Massey - Phase 3 Consultation Summary Report March 2016

GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PHASE 3 PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT
CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT
MARCH 2016
This independent report of findings was prepared by Lucent Quay Consulting Inc. for the Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure. The analysis includes input received through open houses, feedback
forms, written submissions and stakeholder meetings. The views represented in the feedback forms and
written submissions, which are summarized in this report, reflect the interests and opinions of people who
chose to participate in the consultation process. They may not reflect the views of the broader public.
The Ministry will consider the results of this consultation program along with ongoing technical and
financial analysis in determining how to move the Project forward.
Feedback form results presented in this report are a combination of online and hard copy feedback. Online
feedback was collected using the Interceptum survey platform. Interceptum stores all of its data in
Canada.
GMT Project
Phase 3 Consultation Summary Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. i
1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 About the Project ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Previous Consultation and Engagement .............................................................................................. 1
1.3 About this Report ................................................................................................................................. 2
2. PHASE 3 CONSULTATION PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Notification ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Engagement Methods .......................................................................................................................... 3
3. PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................................................................... 5
4. SUMMARY OF INPUT ............................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Participant Mix ...................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Summary of Input from All Sources ..................................................................................................... 6
4.3 Stakeholder Meetings Summary .......................................................................................................... 7
4.4 Open Houses Summary ..................................................................................................................... 10
4.5 Feedback Forms Summary ................................................................................................................ 10
4.6 Written Submissions Summary .......................................................................................................... 21
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 3
APPENDIX 4
APPENDIX 5
APPENDIX 6
APPENDIX 7
Advertisements and Other Notifications

Feedback Form
Display Boards
Stakeholder Presentation Deck
Stakeholder Meeting Notes
Written Submissions
Verbatim Responses1
Available under separate cover at the Project Office
29 Mar 2016
GMT Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
About the Project
The George Massey Tunnel (Tunnel) is an important link in the regional and provincial transportation
system, connecting to key gateways that fuel our national, provincial and regional economies. The Tunnel
is now at capacity during the morning and afternoon rush hours and near capacity throughout the rest of
the day. Population and employment on both sides of the Tunnel is forecast to continue growing, with
demand at the Tunnel increasing by about 20 per cent over the next 30 years.
In response to growing concerns about the impact of congestion and recognizing the age and condition of
the existing George Massey Tunnel, the Government of British Columbia announced in September 2012
that planning for a replacement would begin immediately.
Following two phases of public consultation, technical analysis and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders for
a period of approximately three years, the Project Definition Report and business case were released for
public feedback on December 16, 2015. The project scope includes replacing the Tunnel with a new 10lane bridge (eight lanes plus two dedicated transit/high-occupancy vehicle lanes) spanning the Fraser River
South Arm, decommissioning the Tunnel, and improving Highway 99 from Bridgeport Road in Richