Newcomb (provided a text of his comments which has been reproduced here in the notes from the meeting). My name is Chris Newcomb, I live in North Vancouver. Im President of the Consulting Engineers of BC, known as the CEBC, and our address is Suite 657, 409 Granville Street, Vancouver. Our organization represents the 100 or so major engineering firms in BC, employing about 5,000 people. 85 of our member firms have offices in the Greater Vancouver area, representing about 3,500 employees, and 35 of our member firms have offices actually in the City of Vancouver, and these represent about 2,000 employees. About 1,000 of these employees are residents of the City of Vancouver. The CEBC strongly endorses the RAV project, essentially as its proposed. We support a transportation system consisting of a primary network of rapid rail transit, supported by a secondary network of bus transit. This is the most efficient and effective longterm combination of transportation nodes and this has been demonstrated over and again in cities around the work, and construction of a primary network of rapid rail transit is an investment in the future. Fifty, or even a hundred years from now a rail system will still be serving the citizens of Vancouver, long after it has finished paying for itself. CEBC agrees that, ultimately, rail transit should be built to other parts of the Greater Vancouver area. However, CEBC supports giving first priority to the Richmond, Airport Vancouver line. This is the line that will generate the highest ridership, plus it has the best balance of traffic in both directions, and funding from Ottawa that we would have never got under ordinary circumstances. In 2010, the eyes of the world will be on Vancouver. The image of a brand new, state-of-the-art rail connection transporting visitors quickly from the Airport to the City is one that will create a great first impression for our City. Itll also be a great advertisement for the engineering and architectural expertise of our professions. CEBC believes that the Cambie route, which means savings in travel time and operating expense, the Cambie route is more central to the concentrations of population and employment. This will lead to a more efficient bus system feeding into the rail system, and a higher ridership, and the Cambie route is already a major transportation corridor so businesses and residents have already oriented their activities around it. Choosing Arbutus might be easier to do in the short run, but we believe it would be short-sighted to do that and an inferior long-term investment. CEBC supports the construction of a rail connection that is gradeseparated from the existing road system throughout its length. The construction of at-grade road crossings for even a portion of the route would increase traffic congestion, increase atmospheric pollution, compromise safety and increase the likelihood of interruptions of service. If at-grade crossings were constructed today they would ultimately have to be reconstructed at great expense to separate the grades at some point in the future. The CEBC supports proceeding with the project as soon as possible. Thanks to the Millennium Line project we have a core of professional engineering and architectural expertise in Vancouver that is still intact. Were able to export this expertise to other rail transit projects around the world, bringing in export revenue and jobs for our province. We should retain this expertise in Vancouver, and the best way to do that is to provide continuity of work, rather than proceeding in fits and starts. The same is true of a wide range of construction trades that were able to train a skilled workforce on the Millennium Line project. Without similar ongoing work this skilled workforce will dissipate, and the training will have to start all over again if theres a long delay before the next rail transit project. The RAV Rail Transit proposal is the result of years of study, going back to the early 1980s to my knowledge. The members of CEBC say the time has come to take advantage of Federal funding and get on with the job in time for the 2010 Olympics. (3) Colin Klassen Identified himself as a member of the public and a citizen of Vancouver. He stated that he was all for the system observing that the Cambie (route) was the best alignment. He further observed that there should be golf course stop. He explained he would like the system to be underground at least partially and that in his
74
March, 2003
view it was very important that the system not be at grade level as you only have to look at the Calgary system to see how slow at-grade is. In closing he noted that it was important that the proposed system be one that was rapid transit . (4) Ian McLean Identified himself as a resident of Burnaby. He opined that Granville to Broadway then east to Cambie would be a better route in terms of future integration with other lines. Ms. Bird replied that it was fair to say any investment will provide for future extensions. They are aware that the Broadway corridor is very busy and it will be provided for in the future. (5) Cheung, Skek Kan Identified himself as a Vancouver resident. He observed that the discussion was rather one-sided and they (the public) dont have the best alternative presented to them. At the present time, the B-Line from Richmond takes, longer to get from Richmond to Vancouver, approximately 40 minutes. So you will spend $1.7 billion to shorten that travel time by 10 minutes. He asked what would be the best alternative and explained that he has been brainstorming ideas asking himself how much do these better alternatives cost. He wondered if Richmond had a choice about the line and asked do the other areas need a choice. It was his opinion that the public didnt have enough data, to make a decision, as they have only been presented with one plan. He observed that the project is basically funded by the public sector, asking what will be the estimated profit for the private sector noting there is also a risk that the project will become a burden. In Toronto, for example, their transit system became a liability because it was over-budget. In closing, he noted that it was important that the public have enough information to make an informed decision and right now they were lacking the data to make that decision. Chair McCallum referred the speaker to the report on the TransLink web page, comparing transportation options for the corridor. (6) Peter Hanssens Explained that he was here tonight representing the Vancouver Economic Commission. He noted that as a former resident of Montreal he was a big supporter of transit. Transit is critical to retain existing business and the region needs this rapid transit line in order to retain as well as attract new business. As well tourism is very important and there is a need to move people quickly. This link to the airport from the City and the employment centers would enhance service in the City. At the present time there is a lack of a rapid connection to the City from the airport and we cannot afford to miss the opportunity. (7) Colin Stark Identified himself as a citizen and an engineer. He explained he was the holder of a transit pass and what he was really interested in was the cost of transportation. For two years he tried to get information on the Millennium Line and while it was wonderful, it was ahead of its time. He advised that on last Saturday he attended the public workshop in Richmond and traveled the B-Line to get to the meeting. He commented that the B-Line seemed to run every 12-15 minutes on Saturday and given that he didnt see the justification for this line (RAV). He observed that he didnt understand this consultative process and that in his opinion there should be a referendum on whether the line should go ahead like they did for the Olympics. His question, to the Chair, was: will you make a genuine effort to inform us as the last regime (at TransLink) was unbelievable just unbelievable. He asked the Chair:will you treat us like human beings rather than like a recipient of a propaganda machine . Chair McCallum said that the answer to the question was a simple yes. He stated that he has always believed public comments and inputs were absolutely critical to any process observing there were a lot of points to get through before construction. For instance, there was the project funding and an environmental impact assessment study. He stated that as far as holding future public consultations he would give the
March, 2003
75
speaker a commitment that this was just the start of it and would continue over the next years.This is my commitment to you . The Chair further noted that no technology decision has been taken explaining they were going to let the experts around the world bid on the technology. They will have to meet the parameters we have set. We are at the starting line of the process and there will be a lot of further public consultation. Mr. Stark asked if the Chair will give the experts (like Malcolm Johnson) a platform to be heard and reiterated his request for a referendum. Chair McCallum stated there would be no referendum. With respect to the request for a platform for the experts, he requested that the Speaker send in proposals. In closing his remarks Mr. Stark observed that if a referendum was good enough for the Olympics then it should be good enough for this process. (8) Michel Morin Explained that he has been a resident of the region since 1983. He takes public transit believing that gas prices are too high and that gas is a pollutant. He commented that this was a nice presentation but what was missing was the bus option. They are not offering an alternative. He asked what if someone from Coquitlam wanted to go to the airport do they have to go all the way downtown and then out to the airport. He stated it was his belief that people on the TransLink Board didn't have any idea about bus travel asking the Chair how he traveled to the meeting tonight. Chair McCallum advised that he is about a 50/50 user of bus and car. For example, today, he drove his car and took the bus. In response to the question Ms. Bird advised the workshop that she drove to the meeting. Mr. Morin asked how many TransLink Board members use transit. Chair McCallum advised that many of the Board members use it 50/50. With respect to his own practice, many times, he drives to a SkyTrain stop then takes public transit and many of the Board members do this as well. Continuing, Mr. Morin indicated that recently he had business in Surrey and that involved getting off at the King George SkyTrain stop and then taking an hour to get to where he wanted to go. This takes up to four hours of day, of traveling, to do business observing that these kinds of travel times wont get people out of their cars. While he agreed with the Richmond corridor he felt they were missing the boat with the proposed stations downtown. In closing, he called for links to the Tsawwassen Ferry terminal, Sea Bus and the Horseshoe Bay Ferry Terminal noting that they have to foresee and plan for future growth and extensions. Dont bottleneck the system. This is what happened in Sydney think about where the ridership wants to go. (9) Rick Compton Advised the workshop that he lives in the West End and hasnt owned a car for twenty years. He stated that he totally supports a fully separated Cambie Line. He asked how many suburban buses would be removed from the downtown peninsula and what buses would be used to fill in the system. He observed that this information is always missing from proposals. Would all the buses be gone? Mr. Leicester responded explaining how the redesign of the suburban buses would be directed. Continuing, Mr. Compton expressed a concern with respect to the proposed downtown stations indicating that relative to the proposed station at Homer and Davie he would prefer that it was located further west. In closing, his comments he expressed support for the line saying build it as it is long over due.
76
March, 2003
(10) Brian Alaric Advised the workshop that he relies on transit. He expressed support for the line although observing that it would be worthwhile considering routing the line to go through Granville Island. With respect to the proposed operational parameters he asked are they good enough? In closing his comments he observed that wait times at stations are the worst part of any system. Ms. Bird responded that his comments are consistent with the feedback they have been receiving and that the proposed 7.5 minutes would be the maximum wait time however they would try to achieve greater frequency. She thanked the Speaker for raising a good point. (11) Doug McDougall Identified himself as the General Manager of Oakridge Center. He observed that Vancouver is a world class city and as such must improve its transportation system. He explained that the region must have a transportation system that is able to serve its growing population. The RAV project has been studied to death. This is most feasible line for the various reasons that have been articulated in the presentations. Statistics demonstrate that for malls, in other parts of the world, 20% of their customers come via rapid transit. There are 3,000 workers at Oakridge and those staff could utilize the RAV line thus reducing a majority of those cars on the road. In summary he stated that this line would service the major employment nodes along the Cambie Corridor and we are very much in support of the project. (12) Janice Douglas Identified herself a third generation Vancouverite. She stated that she was curious about how it is determined that we are going to increase ridership. If I am going to get out of my car how will you convince me? Is there going to be a Park and Drive? Have surveys been done? Another aspect is tourism and how beautiful it is, in Europe, with their ceremonial boulevards in their cities. She observed that if there was an intent to use the Cambie corridor then she would suggest keeping the boulevard as a ceremonial boulevard as this would enhance the beauty of our area and would create a beautiful ride observing there is no need to get there faster. Chair McCallum responded that there have been extensive surveys undertaken. Ms. Bird commented on the Cambie Boulevard advising of a number of configurations for Cambie within the present financial envelope and given that financial envelope they could be below ground to 49th Avenue downtown to 49th. After that, there were various options. (13) Kevin Pankratz Identified himself as a resident of Vancouver. He explained that he had a few concerns as his home was adjacent to the line. He has young children and was concerned about drugs and crime which have come to be associated with stations explaining he doesnt want to see those problems in his neighborhood. He characterized this as a big concern to him. As well he did not want to have a big concrete wall running down his street. The second comment/concern was about the proposed cost of the project. He commented that it was so much money to put into one aspect of the transit system without adjusting for the future needs of the people. Chair McCallum indicated that security on the system was certainly a problem today. TransLink has recognized that and hired a lot more officers as they want to get a lot more security. At the present time the system goes through eight or nine different jurisdictions. The TransLink Security Officers, at the present time, dont have the ability to arrest persons, like the Transit Police do in New York. TransLink has submitted a request for fully fledged officers as they believe it will make the system a lot safer. We are continuing to apply pressure the Millennium Line has been proactive with the local police and at least at this stage we are out in front of the problem. The second question goes to the Regional body and we have four equal capital priorities for TransLinks share. One priority we have talked about this evening is the trolley bus replace-
March, 2003
77
ment which is a $250 million decision and we have gone ahead and approved that expenditure. At TransLink we recognize that we have to balance the needs of the region and provide transportation throughout the system. Recently we have heard announcements from the Federal Government, for funding, to improve the movement of goods in our region and this is critical to improving the system. At this point Chair McCallum noted that the workshop was scheduled to move into the small group discussions however there were still names on the Speakers List. He asked what the will of the participants was. Following an informal show of hands the meeting agreed to continue with the names on the Speakers List and accordingly: (14) Roderick Louis Identified himself as working for a small advocacy association that speaks for the mentally ill. It is called the Patient Empowerment Society and on behalf of the organization and himself he has made many presentations over the years to the TransLink Board. He observed that the more there is change the more things remain the same. Tonight is consistently the type of consultation that takes place once the decisions have been made. This process is very discouraging as it does not feel as though the public has been given a choice. What is needed is a consultation process that enables the public to consider costing proposals for a number of different routes. Another route mentioned was Granville Street and it is incumbent to put out to the public the numbers and figures for other than a Cambie or Arbutus route. We (the Patient Empowerment Society) support a Granville Street line. At that point, his map illustrating a potential route utilizing either Oak or Granville Streets elevated much the same as the Millennium Line was illustrated on the overhead screen. That would be the shortest route. The public is not being offered costing options. This (illustrated route) is the shortest route. Yet, we are not told how much longer Arbutus is. Too much of the information (that is presented) contains conclusions. He explained that essentially his question or request was to have a consultation process, starting from the ground up, which would ask the public what route they want the line to take, what technology they want and thirdly would they want to have rapid transit at all? He observed that all the money spent on the B-Line will now be scrapped. In closing he asked if all the expenditures would be subject to a FOI (Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Information Act) request for how the money is being spent and on what. Chair McCallum reiterated that the RAPD Bus Option Report was a valuable report, available on the TransLink web site, and contained answers, to the questions raised here. Ms. Bird requested that the Speaker please fill out the feedback form as to whether he approved or disapproved of the proposed project as that was important feedback. She explained that all other corridors will continue to remain strong transit corridors, noting that it is a question of which is the best corridor and which best services the region. The answer to that question is that it is the Cambie route and that is the proposal on which we are seeking feedback.. Continuing Mr. Louis asked whether TransLink will restart the consultation process from the starting point and allow the public to have a direct say on the route. It was his opinion that Mr. Ray Spaxman was hired to decide on the route a year ago noting that none of that former process involved consulting with the public. He observed that Mr. Spaxman is now consulting for potential stations along Cambie. He posed the question:why was he hired unless this was a big sham and TransLink had already decided on the route . Chair McCallum explained that it has been 20 years and a hundred reports noting that this proposal has been out there and discussed many, many times with the public and that it comes to a point where we are now asking the public for feedback and the reports all point to the Cambie corridor. This is what the public had to say, in the past, and the fact remains there are over a hundred reports. Continuing, Mr. Louis referenced the FOI request asking will the public have access to the reports. Chair McCallum commented that the reports will become available when the bidding was completed requesting that Ms. Bird further explain the competitive bidding process.
78
March, 2003
Ms. Bird responded by first explaining that FOI legislation applies to all public agencies in British Columbia. With respect to the competitive process, the information will be held confidential for the duration of the bid competition this is standard business practice. (15) Dave Park Explained that he was here tonight representing the Vancouver Board of Trade. The Vancouver Board of Trade sees the need for increasing amounts of rapid transit in the region or we will see the economy strangled. The Vancouver Board of Trade supports the proposed line and routing as it is located for all the right reasons. The Board does not take a position with respect to the technology. However, there is a need to get traffic moving, for the reasons cited, and get away from the growing congestion on the roads. The annual cost of congestion is up to $1 billion a year. In closing, he strongly urged that the project move forward with the Cambie Street alignment. (16) Alison Manley Asked if there was any say in the performance standards or could they also include visual impacts and aesthetics? She asked if there was anyone here from the City of Vancouver that could speak to the long range planning in terms of density along Cambie and how it may be affected. Chair McCallum indicated that while he couldnt speak for the City he would have someone respond to the Speakers questions and get back to her. Ms. Bird replied that with respect to the first question regarding inclusion of visual impacts and aesthetics into the performance standards that there was absolutely no question that it would be included and that the integration of the line into neighborhoods would be a requirement. Ms. Ann McAfee, Planning Department, City of Vancouver identified herself to the workshop and responded that with respect to the second question that at the current time there are no plans for rezoning on Cambie. However, if a rezoning was undertaken then a full public process would take place. (17) John Cotton Explained that his father and uncle lived in a country area 65 miles outside of London (England) and commuted daily into the city. He observed that the heavy transports are congesting our roads as they become overloaded with the gigantic trucks. He illustrated on the map (from the Discussion Guide) a proposed line that could take the heavy transport trucks out of the Greater Vancouver area and release traffic. He explained that when he first came to Canada he was astonished to see how badly the area was serviced without a rapid transit system. He opined that congestion will only get worst. As far as the corridors are concerned he asked why we dont use the Arbutus corridor. He asked about noise from the line advising he lives at the foot of Cambie and SE Marine Drive. He explained that with a good rail system it is easy to move people. His idea was to start West Coast Express at Hope as this would create more towns. In closing he suggested that we havent thought enough about the population of the area. (18) Ron Rowley Commented that Cambie is the best route and that it should be underground. He noted that he couldnt imagine wanting a train every 8 minutes. He asked if the project could tunnel to Marine Drive without breaking the budget. He asked what the cost difference was between SkyTrain costs versus overhead trains as they can go into tunnels. He commented that overhead wires could continue right up the Valley. With respect to at-grade in Vancouver he did not support that at all. In closing he asked if a tunnel under SW Marine Drive would break the bid. Ms. Bird replied by advising that while it may be technically possible it would be outside the financial envelope identified for the project (tunnel from 49th to 64th). However between 49th and 64th there are a number of options which would separate the train from traffic configurations which would incorporate visual and aesthetic aspects.
March, 2003
79
Mr. Eastman provided the following comments: ALRT in tunnel, yes. On a scale of 1-10 the costs for various systems would be: at-grade would be a 1; elevated would be a 3; and tunnel would be in the order of an 8-10. SkyTrain and overhead wires have about the same costs. Ms. Bird further advised that capital and operating costs have to be considered and while an elevated system will have higher capital costs it will have less operating costs. Mr. Rowley commented that everything must be grade separated. With respect to cut and cover versus boring he asked about those costs. Mr. Eastman replied that generally boring is more expensive however it all depends. In closing his comments, Mr. Rowley suggested that the project should go forward and work out the system. (19) Bob Cowan Advised that he was here this evening on behalf of the Vancouver Airport Authority to explain the airports interest in the line. He referenced various historical investments that the airport has made to facilitate their employees traveling to the airport. He noted that rapid growth has taken place in Richmond with respect to airline passengers and employees. He observed that the Arthur Laing Bridge is at capacity. He explained that an efficient line, to the airport, is very important to the Airport Authority. In the region we know that adding bridges and roads into Vancouver is not the answer. Rapid transit is the modern answer. This is not only a link to Vancouver but a connection to the Sea Bus, West Coast Express and the Millennium Line. In closing, the Airport Authority supports the line and feels it is a good transportation solution for the region. (20) David Nesbitt Indicated that he was the Director of Planning at Womens Hospital and he was here this evening to speak in support of the proposal and on behalf of his other health care colleagues along the Cambie corridor. He noted that there are currently 11,000 health care employees along that corridor. An improved transit system to the health care sites is important and they are anxious to work with TransLink in that respect. In closing he offered support for the line. (21) Nick Lum Observed that the line on the map, on the front of the Discussion Guide, identified as No. 3 Road was actually Gilbert Road. He expressed support for the Cambie corridor as it was closer to major destinations. The line/corridor has been studied to death, observing that Granville Street would be a poor choice for a line. In his opinion, SkyTrain is not an eyesore. (22) Fred Pletcher Advised that he was born and raised in Vancouver. He noted that the proposed line runs through residential areas and that there is a need to preserve those neighborhoods and protect them from criminals and pawn shops. Preserve the present zoning, scenery and boulevard. There is a need to ensure the residents have a say. He opined that a referendum would be the best method of determining whether people want the line. In closing he noted that it is a beautiful neighborhood and that the residents dont want it to become like Surrey. Chair McCallum responded that one of the performance criteria will be the neighborhood and how the line is integrated into that neighborhood. This is very important criteria. He observed that the speaker has heard, as we sit here today, that there are no plans for rezoning. The City is not going to allow pawnshops. Cities control the zoning along the line and it is up to the City to decide what goes along the line. At the present time there are no big plans for that corridor however future Councils have a right to look at zoning throughout their cities. Ms. Bird noted these are very valid concerns and that she would re-emphasize this is a question of whether the project should proceed and if it does then consultation will continue and the feedback form asks how you want to participate in future consultations. Your neighborhood will have a say in future decisions.
80
March, 2003
(23) Hugh Ryane Advised that he remembers about 20 years ago, it was a hot day, and he rode from Vancouver to Surrey on the bus and he remembers that he would never want to do again. He indicated that he really likes the proposal, that he was glad Vancouver wasnt a freeway city and that he would like to see more of these types of lines. (24) Steven Regan Explained that he was here this evening wearing a couple of hats but it was for personal reasons that he was here supporting the line. He explained that he and his family live near the Millennium Line now and it has pulled him out of his car and onto the line. While the technology isnt that important it is the fact that it gets people out of their cars and moves them onto a rapid rail line that is very important. This proposed new alignment gives riders some flexibility to move around the system and having this corridor was very important to him. (25) Isobel Minty With respect to the talk about bus passes for the students at SFU and UBC what about Langara and other college students? Chair McCallum indicated that the initiative has to come from the student body. Let them know what is available. TransLink is working with the other colleges. Continuing, Ms. Minty asked about the trolley buses replacements commenting that a 200 trolley bus replacement is inadequate and that TransLink should replace these buses before they spend $1 billion on this project. The trolley bus service is inadequate and they are always breaking down. This should be a priority. This line is for the commuters and that is fair enough but her concerns are that the stops are so few and far between. This is going to ill-serve a lot of folks particularly older people who find it hard to walk the eight or nine blocks between the stops. To lose the bus service would be a real loss. She further explained that she was also concerned with the rush of the decision and the fact that the public have not gotten much real information. She asked why isnt that pie chart in this Discussion Guide book (reference to the overhead slide illustrating the various funding agency contributions). In her opinion, this was blind mans bluff and you get away with everyone thinking it is a good idea. A private/public partnership (P3) is really about plundering public property we, the taxpayers, are paying the socialized cost and the private partner plunders the profit. The public carries the cost and the private partner realizes the profit. The public should be given a first option on the property. In her opinion there were huge carrying costs on the present lines and that this consultation was a very unsatisfactory process with you treating us as simple people . Mr. Leicester explained that the local bus service will continue and that while there may be a little less bus service there will not be an elimination of service. Essentially, it will be a wash with the biggest change occurring on Granville Street. (26) Jean Blais Mathieu Explained that he has lived in the Vancouver area for at least five years. He observed he was favorable to rapid transit as long as the area has more buses as there is a need for more buses throughout the system and in particular more trolley buses. As for alternatives, he explained that he was totally against widening roads or building more bridges. The area needs more transit and other connecting means of transport. In most major cities there is access to a very compatible mode of transportation which encourages people to leave their cars at home. People want to be able to use their bicycle when they get off SkyTrain, for example. There have been ongoing efforts to get bicycles on the SkyTrain and while we keep hearing it is coming soon, there is a problem. He urged TransLink to figure this out. In Toronto and Montreal one can use bicycles. If there is new transit figure out a way to have bicycles, at least, in one car. In closing he commented they are still waiting for bicycle access on the SkyTrain. Chair McCallum explained that he did push very hard to allow the bikes on the SkyTrain. TransLink buses have the ability to carry bikes. The TransLink Board supports bikes on the SkyTrain however it is the
March, 2003
81
Provincial Public Safety Commission which is the body that will make the final decision as to whether TransLink can do it. A TransLink we hope to see this soon - expect that we will get a decision shortly. (27) David Silk Explained that he was late getting to the workshop because he took the B-Line bus to the meeting. He stated that he wanted to talk about the lack of technology. All the routes selected have technical documents which have substantial technical issues and this is going to add substantial cost to the line. He suggested implementing and taking advantage of technology and various alignments that dont have to cross False Creek. In closing he expressed support for SkyTrain technology. Ms. Bird indicated that the feedback is indicating considerable support for SkyTrain. She noted that the Chair of TransLink is very supportive of SkyTrain technology as well, however the best technology for this line will be achieved through a competitive bidding process. It is the belief that the best value for the public will be achieved through a competitive bidding process. Continuing Mr. Silk asked if TransLink was going to consider proposals from alternative bidders that propose alternative routes. Chair McCallum indicated that the RFP will contain parameters and we will leave it to the private sector as to how they will meet them. In the past we have just picked one technology and we believe that good public policy should consider all technologies before a selection is undertaken. There is a need to ensure that a competitive bidding process occurs, which is a different process this time. In closing, Mr. Silk counselled that TransLink at this stage shouldnt lock the bidders into one route. (28) Sara Ross Explained that she was part of the bicycle contingent that was present at the workshop. Her comments were about bicycles and pedestrians and she asked what a sustainable transportation would look like. Those two aspects (bicycles and pedestrians) need to be designed into every stage of the project. She believed in less gas more ass. In closing she reiterated the need to see bicycles considered at every stage of the process. Bike routes from the nodes - good bike routes that prioritize bicycles. (29) John Emard Observed that when Jane Bird illustrated the lengthy history of studies one of the routes studied was the development of an east west freeway to join the north south freeway. The City of Vancouver hired a consultant to produce a big freeway. He observed that if the City had gone down that route we wouldnt have Vancouver as we know it today or had Expo. Therefore it was imperative to make good decisions. He explained that he was highly supportive of decisions that result in mass transportation systems that get people out of their cars and SUVs. The SkyTrain type system gets more people out of their cars while light rail and heavy rail gets the most people out of their cars. He observed that we have to stop pollution and grid lock. He noted that the Seattle system has very low density contrasting that to the heavy density here in Vancouver and the need to support transit. For a region to grow and prosper we need good mass transportation systems. Therefore look at the time lines and get on with it. He indicated support for SkyTrain for a lot of reasons however mostly because people will use that system and they have a maintenance yard already in the region. Bombardier and SkyTrain are here and have the maintenance capacity. With respect to the Map on Page 4 of the Discussion Guide he observed that the Airport is close to another island known as Iona Island and that in the past the Provincial Government has looked at moving the ferry systems to that island from Tsawwassen and Horseshoe Bay. In closing he explained that he was 100% in support of the line and that we should build it. The Cambie corridor has the most business, hospital and education facilities there is nothing there on the Arbutus Corridor. (30) Jessica Sutherland Noted that she was a local cyclist and part of the bicycle group here tonight. She expressed full support for a referendum stating that you should think about it and reconsider your position before you make a deci82
sion. She expressed concern that there wasnt any information about bicycles in the presentations. She requested that bicycle transportation be made more accessible, noting that more bike routes in neighborhoods are important, as well as accessibility for the bikes on the trains. She advised that, at the present time, she cant take her bicycle on the SkyTrain. Chair McCallum commented that hopefully bicycle riders will be able to take their bikes on SkyTrain soon. In closing her comments, Ms. Sutherland requested more accessibility for bicycles as bicycling reduces the need for cars, thus creating cleaner air with less pollution. Bicycling promotes healthier lifestyles. A member from the audience commented that one should act locally but think globally. (31) Ivan Chu Explained that he was a regular Millennium Line rider. He noted that sometimes the service is very good but sometimes there are problems with connecting buses. Fundamentally this proposed line is good, cautioning TransLink not to make the same mistakes as were made on the Millennium Line. Postponements cost money - dont go that route again. He commented that there isnt a need to design such elaborate stations as are on the Millennium Line. He observed that seven years to construct the line is too long and that the eighteen months for the consultation is enough. As well, there isnt a need for extensive environmental studies. There are too many stations proposed and expressed the opinion that there isnt a need for the Marine Drive or King Edward Stations. He characterized rapid transit as a short cut. The line is proposed to go to Richmond Center and that is good however the Westminster station is not needed. He suggested that the stations should be established where you need connections as this would cut down on the construction time (fewer stations). The Millennium Line is much better and the buses are still on the route. You need bus connections change the schedule a little bit. Chair McCallum explained that, if the project is approved, the construction period would be five years. (32) Raz Seyednejad Observed that the proposed service should be 24 hours. With respect to the trolleys why dont they just refurbish them instead of replacing them? He noted that the proposed route doesnt service Granville Island and that money spent on the roads is a waste of money. He explained that there is a need to address youth issues and aggression on public transit and suggested that TransLink address these social issues. In closing he commented that private ownership is a disaster. 5. Closing Remarks Chair McCallum thanked everyone for coming and participating in the workshop noting that the next and last public workshop will be held March 15 at the Plaza 500 Hotel, Vancouver. 6. Conclusion The workshop concluded at 9:05 p.m.
March, 2003
83
VANCOUVER PUBLIC WORKSHOP PLAZA 500 HOTEL MARCH 15, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a public workshop held with members of the public and the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Saturday, March 15, 2003 at the Plaza 500 Hotel, Oak Room, 12th and Cambie, Vancouver, BC. PRESENT: The following members of the public signed the Registration Sheet5: J.R. OBrien A. Goodall T. Devine R. Wilson J. Scriven D. Scriven Larry Brawn Katrina Borsato Ann Kruthaul Pauline Skipper Gar Sidhic J. Wallbank Wendell Fong Craig Heale Jim Jiang Anna Cheng Andrew Hiscox Aniko Gyorgyl Sidney Sawyer Yoland Bouwan A. Miller Max Velez C. Johl Harold Steiman A. Ip TRANSLINK: CHAIR, Pat Jacobsen, CEO, TransLink Bob Paddon, Vice President, Corporate and Public Affairs Glen Leicester, Director of Implementation Planning VANCOUVER CITY STAFF: Dave Rudberg, Director of Engineering RICHMOND CITY STAFF: David McLennan, Acting CEO and General Manager Urban Development Gordon Chan, Director of Transportation RAVP TEAM: Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP John Eastman, Technical Director, RAVP Jonathan Stevens, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) David Rowat, Procurement Manager, RAVP Raymond Louie, Technical Manager, RAVP RESOURCE: Susan Campbell, Recording Clerk, RAVP The workshop commenced at 9:00 a.m. Approximately 300 members of the public were in attendance. 1. Welcome and Introduction Chair Pat Jacobsen, CEO, TransLink, welcomed and thanked everyone for attending this mornings meeting explaining that she and Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP were here to listen to the public and that both of their presentations were going to be short. They were here to listen and receive the publics input on the proposed rapid rail line. A speakers List has been established and only speakers who have signed the list will be called on for presentations. In the interests of time and to allow all speakers an opportunity to be heard speakers were requested to limit their questions and or comments to approximately two minutes. The only exception to that rule would be to the first speaker who was addressing the meeting on behalf of the Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society. It was the intent of the workshop, once the speakers have all been heard, to move into small group meetings for the purpose of discussing and completing the feedback forms.
5. Registration was optional and represents only a portion of those in attendance..
84
March, 2003
The record notes that the public workshop was part of a broad-based consultation, seeking public feedback about the proposed rapid transit project and has included a newspaper information piece in The Sun, Province and Ming Pao and Sing Tao, web-based consultation utilizing an on-line feedback form and email, open houses in Richmond, Vancouver and the Airport, 15 20 small-group meetings and three public workshops. As well the record notes that a copy of the Community Consultation Discussion Guide and Feedback Form, dated March, 2003 was provided to all participants at the public workshop. 2. Regional Transportation Overview Chair Jacobsen provided the regional transportation overview augmenting her comments with a power point presentation. 3. RAVP PROJECT OVERVIEW Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP, provided the RAVP Project Overview augmenting her comments with a power point presentation. In closing her presentation, Ms. Bird explained that this is a Richmond, Vancouver service with a service that addresses the employment center at the airport. She noted that less than 10% of the projected airline ridership would be airline passengers. She further advised that part of the work undertaken was an examination of a premium service from the airport however it was determined that in the short-term airport passengers will pay the regular (transit) fare. She reiterated that a rail technology has not been chosen and will not be chosen until the completion of a competitive bidding process. 4. Speakers List: (1) Dr. Gordon Jones Dr. Jones advised the meeting that he was the past President of the society that looks after the Cambie Heritage Boulevard. He explained that he has lived here all his life and this matter was personal to him. He observed that justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done asking whether it was done. The Society questions whether it (justice) was seen to be done. In 1993, (former) Mayor Owen instituted City Plan. Several things came out of the plan and one of those looked at the future of Vancouver and said that no one area should suffer unduly from negative impacts of development. City Plan said that there must be fairness and equality throughout the city and Dr. Jones asked whether we are being fair to the east side of the city. For instance, look at Knight Street and see the heavy trucks, Main Street is doing its fair share and Oak, Granville and Cambie Streets are all contributing. Arbutus is a wasteland and need not be. Years ago a rail traffic service was run from Vancouver to Steveston down Arbutus. Everyone along the Arbutus corridor knew that trains would again be used in the corridor one day. He suggested that we have to look at the situation fairly and equally. The mandate of the Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society is the protection of the boulevard that is from 25th Avenue to Marine Drive. Therefore, it is not really a question of opposing rapid transit on Cambie as we could have express buses or fast buses which while they dont match ridership times (as projected on the RAV) they would save the boulevard. We must also ask TransLink and RAV to get out of just looking at Cambie Street and rather examine all sorts of other alternative technologies and traffic solutions. The Society is concerned about SkyTrain technology as it could become a reality. At this point Dr. Jones quoted from Page 6 of the Project Definition Report regarding the use of various technologies utilizing at-grade, elevated and tunnel solutions. Continuing, he observed that buses down Cambie could be supported, however a subway has its disadvantages. Therefore, why not look at more buses down Cambie Street. At least Vancouver City Council is expressing concern and suggesting the Arbutus corridor. There is also an issue of fiscal responsibility, asking can we find out what this will cost? Some figures were $4 billion, then it was $3 billion and now it is down to somewhere between $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion. The figures are being held confidential and while this is understandable, until the bidding process is over, as a taxpayer, not knowing the precise cost (of the project) is concerning. Again, Dr. Jones referenced the Project Definition
March, 2003
85
Report relative to a rail system and certain criteria the builder must meet asking was this section to be interpreted to mean that the developers will make the decision as to the technology? If this was so then this would cause him concern as well. Well, he was not for the Olympics and while he wouldnt go into that discussion today however he wondered what was the hurry? If we have to wait so that we can take more time for consultation well take more time because remember that we are going to live with that construction for 4 or 5 years and in addition to that, whatever the result is, you and I, as long as we live, will actually have to live with this. So taking some more months to examine all the options fairly should be undertaken. In closing, Dr. Jones said that he liked buses and that the Society does not want SkyTrain on Cambie saying save the boulevard and use buses . (2) Charles Milne Mr. Milne identified himself as the President of the Cambie Heritage Boulevard Society. He characterized the project as a concept full of rosy projections that created more questions than it provided answers. With respect to the optimistic ridership numbers he did not believe that those population projections would come to pass. He observed that every mega project, in this Province, has come in over budget. With this project, every time they need to reduce cost they will reduce one kilometer of subway to save about $50 million. Every one will pay for this project including our children. These destinations are all for Richmond citizens and he did not believe that Richmond citizens would come to Vancouver to study - Langara and shop Oakridge given that Richmond has Kwatleen College study and Richmond Center for shopping. This is a plan to move people from Richmond to downtown Vancouver noting there are only about five stops in Vancouver. Therefore, Vancouver residents will not use the rapid rail and at the same time they (TransLink) are going to cut the number of buses down. That reduction in bus service is the reason travel times are the way they are. This is a critical flaw the (RAV) line just goes from point A to point B and then back again. This plan should serve as one of the main major transportation corridors and the Arbutus corridor could also serve. There would be no environmental impact on the Arbutus corridor. The major destination in Vancouver is UBC and an Arbutus line would serve it much better. Cambie is on the eastern border of that transportation corridor, with that context, he suggested putting the line in the middle of the transportation corridor. Arbutus is a short walk to Granville. Major development is happening on Arbutus all sorts of opportunities. In summary, Mr. Milne stated that it is the position of the Cambie Heritage Boulevard Society that everyone should share in the transportation load of the City and we know there is a great route down Arbutus. We dont mind buses down Cambie as they serve the local infrastructure along the way. (3) Kathleen Jones Identified herself as a member of the Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society. She stated that they had been told that Arbutus was not being considered yet TransLink now appears to be considering other systems. She asked what about the character of our neighborhood.This is your city and you should have a strong say. Therefore there is a need to have the facts and figures on the proposed companies so that you could come today and say this is what is proposed. This process is crazy . All those institutions in the presentation contribute to higher densities. She suggested that they open both corridors with Arbutus for rail and Cambie for buses. She asked where the benefits were and stated that they dont want crime and big ugly stations in their neighborhood. In closing, Ms. Jones summarized her comments as TransLink has an agenda and they are doing a good job of spreading that propaganda. Dont let TransLink and outsiders destroy the Cambie Boulevard and she hoped Vancouver City Council was listening. (4) Terry Bubb Identified himself as the Chair-Elect of Tourism Vancouver. Tourism Vancouver is an association of over 1,000 businesses. He explained that as a business community Vancouver has many award winning attributes. This is an award winning destination, and over time has gained back the losses experienced from the events of 9-11. He observed that 15 million passengers arrived at YVR last year and that negative transportation systems impact tourism. If this line went ahead it would enhance the cruise ship ridership as statistics show
86
March, 2003
that most cruise ship passengers arrive by airplane. Members of the workshop are also aware that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) identified concerns with the present transportation systems. This proposed initiative would provide the region with an opportunity to showcase the City. In closing, Mr. Bubb explained that Tourism Vancouver is not involved in the best corridor discussions or the technology however it supports the proposed line and applauds the citizens and TransLink for this open dialogue. (5) Marilyn Steen (provided the record with the following written copy of her comments). My name is Marilyn Steen and I have property on Cambie Street. Last year I was assured by Sandy McCormack (prior City Councilor) that even if the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid transit project was approved for Cambie Street it would be below ground and the Heritage Boulevard would be saved. Now I have been told by Wayne Pledger (City Engineer) and Raymond Louie (City Councilor) that if Cambie Street is approved for the rapid transit an above ground rail system will be used for a minimum of approximately 30 blocks on the Cambie Boulevard. Goodbye to our heritage Boulevard and goodbye to our hard earned investment in our homes. When I have asked how come homeowners on Cambie Street had not been given any written notice via the mail using the tax statement addresses I was told that it was not cost-effective. This is rubbish. If elevated or street level rail is used, not only will Cambie Street homeowners lose the beautiful boulevard, one of the reasons we invested our hard earned dollars for property on Cambie Street we will lose property value because of this unsightly method of rapid transportation. It doesnt take a genius to consider the sale price of a home on this beautiful boulevard versus a home with a concrete monster or fenced rail making loud noises many times in the hour. In the case of property bought with retirement in mind, the ugly concrete monster or fenced rail in front of our property will turn renters away. I personally am taking it upon myself to make sure every house and business on the Cambie Boulevard know of TransLinks proposal. In the last 2 days I have started having letters delivered to some of the homes and businesses in the Cambie Corridor from 25th Avenue to Marine Drive. I have already received almost 100 signatures from approximately 50 homes protesting an elevated or street level rail system. When I have completed contacting every home or business between 25th and Marine Drive I will send copies of this protest to the City, TransLink and the media. Homeowners have rights. Besides my project to contact every owner on Cambie Street I mailed over 200 feedback forms last Saturday to members of the Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society with stamped envelopes addressed to Jennifer Davies at the TransLink. I advised Jennifer that I would be checking to see how many she received. She did not return my telephone call on Friday. If the rapid transit uses Cambie it must be underground or expand the bus system. Better still pay attention to Councilors David Cadman and Anne Roberts and focus on Arbutus which is a dedicated transportation corridor. Take more time before the people are asked to spend over 1 _ billion dollars. Stop trying to cram this through for 2010. The line was never an Olympic project. I was told that there had been polls done regarding other homeowners on rail lines and that I would be pleasantly surprised at the results. What garbage. My husband and I went on the two existing SkyTrain lines and found absolutely no comparable housing situation. None. Nothing even remotely resembling the Cambie Heritage Boulevard or the homes on Cambie Street. Again nothing. Use Arbutus, bus expansion or go underground for the whole of Cambie Street because (a) you would not sacrifice part of Stanley Park. This Boulevard has meaning to Vancouver. That is why it is called a heritage boulevard. (b) Homeowners have rights and I will show you their wishes by the end of this month. I will send all the signatures, including addresses to TransLink and the Media. Ms. Bird clarified that the section of the Project Definition Report relative to elevated, underground and atgrade said that while underground was not possible in Richmond in other parts of corridor all technologies could be considered. Therefore, it was financially feasible to be in tunnel to 49th however from 49th to 63rd underground was outside the financial envelope for the project. At-grade and elevated systems were possible - that is what Vancouver City Council will be looking for with respect to your commentary and that is part of the reason we are here today.
March, 2003
87
(6) Maurizio Grande Identified himself as the Vice President of the Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society however he was here today mostly as a citizen of the area. He explained that he has read in literature that Vancouver is a lost paradise however with what you have proposed you will create hell not paradise. He indicated that while he could give lots of numbers, to support his position, the speaker before did it for him. He explained that every day when he goes home and sees the trees and thinks about what could happen that it was killing him inside and he hoped that this project will be reconsidered because it will destroy the only heritage boulevard in Canada. The City of Vancouver, in 1993, declared this a heritage boulevard for a reason there are more than 1,000 trees there and there are lots of other ways to solve traffic congestion. This proposal is creating a lot of fuss when what we need are simple more cost-effective solutions. In closing, Mr. Grande noted that when you try to make fast solutions, like the fast ferries they are costly and no one is paying. (7) May Brown Identified herself as a former City Councillor, former Director of the GVRD and former member of various other Boards and Committees. She indicated that she wished to emphasize the amount of study that has been undertaken on this line; it has been studied for over 25 years. She advised that what we have to do now is read, listen to the debate, critically determine our approach and glean out of this what is best for Vancouver. This is an important decision and it is not to be taken lightly however she believed, at this point, that the planning processes have been well done. This project is unique, among projects, because all the alternatives have been studied to death. In the past the experience on other lines has been to get the basic decision and then consult with the public. In this case, all citizens are watching the Cambie Boulevard. While she declared herself a big supporter of the Olympics she believed that the event shouldnt push the decision. However, being practical, the federal funding would help us financially. This project is also unique in that all the agencies are coming together so as not to saddle the citizens with a great debt. This is good target. While it is natural to resist change, change is natural and Vancouver is changing. Our traffic pressures are great and change is coming. In closing Ms. Brown explained that after 25 years of study, she was supporting the project. A rail corridor out to the airport and Richmond this is the best system. (8) Ruth Hodge Identified herself as a resident of 49th and Cambie stating she was getting tired of hearing about transportation on Cambie for the past 30 years and the hurry everyone is in. We hurried the fast ferries and that was a disaster. Now it is rapid transit. This hurry has also spilled over to a lot of the younger car drivers today. Some of the points have already been made by previous speakers, however with respect to the stations on the line, as yet there are no stops between King Edward and Oakridge or between St. Vincents Hospital and Queen Elizabeth Park. She explained that when she retired, a bus fare cost 75 cents and now she pays $1.50 which is $3.00 for a round trip and that is making her think twice about taking the bus as it is cheaper to take her car. She asked who are the people (proposed RAV ridership) and where are they going? In closing, she requested that TransLink hold off on any decision until July and the Olympic site is known. She explained the need to maintain flexibility because if we make a mistake and put on a whole lot of buses that is easy to correct however rail is a mistake that is there for ever. (9) Ethel Karmel (provided the record with the following written copy of her comments) Identified herself as one of the founders of the Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society. You may call me a NIMBY (not in my backyard). Vancouver is my back yard and Cambie is part of Vancouver. I was present when Mayor Gordon Campbell and City Councilors had the vision and foresight to designate the Cambie Boulevard a heritage landscape in March 1993. It is a view corridor to the City and North Shore Mountains. It is an elongated park in the heart of the City. It is a ceremonial boulevard where royalty, dignitaries, presidents and tourists enter our city. Many of you may not know that I made a proposal to the City to designate King Edward Avenue as a heritage boulevard. It also has a wonderful history and should be acknowledged. However much to my dismay, the Engineering Department vetoed it. I try to install good values in my grandchildren. They participated when we had a tree planting ceremony on the boulevard. They have
88
March, 2003
watched the tree grow and flourish. This is a legacy we must leave to future generations. What are you willing to tell them? That a train could be faster by six minutes coming along Cambie and therefore trees must be bulldozed. Is this going to be your legacy? (10) Marianne Orser Identified herself as a member of the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition, and expressed support for intermodal transportation and the desire to see bike access on the train from day one. She noted that as yet, bikes are not allowed on the Millennium Line. She further expressed the need for a greenway along the right of way for walking or cycling and bike routes as well bus routes to the stations. Additionally, there is a need to provide secure bike lock ups at the stations. In closing she commented that she lives out of this area and loves SkyTrain. (11) Robert Wenner Advised that he has lived in Vancouver for 75 years and has seen lots of changes over those years. For instance, the Port Mann Bridge construction which was budgeted at $10 million, yet cost $40 million. In Vancouver, transportation (systems) have done a wonderful job and a good job on Cambie and that in his opinion we dont need any other form of transportation as he is quite happy with the way it is now. He suggested that they look at a map and think about a bridge to handle the airport traffic that would leave Cambie Street alone. In closing, he commented that we are throwing huge amounts of money around to save 15 minutes. (12) Ray Dujardin Advised that he lives at 26th and Cambie and has worked most of life in the mining business. His first point was in terms of the budget, stating that he had absolutely no faith in it whatsoever. He asked,if you havent chosen the details or what method will be used then how you can present a (project) budget. In reality the budget will be twice what is presented. In a mining project, which are projects he has experience with, there are impacts on the environment and that includes impacts on people yet there is no mention at all on the impact (of the project) on the community. This was his second point, in a mining project you have to convince the people and yet it appears that you have already decided. If you really had concerns you would present the pros and cons of the project. (13) Janice Plumstead Identified herself as representing the Vancouver Economic Commission. She indicated they are in support of the Cambie project. She noted that when she takes future developers out to look at the region they look at Burnaby because of the SkyTrain. In summary, she expressed support for the project summarizing it as sustaining an economic tax base which will reduce congestion and produce jobs for people. (14) Al Thompson Identified himself as a representative from the Vancouver Board of Trade. He commented that traffic congestion strangles growth and this project will link three major centers; Richmond, Vancouver and the Airport. The presentation justified the new line. It should proceed, it is the right transit and the Board supports the Cambie line. The Board of Trade takes no particular position with respect to the technology used, however they are confident that the bidding process will produce the most cost-effective technology. In closing, he advised that the Vancouver Board of Trade was in favor of the line. (15) Lorna Persson Explained that while she understood the idea of the line was to transport people from Richmond into Vancouver she believed an Arbutus line would do just that. She commented that she would like to know where former Mayor Campbell was as they have not heard a word from him. She asked if this line was going to be above ground where were the stations going to be. There is a lot of traffic on Cambie as she knows
March, 2003
89
because she lives right on 48th (and Cambie) asking where is this above ground station going to be located? In closing she summarized her comments as: Arbutus would be the most direct line to get people from Richmond, Vancouver and UBC and it would take a lot less time; bus service is quite adequate on Cambie and if they do decide to go on Cambie Street then it must be underground all the way. (16) Ian Webber Relinquished his time slot advising that all his points have been made by previous speakers. (17) Colin Stark Identified himself as an engineer who has lived in Vancouver for over 20 years. He indicated that he has attended the previous public workshops in Richmond and at the Vancouver Public Library. He went to those meetings looking for information characterizing the information that was provided as minimal. He indicated that he researched and read the Porter Report on the City of Vancouvers website, noting that it favored rapid bus and light rail transit. He stated that these options have been neglected. This report is very worthwhile and he urged people to read it. He quoted from the report relative to a cost and benefit analysis expressing the opinion that this type of work, on this project, has not been forthcoming. He indicated that in the past, he attended dozens of meetings on the Millennium Line. In closing, he expressed the need for many more public meetings and consultations and the need for a referendum. (18) France Nickel Explained that he lives at Cambie and 16th and is not associated with any group. At this point he observed that he now understood why it (the project) has taken so long. He noted that Arbutus is not a heavy traffic corridor while Cambie is the busiest street with the buses packed all the time. He stated he would gladly take SkyTrain to the airport as it is expensive to get there by cab. In closing he commented that anything that contributes to more traffic is a bad solution which is anything at-grade, while anything under or above ground will work. At-grade creates more traffic and more pollution. Procedural Note: At this point Chair Jacobsen asked the public workshop meeting if they wished to proceed with the Speakers List or move into the small group discussions. The consensus, of those in audience, was to proceed with the List. (19) Pat Weber Explained that he echoed and supported the presentation by Dr. Jones. (20) Carlos Saborio Identified himself as a homeowner at 35th and Cambie observing that while the boulevard has been designated as heritage apparently heritage doesnt mean permanent. He commented that airport tourists who have luggage are not going to go on the train as they are going to go by bus, taxi, car etc. in Vancouver. He characterized this proposal as one that is definitely to help people go from Richmond to Vancouver. Earlier he heard that 60% of the people will take the bus to the train asking what the difference between taking two buses is (as opposed to taking a bus and a train). In closing he asked why they had not chosen Granville, Oak or Main for the line. (21) Alan Herbert Advised that he lives at Granville Island, was a past City Councillor and Chaired the Citizen Group to save the Boulevard. He noted there has been considerable debate about the heritage boulevard stating that the question has been solved observing that it is not open for further debate. He noted there is considerable concern about this proposal. He recalled a past rapid bus consultation and that, at the time, there was actually consideration to produce 13 other rapid bus systems. However the response was so acrimonious that the remaining 12 options never came up. He observed that people who live along the Arbutus line are not supportive of the option (rapid rail) saying how well we all remember that crme de crme comment.This
90
March, 2003
proposal is extremely important and he would support the Cambie corridor if it was all underground and that support would be for operational purposes with P3 (public private partnership) support for capital costing. Ms. Bird clarified that the model proposed for discussion involves a private sector contribution (design, build, operate and maintain) with a contribution to capital cost as well. In closing, Mr. Herbert noted that when he was on Council (Vancouver City Council) the comment was that the operating costs for the line could be paid from the fare box revenue. This is important to recognize observing that in order to realize that objective we will need a high quality system to attract the ridership. (22) David Scriven Indicated that he lives in the area and believes TransLink has a stacked deck. The proposed rapid transit time of about 25 minutes implies separation all the way because otherwise these travel times cant be made. There is a belief that the route is pre-determined and that the costs are low-balled. There is no way all of the conditions can be met without rapid rail. In other words, conditions have been set to determine solutions. He did not see the reason why this line has to go down Cambie. The density is constant and it implies people not really getting on or off in Vancouver so therefore, the line is really just for people outside of Vancouver. In closing, Mr. Scriven asked why the rush to go down Cambie, why not go down Arbutus and have the same effect. This is a nice consultation but it must be relevant. Ms. Bird replied to the performance criteria noting that a partially at-grade system can meet performance standards of Waterfront to Richmond in about 30 minutes. (23) Spencer Herbert Explained that he was here today representing the Bus Riders Union which was an organization trying to get a good bus system out of the present one which seems to hike fares and cut bus service. Today you are talking about a rapid rail system down Cambie, a service in 30 minutes, and while that would certainly be nice to have it would also be nice to have this on the buses where the average wait time is about 30 minutes for a bus. This system should be about people who ride the bus because they have to and they should be at the center of the consideration. He stated that he was opposed to the project because it wont help bus ridership and wont eliminate the present night owl curfew (on the buses). TransLink cuts service, raises fares and eliminates bus routes all the while continuing with the Millennium Line and now this line. In closing, he thanked the previous speakers who have been fighting for better bus service. (24) Peter Marcus He urged TransLink to stop listening to big business and start listening to the people. He explained that on the Grandview cut he saw trees cut; trees, which in his opinion, were heritage trees. He observed that this project has no real finance formula and that for transit generally there is no finance formula. He suggested that the region should spend the billions to upgrade the bus service instead and that once that is done then we can talk about rail transit. He stated that while he was not against rail transit he would like to see a service from the North Shore to Tsawwassen utilizing heavy rail like Toronto. This service should go along Granville Street - no one has mentioned this and it is a good corridor. In closing Mr. Marcus summarized his comments as: straighten out bus routes and fill in; increase bus frequency; reduce fares; restore late night bus service, no P3s as the line should be publicly owned and operated. (25) Marc Venot Explained that he lives on East 2nd Ave. and has a friend who lives on Cambie Street. So, he has not one but two SkyTrains in front of his windows. This is a kind of life watching the SkyTrains and he expressed 100% support for the project. He observed that they should widen the boulevard, buy the houses, if necessary. In closing he noted the quality of ridership that the new line will bring and how pleasant and comfortable the rider will be.
March, 2003
91
(26) Youwen Zhou Dr. Zhou identified himself as working at Vancouver General Hospital (VGH). He expressed support for a rapid transit system but not on Cambie Street. He characterized the presentation as selective explaining that initially there was a plan to go along Arbutus and former Councillor Jennifer Clarke was one of the major proponents of the Cambie line. He observed that Ms. Clarkes house is near the Arbutus line. With respect to the proposed Cambie line, he noted that the biggest employers are VGH and the Childrens Hospital complex and that they are 10 blocks away on Oak Street. This is critical information which is not mentioned in the presentation material. As well Underhill Co. was hired by Vancouver and recently they put the report on the Citys website (February 13, 2003). The conclusion reached in that report is that there is a missed step, in the project, that step being that there was no full evaluation of the alternatives, light rail in another corridor, asking why was this information not presented? At this point, Ms. Jacobsen noted there are several emerging themes which she would address at the end of the public workshop. Ms. Bird advised that a response to the report has been prepared and tabled at Council (Vancouver City). (27) Richard Campbell Explained that he was not associated with any particular group. He advised that $11.6 billion is spent on transportation per year and that we should consider the challenges ahead namely climate change, the Kyoto Accord and the pressing need to spend resources. He advised that following this public workshop he was going to the Peace Rally and that any place you put rapid transit can be dealt with in the context of all the issues in the world. He suggested that the annual $11 billion transportation expenditure should be redirected into transit. He commented that we can study and debate forever observing that it will not necessarily become clearer with more study. With respect to Arbutus, opportunities for a greenway exist which could establish separate paths for cyclists and pedestrians. (28) Jane Saborio Explained that she lived on Cambie and worked for a big software company. She had chosen to return to Vancouver and she didnt want Vancouver to become like a big American city. Fix the problems, however dont introduce wrong solutions. Dont make a wrong decision based on a wrong solution that looks good at first. Rather look for the great solution. If you proceed with this line you will drive the young and the affluent away. In closing, she urged everyone to consider the future and dont lose the use of the corridor. (29) Nick Lum Identified himself as a resident of South Vancouver. He expressed support for a segregated line suggesting that the line be re-routed and elevated half a block east to preserve the boulevard. (30) Tracy Moir Advised that she didnt represent any particular group and indicated she lived near Granville and Broadway. She expressed an appreciation for the beauty of the boulevard. She noted that Vancouver City Council approved view cones and that the Cambie Corridor contained the largest number of view cones which implies a disconnect with a proposed rail system. She noted that the Arbutus corridor had no view cones or aesthetic issues. She asked about soft costs given the potential destruction of green space, loss of real estate values and increased crime and liability asking have these been evaluated. Her second question was regarding the four financial contributors and the approval needed requesting an explanation of the process. Finally, she asked how the public can be involved. Ms. Bird addressed the issue of the view corridors and aesthetics generally advising that the RAV project team have worked closely with Vancouver City staff (they have been part of the process throughout) and they will take into consideration those view corridors. With respect to the financial envelope it would be sufficient for the system to be in tunnel from False Creek to 49th however from 49th to 64th it may be outside the financial envelope to be in tunnel.
92
Chair Jacobsen spoke to the approval process advising that next week the City of Vancouver will approve the public process for their resolution - they are currently proposing 2-3 public meetings with consideration of the resolution in May. The TransLink Board will consider the project in early May. TransLink would like to have resolutions from Vancouver and Richmond. The Province, Federal Government and the Airport all have project approval processes over the next two months. Ms. Bird further advised that soft costs have been budgeted for in the full environmental assessment process. In Phase 2 (the Project is now at Phase 3) of the work a cost benefit analysis took place that examined nine different accounts and the soft issues were examined in that process. The information is available on the web site as well there are hard copies of the report available in the Reading Room of the RAVP Offices. The report is titled a Multiple-Account Evaluation. (31) Thang Vu Advised he did not represent any particular group. He commented that he would like to see bicycles on the line from day one and given that would want to see bicycle access incorporated into the planning. As well he would like to see sufficient elevator space which is safe, convenient and allows adequate access. If the RAV line is built then TransLink should consider a bicycle route under the line, one that is elevated but below the concrete guide way or at-grade whatever is feasible. In closing he further requested a safe and convenient bicycle connector route from the RAV to home and the workplace; that it was important to provide secure bicycle lockers; that funding and budgeting for cycling infrastructure needs to be adequate - should consider long-term funding in the $10-$20 million range. (32) Craig Heale Identified himself as a 36-year lower mainland resident as well as a SkyTrain operator and CUPE member. He advised that SkyTrain has the fastest service in North America with no fuel or other emissions. SkyTrain is revenue neutral while figures for the bus system showed a loss which is normal for most parts of the world. An automated transit system is a lean system. It was his view that public transportation should be publicly owned and run. Duplications are costly and two companies are not an answer. Therefore go with one company, one union so the cars are interchangeable and dont make the same mistake that occurred in Boston. SkyTrain is safe and efficient and their employees are the best trained - including first aid training. In closing Mr. Heale expressed the view that public transportation must be owned and controlled by the public. (33) Eric Doherty Commented that the previous speaker made a very good point as multi-operators in a system are a disaster, for example what happened in Melbourne, Australia. Rapid transit can be very cost-effective. At-grade can be cost effective and these systems operate in transit only lanes. A bus base has been successful as well. With respect to rapid rail people put up with the inconvenience and are not really serviced by it. The line runs through neighborhoods but doesnt actually service the neighborhood. Lets have a system that we can afford with multiple parallel lines. One of his concerns was that a multi-account evaluation of all the options doesnt appear to have been undertaken. In 1995, the then BC Transit endorsed a bus base rapid transit for $1.88 a passenger to Richmond with all other options being in the range of about $5 a passenger. This proposal (RAV line) will divert money from the basics to finance a very expensive rail based transit system. The Kyoto commitment is about greenhouse gas reduction. How much greenhouse gas reduction will we get with this proposal? In closing he asked that the region avoid this boon doggle and say no to P3. (34) Loraine Fralin Explained that she attended the Richmond meeting last Saturday asking if Ms. Bird has changed the underground route? Is it now 49th? She explained that her and her husband walked from 25th to 54th on the boulevard. They knocked on doors and spoke to the people. She asked the residents if TransLink or the City of Vancouver had ever contacted anyone for their opinion of this proposal. The response was that one person was contacted by the GVRD. She noted that she has got her notes and can back up that statement. She
March, 2003
93
commented that it is imperative that citizens be made aware of the threat to destroy the boulevard. The boulevard was planted over 78 years ago. It was in 1928 that the Vancouver Town Planning Commission retained an architect to design the boulevard. It is an elongated park providing a fitting approach to City Hall and Little Mountain. There are over 700 trees with many different species. TransLink is proposing a line which will blight the boulevard and will be a cost to the taxpayers. In closing she asked for the preservation of the Cambie Street Heritage Boulevard for the integrity of the trees which cant cry out for themselves. (35) Barb Mount Explained that she was a second generation Canadian and proud of it. She noted that the proposed line, on the map in the Discussion Guide, was not in line with No. 3 Road in Richmond rather it was in line with Richmond Hospital which is at Gilbert and Westminster, a 1/4 mile from Richmond Center. With that clarification she asked how you can go straight down Cambie. She stated that the RAV line would have to be underway all the way to Marine Drive. She noted her mother had ridden on the interurban train and that it went from Richmond to Chilliwack asking what is going on with TransLink. In closing she stated that the line must go underground all the way to Marine Drive then above ground. (36) Ray Agnew Identified himself as the President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees and remembered when BC Electric ran the interurban train. He was here to represent the 500 members at SkyTrain. They believe that SkyTrain technology should be used for the RAV line. They are proud of the SkyTrain system and believe people want a SkyTrain. He noted that the fastest time of a SkyTrain will be the same every day while with light rail the fastest time will only be the fastest time on the first day of the operation. It was his opinion they should issue a contract for the operations (RAV line). While it made sense for the Millennium Line to design and build vehicles it doesnt make sense for the RAV line to sign a 35-year operating contract. He noted that we are talking about the private sector putting up $300 million while the taxpayers will be putting up $1.4 billion with the public sector taking the liability risk and the private sector taking the profits. In closing he noted that the public sector doesnt cut costs, urging everyone to think about the private sector and where they will put the issue of safety over the life of the project. (37) John Dear Identified himself as an employee at the airport and a resident of the downtown area (bought condo downtown). He expressed support for the route as it is the most direct. Speed is what is important; the B-Line takes between 42-50 minutes so this new line will make a difference. He noted that TransLink is going to replace the trolleys but that SkyTrain allows for better bus service in the suburbs. This line will take a lot of buses off Granville and will free up room for taxis, limos, the airporters etc. He commented that he does support public ownership that uses the same technology asking why build a different line that cant hook in with the other two SkyTrains. Along No. 3 Road, in Richmond, it should be above ground. The station at King Edward should be adjusted to service Nat Bailey stadium and the bus routes should be adjusted as well. With respect to the fears of increased crime he believed that this was fear mongering as he would argue that in current areas there was already crime there. SkyTrain has created development. Crime will not come to Cambie. In closing, Mr. Dear urged TransLink to seize the opportunity to get the money saying that if you dont build it now it wont happen. (38) Peter Miller Advised that he has lived most of his life in Vancouver and has had the privilege of taking the interurban train to work in a Steveston fish cannery. He noted that the City of Vancouver had 25% of the GVRDs vote by the 1990s and that this is a metro plan driven by City of Vancouver politicians that didnt want anything to happen. In his opinion, the Millennium Line was dumped on us by a disgraced (former) Provincial Government and this line has been dumped on us by a disgraced (former) Vancouver City Council. That (former) Council decided on Cambie to protect the crme de la crme . People want and will support initiatives
94
March, 2003
to move transportation ahead. The Underhill Study says that times and costs of SkyTrain are both equal and what he requested was a full and complete comparison of performance standards for the Arbutus and Cambie Lines. He urged TransLink to go back and re-examine the Arbutus/Cambie Corridors and light versus heavy rail and give us a great decision that works for the region and Vancouver. (39) Peter Ladner Identified himself as a City Councillor and while he has just been told that it was better for him not to speak here he has heard a lot of information. He advised that his fellow councilors were not able to attend today. The bigger picture is the need to do something as we cannot let the status quo continue given the bad air quality etc. He has heard pleas for more buses, however there are issues about buses; issues such as and noise and air quality problems and these should be considered. Trolleys are an extra $50 million. He stated that he would love to preserve the Cambie Boulevard and put more trolleys in. This line has operating costs which will pay $10 million regardless and that we will be getting outside money if we adopt the rail option. That money is not available for a bus option. The advantage of train is that people will get out of their cars this is a well-known fact. An underground rail system would yield revenue of about $15 million to the region while a bus system would cost, the region, about $5 million. The bigger questions are being forced and he was pleased to hear the publics concerns which he would take back to City Council. (40) Jeff England Advised that he is lives at 70th and Granville, the Marpole area, and that he is a Transit user. He is not that enthusiastic about SkyTrain. There exists economic opportunities for collection and distribution concepts as transit gets people moving. What they know is that people dont like to walk 10 minutes to get to the transit or having to wait 10 minutes at a stop. SkyTrain is good in that sense but what we are talking about is spending a whole lot of money for one corridor with the result that the rest of the region will suffer the consequences of that line. We have talked about the rest of the system being integrated into the system but he doesnt see how and this proposal is a lot of money and we dont see an investment in the rest of the system. He recommended that the costs be spread around. There are a lot of bus routes that havent achieved good service frequency. Yes, SkyTrain is a good option for one line but there is a need to spread the costs around and put money into the entire system rather than just one corridor. (41) Aniko Gyorgyl Explained that she was originally from Europe and has lived here for the past 12 years. Vancouverites should be proud of their cities and their trees as in Europe they have great rail systems but no trees. Everyone should be proud of that here. She has heard the concerns of her union brothers from CUPE and does agree with their position but does not agree with the Cambie Heritage Boulevard Society. In closing she urged that we dont destroy something beautiful to promote growth. (42) Benjamin Christensen Explained that he was a citizen of Vancouver and was here today to voice his opinion. While he does not live on the Cambie corridor he was worried about the RAV line and what can happen to small businesses and real estate values along a line. He emphasized that he cant stress enough the importance of rapid transit. He has lived for 21 years in East Vancouver and is a daily rider of the bus system this is not fun and the GVRD is trying to promote transit use and sometimes he loathes taking the bus while he loves to catch the SkyTrain. He has seen two SkyTrain lines go through his neighborhood. Yes, while he may have concerns, it is the best for the city. If we want to move into the 21st century, sacrifices will have to be made. This is too bad but Richmond needs to be opened up. Increased congestion is harmful to all people in Lower Mainland. (43) Ron Rowley Indicated that he basically supports the line noting that it has been talked about for 10 years. A bus line would be a silly idea. Anything in Richmond needs to be grade separated, at all points, as there are safety,
March, 2003
95
traffic congestion and conflicts with traffic issues. However, the line must be underground in Vancouver as much as possible. There is a payback for this corridor and that is money sensibly spent instead of wasted. No. 3 Road is very congested as he saw first hand when he traveled it last Saturday. (44) Erlinea Velez Characterized herself as a simple citizen of Canada that has lived on Cambie Street for 16 years. Cambie Boulevard is the best boulevard I have ever seen and tourists say this as well. Queen Elizabeth Park attracts many tourists. Cambie Boulevard should not be destroyed. It was her opinion that an elevated system will destroy the whole boulevard and will just benefit people that want to travel faster. In the rush hour there is only a few minutes delay in the long run and she looks at the bus going back and forth and it always seems to be running empty. Especially between the hours of 10 a.m. and before 3:00 p.m. you just see empty buses running up and down not making money, rather they are actually losing money. The buses seem to be running empty. So with SkyTrain do you think you will attract that many more passengers? For airport passengers somebody always picks them up. In her opinion people would not want to bring luggage up to the stations - up and down for the SkyTrains. This proposal is not sensible nor is it worthwhile. The SkyTrain is not running efficiently and is not making money for the City and the citizens will become the victims of this. In closing she urged everyone not to make another mistake like the fast ferries with the end result being that the citizens will suffer. (45) Anna Cheng Advised that she has lived since 1971 in the Cambie area of Vancouver. While there is a realization that we have to solve traffic congestion there isnt enough population to support rapid transit like other big cities around the world. Those big cities use subways to solve their traffic problems. We should think about that as that is the big picture. SkyTrain will not be as effective as subways are and SkyTrain will affect people along the line. We need the money from the Federal Government. In closing, Ms. Cheng suggested that TransLink should think about the Arbutus corridor to save money and use those savings for other social centers. She stated she feels sorry for homeless wandering teenagers begging for money so therefore she doesnt believe the region should spend so much money on a project they cant afford and try to save that money for other social concerns. (46) Dona McCra Explained that she is in a unique position having lived for 20 years on Cambie and now lives in the Arbutus corridor. She explained that she wants to support the preservation of green space in Vancouver observing that it would be a sad day to give that up for commuters outside of Vancouver. She explained that she just got back after being in Sydney, Australia, where all their transportation is fantastic except for one line which was never busy because of the short distance and high cost that line was the airport line. She expressed sadness that this proposed line was being driven by the Airport Authority and the Olympics. She observed that when you look at areas you have to be sensible and she just cant believe that all that traffic on Cambie is commuter traffic. She stated that the line has to be underground all the way. She noted that as well as all the other facilities which were identified in the presentation there were intermediate and extended care facilities, on Cambie, characterizing it as everything is along Cambie. Arbutus is dead. In closing, she noted the need to preserve green space, the heritage value of the boulevard; and, also sees a future for Arbutus as a green way calling this an unbelievable vision a connection from Stanley Park, False Creek through to the Arbutus trail was a phenomenal idea which would create a spectacular legacy for our children.
96
March, 2003
5. Closing Remarks Chair Jacobsen thanked everyone for coming and participating in the workshop. Summarizing the discussion, she indicated she heard five themes today and they were: No. 1 Concern that there will be a significant neighborhood impact and that this is a unique boulevard. People feel very strongly about it. If something is built it has to be underground the whole distance. No. 2 - Why this corridor? Debate regarding this issue has been ongoing for the last 25 years. TransLink has chosen to move ahead. This is not a political decision rather it is a decision based on ridership. The decision- making process will involve TransLink, the Province and the Airport Authority. No. 3 - The combination of the lower operating cost with higher ridership on Cambie versus the higher operating cost with lower ridership on Arbutus. TransLink is still listening. There are plans for Arbutus as the City of Vancouver has asked for designation of the Arbutus corridor as a transportation corridor. The reality is that we will still need additional service in the region. No. 4 - Why the rush? This will be the biggest capital project in the region suggesting that it only feels like a rush when you get close to the decision. It is now, it is real and we hear the concern that people feel like it (the decision) is a rush. However, there are a vast number of technical reports. There is detailed ridership and financial analysis reports and these have all been shared. As for the study phase of the project we feel confident that it is complete and now it is becoming real. No. 5 Costs. This is another concern and finances are very important to TransLink. We are very concerned with the cost of capital projects. This is a procurement process and we wont know until the prices come in and we finish the public consultation process. There has been no technology chosen. The funding partners believe that having a competition will ensure that we get the best price and best solution for the region. We will need to balance between grade separated with higher ridership and the predictable travel times. These issues will all be weighed. Looking ahead we have a blessing and a curse of living on the busiest corridor in the region and so we ask ourselves how do we want to manage that corridor with transportation that is sustainable for the next 20 years - is this what we want our children to live with in the next 20 years. The City of Vancouver will be having more consultations and we have offered to meet with members of the community either individually or in small groups. Please visit our website and stay involved and engaged in the process. 6. Conclusion The workshop concluded at 12:20 p.m.
March, 2003
97
3.4 Small Group Meetings

This appendix contains the notes from a series of small group meetings. Date February 13, 2003 March 7, 2003 March 10, 2003 March 11, 2003 March 12, 2003 March 14, 2003 March 18, 2003 March 19, 2003 March 19, 2003 March 19, 2003 March 19, 2003 March 20, 2003 March 21, 2003 March 21, 2003 March 21, 2003 March 24, 2003 March 24, 2003 Group Greater Vancouver Chambers Transportation Planning Panel Oakridge Centre, Ivanhoe Cambridge Richmond Centre, Ivanhoe Cambridge and Cadillac Fairview Langara College Better Environmentally Sound Transportation Kwantlen University College Greater Vancouver Gateway Council Past President, Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society and Neighbours Lansdowne Centre Vancouver Economic Development Commission Board UBC Transportation Advisory Committee Children and Womens Health Centre Vancouver Regional Construction Association Workers Compensation Board Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition Transport 2000 BC Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association
GREATER VANCOUVER CHAMBERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PANEL - FEBRUARY 13, 2003 Suite 2000, 1066 West Hastings St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E3X2 Tel. (604) 601 8211 Fax. (604) 669 3844 February 13, 2003 To: From: cc: re: Panel Participants; GVRD Chamber Distribution List R.J. Milbourne J. R. Winter - B.C. Chamber Greater Vancouver Chambers Transportation Planning Panel
The Panel met as scheduled February 5, 2003. The attached minutes, are reflective of the views, recommendations and commitments of those in attendance. We would continue to draw attention to the need for comprehensive and regular participation in the Panel processes by all of the Greater Vancouver Chambers, in order to maximize the Panels effectiveness in dealing with these matters of fundamental importance to the Business Community.
98
March, 2003
Unless events dictate otherwise, the next meeting will be scheduled in advance of the next TransLink Urban Transportation Forum, to consider the panels position, and such other matters as may be of importance to the Panel. Regards R.J.Milbourne
Greater Vancouver Chambers Transportation Planning Panel Wednesday, February 5, 2003 at 9:00 A.M. Surrey Chamber Boardroom Present: J. Ainsworth North Vancouver Chamber J. Appleby - Delta Chamber D. Bradley - Surrey Chamber L. Bowe Richmond Chamber G. Cohen Richmond Chamber J. Croll Abbotsford Chamber R. Hudson Surrey Chamber B. Magnan Vancouver Board of Trade R. Milbourne - Panel Coordinator B. Reid Cloverdale Chamber B. Seaton Tri-Cities Chamber D. Steger Delta Chamber J. Winter - B.C. Chamber R. Milbourne updated the Panel with respect to events subsequent to the last meeting, including: - presentation of the Panels position paper on TransLink governance to the Governance Committee of the TransLink Board, - presentation of the Panels views on TransLink performance benchmarks (excerpted from the Governance position paper) to the CEO of WestCoast Express, who had been delegated by Ms. Jacobsen to obtain input, - participation in the BC Transportation Summit co-sponsored by the B.C. Chamber, and presentation of the Panels views, - ongoing progress by the Gateway Council on the Major Road Network and associated capital investment programme, noting that that study had deleted a third crossing of the First Narrows from the long range capital programme. The bulk of the Meeting was taken up with a comprehensive presentation by Jane Bird, Project Director, Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, covering both an update of the regional transportation network (on behalf of Pat Jacobsen) and a status report on the proposed Richmond/Vancouver/Airport rapid transit mega-project (on her own behalf, as Project Director). Copies of the presentation material were provided to those in attendance. In the course of discussion with Members, it became abundantly clear that TransLink continues to focus predominantly on the movement of people, particularly daily commuters to and from and within the City of Vancouver insofar as it directs the revenues and planning efforts under its direct control... Subsequent to Ms. Birds presentation and departure from the meeting, the Panel reviewed its position with respect to the proposed Richmond/Vancouver/Airport line. To date, that has been the one project on the
March, 2003
99
Gateway Council capital project list (which the Panel participated in the formulation of ) that the Panel has, on balance, declined to endorse, and has in fact tacitly opposed. Giving due weight to todays circumstances and to the assurances provided in the course of Ms. Birds presentation, there was a general consensus that the Panel rephrase its position to one of conditional acceptance that the project could have net benefits for the Region. Some of the principal conditions enunciated were that: - the line not require any cross subsidization at the operating cost level, - the capital cost be funded principally by Senior levels of government repatriating revenues without increasing their overall tax burden, - the line be recognized as not making a fundamental contribution to solving the road/bridge infrastructure deficit in the region, and - that the Panels priorities for investment in projects directly enhancing the economic prospects for the Region, such as the complete South Fraser Perimeter Corridor, be undiminished. The Panel discussed the forthcoming series of TransLink Urban Transportation Forums, in which the Panel and many of its sponsoring organizations will be participating. There was general agreement that the opportunity should be taken to continue to make constructive commentary as reflected in the various position papers that have been created to date. In particular, emphasis is to be given to continuing to persuade policymakers and stakeholders of the vital role that transportation systems have as the platform on which the economy runs, and that the resources to enhance it must be found within the existing envelope of taxes and levies. Other significant players in the transportation sector to be considered to address future meetings are as follows: - the reelected TransLink Chair, D. McCallum - the Federal Minister for B.C., H. Dahliwal - the Federal Minister of Transportation, D. Colinette - John Diebold/Ian McLeod of the Provincial MoTH - Ken Cameron of the GVRD, - Hugh Sloan of the FVRD - J. Poole of the 2010 Olympic Bid Committee The next Panel meeting will be called prior to the second of the TransLink Forums, or earlier if events so dictate. Minutes by: RJ.M 13/02/03
SMALL GROUP MEETING IVANHOE CAMBRIDGE MARCH 7, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a Small Group Meeting held with members of Ivanhoe Cambridge and the Project Director of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Friday, March 7, 2003 at Oakridge Centre, Suite 700, North Office Tower, 41st Avenue, Vancouver, BC. PRESENT: Douglas MacDougall, General Manager, Oakridge Centre, Ivanhoe Cambridge Gordon Wylie, Project Manager, Development, Ivanhoe Cambridge Brian Castle, Ivanhoe Cambridge Peggy White, General Manager, Richmond Centre, Ivanhoe Cambridge
100
March, 2003
RAVP TEAM: Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP RESOURCE: Susan Campbell, Recording Clerk, RAVP The small group meeting commenced at 9:00 a.m. 1. Welcome and Introduction Ms. Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP, reviewed the agenda for the small group meeting. She circulated a hard copy of the power point presentation indicating that a review of the hard copy would compose the content of the presentation. As well, the record notes that the following information package was provided: (a) RAVP Postcard; and (b) Community Consultation Discussion Guide and Feedback Form, March 2003. 2. Question and Answer Period: (the record notes that the questions and answers are identified as Q: & A:) Q: How does this model compare to the original Expo Line in terms of ridership? A: 15 years of ridership on the Expo Line would be equivalent to the opening day ridership on this line. Q: Are the (future) stations defined in the scope of the RFP? A. No, they are not exactly defined however we have identified the right-of-ways and the mapping of the corridor. This is intended to encourage proponents to think of locations for stations that make sense. Q: Will there be separate stations at Langara and Oakridge or will they be combined? A: There will be one station at Langara and one at 41st and Oak Street (Oakridge). Q: What about the Bridgeport station? Will that be coordinated with the bus service? A: Yes. We will try and integrate the bus system with the development of a large Park and Ride at the Bridgeport Station. We would expect to see that a large number of commuters from the south of the region (Surrey, Delta, and White Rock) would utilize this facility. They would drive their cars in to the Park and Ride and take the train into downtown Vancouver. You may not see the development of Park and Rides in Vancouver. Q: With respect to the proposed train frequency of 7.5 minutes maximum, is this firmly established? Doesnt the Millennium Line run more frequently? A: Yes, the Millennium Line does. With automated trains the fleet operator can add as many trains as they want and the operator can offer a really good service. Service really becomes a question of fleet size. However, we want to attract light rail technology as well and that is why we have set the performance to 7.5 minutes maximum. Q: What about the problems with snow that the Expo Line experienced in the past? A: We have made a lot of progress over the years with the SkyTrain iterations. Essentially, SkyTrain has been very reliable with very few breakdowns. Q: Will Vancouver City Council have much input into the final decision (regarding the RAV line). A: Vancouver City Council functions in an advisory category with respect to the final decision that will be made by the TransLink Board, although Vancouver City Councils input is valuable to the process.
101
Q: Will 41st and Cambie become a major bus terminus? A: We havent totally worked that out, however we will be working closely with TransLink regarding the redesign. Q: You will need more buses to meet the rapid rail line wont you? A: Yes, but we havent worked out the detailed design as yet. Q: Is Vancouver City Council considering an elevated system? A: We are working with Vancouver City Council and encouraging pedestrian friendly transit. However, initially we need to establish a large commuter people-moving system. A RAV line will, in 30 minutes, move people from one end of the corridor to another. Q: The traffic on No. 3 Road has seriously impacted the use of Richmond Centre Mall in Richmond. We have been told, through a series of ten focus groups, that people do not want to come to the Mall and shop because they dont wish to get into the traffic on No. 3 Road. So an elevated system would definitely help in Richmond because you have got to get the trains away from the traffic. All of our focus groups showed that people dont want to come to the Mall because of the traffic on No. 3 Road. I will forward a copy of the focus groups results to you (Ms. Bird). Q: Will there be a surface stop at all streets? A: No. We would use a variety of methods to address this such as dead-end streets etc. Just let me say that the reason that it is important for our RAVP team to come to these groups is that there are some people, in the community, that support the concept that the more road congestion the better as it forces people out of their cars and onto buses. We believe that it is the desire of most people to just be able to move around the community. Q: With the respect to the Airport model is it anywhere else in the world? A: Most of the airport market is related to their employees, so most of this airport service will address those needs. Each airport analysis, we have conducted, uses a slightly different model which creates difficulty when trying to compare. We are not confident today that we could attract enough airport passenger services to warrant premium service. We will indicate in the RFP that we are interested in seeing a premium service proposal however at this point we are mostly interested in providing good service from the airport to downtown Vancouver. You may see the demand (for a premium service) grow in the future and if that occurs then the premium service could be added. It was confirmed that there is a direct service from the airport to downtown Vancouver and from Richmond to downtown Vancouver, however, passengers wanting to go from Richmond to the airport will have to transfer at the Bridgeport Station to the airport line. Q: So TransLink is buying a service from the private sector, is that correct? A: Yes, however it is important to note that it is not a full transfer of volume risk. Some incentives will be built in. We havent assumed any real estate up side. We have only looked at fare revenue and some small amount of commercial revenue.
102
March, 2003
Q: This is not that big a chunk for the private sector. A: I agree and right now we are looking harder at raising the private sector contribution. Q: Where will the integration with the Expo Line occur? A: At the Waterfront Station. The trains would be underground to cross False Creek. Ms. Bird advised: Timing: With respect to the timing for the decision both Councils (will be considering) and TransLinks Board will reach a decision in the April and May timeframe. The Federal Government has already committed significant planning money and we are reasonably confident that the Federal Government will contribute. If we do not receive the federal contribution, in all likelihood the project will not proceed. So the project approval will be April/May and the Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued by the end of June. The RFP has two stages with the first stage closing November/December and then we will go into best and final offer after that. The financial close will be the end of 2004 with in-ground construction commencing by 2005. We issued a request for Expression of Interest November 2002 and received ten submissions. In response to a request Ms. Bird indicated that she would provide a list of the teams that responded to the Expression of Interest. In response to an inquiry, Ms. Bird expressed interest in having a weekend Public Open House at Oakridge Centre. The Public Workshops for Vancouver are March 12th at the Vancouver Public Library and March 15th at the Plaza 500 Hotel. Q: Does TransLinks mandate give them the ability to impose density on municipalities? A: No, although their legislation permits a slight tax on areas around stations - that is all. In closing, members of the Small Group Meeting noted that they have to consider the integration of the Oakridge Station into the existing property, in order to facilitate the line approvals for development permits. It is important to start the process soon. 3. Conclusion The Small Group Meeting concluded at 10:00 a.m. SMALL GROUP MEETING RICHMOND CENTRE MARCH 10, 2003 RICHMOND-AIRPORT-VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a Small Group Meeting held with members of Ivanhoe Cambridge and Cadillac Fairview, and Raymond Louie of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Monday March 10th, 2003 at Richmond Centre Mall. PRESENT: Peggy White, Ivanhoe Cambridge Leslie Matheson, Marketing Director, Richmond Centre Judy Richards, GM, Cadillac Fairview RAVP TEAM: Raymond Louie, RAVP
March, 2003
103
RESOURCE: Susan Bruckner, Recording Clerk, RAVP The small group meeting commenced at 12:40 p.m. 1. Welcome and Introduction Members of the group were offered a copy of the Community Consultation Discussion Guide. Raymond Louie circulated hard copies of the power point presentation indicating that a review of the hard copy would compose the content of the presentation. 2. Review of Hard Copy Power Point Presentation Raymond Louie reviewed a hard copy of the power point presentation and encouraged questions from the group. 3. Questions and Answers (the record notes that Questions, Answers and Comments are identified as Q, A, and C) Q: Does the estimate (100,000 rides per day) include rides from both the airport and Richmond between Vancouver? A: Those estimates are for travel between Vancouver, the Airport, and Richmond. Q: What percentage of the total ridership estimates will be directed to the airport? A: Approximately 15% of the total ridership estimate will have destinations on Sea Island (passengers and employees). C: There is definitely a different market coming out of the airport. Q: What are the current subsidies with regard to the Expo Line and the Millennium Line? A: The Expo line covers operating costs. The Millennium Line is still building ridership and current subsidies do not cover operating costs for that line.
Q. Who would be responsible for the acquisition of land? A. The responsibility would stay with the consortium. We will have to determine what land acquirement issues there might be. Q. Who would be responsible for kiosk revenue and revenue from stations etc? A. That will be determined at the next level of review. Q. Would the RAV line replace 98 B-line? A. Yes, the 98 B-line services would be discontinued and local bus service will be augmented. Q. Is it true that the B-line was built with the intention to accommodate this line? A. Yes. Q. Will the Richmond segment of the RAV line be elevated? A. The exact configuration is to be determined. If it is at-grade it would operate similar to B-line. There are ways of having signal pre-emption to optimize travel times. Average speeds would be slower.
104
C. No. 3 Road is currently very congested. We would prefer the line to be above grade. There is a Richmond No. 3 Road Task Force that is currently looking at this issue because congestion along No. 3 Road has seriously impacted merchants as many people do not want to get stuck in traffic along No. 3 Road. Q. The stations along the corridor appear to be outside walking distances. A. Bus services will connect people with the line. It will integrate with the bus system. Local bus frequency will improve and will become part of a feeder bus network. There is a proposed 1200 car Park and Ride adjacent to Bridgepoint with a 10 bay bus exchange. It will be located next to Highway 99 therefore it can be easily accessed. Q. How many stations are planned in Richmond? A. There are 5 stations planned in Richmond (Bridgeport, Cambie, Alderbridge, Westminster and Richmond Centre) with a future station at Capstan. Q. Will stations take into consideration the look and feel of the community? A. The Project will be working closely with the City of Richmond to achieve an urban fit with the neighborhoods. Next phase of consultation will be station and community planning. The planning of stations will be aimed at maintaining the feel of community. Q. Where exactly will the Richmond Centre station be located? A. We are looking at planning a central facility for buses (a bus exchange). We have looked at some schemes. A parkade structure may be necessary to deal with space for stations. Station area planning will be part of the next phase. Q. Have you looked at the Esso Station as a possible site for Bus Exchange? A. Yes, there are many alternatives on both sides of street. Richmond Centre is very tight and there is not much space for a station. Q. We are looking at making large expenditures on the outside of the mall. The location of the station could determine whether or not that proceeds. This will have a significant impact on property. This could be positive if it is done right. A. We have done Real Estate Impact Studies and have been working with CB Richard Ellis.
C. We would like to show you the Esso Lot as it would be a good location for a station/parking.
Q. What is the source for TransLinks contribution? A. Funding from various revenue streams. Could come from property tax, gas tax, parking tax. Q. What is the private sectors structure for payment? A. They will receive payment during construction, with annual payments over a 35 year period. Population growth will exceed the growth of operating costs resulting in a surplus.
March, 2003
105
Q. Are there public meetings scheduled? A. Yes, they are outlined in the beginning of the Discussion Guide. There is one scheduled in Richmond and two in Vancouver. C. We will gladly attend and give our support for this project. We want above grade in Richmond, as it is safer and more reliable. C. Parking is an issue here at the Mall. It is very tight here. We are 8 spots over and above limit. 4.5 per thousand GLA. C. If we did expand, we would want multi-level parking. C. We would be very interested in talking with real estate consultant with regard to the integration of the Mall with future stations, parking etc. 4. Conclusion The Small Group Meeting concluded at 1:25pm.
SMALL GROUP MEETING LANGARA COLLEGE MARCH 11, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a small group meeting held with Langara College students and staff, the Project Director and a representative (Environmental Advisor) of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 at Langara College, Room B201, Ontario Street, Vancouver, BC. PRESENT Langara staff and students (14 attendees) RAVP TEAM Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP Scott Hanna, Environmental Advisor, RAVP RESOURCE Jennifer Davies, Recording Clerk, RAVP Team The small group meeting commenced at 12:30pm. 1. Welcome and Introduction Ms. Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP, reviewed the agenda for the small group meeting. The following information was provided: (a) Community Consultation Discussion Guide and (b) Feedback Form, March 2003. 2. PowerPoint Presentation (short version) 3. Question and Answer Period (identified as Q. & A.) Q. Is there a rail line planned to go straight into the Vancouver International Airport? A. Yes, there will be a station at Bridgeport where passengers can transfer to the airport. To serve the airport employees and passengers, there may also be an inter-terminal train. To date, a premium service (i.e. a service that passengers would pay more to use) has not been proposed. Q. Will there be a separate train to the airport or will passengers have to change trains to get there? A. There may be a direct line from Vancouver to the airport and from Richmond, passengers would likely transfer at Bridgeport station. Ridership statistics tell us that 80% of riders will be going from Vancouver to Richmond.
106
Q. Would the employee parking lots at the airport be removed? A. The airport has a long-term strategy that will involve encouraging employees to use transit, rather than to drive. Q. Will there be more parking lots at rail stations (i.e. Park and Ride)? A. Vancouver as a city has no Park and Ride but there may be more Kiss and Ride lots. Richmond (at Bridgeport) would have Park and Ride for 1200-1500 cars in a renovated engineered structure (i.e. multi-level lot). Q. What about the Park and Ride at Bridgeport now? If it is full now, will there be one somewhere else? A. The plan is just to add capacity i.e. an engineered parking structure. Comment - Usually, you have to drive to get to a line that will actually service you well. Q. If there is a tunnel at the Downtown end going under False Creek, where does it go on the Downtown peninsula? A. The proposed plan is to go to Davie Street in tunnel, underneath Granville, and either all the way to Waterfront Station or to surface (at-grade) on Robson to Cordova and add a station at Dunsmuir). There are some concerns with at-grade because of cross traffic implications and bus service. Q. Will cyclists be permitted to bring bicycles on? A. As proposed, yes. TransLink is currently planning to allow bikes on the Millennium Line (at least for offpeak hours) and we would encourage this to continue for the new line. Q. When will the decision be made to go ahead and who is making it? A. The decision timeframe is to be completed by late Spring 2003. There are four agencies contributing Federal Government, Province of BC, Vancouver International Airport (YVR), and TransLink (although the Federal Government has not contributed yet). TransLink wants the cities of Richmond and Vancouver to contribute to the decision-making process. Q. How serious is the opposition on Cambie corridor? It seems to be quite vocal and how is that being addressed? A. We are monitoring concerns and comments. Each group forms part of the continuum each interest group is part of a broader input and regardless of the proposal, there would be some opposition. We would hope that whatever decision is made, communities and neighbourhoods impacted would be involved. Q. I have noticed in some European cities that rail traffic travels down the middle of the street and the area around is very green (i.e. with trees, vegetation, etc.) What are the plans for vegetation for this line? A. Similar to the 29th Avenue station, there are plans for significant vegetation. We would hope to set a good standard for green space and aesthetics, etc.
March, 2003
107
Q. If the line goes underground, will the stations be underground as well? A. Yes - like Granville Station or Burrard Station Q. Is there a difference crime-wise between underground vs. elevated? A. It is more a question of neighborhood than the type of station used. Q. Does this project include any kind of secure ticket entry? It would reduce crime, is a good idea, and you could use European models. It would reduce the criminal element, would it not? A. No decisions have been made yet but secured ticket entry is unlikely because it is difficult to do that for some parts of the service but not others. Q. With regard to process, once the bids come in, which of the four agencies will be reviewing those bids and how does it work from there? A. If the project is approved, a Request for Proposals (RFP) will be put out to the private sector and the decision to proceed (with input from the cities) will be made primarily by TransLink. When the RFP bids come in, they will be evaluated by an Evaluation Committee made up of representatives from the four agencies (probably mostly reviewed by TransLink and the Province). Q. Who is really spearheading the project at this point? A. TransLink because it is responsible for providing a transportation network, the airport has a real commitment to this, and the Province is very interested in competitiveness. Everyone is working together multi-level participation makes a powerful model. Q. Do you have a minimum number in mind re: input? How much is good enough? It seems like this will affect a lot of people and a lot of people wont be involved. How do we actually know what the majority thinks? A. No actual threshold. There is a whole series of opportunities for feedback and a lot of feedback is coming in through public workshops, a region-wide phone survey, and the newspapers, which create a public focus for a period of time. Once beyond that, then there is the BC and Canadian environmental assessment project which will have a public consultation process. Input will be going on continuously. Q. Where does this line cross SkyTrain? A. If this proceeds, there is a gap between Millennium and this plan. There is a plan in place for the extension of the Millennium line to create a more integrated network and the City of Vancouver and TransLink are planning for that. Q. What about Granville and other stations downtown? Is it an integrated system at that point? A. It depends the idea is to design stations with technology in mind so it would be a fully integrated system. Q. Is it true that integration could become a significant issue (i.e. - maintenance, training staff, etc)? A. Yes. However, we need a new maintenance yard anyway because SkyTrain is at capacity.
108
March, 2003
Q. Are there studies re: property values? A. They did look at property value at Expo/Millennium Lines and it is really hard to say if they go up or not because of markets and other factors. They tend to go up with transit as it is considered to be an urban amenity. Q. Is the project looking at retail/mall and station (i.e. - integrated commercial and industrial use)? A. Good train design involves integrating stations with the urban fabric (Security, shopping, etc). No assumptions re: real estate planning because it is mostly a matter of land use development at the City of Vancouver. Q. Would integration offset the costs of the stations/line? A. There are synergies but there is very little commercial revenue it takes a long time recapture profits with transit/retail as you go forward. Comment - Secured ticketing and stations is a good idea. It is nave to assume people will buy a ticket. Q. Do you think the approval system is going to base itself on the 2010 Olympic Bid? Is this why the Federal Government is not putting approval in? A. The project is not driven by Olympics or vice versa, although the Olympics are a distinguishing factor. Federal priorities are focused on strong urban Centres, which include sustainable transportation investment in policy priorities. The project will either be done in time for 2010 or will have to wait - it takes 7 years for the line to be completed. 4. Conclusion The small group meeting concluded at 1:40pm
SMALL GROUP MEETING BETTER ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND TRANSPORTATION (BEST) MARCH 12, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a Small Group Meeting held with members of BEST and the Project Director of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project and Glen Leicester from TransLink on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 in the BEST Boardroom, Vancouver, BC. PRESENT: Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP Glen Leicester, TransLink BEST Members RESOURCE: Susan Bruckner, Recording Clerk, RAVP The small group meeting commenced at 12:40 a.m. 1. Welcome and Introduction Ms. Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP, circulated a hard copy of the short power point presentation indicating that a review of the hard copy would compose the content of the presentation.
March, 2003
109
2. Review of Hard Copy Power Point Presentation Ms. Bird and Mr. Leicester reviewed the hard copy of the power point presentation with the group and encouraged questions. 3. Questions and Answers (the record notes that the questions, answers and comments are identified as Q., A. & C.) Q. How many passengers would that be a day to the airport? A. Approximately 6-8 % of 100,000 daily riders. Q. With the line splitting at the airport, will the time between services be different? A. There is more demand out of Richmond: the maximum time between trains would be 5 minutes. Q. Assuming that the private partner will come up with the rest, who will be responsible for cost overruns? A. That will all be set out in the Request for Proposal and should be included in the bidding process for this service, a certain amount will be available. Q. One of the things thats come up, is around the performance standards and the fact that because the way they are laid out in terms of timing the performance standards will dictate how much will be underground/at street level/above street level and hence the overall cost of the project. Why are the performance standards so restrictive? Why are we not looking at ways of reducing the standards and enabling a cost savings? A. When we designed the performance standards, we determined that it must be a significant improvement in standards with regard to the current service. For example, paying $1 billion for a slight improvement would not be satisfactory. We either wait until we can do it or not do it at all. Q. What are the real savings in time? Does the proposed 30-minute travel time include the time travel for someone getting from street level to platform and waiting times? A. The proposed 30 minutes travel time is strictly time aboard the train. Q. Is the proposed travel time a significant improvement over the current system? Considering that the BLine might be 55 minutes, the performance standards are based on the B-line now and not in future? A. We have taken the future B-line travel time into account. It is estimated that the B-line will lose 5 minutes over 10 years. Q. Based on the estimates of riders in the corridor, there are only 5 stations on the Burrard peninsula. How are riders expected to access the system? Why are there no stations at 16th, 37th, at the base of False Creek to service the Olympic Village in the southeast False Creek? Does the possibility of adding stations at certain points exist? A. This is primarily a cost issue and also (although less so) travel time is a factor. The stations along the Vancouver section are at major intersections with connecting bus service at, for example, King Edward. The possibility to come to grade and add a station at Dunsmuir is being discussed. We are open to feedback and alternatives. C. Connecting this proposed line with the streetcar at False Creek would be a very good thing.
110
March, 2003
C. There is always a debate with express systems and where the stations should be located. It is somewhat of a trade-off. Q. Will current bus routes be discontinued? A. Any route that will duplicate the proposed line would be eliminated for example the #98 Granville B-Line. Local bus service will change to reflect the addition of the line. Local service will help serve the rapid line. C. Our experience with the Expo line (for example the Hastings Bus) is that the addition of the line takes a significant amount of people off buses. C. It may be wise to refrain from reducing certain bus services until after the line is in place in order to determine demand. C. Reductions in bus service must be made. Currently there is approximately one bus every minute down Granville Street. Q. Do you acknowledge that fallout of ridership exists with transferring? A. The example of the Millennium demonstrates that even with transfers people are saving time. Q. We are somewhat concerned about the current financing plan with TransLinks top priorities. What is the bigger financing scheme? How will you generate money for your priorities? How do you propose targeting groups (i.e. federal purse carriers, local politicians, public partners etc.)? A. With regard to the overall financing, there are lots of priorities and we are currently working on 4 (east/west extension, RAV line, Fraser crossing, replacing the trolley fleet). The ability to pay for them is not there and we are looking for additional capital and funding. The only priority we are able to fund is the trolley fleet. We will be looking for funding from the federal government. Clearly we need more funding and we are in talks with regional governments and taxpayers etc. Q. Is this level of expenditure necessary? A. The urban forum provided a start. We are taking those next steps as we bring forward other choices. It is important to consult with the public with regard to options. Q. Does TransLink have the ability to add tolls? A. TransLink cant do that because of legislation. Q. With regard to the partnership with private sector for this line, how do you ensure that long-term sustainability is taken into consideration (i.e. after 35 year contract is up)? A. The private partner will be responsible to design, build and maintain the line. They will be responsible for maintaining the sustainability of the line. This will be addressed in the RFP. Q. Is there any willingness for the design to be environmentally sustainable? Is there any wish to make this a pilot project for something innovative with regard to the stations and their surroundings? A. A public consultation will form part of the station planning. There will be an environmental assessment with full application of the Environmental Assessment Act. There is a balance in creating an innovative
March, 2003
111
system and taking so many chances. Experiments are rarely forgiven. The Millennium line and the design of the stations demonstrate how you can make a utility customer friendly and contribute to a higher standard of living. Q. Opportunities have been missed on other lines i.e. bus/pedestrian accommodations. Do you intend on addressing those issues for this project? A. We will encourage the RFP to demand high standards (i.e. bikeways). We acknowledge that there are opportunities here and a heightened sensitivity towards greenways exists. We are working closely with Richmond and Vancouver cities, as they will be responsible for the greenways and walkways etc Q. Is there a contingency plan if the government does not contribute the full contribution asked of them? What will happen? A. It may be possible to ask for money from other agencies, but that is something that will have to be addressed if that should occur.
4. Conclusion The Small Group Meeting concluded at 1:50 p.m.
SMALL GROUP MEETING KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE MARCH 14, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a small group meeting held with Kwantlen University College students and staff, the Procurement Director and a representative (Technical Manager) of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Friday, March 14, 2003 at Kwantlen University College, Room 1420, West Wing, Conference Centre, Richmond, BC. PRESENT Kwantlen University College staff (9 attendees) Dean of Richmond Campus Manager, Parking Program Assistant Bachelor of Arts Program Coordinator, Fashion Dept Chemistry Department Administrative Assistant to Dean of Richmond Campus Applied Design and Communications Community Education Department Transportation Planning RAVP TEAM David Rowat, Procurement Director, RAVP Raymond Louie, Technical Manager, RAVP RESOURCE Jennifer Davies, Recording Clerk, RAVP Team The small group meeting commenced at 9:30am.
112
March, 2003
1. Welcome and Introduction David Rowat, Procurement Director, RAVP, reviewed the agenda for the small group meeting. As well as the record notes the following information was provided: (a) Community Consultation Discussion Guide and (b) Feedback Form, March 2003. 2. PowerPoint Presentation Handout Hard copy of presentation (shorter version) David Rowat took everyone through the presentation (interrupted by a fire alarm and brief evacuation) for roughly 45 minutes. 3. Question and Answer Period (the record notes that questions and answers are identified as Q. & A.) Q. Will there be a separate line out to the airport? A. This has not yet been determined. There will likely be alternate trains with the option of transferring at Bridgeport. Q. How long would it take to get from Vancouver to Richmond direct? A. Maximum 30 minutes (Waterfront to Richmond), Maximum 25 minutes (Waterfront to Airport). Q. I live on Granville and work in Richmond will my route change? A. You will need to transfer east/west from Cambie to Granville. Q. What happens to all the money spent to put the B-line in? A. It will be redirected to augment and enhance other services. Q. If we lose the 2010 Olympic bid, is this line in jeopardy? A. Not likely, we need the line with or without the Olympics.
Q. The Broadway 99-line is very slow. How will that be dealt with? I have concerns that it will be a longer, less efficient service. A. As a future project, TransLink has plans to extend Millennium Line. The proposed Cambie line will save travel time. Q. Will there be a higher frequency of local buses in Richmond? How will it be improved for all connections to the main businesses in Richmond (i.e. Steveston and near IKEA)? A. Local bus frequency will be improved. Q. Will there be more routes as well as more buses? A. Not sure with regard to new routes. Buses from East Richmond and Steveston will feed into Richmond Centre and Bridgeport. Q. Is there any discussion as to where the station near Kwantlen would be? A. Alderbridge, Westminster Hwy, Lansdowne Centre are suggested station stops.
March, 2003
113
Q. Will there be a Park and Ride in Vancouver? Where is the bus that is supposed to be going to the Park and Ride at Garden City? A. Bridgeport will be a new hub for Park and Ride for the line. Q. Besides the Park and Ride located at Bridgeport, where else will it be? A. Discussions are underway with the City of Richmond for other locations. Q. For people coming from south of Richmond (such as Ladner), would they need to drive to Park and Ride? A. There will be express buses throughout the region Q. Express buses wouldnt stop along the line anywhere. This is not a good service from Surrey to Richmond. A. Outlying municipalities will be served by express buses Q. With regard to the future of transit in Richmond, can we request that Kwantlen have a station? A. We are looking for public feedback on route/alignment and there may be a stop located near/at Kwantlen. Q. Could the line be underground in Richmond? A. No, due to seismic and water level issues. It would likely be at-grade and elevated. Q. What will the percentage of trains to the Airport and to Richmond be? A. This will be driven by capacity and demand. Comment - Bus shelters are not very useful, not built solidly and not very protected. Comment - Taxes should not be increased for the line. Comment - Kwantlen is not mentioned on any of the materials and should be. 4. Conclusion: Meeting closed at 10:45am
SMALL GROUP MEETING GREATER VANCOUVER GATEWAY COUNCIL - MARCH 18, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a Small Group Meeting held with members of the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council and the Project Director of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 at the Vancouver Port Authority Boardroom. PRESENT: Robin Johnston John Wachowich Pat Webber Bob Wilds Jerry Lampert And other members
114
RAVP TEAM: Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP John Eastman, Technical Director, RAVP RESOURCE: Susan Bruckner, Recording Clerk, RAVP The small group meeting commenced at 10:05 a.m. 1. Welcome and Introduction Bob Wilds introduced the project and the Greater Vancouver Gateway Councils interest in the project. Mr. Wilds notified the group that a presentation and update with regard to Fraser River Crossing will be presented following the RAVP project. Ms. Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP, indicated that a review of the power point presentation would compose the content of the presentation. Discussion Guides were passed around to all present. Ms. Bird advised that John Eastman was present to handle technical aspects of the project. 2. Review of the Project Power Point Presentation Ms. Bird reviewed the power point presentation with the group. 3. Question and Answer Period (the record notes that the questions, answers and comments are identified as Q, A, & C) Q. How does the Olympic Bid relate to this project? A. Just to clarify, this is not an Olympic project. The demand for this project has been here before talks of the Olympics and will continue to be here after. The Olympics are perhaps a catalyst for decision making, for the federal government to make decisions and an opportunity for federal funding. We can handle the Olympics without this line. If this line were in place it could enhance the Olympic experience. Q. The Business Council supports the concept and our compliments to you for this outstanding presentation; it is exceptional. I have a few observations on the private sectors involvement and the structure of the PPP. Could you provide further discussion as to how the private Partnership would work? A final note - the most significant chart was bridge capacity. A. The private partner would be responsible for designing the line and subsequently building, financing, operating and maintaining the line. PWC recognized an opportunity from the private sector and we put out the RFEI and the Consultant stating that you need to be clear with the project and the standards. We closed on the RFEI February 14th, 2003 and weve had 10 submissions which is a tremendous amount of submissions and those responses have been worldwide (Spain, Japan, United States, 4 Canadian consortium). We would have been pleased with 6 but this went beyond our expectations. Q. Why is UBC not on the map that lists the regions destinations of? A. It would be in the sense that students would move along the corridor and connect to B-line at Broadway, and in connection with other lines. There is no question that UBC is a huge regional destination. The challenge with UBC is it is a rather big destination specifically for Point Grey and in some respects it is quite seasonal. Q. Are the overall bus system projections you noted in the presentation with or without this line? A. Those projections are with this line?
March, 2003
115
Q. Have you done any work with regard to obtaining projections without this system? A. There would certainly be growth without this line as any duplicate bus routes would be eliminated. There would be some bus savings with the introduction of this line. Q. There has been a lot of press attention with regard to Vancouver City Council and their lack of support for this project. What does that mean in terms of this project proceeding? A. TransLink, in terms of a local agency, is in charge for transportation choices and approval. TransLink has said that they will look to both cities for support. Looking at both councils, Richmond is supportive and Vancouver, its unfortunate as they are a new council and are relatively unfamiliar with this project. They have been receptive towards the information provided, and acknowledge they will have to accept it in order for the project to proceed. Vancouver is still evaluating the information and waiting for public input. Q. If Vancouver votes this down, is the project dead? A. TransLink and the Contributing Agencies will make a decision in consultation with the Participating Agencies (which include the cities of Richmond and Vancouver). Q. Given the fact that SkyTrain exists, does that give any advantage for the technology that will be chosen. Can you also elaborate on above street level versus at grade, underground? A. There is no question that there is an argument to be made over the current service provided by SkyTrain. The question being asked is why not continue? The benefit from competition and innovation will be of enormous value to this project. If Skytrain had a significant available capacity to maintain the new line, then perhaps. But we would need to construct a new maintenance yard to support the new line. There are technical reasons as to why some sections would be above street and some at street. Where some options are restricted i.e. Sea Island and similarly grade issues from False Creek to 25th Avenue, there are implications and places where options do not exist, where we do have options, the performance will determine where we do have options whether it will be above, under or at street level. C. Relative to the projected delay on the corridor out to 2010, a train will have to be significantly faster than what is available today. Q. What is the requirement for public support? A. We would have a hard time with this project if this public did not support the line. The Public Consultation we are undertaking is multi faceted enough that the public can access the information and reply to it. We are tracking what responses we receive from informal meetings with quantitative research throughout the region. This information will be compiled in a report that will go to decision makers. I think that if there were a backlash we would have felt it. Q. Is your ridership forecast based on cruise ship passengers? A. No. We did not factor in cruise ship passengers. There is a challenge in providing the type of service that travelers might be used to. Right now there is a bus that pulls up to the boat and picks up the passengers. Cruise ship companies like having all their passengers on a single bus etc. 4. Conclusion The Small Group Meeting concluded at 11:30 a.m.
116
March, 2003
SMALL GROUP MEETING Dr. and Mrs. Gordon Jones and neighbours March 19, 2003 The following was provided by Kathleen Jones and Dr. Gordon Jones, (Dr. Jones is past president of the Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society) as their comments on the RAV Project and were used as the discussion guide for the March 19, 2003 meeting Mrs. & Dr. Jones and their neighbours. WE SUPPORT The concept enunciated in the Vancouver CityPlan document initiated in 1993 and the subsequent Oakridge/Langara Policy Statement of June 13, 1995 that is a policy of EQUALITY and FAIRNESS throughout the city when it comes to change and development. WE SUPPORT the concept of Rapid and Express busses for Cambie and Light Rail for Arbutus as clearly meeting the expressed intent of the CityPlan and Oakridge/Langara Policy Statement. WE SUPPORT as an alternative to Busses in the Cambie corridor the concept of an underground (tunnel) rail system extending at least from Marine Drive in the South to King Edward Avenue in the North ONLY IF: - the construction commences at the Marine Drive end of Cambie Heritage Boulevard, and - the underground portion is completed underground for the entire length (i.e. Marine Drive to King Edward Avenue) WE DO NOT SUPPORT any consideration of an elevated system (SkyTrain) in Vancouver. WE SUPPORT a continued involvement in meaningful consultation for a period of at least nine (9) to twelve (12) months beyond the present indicated termination date to ensure a complete and meaningful assessment of presented data and conclusions of RAV and TransLink. WE SUPPORT involvement of independent light rail experts to assist with the interpretation, evaluation, credibility, reliability and validity of determining these data to support the technology and routing of a rapid transit system linking Vancouver and Richmond. WE OPPOSE the concept that the particular rail technology will be selected through a competitive bidding process as indicated in the Project Definition Report Summary [pg. 4]:and to select through a competitive bidding process, the rail system best able to meet the performance standards, within the Project budget. WE QUESTION the failure of the RAV Project Team to provide adequate facts to support the claim of ridership from such establishments as the Langara College, Oakridge Shopping Centre, Womens Hospital, VGH, City Hall and the like. WE QUESTION the comment that:The Project is not an Olympic project. [Project Definition Report Summary, pg. 6] since the schedule Is designed to complete that project by 2010, so the project can be in place for the games, and not under construction. WE QUESTION Why:For technical and financial reasons, it is likely that RAV will ultimately have some street level, some elevated and some underground Segments. [Project Definition Report Summary, pg. 6] WE QUESTION the financial feasibility of the project based in the methodology as outlined in the Price Waterhouse Coopers Executive Summary dated February, 2003, pg. 4. Such terms as Ridership and Revenue Forecasts;We estimated the additional funds generated , and Using these assumptions, we prepared financial projections to estimate the amount of finance None of the bolded terms gave us confidence in the financial feasibility of the project and the direct and indirect cost to the taxpayer. WE QUESTION the statement that the RAV Project Team had estimated the capital and operating costs for the Fully Separated and Partially Separated configurations based on extensive engineering studies, and subjected them to an intensive peer review by a team of international urban rail experts. [Price Waterhouse Coopers Executive Summary dated February, 2003, pg. 4]
March, 2003
117
WE HAVE A MAJOR CONCERN over the refusal by RAV to provide the public with detailed and accurate figures as to possible profit to be made by the private sector and why profit could not be made by the public sector. [Vancouver Sun, March 6, 2003] WE HAVE A MAJOR CONCERN over statements made that grade separated systems generally cost more to build, but are generally faster, safer and more reliable. As indicated in a graph on page 11 of Community Consultation Discussion Guide and Feedback form,Safety of a rail transit system is directly related to the extent of separation from vehicular, cycle and pedestrian traffic. Is it really? WE HAVE A MAJOR CONCERN over the failure to date to adequately consider the Community-Social Impact of such a project on either the Arbutus Corridor or the Cambie Corridor, as well as a detailed Environmental Impact study. IN CONCLUSION: We ask that the time frame for MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION be extended for at least nine (9) to twelve (12) months so that we and others may asses the validity of data presented, and can test the reliability of such data. In addition, a greater time frame is necessary to not only judge the credibility of various inclusions but to address the Social and Environmental aspects, and to do so with reference to the concept of fairness and equality as outlined in the Vancouver CityPlan.
SMALL GROUP MEETING LANSDOWNE CENTRE MARCH 19, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a small group meeting held with Lansdowne Centre (General Manager and Director, Operations and Leasing) and the Technical Manager of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Tuesday, March 19, 2003 at Lansdowne Centre Administration Office Richmond, BC. PRESENT General Manager, Lansdowne Centre Director, Operations and Leasing, Lansdowne Centre RAVP TEAM Raymond Louie, RAVP RESOURCE Jennifer Davies, Recording Clerk, RAVP Team The small group meeting commenced at 11:30am. 1. Welcome and Introduction Raymond Louie, Technical Manager, RAVP, reviewed the agenda for the small group meeting. The following information was provided: (a) Community Consultation Discussion Guide, (b) Feedback Form, March, 2003, and (c) RAVP PowerPoint presentation in hard copy. 2. PowerPoint Presentation (short version). Hard copies of the PowerPoint presentation were handed out and Raymond Louie discussed the presentation for about 20 minutes. 3. Question and Answer Period (identified as Q. & A.) There was some initial discussion with regard to Raymonds role in the project. Q. Where are the ridership, population and employment statistics from? A. The statistics are based on the work of the Halcrow report. In addition, Halcrow used other international cities as a benchmark comparator to the computer-generated statistics of the Halcrow estimates.
118
March, 2003
Q. Richmond seems to be a bit of an anomaly in terms of actual transportation needs. There doesnt seem to be the same kind of cross-flow going to Richmond compared to a city such as Burnaby. So, why has Richmond been proposed for a new line? A. Richmond has experienced significant growth over the last decade in terms of population and employment. In addition, the Vancouver International Airport is already 20 years ahead of projections in terms of employment growth in the last few years. Commuting to Sea Island is significant as well there is no residential property. Q. What is the timeline for project approval? A. The plan is that project decisions will be made in Spring 2003. Q. Where does the proposed line cross the Fraser River? A. The line, as proposed, crosses the Fraser in two places. One is at the North end of the Fraser and the other is near River Road and Bridgeport Station (near Bridgepoint Market). Q. How is a station location and name determined (i.e. Lansdowne Station at Alderbridge and No. 3 Rd.)? A. Although no decisions have been made, stations would likely be located where they most efficiently link to other transportation services (such as bus lines, etc.). Q. What is the process for a station name change (such as Alderbridge) to be changed to Lansdowne? A. We will look into who is the best contact for that and let you know.
Q. A station at Lansdowne would more likely serve a better population base and be utilized more than Alderbridge, would it not? A. Although no decisions have been made, stations would likely be located where they most efficiently link to other transportation services (such as bus lines, etc.). Q. Would a station be in the centre of No. 3 Rd. or where else could it be? A. Proposed station locations are available on the web site there are some designed for both at-grade or elevated stations. Comment - We have some sensitivity with regard to views and aesthetics depending on whether the station would be at-grade or elevated. We would likely support an at-grade model. Comment There would not be an option for Park and Ride at Lansdowne due to parking contracts/agreements with tenants as part of the 25-year plan. Q. When do expect to have confirmation of Federal contribution to the project? A. By June 2003. Q. How does the private sector involvement work? A. There is a long-term concession for a 25 to 30-year operating contract which would involve a design-
March, 2003
119
build-operate-maintain the system. The private sector will be expected to find efficiencies in construction and operations that may reduce costs and to ensure growth in revenues that will exceed growth in operating costs. Q. With the private sector having 1/5th involvement but also having the right to recover their initial investment, who will control the increase in fares, etc? A. TransLink therefore, the private sector will be paid by availability payments, as long as they meet their requirements in the project. Q. Who is responsible for upgrading the capital investment and for handling various risk factors? A. Providing for risk and upgrading capital investment will be handled by the private sector.
Q. How is the alignment established with regard to the proposed line? A. The proposed line will likely be underground for segments of Cambie, under False Creek, it will likely surface somewhere downtown, and Richmond segments will likely be at-grade or elevated. Q. If you go underground along Cambie, will any of the Heritage Boulevard be displaced? A. Most of the line will be bored tunnel and there would be very little disturbance to the boulevard. Q. Will there be expropriation required? A. Will likely be some, would be done by the RAVP project. Q. Is there any slush in your time frame to provide for delays in construction or overall approval process? A. We have a very tight timeline now. The project is not linked to the Olympics and will go on regardless if approved. Noting that, there are some schedule restraints with regard to being in a construction phase during the Olympics. Q. What is involved in project approval? A. This will be going forward to both city councils and to TransLink board for approval. Q. What about Richmond itself? What about the building of the Convention Centre in Richmond? A. This may be a factor the idea is to meet employment, retail and service needs. Q. Similar to the Millennium Line, does anyone have any say as to what gets built in front of our house or buildings? A. There will be a consultation process at that stage with regard to station and neighbourhood impacts. Comment When you have a private-public sector partnership, stations may take a backseat to operations and design. This is a concern with private sector involvement.
120
March, 2003
Q. Are there side agreements with the airport with regard to their contribution? A. The airport will not share in revenue risk or profits. There is some discussion with premium line (i.e. direct higher-cost line from Airport to Vancouver). Q. Is it planned to be a train like the WestCoast Express or is like SkyTrain/light-rail? A. More likely light-rail urban system. Comment - We have an inherent interest in placement location, naming of station. Comment - Please correct name to Lansdowne Centre. Comment We would be happy to accommodate any public displays, etc., here at Lansdowne Centre. Comment We have a co-owners meeting coming up in May and would like to ensure we keep in touch with the RAVP project as both the project and Lansdowne planning move forward. Comment - We have a demonstrated willingness to cooperate with TransLink to create synergies. 4. Conclusion The small group meeting concluded at 12:30pm
SMALL GROUP MEETING VANCOUVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - MARCH 19, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a Small Group Meeting held with members the Vancouver Economic Development Commission and the Project Director of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 in Committee Room #3, Vancouver City Hall, Vancouver, B.C. PRESENT: Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP Raymond Louie, RAVP Members of the VEDC RESOURCE: Susan Bruckner, Recording Clerk, RAVP 1. Welcome and Introduction Ms. Jane Bird, Project Director, RAVP, introduced the project to the group and indicated the power point presentation would compose the content of the presentation. 2. Review Project Power Point Presentation Ms. Bird went through the power point presentation and noted that it would be followed by a question and answer period. The record notes that the Community Consultation Discussion Guide was handed out to those present. 3. Question and Answer Period (the record notes that questions, answers and comments are identified as Q, A and C) Q. With the proximity of this line to Highway 99, are there any provisions to put in a major parking terminus for passengers? A. A significant park and ride at Bridgeport (1500 stalls) and two smaller ones in Richmond are planned.
March, 2003
121
Q. What is the full range for cost when you take into account the nine options studied? A. The full range is roughly $1.2 or $1.3 billion to about $1.9 billion.
Q. What are the modes by which the private sector will be engaged? A. I will get to that in the upcoming slides.
Q. Will there still be bus service to serve Sea Island? A. Once the airport has built out their terminals, they might look at providing inter-terminal bus service but the idea all around is to minimize duplicate bus lines.
Q. Are there contingencies in place in case Vancouver does not get the Olympics? A. Just to clarify, this is not an Olympic project. We need this project from an overall transportation perspective. The government has demonstrated a particular interest in infrastructure around urban Centres and green options. Although, the Olympics will provide a focus for federal government. The Olympics can act as a catalyst if you will.
Q. What are the criteria for the private sectors involvement? Were other scenarios examined (i.e. TransLink doing the operation and maintenance of the line)? Did you look at long-term economies of scale, for example, TransLink expanding its own maintenance function? A. Yes. One of the first decisions that was made was do we continue with SkyTrain or do we consider other technologies? In considering other technologies we were providing an opportunity for competition and thus for bidders to sharpen their pencils. The current SkyTrain maintenance facilities are full and there is no additional capacity. This factor mitigated the overall economies. If we had additional capacity we may have looked at a different approach.
Q. I agree with the Cambie corridor option. Typically, we see suits riding the rails. People who have money ride the rails. The red flag for me was the private sector financing scheme. There may be some risk and this may be more costly. Are the costs typically higher in the private sector versus the public sector? Did you look at alternative financing (i.e. tax, tolls etc.) A. The Contributing Agencies funding had its limits. It simply was not available. That is why the private sector funding was available. The Government said to look to the private sector. TransLink must look at all its funding sources. Even within the current structure, it is a significant amount of funding and they are earmarking other revenue streams (i.e. tax, tolls). The $300 million contributions are grants, net investment.
Q. When construction for this project begins and with a 5-year construction time provision, what provisions are being provided for merchants along the corridor? A. At the moment we are looking at a tunnel from False Creek along the busy part of the corridor that you are referring to. Therefore the work would be done in a tunnel. In contrast to a cut and cover approach. In terms of disruption, it would be minimal.
122
March, 2003
Q. What are the criteria for at-grade, tunnel and above-grade for the $1.7 billion option? A.The $1.7 million option would provide for a system that is underground from Cordova to 49th Avenue. There are portions where we could technically not be in a tunnel. For example, we could come up at Robson along Granville Mall to Cordova this would add a station at Dunsmuir (there are issues around cross traffic, trolley traffic would remain). We could stay in tunnel to 49th weve considered the intersection at 41st where there are serious issues regarding congestion and significant pedestrian access to Oakridge. We would probably stay underground until 49th. The Cambie Boulevard Heritage Association is most concerned with the Boulevard and ideally would like to see the tunnel come up at 64th Avenue.
Q. Have you looked at guaranteed ridership? For example, selling a chunk of passes to say the City of Vancouver and Langara College? Vancouver City Hall has 4000 employees. A. That is a good point in the sense of guaranteeing the ridership for this line. TransLink is actively involved in pass systems and putting them into effect. All students would pay a fee within their student fees. If it works at UBC/SFU, it could provide consideration for this project.
Q. Has the Airport been approached with regard to taking any risk in terms of ridership? A. No. The transfer of incentives is to the private sector; incentives to maximize ridership.
Q. What have you done to look at bikes on trains? A. We are looking at a system that will be able to have bikes (i.e. last train).
C. The VEDC looks at things that support economic and business growth in the City of Vancouver and supporting some kind of option that would support this objective. In the big scheme we would like to know if we support that objective. VEDC supports bringing transportation option that will improve economic growth in Vancouver. In favour: Majority.
Q. Who will own the right of ways? A. The City will own the right of ways.
C. This line would be a huge benefit to the City of Vancouver. C. It is also a huge cost.
Q. In terms of design concept, will the stations be seen are seen as commercial Centres as well? They could be revenue generators. A. That is broadly true, in that they attract the riders and will be good for neighbourhoods. We are looking at various models.
March, 2003
123
C. We will meet within the next couple of weeks to collect a statement on this project, and we will come out with a statement for council, at a minimum, even if it is divisive. 4. Conclusion The small group meeting concluded at 9:20 a.m.
SMALL GROUP MEETING UBC TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - MARCH 19, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) There were about 15 persons at the UBC Transportation Advisory Committee. I did a PowerPoint presentation and then there were about 20 minutes of questions and answers. The questions/ comments as follows: What is the ridership on the existing routes in the corridor? A 100,000 riders on RAV seems high. How will RAV affect a line to UBC? Was Broadway-UBC not considered a higher priority? Will there be collector buses in Vancouver? What about east-west bus service in Vancouver - will it connect to the line? The RAV line only seems to benefit long distance travel to Richmond and the Airport. Don't understand the reasons for cutting local bus service on Cambie and Main Street. These are good services for local residents - don't think they should be reduced. Public process is too short. There needs to be more discussion on why Cambie is the priority (and not Arbutus). Five years ago BC Transit was saying Granville Street was the main corridor (Rapid Bus). People then suggested it should be Arbutus or Cambie. The public is very cynical about the hurry up process. Need to add extra buses on routes that connect with RAV and UBC.
SMALL GROUP MEETING CHILDRENS AND WOMENS HEALTH CENTRE - MARCH 20, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a Small Group Meeting held with members of Children and Womens Health and the Project Director of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project on Thursday, March 20, 2003. PRESENT: David Nesbitt, Director, Project Planning Providence Health Representative Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Representative RESOURCE: Susan Bruckner, Recording Clerk, RAVP The meeting commenced at 11:25 a.m. (Benson Chin) Jane Bird arrived at 11:45 a.m. and took over the presentation.
124
March, 2003
1. Welcome and Introduction At the groups urging Benson Chin began the slide show presentation. 2. Review Project Power Point Presentation Benson Chin stated that the power point presentation would compose the content of the presentation. There would be a short presentation followed by a question and answer period. The record notes that the Community Consultation Discussion Guide was handed out to those present. 4. Question and Answer Period (the record notes that questions, answers and comments are identified as Q, A and C) Q. Has the project conducted a projected growth of cars versus population growth between now and the completion of the line? A. This slide takes into account growth between 1997 and 2002 and not projected growth.
C. Intuitively, people are attracted to rail, as this slide with the West Coast Express demonstrates.
C. There is no intention of reducing the current bus service but rather re-orienting it and making it more efficient for passengers to access the line.
Q. Which of the Contributing Agencies have confirmed their respective contributions? A. All of the contributions are confirmed except for the contribution from the Federal Government?
Q. Is that contribution dependant on Vancouver receiving the Olympics? A. No.
Q. Who will own the right-of ways? A. Agreements will have to be arranged with proprietors and certain rights will have to be acquired if additional lands are required. A procurement process would thus be undertaken.
Q. Will the ownership of the line be with the respective municipalities? A. Ownership will be with TransLink.
Q. Is the projected construction of seven years regardless of the technology that will be chosen? A. Whatever the chosen technology, the project will take seven years.
Q. Will this be a phased project? A. This project will be undertaken as one project.
March, 2003
125
Q. How many bridges are planned? A. There will two bridges. One crossing the Fraser River at the base of Cambie and one over to the Airport.
Q. Where will the crossing be of False Creek? Where are the proposed tunnel sections of the route? A. It will be in tunnel. The current configuration is just west of Cambie Street Bridge. We want to be in tunnel from False Creek to 37th Avenue because of congestion and difficulties with grade. It is difficult finding a portal location on the north side we would have to deal with land expropriation. It is easier on the south side of the creek as it is less developed. Technically and financially speaking we could come out of tunnel at 37th. We believe we have the projected funding to come up (from a tunnel) at 49th. There are significant environmental impacts on Cambie Street and the issue with the busy intersection at 41st. We dont think we can afford a tunnel to Marine Drive.
C. One of the challenges in adding this rapid transit line is the current frequency standard set by the SkyTrain.
Q. Why wont riders of this proposed line expect that type of frequency? A. Well there are two reasons for that. It is a function of cars and whether or not the line is fully automated. With a fully automated line, additional cars can be added via computer. Operated systems (a partially separated system) have another series of complications. They are more unpredictable and less reliable due to the crossing of intersections.
Q. Will you be tendering both systems (i.e. the partially separated system and the fully separated system)? A. Instead of choosing a technology we have set the performance standards. We have presented the performance standards to the public on the feedback form (i.e. travel time, number of stations etc.) to see what the public thinks. The RFP will present the problem and will state that we need it to be solved and ask what train technology can be provided that to solve our problem.
C. Jane Bird commented that the capital costs are really grants and that there is no return on that money. C. Jane Bird commented that we are pleased with the public interaction and that the response is largely positive.
Q. Will the bids come in with options (i.e. tunnel options up to certain points for example 37th, 49th, Marine Drive) or will they be specific? A. We are actually doing a sequential process. We will start with 4 finalists and ask for a partial design. We are not asking for hard numbers but we will get indicative numbers and then lead to two finalists and perform a head to head competition. We will then be asking for the hard numbers. Choices will have to be made as we go along.
Q. Do you plan on reimbursing the bidders for their civil works etc.?
126
March, 2003
A. We will be looking at making a contribution to the losing finalist for partial payment of civil works etc.
C. TransLink is the principal agency needing to decide whether or not to proceed with the project and will be looking to the cities for support. If Vancouver does not support TransLinks decision, TransLink is inclined to look to fulfill their priorities elsewhere.
Q. Is the procurement process to be undertaken in parallel with environmental assessment? A. Yes.
Q. What do you want from us? A. There are two parts to this. Firstly we need to find out whether you are broadly supportive of the project. If you are supportive of the project, are you supportive of the proposed alignment? The role for your respective agencies, if you are in favour is to make that known at the upcoming council meetings. If project were to proceed, we would then want to have your input on stations, the look and feel, and amenities.
Q. What is the approximate cost of a station? A. The cost is dependant on whether the station is above-ground, at-grade or below grade. The below grade stations would cost somewhere in the range of $45 to $65 million dollars, less than $10 million at-grade and somewhere in the middle for an elevated station.
C. You may want to think about serving your employees and come up with your numbers and how you would like to serve them. We would be pleased to provide you with some consulting assistance on that.
C. There is some work we can do together to understand better transportation planning and where the stations could go to better serve this precinct and others.
C. Although there is an issue in accessibility for our employees, there is also an issue of getting patients and visitors to and from the hospital.
C. Parking is definitely an issue here at this facility and it is affecting the surrounding neighbourhood.
C. What I would love to see are stations that are really well integrated into the institutions that they are serving.
4. CONCLUSION The Small Group Meeting concluded at 12:50 p.m.
March, 2003
127
SMALL GROUP MEETING VANCOUVER REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION-MARCH 21, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a small group meeting held with Vancouver Regional Construction Association and the Technical Manager and Legal Advisor of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Friday, March 21, 2003 at Vancouver Regional Construction Association, 3636 East 4th, Burnaby, BC. PRESENT VRCA Members (20 attendees) RAVP TEAM Raymond Louie, RAVP John Haythorne, RAVP RESOURCE Jennifer Davies, Recording Clerk, RAVP Team Benson Chin, PowerPoint Set-up, RAVP Team The small group meeting commenced at 8:00am. 1. Welcome and Introduction Keith Sashaw, President, Vancouver Regional Construction Association introduced the meeting. Raymond Louie, Technical Manager, RAVP, reviewed the agenda for the small group meeting. The following information was provided: (a) Community Consultation Discussion Guide, (b) Postcard, and (c) RAVP Power Point presentation. 2. Power Point Presentation (short version). Raymond Louie discussed the presentation for about 20 minutes. 3. Question and Answer Period (identified as Q. & A.) Q. When I add up the numbers, it comes to about $1.3B. Will you be looking to the private sector to pick up the difference? A. There will be a private sector fixed price in construction and operations. The private sector will be asked to Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain the line.
Q. Why wouldnt you be looking for a line that would integrate with the existing lines? A. The SkyTrain operation maintenance centre is at capacity and a new yard needs to be constructed anyway. This is a new North-South line and would not be an extension of any existing lines. John Haythorne provided a summary of the Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) process.
Q. What is the timeline for the RFEI process? A. Depends on the approval process. We will not move forward without federal funding. Summer 2004 before any designs are in place.
Q. Is there any commitment to a public-private partnership (P3) on this? A. We fully expect that the private sector will be involved and undertake this project as a public-private partnership (P3).
128
March, 2003
Q. Have you started procurement of any of the rideways or properties required to build this line? A. No, not yet. Currently, we are not specifying a single alignment. Comment you discussed making an at-grade public transit system.
Q. Will the names of the private sector companies selected be shared with the public so there are opportunities for local partnering? A. Yes, we can make that list available.
Q. Is that information available on the web site? If not, where can it be obtained? A. We will provide it to you. Comment There is unanimous support from the group for this project. Please let us know if there is anything we can do to participate and show support throughout the entire process.
4. Conclusion The small group meeting concluded at 9:00am.
SMALL GROUP MEETING WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD MARCH 21, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a small group meeting held with Workers Compensation Board (WCB) employees and the Technical Manager of the RAVP Rapid Transit Project Team on Friday, March 21, 2003 at Workers Compensation Board Head Office, Richmond, BC. PRESENT Approximately 50 WCB employees RAVP TEAM Raymond Louie, RAVP RESOURCE Judy Kirk, Recording Clerk, RAVP Team The small group meeting commenced at 12:00pm. 1. Welcome and Introduction Raymond Louie, Technical Manager, RAVP, reviewed the agenda for the small group meeting. The following information was provided: (a) Community Consultation Discussion Guide, and (b) Feedback Form, March 2003. Judy Kirk (Communications & Consultation Consultant) provided an overview of the RAVP Consultation program. 2. Power Point Presentation (short version). Raymond Louie discussed the presentation for about 20 minutes.
March, 2003
129
3. Question and Answer Period (the record notes that questions and answers are identified as Q. & A.) Q. What will happen to our current transit system during the construction of the RAV line? A. We will need to look at temporary diversions in some cases to deal with the construction.
Q. The planned route may increase surrounding land values. Is there any way to capture those increased values and apply them to the cost of building the line? A. The project financial analysis does not include capturing the cost of the increased land value.
Q. The federal government contribution is in the order of $450 million. What happens if the federal government does not contribute? A. Without the federal government contribution, the project will not proceed.
Q. Can I assume that it is not a done deal that the line will run down the Cambie corridor? A. The proposed RAV line is based on the Cambie Corridor.
Q. Does a Cambie Corridor alignment run independently or connect into other lines? A. The line is independent of other lines
Q. Will the line be underground on the Cambie Corridor? A. It is technically feasible to run the line underground, but running underground the entire length of Cambie may be outside the funding envelope.
Q. Could you please expand on the private-sector contributions? A. The private sector will be involved in design, build, maintain and operation of the line over a 35 year period. TransLink will own the line and control fares and they will pay the private-sector for their investment and operation.
Q. What will the fares be? A. Similar to existing fares.
Q. What is the alignment over False Creek and downtown? A. A tunnel under False Creek is the proposed alignment, with either at-grade through part of downtown or in tunnel to Waterfront Station.
Q. Could you please comment on the comparable costs of the proposed line with the cost of a bus option? A. The bus option would be cheaper, but would not move as many people and would require an annual operating subsidy. I dont recall the annual operating cost of the best bus option .
130
March, 2003
Q. What will be the annual operating cost of the RAVP line? A. $24 34 million, covered by ridership revenue depending on configuration.
Q. What will happen to the B-Line bus? A. The B-line bus would be replaced by the RAVP line.
Q. What would people do who travel by bus on Granville street? A. Local bus service will be increased to feed into the RAVP line.
Q. Will express buses from Richmond to Downtown still run along Granville Street? A. Local bus service will be increased to feed into the RAVP line.
Q. Will TransLink be more careful about checking for fares? Doesnt this have something to do with the design of stations? A. TransLink is trying to be more effective in checking fares.
Q. Will transit be connected to other town centres in the region? A. TransLinks regional priorities include increased rapid transit to the northeast sector.
Q. What will the RAVP line look like from 49th to Marine Drive? A. The options are to run the line at-grade or above grade.
Q. What will happen to people who want to drive to a SkyTrain station? Will there be parking available? A. There are plans to construct a significant Park & Ride at the BridgePoint station.
Q. What are you looking at with respect to heavy rail? A. Actually, were looking at a light rail option for this line.
Q. How long will it take me to take the RAVP line from Broadway to Richmond Centre? A. I couldnt tell you the travel time estimate for that leg - perhaps you could email me and Ill try to get you the answer.
Q. Is there a political will to get this project done? A. Certainly our public consultation process so far is telling elected people to get on with the project. Elected people will review this feedback
March, 2003
131
4. Conclusion Scott McCloy, WCB Communications, thanked the RAVP office for consulting with interested WCB STAFF. The small group meeting concluded at 1:00pm.
SMALL GROUP MEETING VANCOUVER AREA CYCLING COALITION MARCH 21, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a Small Group Meeting held with members of the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition and Raymond Louie of the RAVP Rapid Transit Project on Friday, March 21, 2003 at the Vancouver Public Library Fire Hall Branch, Vancouver, B.C. PRESENT: Raymond Louie, Technical Manager, RAVP Lon LaClaire, Transportation Engineer, City of Vancouver Marion Orser, Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition Jim Alix, Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition Jack Becker, Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition RESOURCE: Susan Bruckner, Recording Clerk, RAVP The small group meeting commenced at 2:00 p.m. 1. Welcome and Introduction Raymond Louie, Technical Manager, RAVP, circulated a hard copy of the short power point presentation indicating that a review of the hard copy would compose the content of the presentation. Mr. Louie thanked the group for their interest in the project and inviting the RAVP Team to make a presentation. The record also notes that a copy of the March 2003 Community Consultation Discussion Guide was handed out to those in attendance. 2. Review of Hard Copy Power Point Presentation Mr. Louie reviewed the hard copy of the power point presentation with the group and encouraged questions. 3. Questions and Answers (the record notes that the questions, answers and comments are identified as Q., A. & C.) Q. Does the cost include the financing? A. There is a component for interest during construction, for the private sector.
Q. 40,000 - Is that current or projected? A. That is the current number and it will be higher in 2021. What this shows us is that there is strong ridership in the corridor.
Q. What is the average cost of building a lane without property costs? A. Those costs are variable. For 2 blocks of adding one lane the cost is roughly 2-3 million dollars including property.
132
March, 2003
C. On a personal note, I believe that the Cambie Corridor is the only logical route. C. Sports stadiums create a tremendous amount of traffic congestion and most cities have stadium stops. Taking a bus usually turns people off of the line. C. I am surprised that you did not think of extending the line south of the Massey tunnel.
Q. Is a tunnel planned under False Creek? A. Yes. We looked a putting a bridge crossing there but there were significant impacts with that and we ideally wanted to go under the Broadway intersection so it is best to stay in a tunnel through that area.
Q. Will you be able to connect at Waterfront Station to other lines? A. Yes but most likely you will have to transfer to another track as we are not looking at compatible systems. We are trying to look at getting passengers closest to the platform as possible without a significant distance to transfer.
C. You may want to position that line just so that you can extend it across to the North Shore.
Q. Is the 30-minute travel time from when the train pulls out and arrives? A. Yes.
Q. Is it safe to say that Airport money is Federal and TransLink money is provincial? A. TransLink money comes from regional revenue streams, i.e. farebox, property taxes, part of the fuel tax and the YVR is a semi private corporation and their revenue is from parking and airport improvement fees.
Q. Has any thought been given to phasing the construction? A. The Airport is a significant partner and they want their service as soon as they can get it. This is not planned as a phased project.
C. One of the key themes brought up at the meetings is people in favor of being able to bring bikes onto the trains.
At this point in the meeting, Mr. Becker from the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition provided a copy of a document titled Increasing Intermodal Commuting Cycling and Rapid Transit: What is Required to Make it Grow? Mr. Becker proceeded to present this document to the group. 4. Conclusion The small group meeting concluded at 3:50 p.m.
March, 2003
133
SMALL GROUP MEETING TRANSPORT 2000 BC MARCH 24, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a small group meeting held with Transport 2000 BC and the Financial Director of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Monday, March 24, 2003 at the Vancouver Public Library, Vancouver, BC. PRESENT Transport 2000 BC (4 attendees) RAVP TEAM David Rowat, RAVP RESOURCE Jennifer Davies, Communications Consultant, RAVP Team The small group meeting commenced at 1:30pm. 1. Welcome and Introduction David Rowat, Financial Director, RAVP, reviewed the agenda for the small group meeting. The following information was provided: (a) Community Consultation Discussion Guide, (b) Postcard, and (c) RAVP PowerPoint presentation. 2. PowerPoint Presentation (short version). David Rowat discussed the presentation for about 30 minutes. 3. Question and Answer Period (identified as Q. & A.) Q. Do the cost and ridership estimates assume SkyTrain technology with automatic trains? A. No.
Q. Who made the requirement that TransLink controls fares? A. TransLink.
Q. Would the five lanes of capacity be urban lanes or freeway lanes? A. I cannot answer that question, but I would assume urban lanes.
Q. Where is the proposed hub station alignment in Richmond? A. Northeast of Bridgeport and No. 3 Road.
Q. It is debatable as to whether travel time will actually be 25 minutes or closer to 30 minutes. Congestion will also be affected. Have you made a differential analysis in terms of travel time, ridership, revenues and parallel analysis? A. We have looked at this but not quite in the way you describe.
Q. What are the actual times in between trains? A. We have estimated a maximum waiting time of 7.5 minutes.
134
March, 2003
Q. If the bus and rail systems are operated separately, then there will be different unions for buses and LRT? Engaging the private sector may decrease the flexibility of employee movement between systems. A. I cannot comment on union involvement.
Q. Who does that feedback go to? A. The feedback goes to the communications consulting team and will be incorporated into the consultation summary report.
Q. I looked at the various alternatives on the web the other option is the Arbutus corridor. Why is so much grade separation proposed? Why dont you use the service line on Arbutus that is already there? You should have the lowest cost at-grade on Arbutus. If you combine it with a Broadway/UBC line, then it would still be cheaper on Arbutus. I propose surface LRT on Arbutus and Broadway. What is the cost per grade separation that has been proposed? What are the cost estimated of at-grade vs. grade separation (in terms of costs and time savings)? Incremental increases in costs do not seem to be analysed. I also dont think you have analysed the importance of travel time in Richmond compared to Airport. A. The Arbutus corridor would the cheapest to build but not the cheapest to operate.
Q. It seemed that the Airport line was driving travel time between Vancouver and Richmond. Is it possible to have a bridge that would serve the Airport via Arbutus? Would it be possible to integrate an east-west line North of the Fraser or would you transfer? With regard to Oak street north of 41st Oak street goes past the hospitals and would also join up with a future rapid transit line along Broadway? Would it maybe be cheaper to tunnel under False Creek at Oak rather than Cambie. A. Referral to the Multiple Accounts Evaluation. The Project Definition Phase was described in more detail with regard to what was studied. The Millennium Line extension will be a future TransLink project.
Q. The Cambie line looks difficult when you get north of 12th Avenue. Has an elevated line been ruled out there? A. Yes. Q. You dont have the same grade problem at Arbutus so why is it ruled out? A. The Cambie line is the proposed line for the reasons discussed previously but nothing has been ruled out at this point. Comment -There are also some technical problems with regard to tunneling under segments of the Cambie line.
Q. What maximum grade are you using on the rail line? A. I cannot answer that question. Comment Further studies should be done with regard to alignment and ridership along Oak Street. The decisions seem to be rushed. Comment - As far as I am concerned, there is no reason not to have surface alignment south of King Edward.
March, 2003
135
Comment If you are concerned about entry into Oakridge Shopping Centre, then you could take cars up and over and have rail at-grade. You need to ensure you can create the most effective and efficient system. We are an advocacy group and have no proprietary interests we dont benefit from any suggestions we make. Comment Granville Bridge has spare capacity but no others do. There are a lot of other ways to increase efficiency.
4. Conclusion The small group meeting concluded at 2:30pm.
SMALL GROUP MEETING DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION MARCH 24, 2003 RICHMOND/AIRPORT/VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT (RAVP) Notes from a small group meeting held with Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association (DVBIA) and the Financial Director and the Legal Advisor of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Team on Monday, March 24, 2003 at Imperial Parking Offices, 601 West Cordova, Vancouver, BC. PRESENT DVBIA Board (15 attendees) RAVP TEAM David Rowat, RAVP John Haythorne, RAVP RESOURCE Jennifer Davies, Recording Clerk, RAVP Team The small group meeting commenced at 12:00pm. 1. Welcome and Introduction David Rowat, Financial Director, RAVP, reviewed the agenda for the small group meeting. The following information was provided: (a) Community Consultation Discussion Guide, (b) Postcard, and (c) RAVP PowerPoint presentation. 2. PowerPoint Presentation (short version). David Rowat discussed the presentation for about 30 minutes.
3. Question and Answer Period (identified as Q. & A.) Q. Would you like some indication of support from this group and to who would we express support? A. We would like to hear what you think of the project. Any indication of support would be very helpful, but if there are things that you see from the perspective of your group, that is primarily why we are here today. It was suggested that groups who are in favour of the project should tell the decision-makers (contributing agencies) their views.
Q. Has a decision been made as to vertical alignment? A. No decisions have been made yet. We would like to leave it to the private sector to propose what the technology would be provided it fits within the parameters of the performance standards.
136
March, 2003
Q. What is the cost difference with regard to vertical alignment? A. David Rowat described the difference in terms of capital and operating cost estimates. John Haythorne outlined the concept of technology-neutral with regard to costs and the competitive process.
Q. Does the tunnel involve going from the top and then replacing? A. The majority will be a bored tunnel and the remainder will be done by cut-and-cover.
Q. Are we talking about the middle of Cambie Street? A. It is likely that is will be on the Cambie corridor.
Comment - BCIT is likely going to open an aerospace centre near the proposed line.
Q. Who would be the most important Federal government contact for expressions of support? A. Ministers responsible for BC and Western Economic Diversification and also local MPs and MLAs.
Q. What is the decision-making process and does it require unanimity? A. The four key decision-makers are the Province, the Federal Government, TransLink and the Airport. Without the support of the Federal Government, the project will not move forward. Both the Cities of Vancouver and Richmond (including land use, local consultations, development and zoning, etc) will all be factors. The consultants will be providing a summary of the consultation results to the decision-makers.
Q. The Agreement-In-Principle you refer to is regarding the project but the actual funding decisions belong to the four contributing agencies and not the cities is that correct? If the City of Vancouver did not support the project, could this scuttle moving forward? A.Vancouver City Council will decide based on its own consultation and discussions whether they will support the project but they will not determine if the project moves forward.
Q. Will the Federal Government be able to hold off on their decision-making until after the Olympic bid is decided? A. No.
Q. Does the financial analysis anticipate a fare increase? TransLink does have the ability to raise costs, does it not? Do you have an estimate of meter parking costs in 2008 and other costs? A.No. Yes. Estimated costs are primarily the responsibility for fare decisions.
Q. Is it true that most of the growth will be at the Airport? Outside of the airport, where will the other Richmond growth occur. A. I cant speak to the specifics of that.
March, 2003
137
Q. Is the movement of goods and services (in addition to people) part of your modeling? A. Yes.
Q. Did the ridership forecasts look at the actual estimates of ridership or is it based on the increase in ridership if there was a rapid transit service in place? A. Yes, but I do not know the specifics.
Q. Has any consideration been given to Park and Ride for riders going to the Airport? A. Park and Ride is primarily focused on Vancouver-Richmond. Comment The Chair thanked the RAVP team for the meeting and will get back to us with regard to an expression of support.
4. Conclusion The small group meeting concluded at 1:00pm.
138
March, 2003
APPENDIX 3.5 CORRESPONDENCE

1. Letters (a) Copy of October 1991 Submission to Vancouver City Council regarding the proposal to designate Cambie Street Boulevard as a heritage landscape. Submitted by Ethel Karmel, Citizens for the Preservation of Cambie Street Boulevard. Jacqueline Sonnedrucker Re: the Richmond meeting on Saturday, March 8, 2003 Ms. Bird Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee, Rapid Transit Planning Richmond, Airport, Vancouver Project. As the owner of a duplex located between the two corridors at war, I wont be affected by whatever decision is taken. My following statement is based on logic. The Arbutus corridor has proven itself geologically for decades, it is utterly unused and is traced. The neighborhood will only lose its Victory gardens, a true eyesore in any season, that cant possibly provide organic food but for the birds. The Cambie corridor does NOT go through better shopping neighborhoods, does NOT serve more interesting areas, or point of point of interest: City Hall? No matter what and as soon as possible it is the EAST WEST connection which must be improved be it in Richmond or in Vancouver for the NORTH SOUTH to make sense. I live in New Westminster: the scarring of the landscape by the sky train is a tragedy! Again, I am not affected by it. I enjoy a view of Mount Baker and the mighty Fraser from my 18th floor, my plea is not born from a vested interest. The 1986 sky train, although useful, is horrid; its technology has been used enough with the Millennium route and should not be repeated.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 1
(b)
Most importantly, I feel that you are barely ahead of the horse and carriage means of locomotion here, re: using a technology already seventeen years old. By the time your project is completed it will be OBSOLETE. European cites are uglified, damaged, disfigured by rails, antennae and ears (to borrow Mr. Lefluffys vocabulary) and should not be emulated. Why not look FORWARD rather than backward? Ballards power system? Fuel cell technology? It is here in Vancouver! Again, I have no vested interest in promoting names, I dont own stocks. Why are you pushing so hard for the Cambie corridor? Why are you brainwashing the public by presenting it as a fait accompli. Are you being manipulated? Do not make a foolish decision to please power, it is unethical, your legacy will last longer than any of us, including you. Do not damage Vancouvers future. Thank you. (c) Lorraine Fralin Ms. Jane Bird Project Director RAVP Project Office #1700 409 Granville Street Vancouver BC V6C 1T2 Dear Ms. Bird, With great frustration I write to you. The City of Vancouver has been considering different approaches to the VancouverRichmond-Airport transit lines for many years now. The route that you and your committee apparently favor is Cambie Street and I cannot see the justification for considering this street as a rail line. Over 78 years ago this magnificent boulevard was planted and designed as a gateway to the City of Vancouver to honor visiting dignitaries, including royalty, politicians, and The Man in Motion as well as ordinary citizens as they enter Vancouver city. All who have driven down Cambie Street have been blessed with the opportunity to behold this most spectacular elongated park that is only 1 of 2 in all of Canada. How can you and your committee think
of destroying this beautiful Boulevard with its trees and shrubs, which could never, ever be replaced. Large transportation projects such as fast ferries and SkyTrain (which government created these projects is of no importance) have all had major cost over-runs before they were finally completed. The money put into this Vancouver-Richmond-Airport rail system I believe will take money away from funding the current bus routes, maintenance of the remaining buses, maintenance of road and power lines for the buses and most likely would decrease the number of buses, and curtail the funds for upgrades and the purchase of new buses. With so many persons taking the bus regularly, how can you support a Vancouver-Richmond-Airport system that would enfeeble the current east/west routes and remove B Line buses? Would it not be the more cost-effective, and most easily implemented, to use the existing right of way along the Arbutus corridor if in fact a Vancouver-Richmond-Airport link must occur at all? These rails have carried many a train since 1891 and the rails would require little upgrade according to information from CP Rail; and could be activated quickly, more easily, and at far less cost to the citizens of Vancouver and BC overall! I suggest to you and your committee that you review very closely the current plan that is being proposed and use my/our tax dollars wisely; focus on what already exists, the Arbutus corridor rail line . Be a legend in your own time by standing up to protect a Heritage Boulevard that should remain a joy for your grandchildren and their grandchildren. Ms. Bird preserve the Cambie Street Heritage Boulevard and do not, do not destroy this magnificent boulevard. Regards, Lorraine Fralin (d) Ian Sinclair To All it May Concern I feel several points should be made and considered before any final decisions are reached, 1: Most importantly - the choice of system hardware, light rail or heavy rail, should not need to be made. If a system that is not fully capable of integrating with existing Skytrain routes is chosen, a grave error has been made.
2: The Cambie route seems to be the current front-runner. I strongly suggest that you look at amending this route in the south Vancouver area. By traveling west at approximately 70th Ave. to Marpole gives a much greater number of potential riders. Crossing the river at that point and going directly to the airport and then moving eastward to Richmond Center makes more sense than a spur to the airport which will necessitate a train change. 3: Take full advantage of 'handicap' experts in station design. Let me digress slightly; Metrotown station in Burnaby is deplorable. A wheelchair bound rider leaving the mall's second level must go back through the mall down to the lower level, back through the mall, exit through the bus loop facility, travel down a narrow walkway, cross a busy street, travel further down the sidewalk to access the elevator (try it yourself on a cold wet snowy day!). All this because of four stairs at the south end of the overpass and the elevator at the wrong end of the platform. 4: Let common sense prevail. Yours truly, Ian Sinclair
Attachments
(d)
Ronald V. Rowley Mayor Campbell and Council Vancouver City Hall
RAV-Skytrain (or similar) below Granville etc Skytrain provides the capacity of heavier subway-type trains because half the motor is in the guide-way. No on-board gearbox means lighter cars, less strength needed in guide-ways and greater reliability. This system also lends itself to automation. SkyTrain is best, so its capability should provide the benchmark for contractors to try to match. I believe that is what will be asked for by the RAV Project. Here I will refer to SkyTrain although I understand that tendering will be for whatever can do the same job. RAV before 2010 Within the proposed RAV alignment I agree with Skytrain proceeding in tunnel from Waterfront Station below Granville St., Davie St., under False Creek, and below Cambie St. to a portal at Marine Dr., then south above Cambie, over the Fraser River, above the rail right of way near Van Home Way, to a junction near Bridgeport. The branch to the Airport could proceed west over the Moray Channel, then near Grant McConachie Way to YVR terminal. The branch to Richmond Ctr could proceed south above the rail right of way, then at Cambie Rd move to above the middle of No.3 Rd, then south to near Richmond City Hall. The Granville St. segment should be in tunnel, not at grade. Because of crossing the Dunsmuir tunnel, the Granville tunnel would have to be either (1) shallow to go over it, or (2) deep to go under it. (1) Shallow - I think that the steep grade near Waterfront Station would require this route to start above Cordova St (no direct connection to Expo line) then proceed into a portal under Hastings St (beside the Sinclair Ctr), then below Granville St to near Davie St. Being shallow might allow more stations, but passages connecting Sears and the Bay under Granville St might need to be modified. (2) Deep - This might allow a direct connection to Expo line at Waterfront Station, but stations along Granville St might need very long escalators. Would a tunnel below Burrard St, terminating at Burrard Station, be an acceptable alternative to Granville St. in cost and terms of reference? "Mall" Incidentally, Granville is really a rather long bus station. It should be widened to 4 lanes to allow through traffic to pass but of course no parking
except buses. Also, no streetcar tracks should be installed on Granville or any other streets. This 19th century technology would be expensive and dangerous on Vancouver streets. Council should reverse the previous council's recommendation of street rails. The appropriate 21st century technology is hybrid electric buses for circulating Downtown. Residents along Cambie St south of W.49th Ave. seem rather adamant that transit shall not despoil that Heritage Blvd. There are rather large trees at each end and scattered along it, some of which I hear were donated by Japan in 1967. They make a nice introduction to Vancouver and, anyway, the wishes of the residents should be respected. I understand that it would be possible to continue the cut and cover tunnel south from W49th Ave below, say, the east lane of Cambie St. so that no trees would be affected. The preferred portal might be beside the ICBC building south of Marine Dr. Would bored tunnel be more expensive? If tunneling costs about $1.2 million!/km then the extra 2 km south of W49th Ave might cost $2.4 million. I hope that would not make it necessary to reconsider the whole project. Page 2 of 2 2003-03-09 Millennium line extension to Granville branch to RAV I agree with the proposal to extend Skytrain west from Clark Dr above the rail right of way by Great Northern Way, then south in tunnel below Prince Edward St, then west below 10th Ave to Granville. A connector branch to the RAY line near W. 1Oth Ave and Cambie St could give vehicles from RAV line access to existing maintenance facilities in Burnaby. I had considered some elevated, possibly cheaper alternatives but Vancouver seems to reject anything elevated. Later projects might include extending RAV north to Stanley Park and BC Rail Station in North Van to ease congestion at Lions Gate Bridge, and south to Ladner to ease congestion at Massey Tunnel. Thanks for your attention. I hope this helps. Ron Rowley
Attachments
2.
Postcards 75 Postcards were received. The printing on the card was: We support the preservation of the Cambie Street Boulevard. We oppose the construction of a rapid transit system on Cambie Street.
3.
Cambie Heritage Boulevard Society Forms 5 received. The printing on the feedback was: RAPID BUSES FOR CAMBIE LIGHT RAIL For ARBUTUS No monster stations needed
4.
Public Contact Telephone (a) Looked at materials at City Hall, 70/80s --- went to all discussions, Arbutus Corridor a great plan, why not Arbutus information? Cambie route uphill, unfair to not offer Arbutus as an option Contests logic of Cambie, Cost/engineering too expensive along Cambie, should not bow to personal/preferences Lives off Cambie, supporter/always has been, aware of consultation, upset with opposition, wants to help out, wants to call news media and confirm.
(b)
5.
Email
-----Original Message----Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:53 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: I have just completed your survey for the rapid transit route to the Airport and on to Richmond. I fully support the idea as long as you use the Arbutus corridor. Cambie is a non starter for me. I can not support the Cambie route. Why do you insists on not using the obvious right of way on the Arbutus corridor. Stop pandering to "la crme de la crme" who live on the west side. I thought with King George Puil now gone, TransLink would start thinking responsibly. Bill Dutrizac -----Original Message----From: Rebecca Clarke Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 8:53 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Cc: mayorandcouncil@city.vancouver.bc.ca Subject: Cambie and Rapid Transit To whom it may concern, As a home owner who lives one block east of Cambie at 13th, I have a number of questions and concerns regarding the proposed rapid transit route via Cambie. I have read through some of the material on your website and clearly understand and appreciate the need to address transit issues in the city and the logic for using the Cambie corridor for a rapid transit line.
That said, I am concerned that the material on the proposal does not clearly indicate that the issues of concern to those who live or own homes near the potential line have been thoroughly examined. These issues include the potential increase in crime near stations. I did note that one literature survey was done several years ago on this issue. However, I l believe a study that more specifically deals with this area, rather than simply drawing on some statistically questionable examples from others areas, is required. The same point goes for assessing the potential impact on property values. A proper evaluation of these issues is required if you are to make a genuine effort to account for address the concerns of residents living near the proposed line. On the positive side, I am pleased that you are proposing that the transit line be underground through this area of Cambie and that the stop is to be at Broadway not at 12th. The intent of my email is to solicit further information so that I can make an informed decision about how I feel about this proposal. I realize it is very difficult to address the needs and concerns of all stakeholders and you have the challenging task of balancing often conflicting interests. But I would sincerely appreciate further efforts to address the issues I have raised above (crime and property value impacts). Sincerely, Sarah Goodman -----Original Message----From: Cleven, Ryan Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:06 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Residential Concern Hello, I am looking into buying a home at 8th and Yukon and I've been informed of several potential plans to put a major transit route (subway, above ground and a bridge) in nearby. I am interested in how these will affect my future home. I am also interested in when the decision will be made as to which option will be enacted. Also, which option is the most likely? Thank you very much, Ryan Cleven. -----Original Message----From: AC Fehr Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 9:12 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Alignment for Cambie Sky train - affected home owner? The Vancouver Province had an article in the paper today about the Cambie Sky train line. The map showing the alignment, shows the train coming down Cambie then doing a slight jog to the west at S.W. Marine Drive, then continuing south. What street does the line go down between S.W. Marine Drive and the river? It should be Cambie, but doesn't look that way on the map. I live 1 block west of Cambie south of Marine drive on Ash Street, a quiet dead-end residential street. According to that map printed in the Paper the sky train would be coming down Ash Street, right along the side of my house. Ash Street? Why not Cambie, which is significantly wider? Where can I get a detailed map showing the Cambie Sky train line? Who should I be talking to about this problem? Thanks for your consideration in this matter Chris Fehr -----Original Message----From: Cheryl Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:25 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: transportation link Vancouver Richmond Dear Projects Coordinators,
I am wondering if you could please direct me to sources of information to answer the following question I have regarding the expansion of rapid transit from Vancouver to Richmond. Is the route Cambie vs. Arbutus still being considered? Info regarding a comparison of the route itself which is easier to build, least impact on neighborhoods, links to other areas, most direct etc... Info regarding a comparison of population density, ridership points served etc...? A history of the number of studies done over the past 10 years comparing the routes and types of Rapid Transit . Who ultimately makes the decision of where the expanded line would go? Why the mayor has appointed another person to study the routes? I am looking for information as to why ravp(Jane Bird) have presented and support a Cambie route vs. an Arbutus Corridor route. I believe it is for reasons of points served and population density etc.. but I continue to wonder why the city council wants to question it more. Is there information I am missing or have they not read all the studies? Please contact me at Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your reply to help me answer my questions. Cheryl Burian
-----Original Message----From: Ivy Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:40 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Questions about the Discussion Form Hello there. My other questions deal with the discussion form itself, but first of all, my most important question is, why was the public consultation process started only after the route was agreed upon? The first question on the discussion form is whether or not one supports the route. It says, Do you... (check one) [ ] YES [ ] NO Support the route in its entirety [ ] YES [ ] NO Support parts of the route [ ] YES [ ] NO Oppose the route This question is particularly confusing. Do we check one check box out of each pair, or check one check box out of all six? Second, if I check the third "Yes" down that would result in "Yes, I oppose the route", but if I check the third "No" down that would mean "No, I oppose the route", which basically mean the same thing. So, does the "Yes" mean "I agree with the following statement" and the "No" mean "I disagree with the following statement" instead? I would like to make sure my responses aren't misinterpreted. The first question also has a space for comments. Am I allowed to attach my comments to the Discussion form or continue my comments on the right-hand margin? I would ask the same question for question number 9. Last question. Where do we send these forms? Many thanks. Ivy Tsai. -----Original Message----From: Remembernow Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:30 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: planning article I have been following the choice of the Cambie Corridor and I agree with this alignment 100% for the reasons often mentioned. In fact I campaigned in the last election on the basis that this would be the route best for the city. I write articles on planning issues and I believe this is the biggest issue for the city at the current time and the decision will foster many other side issues such as where future development will go along the route. I am quite familiar with the reasons why development will follow. In fact too many years ago I did my equivalent to a thesis at the UBC School of Planning on this topic. You can see my articles on www.RememberNow.com under Vancouver Hot Spots. I very much would like a more in depth report to better equip me with the background studies. My address is. I think it will be well worth your effort to send me a copy. Art Cowie -----Original Message----From: Raymond Kwong _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 16
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:40 AM To: 'ravpconsultation@ravp.ca' Subject: feedback form, Vancouver sun march 6 2003 hi there, since I will forget to fax or mail back your form, could you please include this in your survey.
1) No 3 rd, Grant McConachie Way, Cambie Street to Waterfront Station Support the route in its entirety - yes Support parts of the route - no Oppose the route - no Comments: A large number of workers travel between Richmond Center, Vancouver International Airport and Downtown. Also, parking has proven to be rather expensive for the airport and downtown. Finally, I don't want to see Richmond becoming another Surrey, a land of oversized parking lots. 2) Transit Use Very likely - as I use the airport considerably, and I hate parking my vehicle long-term there, I would prefer using a rail system to travel to the airport. As for Richmond, there are a number of stores that are not in reach from my location in North Delta without a car. With a rapid rail system, this will bring Richmond much closer to me. It seems strange that with the improved transit system, Coquitlam, downtown and the North Shore is much closer to me than Richmond by transit travel & transfer times. 3) If you were to use the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit Line: travel time, easy connection to other parts of the transit system, hours of operation. If this were to become the backbone of the transit system, similar to that of the expo & millennium lines of the sky train, I would consider not using my car at all in the Greater Vancouver region. 4) I strongly agree with the project. The real question is where will these institutions come up with the funding. Sadly enough, I believe it will be higher taxes and higher tolls. 5) I have traveled by transit in the last 30 days - yes 6) Travel between Vancouver & Richmond in the last 30 days - yes -----Original Message----From: hwrmorris Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 8:18 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Rapid Transit line-Richmond/Vancouver As a Richmond Resident that has logged many trips by auto from Richmond to Vancouver, I would like to offer the following questions and comments on your article in today's Vancouver Sun. QUESTIONS: 1)Why is the "Arbutus" corridor not included in this survey? 2)Will there be parking available along the line in Richmond for "park & ride" users? 3)What part will be played by a private partner in this mostly public funded venture? COMMENTS: I have always felt the "Arbutus" solution was a better one because the tracks are already there and would allow for an elevated sky train that integrates with what we already have in place. The Cambie Blvd. would be a below grade solution in order to keep this beautiful green belt. I have been on the Toronto subway many times and although it is efficient it does nothing to enhance a users view of the surrounding city green belts, parks, as well as any notable landmarks. I also feel the Arbutus solution could be done faster and would cost less. (CPR-private partner?) There is a large number of commuters that come in from the other side of the Massey Tunnel, every day that would take rapid transit from Richmond if a Park/Ride area was available to them! In closing I suggest you reconsider the Cambie route and present the public with more information on an alternative Arbutus route. Harvey Morris -----Original Message----From: Suan Booiman Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:48 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: 030603 transit questions Reply 1.yes, support the rout in its entirety 2.very likely. 3.reliabity, easy connections, easy access to stations. 4.strongly agree 5.no 6.yes _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 17
-----Original Message----From: Sally Breen Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:32 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: feedback Hi, I read through the 2 page report in the Vancouver sun this morning and did not see that security was addressed anywhere on that document. I want to make sure that there is a good security plan in place both for the Airport and for the Richmond center station. I am very much in support of the line as I live in Richmond and have been driving to work as a nurse at Vancouver General Hospital for 12 years. It is virtually impossible for me to get there using the existing transit - would take 1 hr - 1 hour 45 minutes because of all the transfers. As a working mother with school aged children there is no way that I could spend that time each day on top of my work schedule. Since I go to work early in the morning the drive only takes me 20 minutes. In addition to minimizing the number of cars on the road you should also consider the decreased parking problems as a result of having good transit. I occasionally work at the GF Strong site and the parking and traffic problems around that site (also BC Womens hospital, Shaughnessy etc) have been a tremendous stress on the neighborhood. There literally is nowhere for staff and patients to park once the existing parking lot at BC Womens fills up. I have seen numerous cars endlessly cycling around the neighborhood and had many complaints from patients about their inability to park. Over the last few years the neighborhood there has also been complaining and they have had a great deal of influence in creating more non-parking zones as well as the installation of traffic circles. I feel bad for the neighbors but since I have no way of taking rapid transit I have no choice but to take my car into that area and park it in order to continue to work. Hospitals in the city have a significant shortage of nurses and I think good transit to the hospital areas would really help more nursing staff to consider working in the city. I want to make sure that when the stations are built there is some good planning around security so that what happened in the Whalley area after the Sky train went there is not repeated at Richmond Center and the Airport. I hope to see these concerns addressed in the final plans for the RAV line. Thanks, Sally Breen -----Original Message----From: Bob Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:28 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Coquitlam line built first Coquitlam line then Vancouver Richmond and airport Coquitlam ASAP then vancouver-richmond-airport thanks -----Original Message----From: tammie eros Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:56 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Great Idea!!! To Whom It May Concern, Wow! What a wonderful proposition. I am happy and excited to think that our beautiful city's government is looking toward the future with a concern for transportation and the environment. I think more rapid transit within the city is essential, instead of widening streets, etc.. I would be happy to support a move towards fast, environmentally friendly transit. We must think of the future!! Sincerely, Link Baker -----Original Message----From: Kenneth of Shaftesbury Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 6:24 PM _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 18 they promised built Coquitlam line lets built
To: Customer Relations Subject: Sky train expansion
I am watching, with interest, the news about the proposed extensions. This includes the debate on whether the Richmond line should use Cambie or Arbutus and I am wondering if the research is far reaching to the point where extending this line to Tsawwassen is being taken into account. I am also wondering if the other end of the line will eventually go to the BC Rail terminal and Horseshoe Bay. In the Vancouver Sun today, I saw an article on the Cambie proposal. It featured Sky train on a number of levels. All of the ideas seem fine as long as there are no level crossings. I have ridden the C-train in Calgary and would hope that they will eventually get rid of the murder zones (level crossings). I would hope that TransLink will make sure that there is never be the possibility of trains and cars intermingling. These crossings only lead to death. I look forward to seeing what is planned for our future. Ken Dolphin Burnaby ----Original Message----From: Ken Lawson Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 10:23 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Cc: Pierre Pettigew; Joy MacPhail; Carolyn Parrish; CBC Your View Subject: My Opinion I want Sky Train the way it is now, I do not want to see any Light Rail concept like they have in Edmonton. Up and Down , Under I do not care just get the bloody thing built their have studies on top of studies, if it wasn't for this fool we have in Ottawa, by the name of Chretien and his PMO it would have been built by now. Just make sure the bungling Bureaucrats do not screw it up like the Gun Registry and other Departments in Ottawa! -----Original Message----From: Debbie Pearson Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:02 PM To: Customer Relations Subject: Richmond to Vancouver line Hi, just wanted to say how thrilled I am to hear of the expansion. I live at Citygate which is right above the Main St Science World sky train station and I cannot say how much I love having it so close. I know many people think that sky train is going to "ruin" their neighborhood but rapid transit is an ever increasing reality and a select group of people cannot dictate public policy based on their own near-sighted and selfish needs. I obviously prefer sky train but whichever option you choose for the Cambie corridor I hope you stick to your guns and get it done as quickly as possible. Keep up the good work, sincerely, Deborah M. Pearson -----Original Message----From: Hourash Falati Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 3:48 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: RAVP - recommendation
Consider a tunnel for the project. Less intrusive on the cities involved, faster project delivery, smaller footprint, cleaner environment, ongoing traffic friendly, and cost efficient... Technical questions and information requests for laser guided Tunnel Boring Machines and all related technologies can be directed to: Imex Enterprises Corp. Imex would gladly offer more information and put together a tunneling proposal for this project with machinery and execution offers. Regards Hourash Falati -----Original Message----From: Roy James Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:29 AM _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 19
To: Customer Relations Subject: Proposed Airport/Richmond Rapid Transit To: Planning Committee Airport/Richmond Rapid Transit, I understand you are calling for public input into the above transit link. If I may, I would like to put my two cents worth to you for consideration. I think the existing Lougheed/Broadway should be extended to Arbutus Street. Any rapid rail transit I believe should be along the existing railway right of way known as "Arbutus Corridor". I also believe that a Sky train (heavy rail) is the most suitable and, in the long term, practical means of transit. This could be elevated from the connection to the Lougheed/Broadway Sky train to 16th Avenue. It could then be on the ground for the remainder of the distance to the Fraser River crossing. Motor vehicle crossings of the tracks to be eliminated with the exception of select locations (33rd, 41st, 49th) where the Sky train could go underground or overhead whichever is most practical. I would suggest that Sky train stations all be constructed either above or at ground level. The existing underground stations appear to be dark and dingy and patrons feel uneasy especially during hours of darkness. I do understand there is some noise from the Sky train but, to me, it is minimal and mostly not even noticeable. I lived in a railways station for fifteen years where the bedroom was a mere 12-15 feet away from the track. Freight trains (which make hundreds of times more noise than the Sky train) would go through at nights and I would never hear them. I firmly believe that complaints about Sky train noise and baseless. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I do wish all concerned good luck with whatever route and system you choose. Yours truly, R H James -----Original Message----From: Mark H. Jonnson Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:38 PM To: Customer Relations Subject: LRT not Sky train I totally agree with the many of the callers to CKNW on March 4, 2003 that Sky train is grossly over priced technology and that LRT trains be used like Calgary and Portland. Not only are these technologies cheaper, but look much nicer and thus avoid having to put them underground so avoid noise and unsightly overheard tracks. I have personally been on Calgary's C-Train, it is a terrific system. And if we use the Arbutus corridor is level and offers a straight right of way separate from street traffic, we would have a line as good as Calgary's. I also agree with many callers that the logic of using Cambie is flawed. People will not flock to use the Cambie line because of Oakridge or Langara. Every major city in the lower mainland has a community college already and Oakridge is a small, expensive mall which is served by trolley and buses on 41st and Cambie already which link up to Joyce Station. Using Rail makes more sense. And stations along the Arbutus route could be above ground and be modeled to fit the communities they are in. Kerrisdale could have a British style station and Kits could have a more modern look. Put the Sky train idea to rest for the airport. We already have the arbutus corridor all ready to go. We don't have to wait to build tunnels at outrageous expense. It seems that Arbutus is never considered because of all the rich folks who are ultra NIMBY. Its all fine to build somewhere else as long as they can drive their gas guzzling SUV's or sports cars. Calgary and Portland are very happy with their systems. There is a reason why less than 10 Sky train systems have been built around the world yet hundreds of LRT have been built. Why reinvent the wheel? Mark Jonnson Richmond -----Original Message----From: Shawn Francis Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:59 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Richmond rapid transit Hello, I would just like to express my support for the rapid transit project to Richmond and the Airport. I strongly support the elevated Cambie street option and there have been enough surveys and studies. The benefits of an elevated system are that it is fast, reliable and highly visible, the hope being that people stuck in their cars will choose rapid transit. I also support going underground when an elevated option is not possible, this for the same reasons that it is more efficient and reliable. As for the cost, yes it is going to be expensive but I support the cost of getting this project finished. Thank you for your time, Shawn Francis -----Original Message----From: Rick Tufts _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 20
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:10 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Feedback I am in favor of the Richmond Line using Sky train I hope. I like Sky train, it's a fantastic system and I hope it is chosen. I would prefer a tunnel on Cambie. In Richmond is it possible to build at grade but grade separated - dipping under crossroads? Also in Richmond how about this radical route which takes in the South Airport as well. Down Garden City, along Granville all the way to Railway, north across the river catching the South Terminal before looping around to the main terminal. A longer trip if going to the Airport but no spur line required. Just an Idea from an interested layman. Keep me informed I look forward to this project. Rick -----Original Message----From: Bill & Wilma Adair Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 9:34 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Rapid Transit to YVR To whom it may concern, I do not know if my comments are of any use to you since I live in Ladysmith on Vancouver Island. However I am a user of the sky train lines whenever I visit Vancouver. Also when I have to use the Vancouver Airport I am extremely frustrated that I have to drive. I am a huge supporter of public funding of future expansions of the rapid transit in both Vancouver and Victoria in the future. I strongly agree with proceeding with the proposed YVR and Richmond line, and I strongly agree with using the Sky train type of line. Any way to streamline the connection from any one of the BC Ferry terminals to Downtown Vancouver and YVR would help reduce the need to take my vehicle to Vancouver when I visit that city. Hopefully my comment helps is some small way. Thank you Bill Adair ---Original Message----From: Leesa Strimbicky Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:18 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Transit Line
Kudos on finally recognizing the need for a transportation link from the airport to downtown! This will truly bring Vancouver into the realm of a cosmopolitan city. However, I am concerned about the design intent of the line. Will there be public art included as part of this initiative? It will be an important step to achieve a link which defines the city and the people who live and work here. Many transportation networks across North America have successfully implemented public art with limited funds and have created truly inspirational transit ways. I would appreciate a response to this question and would also like to be informed as to who the consultants with this project will be. Sincerely, Leesa Strimbicki -----Original Message----From: Jack & Ginger Campbell Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:54 PM To: Customer Relations Subject: re: proposed Richmond u/g link to airport Good morning.... When watching the TV. news last evening it was mentioned that there is a proposal of some sort of system in the investigation stage to link YVR to downtown. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 21
We think that would be a wise move except for the fact that most people traveling into YVR and out of same usually have a fair bit of luggage they must deal with. Is there some thought being given to that aspect? I am trying to visualize vehicles such as the sky train and or transit bus size trying to accommodate all that bulk easily. Just entering and exiting a carrier would be a problem with baggage... It is bad enough with a baby and or stroller as it is..... I would be pleased to hear someones comments regarding this issue thank you Virginia Campbell -----Original Message----From: Evan Colpitts Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:24 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: RAVP Downtown To whom it may concern: Has consideration been given to connecting the RAVP into the existing Sky Train line (assuming compatible Sky Train technology is used) at Stadium Station in the same manner the Millennium line is connected at Columbia Station, therefore utilizing existing underground infrastructure in Downtown Vancouver. Thank you, Evan Colpitts -----Original Message----From: Michel Facon Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 3:51 PM To: mayorandcouncil@city.vancouver.bc.ca; ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: RAVP Open house I was at the Open House for the RAVP at City Hall morning. There was nothing there that could not be found in the newspapers or on the Web, and there was no one to answer questions, so it was a waste of time. I did see a number of frustrated people there. While I personally agree that it has to be rail in the long term, it would have been useful to see other options presented, such as rapid bus, with ballpark figures for the costs. The average viewer of the Discussion Guide or of the material at the Open House (essentially the same thing) will find little on which to make a choice. How can the report say that a rail system is feasible while there is no discussion of the vast range of costs (construction and operation) associated with different types of rail system. Perhaps the viewers would also be less frustrated if they were presented with facts re: different rail modes. I can think of at least four: heavy rail, light rail (sky train), tramways, and VAL. Not to mention the questions of grade separation, noise and visual impact. Why should one wait for the private sector to make suggestions on grade separation, as suggested in the PriceWaterhouse document, when these decisions will have such a major impact on the livability of the neighborhood, and on the acceptance of the proposal by the citizens of Vancouver. It appears that the decision has been made to go with the Cambie route. I agree that from a ridership point of view it is the better choice. I would hope that Council would ensure that the Arbutus Corridor is preserved for future transit use. It seems to me to be an ideal location for a low impact rail system. The proposed maximum time between trips is far too long. People will not be happy with waiting even 7.5 minutes, let alone 20 minutes, after paying 2 billions $, and it defeats the purpose of a fast system. I can not understand where the figure of 500,000 people traveling daily between Vancouver, Richmond and the Airport comes from. That is equivalent to the total population of Vancouver. There is a wealth of knowledge, from other jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, on the advantages, disadvantages, cost of construction and operation of the various rail systems. Why is none of it explicitly presented in the Discussion Guide? The average person will certainly be under the impression that a Sky train system is the preferred mode, particularly in view of the total cost estimate. It is important that people feel that they have an input in this process, otherwise the opposition to it will be very strong. Michel Facon -----Original Message----> From: Larry Enders > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:02 PM > To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca > Subject: Vancouver airport transit to downtown Vancouver > My input _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 22
> Tourists and travelers should be able to get onto a rapid transit system at the airport and travel directly to downtown Vancouver without changing to another car/train/bus. A feeder line from Richmond should connect to the airport/downtown line. Over the last couple years I have traveled quite a bit and my experiences with getting from an airport to downtown using my power wheelchair have an incredibly strong influence on whether I return to that city. Paris is a good example of a place that I am reluctant to return to for that reason. Vancouver is fantastic right now for access to wheelchair accessible taxis without notice. To have the choice of a rapid transit system as well would be incredible for tourism. > It is critical to its success that consideration be given to airport travelers been able to bring a reasonable amount of their luggage with them (luggage racks). Naturally the trains must be wheelchair accessible. > I do not care which route it takes but would like to see no tunnels until it crosses False Creek and proceeds downtown. I am very proud of our city and its geography and would like to see tourists get a good view on their way downtown rather than descending into a tunnel prematurely. > I would like to see that whatever mode is chosen it completely avoids intersections on existing roads by either going over or under them. My concerns are for both efficiency and safety regarding regular traffic. Ideally I would like to see bicycle paths and jogging trails adjacent to or under the new route. > If buses are chosen (last choice) they should be electric non-polluting > buses and have their own dedicated roadways that go over or under > intersections. > > I would like to see Vancouver be a model for North America for heavy use > of transit vs. cars and to set new environmental standards to minimize > pollution and unnecessary waste of energy. My preference would be for a > sky train like system even if it triples the cost. > > Larry Enders -----Original Message----From: Elois Yaxley Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 7:37 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Reply from David Suzuki to Jane Bird and Pat Jacobsen Dear Ms Bird and Mr. Jacobsen: Thank you for your information about the RAVP. I am delighted to hear that there is some long term planning going on with our transportation system. As someone who spends far too much time going to and from the airport, I will be delighted to have a rapid transit system to serve it. I have asked our climate change team to examine your invitation and decide whether we will make a submission. Thank you for giving us this opportunity. Sincerely, David Suzuki -----Original Message----From: William Robbins Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:26 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Fax machine and democracy GVRD-style Re "Feedback Form" Let's see if I have this right: 1. download form from internet or cut from newspaper. 2. buy and install fax machine. 3. fax completed form. 4. DO NOT SUBMIT FORM TO WEB SITE because that would be too easy! 5. DO NOT MAIL FORM EITHER. (No problem here - I wouldn't go to the trouble or expense.) W.C. Robbins -----Original Message----Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:38 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: the biggest concern is SAFETY, nobody wants additional crime. bud in Vancouver _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 23
-----Original Message----From: Jack Russell Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:08 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Vancouver/Richmond Very clever the information and the feedback form. However as far as I can see it does not say how or where to send it, snail mail? e-mail? To where. Personally I am tired of all the discussions just get on with it, way overdue. While you are at it go right over the inlet and to the upper level highway. Now that all would make sense. If over $500,000.00 had not been wasted on the Olympic proposal we would be that much closer. Whatever it costs it is worth it, just do it, get on with it. Yes I do live between Cambie and the Boulevard . Underground, as much as possible either location. Again, just do it!!!! J W Russell -----Original Message----From: Jacob DeCamillis Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:47 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Sky Train
Dear RAVP rapid transit line... I am a Vancouver Citizen who has used the Sky Train everyday since it first opened in 1986. Now, thanks to the Millennium Line, my trips are much easier thanks to the new Holdom Station in my Area, I used to have to get on at Patterson in order to get down to Granville. What I am getting at is, I completely support the idea of Sky Train in the Richmond and Airport area. We already have the technology on two lines, so why not continue the same technology? Sky Train is quick, fast, and is very efficient. But one problem! Why not connect the Line at Commercial drive station instead of Waterfront? There is a station supposedly going to VCC next year, plus the is an addition of Lake City Way Station opening this spring. Waterfront station is hard to connect to. First off, when the Expo line was built, it used existing Railway tunnels for the 4 underground stops (Stadium, Granville, Burrard, and Waterfront) There is no further tunnels that go under Downtown. Secondly, when there is Track repair, they use those four stations as a shuttle system. The Millennium line is a much better place to extend the line at. the addition of VCC station will be built, and it would link up with the rest of Vancouver, Richmond, and the Airport. One other problem, to save on costs. PLEASE don't build ugly Architectural Stations like those of the Millennium line. Built cheap steel boxes, yet just replace the mesh with glass. AND... use the idea of Turnstiles. They are much more efficient then the Honor system, which people are still getting away with fare invasion. I was on the Sky Train today, someone got on at Brentwood Station, took the long way to Metrotown, and their tickets where not checked once...! The only way to pay off the system, and add money to TransLink, is to use turnstiles. Especially for the Olympics which may come. I just though want Sky Train technology, and the use of the track of the end of Commercial station. Thank You, Jacob DeCamillis _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 24
-----Original Message----From: hwrmorris Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:44 AM To: Consultation Subject: RE: Rapid Transit line-Richmond/Vancouver
Dear Ms. Bird; Your response to my email is appreciated but falls short of adequately answering the questions I put forth. I feel compelled to offer further comments on your answers as follows. 1) The Cambie street may be shorter, however I still feel that travel time, cost to build and what will be sacrificed to use this route should be revisited. The ridership numbers are still not a proven aspect to me. There has been no breakdown of where this ridership originates and nothing concrete on potential numbers from other areas, such as the airport, Delta/Ladner/White Rock commuters. The North/South corridor will have tremendous growth in the next decade and should be part of the overall plan. 2)Your comment that the "City of Vancouver" has not had Park & Ride leads me to believe that if the City of Vancouver does not deem it necessary it should not be considered! I was under the impression that this was going to be a service for the whole of the lower mainland not just Vancouver. This will be a huge investment that will impact on the lower mainland for many years to come. We should take the time and examine all possibilities. Thanks for your consideration! -----Original Message----From: Consultation Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:17 AM To: 'hwrmorris' Subject: RE: Rapid Transit line-Richmond/Vancouver Dear Mr. Morris: Thank you for your email. I hope you are accessing our web site at www.ravprapidtransit.com for other questions you may have about the proposed Richmond/Airport/Vancouver rail rapid transit project. The following responses are numbered per your questions: (1) The Cambie route is shorter, has many more employment, retail and service centers (Vancouver Hospital, Langara College, City Hall etc.), will generate higher ridership (hence revenues) and has the potential for future ridership growth. (2) No decisions have been made with regard to the location of "park and ride" facilities. In the past, the City of Vancouver has not has park and ride facilities adjacent to transit stations. (3) The part played by the private partners will be to design, build and operate the line. Thanks again for taking the time to add comments at the end of your email. Sincerely, Jane Bird Project Director -----Original Message----From: hwrmorris Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 8:18 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Rapid Transit line-Richmond/Vancouver
As a Richmond Resident that has logged many trips by auto from Richmond to _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 25
Vancouver, I would like to offer the following questions and comments on your article in today's Vancouver Sun. QUESTIONS: 1)Why is the "Arbutus" corridor not included in this survey? 2)Will there be parking available along the line in Richmond for "park & ride" users? 3)What part will be played by a private partner in this mostly public funded venture? COMMENTS: I have always felt the "Arbutus" solution was a better one because the tracks are already there and would allow for an elevated sky train that integrates with what we already have in place. The Cambie Blvd. would be a below grade solution in order to keep this beautiful green belt. I have been on the Toronto subway many times and although it is efficient it does nothing to enhance a users view of the surrounding city green belts, parks, as well as any notable landmarks. I also feel the Arbutus solution could be done faster and would cost less. (CPR-private partner?) There is a large number of commuters that come in from the other side of the Massey Tunnel, every day, that would take rapid transit from Richmond if a Park/Ride area was available to them! In closing I suggest you reconsider the Cambie route and present the public with more information on an alternative Arbutus route. Harvey Morris -----Original Message----From: Derek Ralphs Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:21 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: support and communication As and air Canada employee at the ops center and a west end resident. I strongly support the use of rapid transit line down Cambie. As long as it is similar to the sky train. I will not get out of my vehicle for either a ground based street car or a bus. Talking to numerous other employees we all feel the same. Also the importance of connecting the Cambie line to the millennium line should be given highest priority. So friends living at Lougheed mall can take transit directly to their jobs at the ops center. I found trying to fill out the form next to impossible, having to resort to direct email to show my support. Thank you. sincerely Derek A Ralphs -----Original Message----From: Ken Anderson Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 4:01 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: RICHMOND/VANCOUVER AIRPORT/VANCOUVER Rapid Transit Line
Dear sirs Having read the material on the above proposed transit line, I have 3 comments... 1. COST. There is no need for the YVR 3 and YVR 1 stations on Sea Island, nor do you need the Westminster station. This would reduce the cost and make a new line more palatable financially to the naysayers. 2. TIME. Although I was brought up in Richmond and now live in the White Rock area, I have also lived in both Toronto and Montreal and used their rapid transit systems extensively. Those 2 cities also have a nearly double ridership between the suburbs and downtown as does Greater Vancouver, and speed of travel is one of their big drawing cards. To take 30minutes to travel by rapid transit between Richmond Center and Waterfront Station is just too long. Don't forget, _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 26
many people will still need to use the bus to get from Steveston or other areas of Richmond to the rapid transit line. Where is the incentive to use public transit if it will take an hour by public transit versus only 50-55 minutes by private car. You have got to get the time down to an equal or less time for public transit vs. the auto to make a dent in the users mentality. Having said the above, TransLink is on the right road with this new route which I believe should also be one of RAPID TRANSIT, not rapid bus as some are proposing. We have to think to the future as well as the present. 3. ELEVATION. Richmond is not conducive to an above ground line due to the soft ground. It will have to be ground level. Once in Vancouver, strong consideration should be given to underground travel as much as possible. (consider cut and cover construction). Having said that, please do not destroy the beautiful trees which are south of 25th Avenue on Cambie. Thank you Ken Anderson -----Original Message----From: sheelah megill Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:46 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: rail technology and private sector involvement Before I begin, I want to applaud you for both making the decision to pursue the Richmond Corridor and to finally expand the transit infrastructure in this city. Having said that, I do have some thoughts... I do not support the notion of the private sector running the transit line. Public Transit should be owned and OPERATED by the public. I also believe that it would be a mistake to choose a different mode of transportation than Sky train for this route. While I agree that it is an expensive choice, it is fast, clean, and already in place throughout the lower mainland. It makes a great deal more sense to build on the existing system to Richmond, and to expand our already excellent Sky train system. Light Rail Transit, similar to that used in Calgary, is not the answer. Why create two different rapid transit systems that cannot interconnect due to differing technology? It makes no sense. Thank you very much for your time, and if you could send me any information as to the current opinions and leanings of the public regarding the mode of transportation and the involvement of the private sector, I would be very much appreciative. Thank you... Llowyn Ball PS: Please reply to this address: -----Original Message----From: Silva Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:46 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: high not low
The Richmond newspapers were mentioning about rapid transit and that Richmond council was talking about building the transit at ground level instead of raised to save a few dollars. If you look around, people tend to want to be up high to see things around them versus down low. It's just human nature. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 27
As examples, look at SUV trucks and mini-vans versus station wagons. There appears to be a lot of SUVs sold despite the price of gas, yet a station wagon offers the same room and better mileage. Unfortunately, you don't see station wagons around anymore and it's hard to find car makers that still build station wagons. Meanwhile, people are still going after SUVs. If Richmond decides to go for a ground level rapid transit, I somehow think that it will "not" attract as many riders as a raised version because I don't think people care much for riding at ground level surrounded by protective chain link fences and possibly overhead wires. Not only is it unattractive, but it has a "prison"-type quality to it, and even though there may be promises of no surrounding fences now, it will come in the future as transit or city of Richmond finds ways to cut costs here and there. Chain link fences will eventually be surrounding ground level rapid transit lines. As an example, take a look at sky train Joyce station which is raised, plus now surrounded by a "lot" hi-towers and development. Then compare the ground level Nanaimo station and see how many new buildings have appeared there (It seems a dead zone of development). In my opinion, I think a raised sky train (in Richmond) will cost more initially, but in the long run, it will attract more future development around it. Jose Da Silva, Richmond resident -----Original Message----From: darlene jacobi Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 10:28 AM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Survey Your website seems to be "out of order". Why can people not mail or e-mail the survey to you? You would get a better response. I do not have a fax. For what it is worth, I am completely in favor of the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rail Rapid Transit Line. Having traveled a lot in Europe, I wonder why we are so behind in this type of travel. Lack of vision for the future. And yes, I take transit as much as I can, and Yes, I have traveled between Van and Richmond (to the airport) in the last 30 days (by Airporter from the Sea Bus Terminal at Waterfront Hotel). Darlene Jacobi
-----Original Message----From: Gordon Boleen Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 11:04 PM To: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca Subject: Further comments to Feedback form Further to my comments on the feedback form, I have a few suggestions in this consultation process: - "the devil is in the details" - questions that were raised in the Richmond forum today included simple items like, "how much shorter is the Cambie route over the Arbutus route" and the like. If the numbers for this were presented, these issues would not need to be discussed. Also, as I have already commented, if the distribution of "home locations" for persons presently working at the major employment/education centers along the Cambie route could be obtained from employers (by Postal Code, maybe) then the "proof" for demand would be there. There was some derision about providing this line for employees at Vancouver City Hall which might have been avoided if these numbers were available. - "we have not decided anything yet" - seems most people do not understand that the technology has not been determined yet. Most angst seems to be against Sky Train and the "apparent rush" to get this project built by 2009. More emphasis should be made to communicate the WHOLE process so these sessions are not used just to promote individual agendas. - "advanced notice should be advance" - although I am very interested in this project, I do not check the web site daily or weekly. It came as a surprise to me to read Thursday morning that the Richmond forum was today. As a frequent listener to CBC radio, there are frequent editorials/interviews on this project and all things _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 3.5 Correspondence March 2003 Page 28
even remotely connected to the Olympic bid. I do not recall any prior notice of these meetings. I know that when we schedule meetings for the professional associations I belong to, members wish to have at least 2 weeks or more notice to schedule in attendance to events. This may explain why many attendees at today's session were "special interest" individuals whom, in my opinion, did not "represent" the viewpoints of the City or region. I look forward to learning more about future events with more notice as a result of signing up to receive updates from the RAV Project Team. Many thanks for being allowed to give my input to this process. Gordon Boleen
6889 Ash Street Vancouver, B.C. V6P 3K5 23 March 2003 Jane Bird, Project Director RAV Project Suite 1700 409 Granville St. Vancouver, B.C. V6C 1T2 Dear Jane, Again we say how much we appreciated you and Pat coming to our home last Wednesday. While we may not agree on all points, our friends during our debriefing period all agreed that the meeting was worthwhile and informative. Let us try to keep this meaningful dialogue. It is clear that we must be clearer in enunciating our position. In the past several weeks we have been surprised at the people who did not know our concerns. Let us review these: 1. 2. 3. We do not oppose some form of rapid transit in the Cambie corridor. We do oppose elevated rail of any type both in the Cambie corridor and the Arbutus corridor. We do oppose any attempt to destroy or damage any part of Vancouvers Cambie Heritage Boulevard at any location between Marine Drive and King Edward Avenue. We support the concept of fairness and equality amongst the various neighbourhoods and areas of our city as outlined in the Vancouver Council CityPlan of 1993-1995. Each community must be willing to accept their fair share in both the benefits of change and development as well as the negative aspect of such change and development. We support the concept of rapid and/or express bus service from Richmond to Vancouver in the Cambie corridor and light rail transit (LRT) in the Arbutus corridor as the best means of recognizing fairness and equality in change and development. We would support, with some reservation, an underground LRT for the entire length of Vancouvers Cambie Heritage Boulevard from Marine Drive to King Edward Avenue, if there was adequate factual information as to the fiscal responsibility for such a project.
4.
5.
6.
There is clearly more research and consultation involved. We do have a major concern with ridership figures and projections. Hopefully, over the next several months these concerns may be more fully considered. Nevertheless, we and the others at our last home meeting felt the exchange of information and concerns was well worth the time. Let us keep it up. Yours truly, Kathleen & Gordon Jones Cc: P. Jacobsen, CEO TransLink L. Campbell, Mayor, City of Vancouver A. Roberts & D. Cadman, Councillors
3.6 Consultation Materials

Discussion Guide & Feedback Form Post Card Information Boards Website; English and Chinese www.ravprapidtransit.com Power-Point Presentation Public Notice (Sun, Province, Ming Pao, Sing Tao, Richmond News & Richmond Review) Newspaper Information Piece (Sun, Province, Ming Pao, Sing Tao)
March, 2003
C O M M U N I T Y C O N S U LTAT I O N DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM
MARCH 2003
w w w. r av p r a p i d t r a n s i t . c o m RICHMONDAIRPORTVANCOUVER R APID TR ANSIT PROJECT
March 2003 We are considering an important addition to the regions transportation network. The RichmondAirportVancouver rail rapid transit project is a collaboration of eight agencies; the Government of Canada, the Province of British Columbia, TransLink and Vancouver International Airport (Contributing Agencies) and the Cities of Richmond and Vancouver, the Vancouver Port Authority, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) (Participating Agencies). The agencies have just completed the Project Definition Phase with the objective of; defining the requirements for a rail rapid transit line connecting Vancouver, Richmond and the Airport, identifying a structure to build and pay for the line, and evaluating whether it was feasible to complete construction of the line by 2009. The purpose of the community consultation is to share the results of the Project Definition Phase through a consultation Discussion Guide and feedback form. Public feedback will be summarized in a Consultation Summary Report and presented with technical reports to the Contributing and Participating Agencies as they consider whether to proceed to finance and build the line. Over the next decade, as population increases, we will improve rapid transit into the regions north east sector, we will build a new crossing over the Fraser River near the Port Mann Bridge, we will improve bus service and replace the trolley bus fleet, and we will continue to ask the public how we can improve the movement of people and goods throughout this region. This Discussion Guide is designed to provide you with summary information about the proposed rail rapid transit line between Richmond, the Airport and Vancouver. If you want more detailed information, we encourage you to go to the RAVP web site at www.ravprapidtransit.com to access the Project Definition Report, which summarizes the work of the project team over the last 10 months. If you would like even more detail, you can access the financial and technical reports at the same website. We want your feedback on this proposed rail rapid transit line. After years of study and recent technical reviews, we are ready to make important decisions.There is a proposed alignment along No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way at the Airport and along Cambie to downtown and the Waterfront station. We would like your feedback on this proposed alignment. We havent chosen the type of rail rapid transit that might operate on the line and were interested in your preferences regarding systems that operate underground, at street level or above street level (elevated). In short, we want to share the most recent information about the line and get your feedback. Please participate via the web, newspaper information piece, open houses or public workshops. The Discussion Guide and consultation materials are available in English and Chinese in print and on the web to encourage broad participation. Thank you for your interest in helping us consider an important addition to the regions transportation network. We look forward to your comments. Pat Jacobsen CEO, TransLink Jane Bird Project Director, RAVP
INTRODUCTION
This community consultation Discussion Guide is designed to provide the public with summary information about the proposed rail rapid transit line connecting central Richmond, the Airport and Sea Island, central Broadway and downtown Vancouver. A rapid transit line would connect with existing rapid transit lines at Waterfront Station and with major east/west transit services, creating a transit network to serve the region. The guide contains highlights of the regional transportation network and describes how the RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit line fits within the network of roads, buses and rapid transit systems including; the proposed location of the rapid transit line; proposed performance standards for the line, such as safety, travel time and reliability, and the proposed alternative elevations of the line: some sections may be underground, some at street level and some above street level (elevated). A feedback form is attached to encourage readers and those who participate in the March 2003 community consultation activities to provide their feedback and suggestions via the website, the newspaper information piece, open houses and workshops. Public Consultation Discussion Guide & Feedback Form Mar. 3 Discussion Guide and feedback form launched on the web Notice of Consultation in The Vancouver Sun, Province, Ming Pao and Sing Tao
Open Houses and Public Workshops Mar. 3-14 Open Houses Open House materials will be displayed in Richmond and Vancouver City Halls and at Vancouver International Airport. A Discussion Guide & Feedback form will be available. Locations: Richmond City Hall No.3 Road & Granville Vancouver City Hall 3rd floor, 453 W12th Ave. Vancouver International Airport Domestic Arrivals Level Mar. 8 Public Workshop Richmond. A half-day workshop will use the Discussion Guide & Feedback form. Time and Location: 9:00 am 12:00 pm, Richmond City Hall - No. 3 Road & Granville, Council Chambers Mar. 12 Public Workshop Vancouver. A workshop will use the Discussion Guide & Feedback form. Time and Location: 6:30 pm 9:00 pm, Vancouver Public Library, Alice MacKay Room 350 W. Georgia St., Vancouver Public Workshop Vancouver. A half-day workshop will use the Discussion Guide & Feedback form. Time and Location: 9:00 am 12:00 pm, Plaza 500 Ballroom 500 W. 12th Ave., Vancouver Small Group Meetings Meetings with community organizations are being scheduled throughout March, 2003
1
Mar. 15
Feb. 24 Mar. 24
RAPID TRANSIT
Across the globe, a thriving rapid transit system is an integral part of vibrant cities.
Cit y Cl of Va ou nc d o GV s of C uver s RD h Reg s Li ange ion vea Pro Stra ble t v Tr ince egic an /GV Pla s Cit port RDs n 202 yo Tra f Va 1 nsp nco ort uve a ti on rs Pla n
Tra n Tra sLink nsp s S ort trat ati egi on c Pla n
Cit yo Do f Van w c Pla ntow ouve n T rs n ran spo rt
ati
on
ent
var io of us st R u Va ichm dies nco on uve d/ r ra il li ne
RA V Ne 2001 eds /20 Ass 02 ess m
70s
80s
90s
2000
2001
2002
2003
A Multi-Agency Initiative Continued growth in Richmond and Vancouver and on Sea Island at the Airport and growing congestion prompted renewed attention to the need to add transit capacity. The most recent review of the feasibility of rapid transit in this corridor began in 2000, with funding from the Federal Government, the Province, TransLink and Vancouver International Airport (Contributing Agencies) and with participation by the Cities of Richmond and Vancouver, the Vancouver Port Authority, and the GVRD (Participating Agencies).
THE RICHMOND AIRPORT VANCOUVER CORRIDOR

is the primary north/south corridor in the Lower Mainland and one of the busiest corridors in the region
is home to one-third of the regions jobs and 20% of its population connects Richmond and the Airport to central Broadway, downtown Vancouver, Canada Place and the convention centre, and Vancouver Port cruise ship facilities connects to the regional transportation network through existing east/west rapid transit lines at the downtown Vancouver Waterfront terminus and through east/west transit services, creating a transit network to serve the Greater Vancouver region
RA V Pr 2002 oje /20 ct D 03 efin itio n
W H AT I S T H E R I C H M O N D A I R P O R T VA N C O U V E R RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT?

The RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit Project is a proposed rail rapid transit line connecting central Richmond, the Airport and Sea Island, central Broadway and downtown Vancouver. A rapid transit line would connect with existing rapid transit lines at Waterfront Station and with major east/west transit services, creating a transit network to serve the region. The Richmond/Vancouver corridor is the primary north/south corridor in the Lower Mainland. It is one of the busiest corridors in the region, home to one-third of the regions jobs and 20% of the population. Three Decades of Planning The Vancouver/Richmond corridor is one of three trunk corridors identified for rapid transit in the GVRDs Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) and TransLinks Strategic Transportation Plan. It is also part of city planning policy in Richmond and Vancouver. In addition to transportation policy work, there have been many technical studies regarding a rapid transit connection in the north/south corridor, dating back to the 1970s.
R E G I O N A L T R A N S P O R TAT I O N N E T W O R K
T H E R E G I O N A L T R A N S P O R TAT I O N N E T W O R K I M P R O V I N G T R AV E L O P T I O N S
The proposed rail connection between Richmond, the Airport and Vancouver is part of a much larger family of road and transit services throughout Greater Vancouver including: 2,200 km of roads. Public transit, including the Coast Mountain Bus Company, Blue buses, Community Shuttle buses and HandyDart. The Expo and Millennium rapid transit lines and the West Coast Express commuter rail. TransLinks New Road and Transportation Priorities To meet the demands of population growth, address congestion and provide broader travel options throughout the region, TransLink has established four immediate priorities including: Rapid Transit to the North East sector A new road crossing of the Fraser River Trolley bus replacement and bus expansion A RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit line TransLinks Capital Plan TransLink plans to make significant capital investments in roads & bridges, trolley buses, and transit service to improve the movement of goods and people throughout the region. TransLinks Service Plan Looking past the near and mid-term planning horizons to the longer term, Greater Vancouver will double its bus service and have a mature rapid transit network including a new Richmond Airport Vancouver line, Coquitlam line and a Broadway line.
W H Y D O W E N E E D A R I C H M O N D A I R P O R T VA N CO U V E R RAIL RAPID TRANSIT LINE?
A Richmond/Vancouver line has been studied since the 70s and has been part of the regional plan for 10 years. The regional plan calls for increased transit capacity in this corridor. The northsouth corridor between Richmond, the Airport and Vancouver is one of the busiest in the region. Over the next 20 years, population will grow significantly; by 50% in Vancouvers central business district and by 75% in central Richmond. By 2021, employment will grow by 25% in Vancouvers central business district, 70% in central Richmond and 70% at the airport. Congestion is increasing. Greater congestion slows down the movement of people and goods. It increases air pollution, hinders our economy and, ultimately diminishes our overall quality-oflife. We need to add capacity in a sustainable way.
FAST FACTS - A BUSY CORRIDOR
About 500,000 people travel daily between downtown Vancouver, central Richmond and the Airport along the Vancouver corridor (Defined as travel along Main, Cambie, Oak and Granville Streets).
Vancouver anticipates a 35% increase in trips to/from and within downtown Vancouver in the next 20 years. 26,000 people currently work on Sea Island at the Airport; this number is expected to grow to 40,000 by 2021. The Vancouver/Richmond corridor and Broadway corridor to UBC have the highest bus passenger volumes in the region by a very significant margin. Travel time on the Vancouver corridor (Main, Cambie, Oak and Granville Streets) has increased by 20% - 60%, since 1988, depending on the route, time-of-day and direction of travel.
Population, Employment & Traffic Growth By 2021, population in the Lower Mainland is forecast to grow by more than 40% By 2021, employment in the Lower Mainland is forecast to grow by 50% Between 1985 and 1999, daily vehicle traffic crossing the Oak, Arthur Laing and Knight Street Bridges grew at 54% (3% per year )
Percentage of Richmond and Vancouver residents who think a rapid transit line that connects Richmond, Vancouver and the Airport will be good for their community. (MarkTrend 2001)
83%
Capital Cost ($ million)
H O W M U C H W I L L T H E R I C H M O N D A I R P O R T VA N CO U V E R LINE COST?
It is estimated that a rail rapid transit line will cost $1.5 to $1.7 billion to build. Similar to virtually all transit systems in the world, a RichmondAirportVancouver rapid transit system cannot pay for construction with fares alone and will require a significant amount of public funding. A project of this size will also require some private sector investment. TransLink, the Province and the Airport are discussing their respective contributions. These contributions, together with funding from the Federal Government, could provide sufficient public funding. The successful conclusion of these discussions will depend on funding from the Federal Government of approximately $450 million. A summary financial analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers (available at www.ravprapidtransit.com) concluded that with these public sector contributions and a contribution from the private sector, the RAV rapid transit line is financially feasible. The study says that depending on the configuration, ridership will be approximately 26 38 million per year by 2010, which will produce enough fare revenue to cover operating costs in certain configurations. Impact of Grade Separation on Capital Costs
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Degree of Separation from Traffic 100%
Impact of Grade Separation on Operating Costs
FAST FACTS - THE PROPOSED RICHMOND AIRPORT VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT LINE
Length: 19.5 km Number of Proposed Stations: 18 to 19 Major Employment Centres: Vancouver downtown (Coal Harbour, Canada Place, the central business district), central Broadway (Vancouver Hospital, Vancouver City Hall), Vancouver International Airport (Sea Island) and central Richmond (Richmond Hospital, Richmond City Hall, Workers Compensation Board)
Travel Time: 25 30 minutes Airport/central Richmond to downtown Vancouver (varies depending on configuration) Estimated Cost: $1.5 $1.7 billion Ridership Estimates: Approximately 26 - 38 million boardings annually in 2010 (100,000 per day), growing to 31 - 45 million by 2021 Construction Period : 5 years; 2005 -2009
THREE PHASES OF RECENT TECHNICAL WORK 2000 - 2003

Eight agencies agreed to participate in the RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit Project: the Federal Government, the Province, Vancouver Airport Authority, TransLink, City of Vancouver, City of Richmond, GVRD and the Vancouver Port Authority. These agencies participated and provided oversight in three phases of technical analysis: Phase OneGoals & Objectives consisted of developing agreement on the RAVP organization and objectives (Sept. 2000). Phase Two Concept Feasibility consisted of an assessment of the need to build a rapid transit connection by 2010, and the potential to fund it (Oct. 2000 Apr. 2002). Phase Three - The Project Definition Phase The objective of the Project Definition Phase was to define the requirements for a rapid transit line connecting Vancouver, Richmond and the Airport, and to identify a structure, including private and public sector participation, to build and pay for the line as defined. The work was also to evaluate whether it was feasible to complete construction of the Project by 2009 (Apr. 2002 - Jan. 2003).
S A F E T Y, T R A V E L T I M E , S E R V I C E H O U R S
Performance Standards are the proposed minimum acceptable service levels that would apply to the RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit project. They are: Safety The rail rapid transit system will meet or exceed all relevant safety standards. Direct Travel The rail rapid transit system will provide direct travel between; central Richmond and downtown Vancouver and direct travel between YVR and downtown Vancouver. Hours of Operation Service will be provided throughout the day and evening on every day of the week. Longer hours of service may be provided as demand warrants. Maximum Time Between Trips The maximum time between trips will be determined to satisfy passenger demand. As proposed, the maximum time between trips will be 7.5 minutes to 20 minutes depending on the time-of-day and day of the week. Maximum Target Travel Time As proposed, the travel times are Richmond Centre to Waterfront Station 30 minutes. YVR to Waterfront Station 25 minutes.
P R O P O S E D R I C H M O N D A I R P O R T VA N CO U V E R RAPID TRANSIT ROUTE

Cambie, No. 3 Road & Grant McConachie Way included in Corridor Study Area While the exact alignment has not been selected, as proposed, the line follows No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way to the Airport, along Cambie Street into downtown Vancouver, and along Granville Street, terminating at the existing Waterfront Station. Are there Alternative Routes? Over the past 30 years various technical studies have evaluated many different routes. From that work, Arbutus and Cambie emerged as the route options south of False Creek in Vancouver. The Cambie Route is the proposed alignment because: It is shorter; It has many more employment centres (e.g. Vancouver Hospital, Langara College, Oakridge Shopping Centre, Vancouver City Hall); It generates higher ridership and therefore, revenues; and It has potential for future ridership growth.
THE PUBLIC SECTOR WILL OWN THE RAV LINE, and CONTROL FARES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
As proposed, the private sector will design, build and
operate the RAV line. However, the public sector will own the line , control the fare levels and control the bus system. In addition, TransLink will require that all safety, travel time, reliability, hours of operation and other performance standards are met.
P R O P O S E D R AV P R O U T E
10
UNDERGROUND/AT STREET/ABOVE STREET
Will the RAV Line be Underground, Run at Street Level or Run Above Street? No Decisions Have been Made about Underground, At Street Level, or Above Street Level (elevated) or about the Type of Rail Rapid Transit It is likely that the RAV line will include some sections that run underground, some sections that run at street level and some sections that run above street level (elevated). The Agencies and the RAV project team have made no final decisions regarding how much of the line could be underground, at street level or above street level (elevated). Further, no decision has been made about the type of rail transit system that could best meet safety, travel time, reliability and other performance standards. Some of these decisions require further consideration of how each section would best be integrated with its surrounding community and some of these decisions require input from the private sector who will be asked to propose the most effective ways of meeting the performance standards. Impact of Grade Separation on Travel Time Impact of Grade Separation on Safety
Rail rapid transit systems that are separated from the street by being underground or above street (elevated) are called grade separated. They generally cost more to build, and, in the case of elevated lines, have significant visual impacts. However, they are generally faster, safer and more reliable than systems that run at street level and cross intersections. In the case of the RAV line, technical analysis indicates that a fully grade separated line (ie fully underground or elevated) would be more expensive to build but would be less expensive to operate in the long term than a rail rapid transit system running at street level.
11
Note: These are graphic illustrations
A B O V E S T R E E T, S T R E E T L E V E L , U N D E R G R O U N D
Above Street (Elevated)
Street level
Underground
12
W H AT A R E T H E O B J E C T I V E S O F T H E R I C H M O N D A I R P O R T VA N CO U V E R R A I L R A P I D T R A N S I T L I N E ?
The primary objective is increasing transportation capacity in the corridor in a sustainable way. Specific objectives include: Increasing transportation choice Improving travel times Improving the quality of the travel experience Improving the regional transportation network Improving travel within Vancouver and Richmond Addressing congestion Increasing transit ridership (in the Richmond/Vancouver corridor and region wide) Increasing the percentage of total trips by transit Other objectives include: Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and improving local air quality, over the long term. Providing infrastructure to improve the movement of goods and people in the region, and to improve the economy generally Improving overall quality of life in the region
HOW WILL BUS SERVICE BE AFFECTED?

When the RAV rail service is introduced, it will integrate with the bus system. Many bus services will be improved to connect with the rail line and to accommodate increased ridership, while buses which duplicate the rail service will be discontinued . As well, new regional bus services will be added to provide better connections between Richmond and regional destinations such as Burnaby Metrotown, North Delta and Surrey. Highlights include the following: Vancouver: East/west bus services will be improved to better connect with the line. North/south trolley bus routes on Oak, Cambie and Main Street would continue although service levels would be adjusted to reflect the introduction of the rapid transit line. The RAV line would replace the #98 B-Line with more capacity, speed and frequency. Richmond: The frequency of local bus routes will be improved to serve the line. Direct express buses to UBC will be maintained. Local bus services within Richmond will be rerouted to connect at the Richmond Centre (No. 3 Road and Cook) and Bridgeport Stations. The #98 B-Line and existing express services would be discontinued. Delta, White Rock and South Surrey: Express Coach frequencies will be improved. Express Coach services will be rerouted to the Bridgeport Station in North Richmond for connection to RAV rail services to Vancouver, the Airport and Richmond Centre. In 2010, after the RAV line is in place, local bus services in Vancouver and Richmond overall will have increased by 20% over 2002. In 2021, after the RAVP line is in place for 10 years, local bus services in Vancouver and Richmond overall will have increased by 35% over 2002.
13
H O W I S T H E C O M M U N I T Y B E I N G C O N S U LT E D A B O U T T H E R AV L I N E ?
A Long History of Consultation A north/south transit line (Vancouver/Richmond) is part of the GVRDs Livable Region Strategic Plan. A connection between Richmond, Vancouver and the Airport is part of TransLinks Strategic Transportation Plan, Vancouvers Downtown Transportation Plan, Richmonds Official Community Plan and the Airports Master Plan, all of which were developed over the last 10 or more years with extensive public consultation. RAVP Consultation 2001-2002 The Richmond Airport Vancouver Project most recently consulted with the public in March/April of 2001, at the conclusion of Phase 2. At that time, the consultation involved the results of the cost/benefit analysis and posed the question do we need to build the project by 2010? The conclusion was yes. The consultation involved a website, open houses, small group meetings and presentations and a public attitude survey. The majority of participants and a significant majority of those polled in the region-wide attitude survey supported the line at that stage. RAVP Consultation 2003 The current RAVP consultation includes: Public Consultation Discussion Guide & Feedback Form Mar. 3 Discussion Guide and feedback form launched on the web Notice of Consultation in The Vancouver Sun, Province, Ming Pao and Sing Tao
Open Houses and Public Workshops Mar. 3-14 Open Houses Open House materials will be displayed in Richmond and Vancouver City Halls and at Vancouver International Airport. A Discussion Guide & Feedback form will be available. Locations: Richmond City Hall No.3 Road & Granville Vancouver City Hall 3rd floor, 453 W12th Ave. Vancouver International Airport Domestic Arrivals Level Mar. 8 Public Workshop Richmond. Half-day workshop will use the Discussion Guide and Feedback form. Time and Location: 9:00 am 12:00 pm, Richmond City Hall - No. 3 Road & Granville, Council Chambers Mar. 12 Public Workshop Downtown Vancouver. Workshop will use the Discussion Guide and Feedback form. Time and Location: 6:30 pm 9:00 pm, Vancouver Public Library, Alice MacKay Room 350 W. Georgia St., Vancouver
14
Mar. 15
Public Workshop Vancouver. Half-day workshop will use the Discussion Guide and Feedback form. Time and Location: 9:00 am 12:00 pm, Plaza 500 Ballroom 500 W. 12th Ave., Vancouver Small Group Meetings Meetings with community organizations are being scheduled throughout March, 2003
Feb. 24 Mar. 24
Consultation Summary Report March 24 - 31 Consultation Summary Report will be presented with a Technical report to Contributing Agencies and Participating Agencies
How Public Feedback Will Be Used Feedback gathered through this consultation via the web, fax, newspaper information pieces, open houses and public meetings will be recorded and summarized in a Consultation Summary Report, which will be presented with a Technical report to Contributing Agencies; TransLink, Provincial Government, Airport Authority and to Participating Agencies; City of Vancouver, City of Richmond, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Consultation Summary Report will also be posted on the web and distributed to consultation participants. Future RAVP Consultation -- Neighbourhood Consultation Subject to project approval, a Neighbourhood Consultation program will include discussions with individuals, organizations and neighbourhoods along the RAV line about station area planning, system integration into communities, bus connections and service amenities.
F I R S T N AT I O N S C O N S U LTAT I O N
The RAVP will meet consultation standards set by court decisions and government regulations to address issues and concerns that may be raised by the First Nations. Through discussion with provincial and federal agencies responsible for managing the First Nations treaty process, a list of First Nations whose Aboriginal rights or interests may be affected by the RAVP has been developed.
15
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Who is going to pay for this? It will take three levels of government, the Airport Authority and the private sector to fund a project of approximately $1.5 to $1.7 billion. If each agency contributes something, we may have a financially viable project. Contributing Agencies include the Federal Government, Provincial Government, TransLink , and the Airport. Participating Agencies include the Cities of Vancouver and Richmond, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. 2. Will the Federal government contribute? The Federal Government has demonstrated strong support so far in co-funding two phases of technical work worth several million dollars. While the Federal Government has not formally committed to the project, the Province, TransLink and the Airport believe the Federal Government sees this transit line as a significant infrastructure investment that connects Federal facilities and demonstrates a real commitment to sustainable transportation and strong, competitive urban regions. 3. Is Coquitlam a rapid transit priority? Yes, TransLink is working on options and funding opportunities for this line. 4. In Vancouver, are there alternative routes to Cambie? Over the past 30 years various technical studies have evaluated many different routes. From that work, Arbutus and Cambie emerged as the route options south of False Creek in Vancouver. The Cambie Route is the proposed alignment because: It is shorter; It has many more employment centres (e.g. Vancouver Hospital, Langara College, Oakridge Shopping Centre, Vancouver City Hall; It generates higher ridership; and It has potential for future ridership growth. 5. Has the rail technology been decided? No decision has been made about the technology (ie the type of rail rapid transit system). While the project assumes rail rapid transit is the most appropriate option for this corridor, keeping the type of rail rapid transit open has been a key objective to encourage the most cost effective solutions. Performance standards such as transit capacity, speed and reliability have been developed to guide selection of the best performing, and most cost-effective technology. 6. Will the private sector be involved? The private sector will be involved so will the public sector. The Contributing Agencies - the Province, TransLink and the Airport have clearly indicated that they have limited resources and want to seek private sector investment for this project.
16
The public sector will own the RAV line and will maintain control of things such as fares and safety and will require that the private sector comply with service standards such as speed, reliability, comfort etc. 7. Has anyone asked the public? A potential rail connection north/south to Richmond has been the subject of many studies and public dialogue dating back to the early 70s. Reflecting further back.A north/south transit line (Vancouver/Richmond) is part of the GVRDs LRSP, TransLinks Strategic Transportation Plan, Vancouvers Downtown Transportation Plan, and the Airports Master Plan, and Richmonds Official Community Plan all of which were developed with extensive public consultation. The RichmondAirport Vancouver Project most recently consulted with the public in March/April of 2001, at the conclusion of Phase 2. At that time, the consultation involved the results of the cost/benefit analysis and posed the question do we need to build the project by 2010? The conclusion was yes. The consultation involved a website, open houses, small group meetings and presentations and a public attitude survey. The majority of participants and a significant majority of those polled in the region-wide attitude survey supported the line at that stage. A community consultation program is scheduled for late February continuing through March 2003. This consultation includes: A Notice of Consultation in The Vancouver Sun, The Province, Ming Pao and Sing Tao March 3, 2003 A discussion guide on the web with feedback form at www.ravprapidtransit.com A series of workshops, open houses and small group meetings in February and March 2003. For information call the RAVP Project Office at 484-7287 or email: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca or visit the website at www.ravprapidtransit.com Subject to project approval, a second phase of community consultation will include discussions with neighbourhoods about such things as station area planning, bus connections and services. 8. Is this an Airport line? By far the majority of the riders will be travelling between Richmond and Vancouver and between regional destinations along the line. The line to the Airport will serve the growing employment population there (currently 26,000 people work at the Airport) as well as passengers and tourists. The Airport has agreed in principle to pay for the cost of the Airport segment.
17
9. Is this an Olympic project? Vancouver and Whistler can certainly host the games without this line. The Olympics is relevant because it provides an opportunity for Federal funding for a key part of the regional transportation network. This line has been considered for decades. In fact, according to regional transportation plans, this line was to be completed by 2006. Olympic dates are important if we are going to build the line in the next 10 years it will be important to be complete by 2009 so it is ready for the games, rather than being under construction. 10. Can the amount of tunnel be minimized to reduce costs? We want to achieve a financially feasible project that supports the transportation objectives for the corridor. In terms of tunnel, we have looked at where the line needs to be above street level or in tunnel and where it could run at street level. It is probably best to think of this line as responding to characteristics of the surrounding community rather than one homogeneous line; in Richmond, because of the water table, it would be difficult to tunnel the line, whereas in some places in Vancouver it may need to be in a tunnel to deal with relatively steep hills and traffic concerns. In other places, it may run at street level. On Sea Island, it will likely be above street level (elevated) to access the existing and future terminals. As proposed, some of the line would be underground, some at street level and some above street level (elevated).
18
FEEDBACK FORM
The RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit Project is a proposed rail rapid transit line connecting central Richmond, the Airport and Sea Island, central Broadway and downtown Vancouver. A rapid transit line would connect with existing rapid transit lines at Waterfront Station and with major east/west transit services, creating a transit network to serve the region. The Richmond/Vancouver corridor is the primary north/south corridor in the Lower Mainland. It is one of the busiest corridors in the region, home to one-third of the regions jobs and 20% of the population. The purpose of the community consultation is to share the results of the project definition phase through a newspaper piece, a Discussion Guide and feedback form, open houses and public workshops. How Your Feedback Will Be Used Public Feedback will be summarized in a Consultation Summary Report and presented with technical reports to the contributing and participating agencies as they consider whether to proceed to finance and build the line. The Consultation Summary Report will also be posted on the web. 1. No. 3 Road, Grant McConachie Way, Cambie Street to Waterfront Station The proposed general alignment of the RAV line is No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island, Cambie Street into Downtown Vancouver along Davie and Granville Street terminating at the existing Waterfront Station? Do you(check one) YES YES YES Comments: NO NO NO Support the route in its entirety Support parts of the route Oppose the route
2. Direct Travel Do you agree with the following statement; It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between Richmond City Centre and downtown Vancouver. (check one) Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between the Airport and downtown Vancouver. (check one) Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
3. Travel Time By bus or car, the current travel time from Richmond Centre to downtown Vancouver is about 45 to 50 minutes, depending on the time of day and amount of traffic. Do you agree with the following statement; With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from Richmond Centre to Waterfront Station should be no more than 30 minutes. (check one) Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from the Airport to Waterfront Station should be no more than 25 minutes. (check one) Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
. . . continued on reverse
4. Underground, At Street Level, Above Street Level (elevated) Rail rapid transit systems can operate underground, at street level or above street level (elevated). The underground and above street level options are more expensive to build, and where elevated, have greater visual impacts. However, underground and elevated systems are cheaper to operate, faster, safer and more reliable than at street level systems because they dont cross road intersections. If approved, the RichmondAirportVancouver Line will probably have some underground segments, some street-level segments and some elevated segments depending on whether they are technically and financially feasible. Please check one for each of 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3: 4.1. on those segments where operating underground is not possible, which alternative would you prefer?: check one a. at street level b. elevated
4.2. on those segments where operating at street level is not possible, which alternative would you prefer?: check one a. elevated b. underground
4.3. on those segments where operating above street level (elevated) is not possible, would you prefer? check one a. underground b. at street level
5. Transit Use If this RichmondAirportVancouver rapid transit service is completed how likely do you think you would be to use it? (check one) Very Likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not at all likely
6. If you were to use the RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit line, which of the following would be most important to you? (indicate with a rating of 1, 2 or 3 your top three choices) Hours of operation Reliability of the system Other, please specify 7. The RichmondAirportVancouver Rail Rapid Transit line This line is expected to cost between $1.5 and $1.7 billion, cost shared by the federal and provincial governments, TransLink, Vancouver International Airport Authority and the private sector. Do you agree with the project proceeding? (check one) Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Being able to board (system capacity) Easy station access Travel time Views from the train Reasonable fares
Easy connection to other parts of the transit system (ie. Bus connections)
8. RAVP Neighbourhood Consultation (future) How would you like to be consulted if this proposed rail rapid transit project proceeds? (check your choices) Neighbourhood group Community meetings Other, please specify 9. Additional Comments Please add any additional comments you may have about the proposed rapid transit line. Web surveys Open houses Information in the newspaper
Travel in the Corridor 10. Have you taken transit in the last 30 days? 11. Have you travelled between Vancouver & Richmond in the last 30 days For Further Information www.ravprapidtransit.com (or www.translink.ca) Phone: RAVP Project Office 604/484-RAVP (7287) Fax: 604/484-6799 Email: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca
YES YES
NO NO
(optional) If completed, this information will form part of a RAVP mailing list. Name Address Email
For Further Information www.ravprapidtransit.com (or www.translink.ca) Phone: RAVP Project Office 604/484-RAVP (7287) Fax: 604/484-6799 Email: ravpconsultation @ravp.ca
R I C H M O N D A I R P O R T VA N C O U V E R R A P I D T R A N S I T
Proposed Route and Stations 2010 Station Future Station Employment Centres Waterfront
UBC Robson Square SFU Downtown BCIT
Robson Davie
Broadway
Vancouver Hospital/ BC Cancer Agency/City Square Vancouver City Hall
King Edward
BC Children's/Women's Hospital
Oakridge
Oakridge Shopping Centre
49th Ave
Langara College
Marine Drive
*Station configuration under discussion as YVR updates Master Plan
Air Canada
Terminal/Hotel
YVR 2* Terminal* YVR 3* YVR 1*
Bridgeport Capstan Way Cambie

Aberdeen Mall
Courier/Food Services
Alderbridge
Lansdowne Park Shopping Centre WCB Offices Richmond Hospital Richmond Centre Richmond Civic Precinct
Westminster Richmond Centre
Phone: RAVP Project Office 604/484-RAVP (7287) Fax: 604/484-6799 Email: ravpconsultation @ravp.ca www.ravprapidtransit.com
Post Card

R I C H M O N D A I R P O R T VA N CO U V E R R A P I D T R A N S I T P R O J E C T
w w w. r a v p r a p i d t r a n s i t . c o m
R I C H M O N D A I R P O R T VA N CO U V E R R A P I D T R A N S I T P R O J E C T MARCH 2003
FAST FACTS . . . A Busy Corridor About 500,000 people travel daily between downtown Vancouver, central Richmond and the Airport along the Vancouver Corridor (Defined as travel along Main, Cambie, Oak and Granville Streets). Vancouver anticipates a 35% increase in trips to/from and within downtown Vancouver in the next 20 years. 26,000 people currently work on Sea Island at the Airport; this number is expected to grow to 40,000 by 2021. The Vancouver/Richmond corridor and Broadway corridor to UBC have the highest bus passenger volumes in the region by a very significant margin. Travel Time on the Vancouver corridor (Main, Cambie, Oak and Granville Streets) has increased by 20% - 60% since 1988, depending on the route, time-of-day and direction of travel. . . . RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit Line Length 19.5 KM Number of Proposed Stations 18 to 19 Major Employment Centres Vancouver downtown (Coal Harbour, Canada Place, the central business district), central Broadway (VGH, Vancouver City Hall), Airport (Sea Island) and central Richmond (Richmond Hospital, Richmond City Hall,Workers Compensation Board) Travel Time 25 30 minutes Airport/central Richmond to downtown Vancouver (varies depending on configuration) Estimated Cost $1.5 $1.7 billion Ridership Estimates Approximately 26 - 38 million boardings annually in 2010 (100,000 per day), growing to 31 - 45 million by 2021 Construction 5 years; 2005-2009 Proposed Rapid Transit Route While the exact alignment has not been selected, as proposed, the line follows No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way to the Airport, along Cambie Street into downtown Vancouver, and along Granville Street, terminating at the existing Waterfront Station. How do I find out more? More detailed RAVP reports and technical reports about the proposed rail rapid transit line are available at www.ravprapidtransit.com (as of Feb.27, 2003) RAVP Project Office at 604.484.7287 or email: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca
Waterfront
Proposed Route and Stations UBC Robson Square Robson 2010 Station Future Station Employment Centres
SFU Downtown BCIT
Davie
What is the RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit Project (RAVP)? The RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit Project is a proposed rail rapid transit line connecting central Richmond, the Airport and Sea Island, central Broadway and downtown Vancouver. A rapid transit line would connect with existing rapid transit lines at Waterfront Station and with major east/west transit services, creating a transit network to serve the region. The Richmond/Vancouver corridor is the primary north/south corridor in the Lower Mainland. It is one of the busiest corridors in the region, home to one third of the regions jobs and 20% of the population. Why do we need a RichmondAirportVancouver Rail Rapid Transit Line? A Richmond/Vancouver line has been studied since the 70s and been part of the regional plan for 10 years.The regional plan calls for increased transit capacity in this corridor.The northsouth corridor between Richmond, the Airport and Vancouver is one of the busiest in the region.Over the next 20 years, population will grow significantly: by 50% in Vancouvers central business district and by 75% in central Richmond.By 2021, employment levels will grow by 25% in Vancouvers central business district, 70% in central Richmond and 70% at the Airport. Congestion is increasing.Greater congestion slows down the movement of goods and people. It increases air pollution, hinders our economy and ultimately, diminishes our overall quality-of-life.We need to add capacity in a sustainable way. What are TransLinks New Road and Transportation Priorities? To meet the demands of population growth, address congestion and provide broader travel options throughout the region, TransLink has established four immediate priorities including: Rapid Transit to the North East sector A new road crossing of the Fraser River Trolley bus replacement and bus expansion A Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit line
83% of Richmond and Vancouver residents think a rapid transit line that connects Richmond,Vancouver and the Airport will be good for their community. (MarkTrend 2001)
Broadway
Vancouver Hospital/ BC Cancer Agency/City Square Vancouver City Hall
BC Children's/Women's Hospital
King Edward
Oakridge Shopping Centre
Oakridge 49th Ave Langara College
Marine Drive
Air Canada YVR 2*
Terminal* YVR 3*
YVR 1*
Bridgeport Capstan Way Cambie Aberdeen Mall Alderbridge Lansdowne Park Shopping Centre
Courier/Food Services
WCB Offices Richmond Hospital Richmond Centre Richmond Civic Precinct
Westminster Richmond Centre
How will the public be consulted? A Discussion Guide (and feedback form) on the web www.ravprapidtransit.com (as of Feb.27) A Notice of Consultation March 3, 2003,The Vancouver Sun , Province, Sing Tao, Ming Pao Public Workshops Richmond - March 8, 2003 9am 12 noon Richmond City Hall, Council Chambers Vancouver - March 12, 2003 6:30 pm 9:00 pm Alice MacKay Room,Vancouver Public Library, 350 West Georgia Vancouver - March 15, 2003 9am 12 noon Oak Room, Sheraton Plaza 500 Hotel, 12th & Cambie Open Houses/Display Boards: March 3-14 Vancouver City Hall, Richmond City Hall and the Airport
Information Boards
Website: www.ravprapidtransit.com
English and Chinese
Power-Point Presentation
available at www.ravprapidtransit.com
Public Notice
Sun, Province, Ming Pao, Sing Tao, Richmond News and Richmond Review

R I C H M O N D A I R P O RT VA N CO U V E R RAPID TRANSIT
INTRODUCTION
This community consultation information piece is designed to provide the public with summary information about the proposed rail rapid transit line connecting central Richmond, the Airport and Sea Island, central Broadway and downtown Vancouver. A rapid transit line would connect with existing rapid transit lines at Waterfront Station and with major east/west transit services, creating a transit network to serve the region.This information piece contains highlights of the regional transportation network and describes how the RichmondAirport Vancouver Rapid Transit line fits within the network of roads, buses and rapid transit system including; the proposed location of the rapid transit line; proposed performance standards for the line, such as safety, travel time and reliability, and the proposed alternative elevations of the line: some sections may be underground, some at street level and some above street level (elevated). A feedback form is included to encourage readers and those who participate in the March 2003 community consultation activities to provide their feedback and suggestions via the website, the newspaper information piece, open houses and workshops.
WHY RAIL RAPID TRANSIT?

What is the Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project? The RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit Project is a proposed rail rapid transit line connecting central Richmond, the Airport and Sea Island, along the Cambie corridor to central Broadway and downtown Vancouver. A rapid transit line would connect with existing rapid transit lines at Waterfront Station and with major east/west transit services, enhancing the regions transit network . Length: 19.5 km Board) The Richmond/Vancouver corridor is the primary north/south corridor in the Lower Mainland. It is one of the busiest corridors in the region, home to one-third of the regions jobs and 20% of the population. Why do we need a Richmond Airport Vancouver Rail Rapid Transit Line? A Richmond/Vancouver line has been studied since the 70s and has been part of the regional plan for ten years. The regional plan calls for increased transit capacity in this corridor. A Multi-Agency Initiative Continued growth in Richmond and Vancouver and on Sea Island at the Airport and growing congestion prompted renewed attention to the need to add transit capacity. The most recent review of the feasibility of rapid transit in this corridor began in 2000, with funding from the Federal Government, the Province, TransLink and Vancouver International Airport Authority (Contributing Agencies) and with participation by the cities of Richmond and Vancouver, the Vancouver Port Authority, and the GVRD (Participating Agencies). The north-south corridor between Richmond, the Airport and Vancouver is one of the busiest in the region.Over the next 20 years, population will grow significantly; by 50% in the Vancouver central business district and by 75% in central Richmond. By 2021, employment will grow by 25% in Vancouvers central business district, 70% in central Richmond and 70% at the airport. Congestion is increasing. Greater congestion slows down the movement of people and goods. It increases air pollution, hinders our economy and ultimately, diminishes our overall quality-of-life. We need to add capacity in a sustainable way.
T H E R I C H M O N D A I R P O R T VA N C O U V E R R A I L R A P I D T R A N S I T L I N E
THE PROPOSED RICHMOND AIRPORT VANCOUVER RAPID TRANSIT LINE
Number of Proposed Stations: 18 to 19 Major Employment Centres: Vancouver downtown (Coal Harbour, Canada Place, the central business district), central
Broadway (Vancouver Hospital, Vancouver City Hall), Vancouver International Airport (Sea Island) and central Richmond (Richmond Hospital, Richmond City Hall, Workers Compensation
Estimates: Approximately 26 - 38 million boardings annually in 2010 (100,000 per day), growing to 31 - 45 million by 2021
Travel Time: 25 30 minutes Airport/central Richmond to downtown Vancouver (varies depending on configuration) Estimated Cost: $1.5 $1.7 billion Ridership Construction Period : 5 years; 2005 -2009
S A F E T Y, T R AV E L T I M E, S E R V I C E H O U R S
Performance Standards are the proposed minimum acceptable service levels that would apply to the RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit project. They are: Safety The rail rapid transit system will meet or exceed all relevant safety standards. Direct Travel The rail rapid transit system will provide direct travel between central Richmond and downtown Vancouver and direct travel between YVR and downtown Vancouver. Hours of Operation Service will be provided throughout the day and evening every day of the week. Longer hours of service may be provided as demand warrants. Maximum Time Between Trips The maximum time between trips will be determined to satisfy passenger demand. As proposed, the maximum time between trips will be 7.5 minutes to 20 minutes depending on the time-of-day and day of the week. Maximum Target Travel Time As proposed, the travel times are Richmond Centre to Waterfront Station 30 minutes, YVR to Waterfront Station 25 minutes.
What are the Objectives of the Richmond Airport Vancouver Rail Rapid Transit Line?
The primary objective is increasing transportation capacity in the corridor in a sustainable way. Specific objectives include: Increasing transportation choice Improving travel times Improving the quality of the travel experience Improving the regional transportation network Improving travel within Vancouver and Richmond Addressing congestion Increasing transit ridership (in the Richmond/Vancouver corridor and region wide) Increasing the percentage of total trips by transit
The Public Sector Will Own the RAV Line and Control Fares and Performance Standards As proposed, the private sector will design, build and operate the RAV line. However, the public sector will own the line, control the fare levels and control the bus system. In addition, TransLink will require that all safety, travel time, reliability, hours of operation and other performance standards are met.
WILL THE RAV LINE BE UNDERGROUND, RUN AT STREET LEVEL OR RUN ABOVE STREET?
No Decisions Have been Made about Underground, at Street Level, or Above the Street (elevated) or about the Type of Rail Rapid Transit It is likely that the RAV line will include some sections that run underground, some sections that run at street level and some sections that run above street level (elevated). The Agencies and the RAV project team have made no final decisions regarding how much of the line could be underground, at street level or above street level. Further, no decision has been made about the type of rail transit system that could best meet safety, travel time, reliability and other performance standards. Some of these decisions require further consideration of how each section will best be integrated with its surrounding community and some of these decisions require input from the private sector who will be asked to propose the most effective ways of meeting the performance standards.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IMPROVING TRAVEL OPTIONS

The proposed rail connection between Richmond, the Airport and Vancouver is part of a much larger family of road and transit services throughout Greater Vancouver including: 2,200 km of roads. Public transit, including the Coast Mountain Bus Company, Blue buses, Community Shuttle buses and HandyDart. The Expo and Millennium rapid transit lines and the West Coast Express commuter rail. TransLinks New Road and Transportation Priorities To meet the demands of population growth, address congestion and provide broader travel options throughout the region, TransLink has established four immediate priorities, including: Rapid Transit to the North East sector A new road crossing of the Fraser River Trolley bus replacement and bus expansion A Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit line How Will Bus Service Be Affected? When the RAV rail service is introduced, it will integrate with the bus system. Many bus services will be improved to connect with the rail line and to accommodate increased ridership, while buses which duplicate the rail service will be discontinued . As well, new regional bus services will be added to provide better connections between Richmond and regional destinations such as Burnaby Metrotown, North Delta and Surrey. Highlights include the following: Vancouver: East/west bus services will be improved to better connect with the line. North/south trolley bus routes on Oak, Cambie and Main Street would continue although service levels would be adjusted to reflect the introduction of the rapid transit line. The RAV line would replace the #98 B-Line with more capacity, speed and frequency.
FAST FACTS - A BUSY CORRIDOR
Newspaper Information Piece
Sun, Province, Ming Pao, Sing Tao
Other objectives include: Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and improving local air quality, over the long term. Providing infrastructure to improve the movement of goods and people in the region, and to improve the economy generally Improving overall quality of life in the region Population, Employment and Traffic Growth By 2021, population in the Lower Mainland is forecast to grow by more than 40% By 2021, employment in the Lower Mainland is forecast to grow by 50% Between 1985 and 1999, daily vehicle traffic crossing the Oak, Arthur Laing and Knight Street Bridges grew by 54% (3% per year )
About 500,000 people travel daily between downtown Vancouver, central Richmond and the Airport along the Vancouver corridor (Defined as travel along Main, Cambie, Oak and Granville streets).
Underground/At Street/Above Street Rail rapid transit systems that are separated from the street by being underground or above street (elevated) are called grade separated.They generally cost more to build, and, in the case of elevated lines, have significant visual impacts. However, they are generally faster, safer and more reliable than systems running at street level and crossing intersections.

Vancouver anticipates a 35% increase in trips to/from and within downtown Vancouver in the next 20 years. 26,000 people currently work on Sea Island at the Airport; this number is expected to grow to 40,000 by 2021. The Vancouver/Richmond corridor and Broadway to UBC have the highest bus passenger volumes in the region by a very significant margin Travel time on the Vancouver corridor (Main, Cambie, Oak and Granville streets) has increased by 20% -60%, since 1988, depending on the route, time-of-day and direction of travel.
FEEDBACK FORM
The purpose of the community consultation is to share the results of the project definition phase through this newspaper piece, a Discussion Guide and feedback form, open houses and public workshops. Public feedback will be summarized in a Consultation Summary Report and presented with technical reports to the contributing and participating agencies as they consider whether to proceed to finance and build the line. 1. No. 3 Road, Grant McConachie Way, Cambie Street to Waterfront Station The proposed general alignment of the RAV line is No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island, Cambie Street into Downtown Vancouver along Davie and Granville Streets terminating at the existing Waterfront Station. Do you (check one) Support the route in its entirety YES NO Support parts of the route YES NO Oppose the route YES NO
3. If you were to use the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit Line which of the following would be most important to you? (indicate with a rating of 1, 2 or 3 your top three choices)
Travel time Reasonable Fares Reliability of the system Easy station access Views from the train Hours of operation Being able to board (system capacity) Easy connection to other parts of the transit system (ie. Bus connections) Other, please specify
HOW WILL THE PUBLIC BE CONSULTED?

A Discussion Guide (& feedback form) on the web www.ravprapidtransit.com Richmond Public Workshop - March 8, 2003 9am 12 noon, Richmond City Hall Council Chambers Vancouver Public Workshop - March 12, 2003 6:30pm 9:00pm, Vancouver Public Library, Alice MacKay Room 350 West Georgia Street, Vancouver Vancouver Public Workshop - March 15, 2003 9am 12 noon, Ballroom, Plaza 500 Hotel 12th & Cambie Display Boards at Open Houses: March 3-14 Vancouver City Hall, Richmond City Hall and the Airport
Comments 2. Transit Use If this Richmond Airport Vancouver rapid transit service is completed how likely do you think you would be to use it? (check one) Very likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not at all likely
4. The Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rail Rapid Transit line This line is expected to cost between $1.5 and $1.7 billion, cost shared by the federal and provincial governments, TransLink, Vancouver International Airport and the private sector. Do you agree with the project proceeding? (check one) Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Travel in the Corridor 5. Have you taken transit in the last 30 days?
YES
NO
Percentage of Lower Mainland residents who think a rapid transit line that connects Richmond,Vancouver and the Airport will be good for their community.
(MarkTrend 2001)
6. Have you travelled between Vancouver & Richmond in the last 30 days Richmond: The frequency of local bus routes will be improved to serve the line. Direct express buses to UBC will be maintained. Local bus services within Richmond will be rerouted to connect at the Richmond Centre (No. 3 Road and Cook) and Bridgeport Stations. The #98 B-Line and existing express services would be discontinued.
(optional) If completed, this information will form part of a RAVP mailing list. Name
YES Please clip and return by fax to 604-484-6799.
NO
HOW DO I FIND OUT MORE? More detailed technical and financial reports are
83%
Address Email
available at the website or by email: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca
www.ravprapidtransit.com

RAVP Consultation Summary Report. Richmond Airport Vancouver Consultation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RAVP Consultation Summary Report. Richmond Airport Vancouver Consultation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RAVP Consultation Summary Report

KIRK & CO. CONSULTING LTD.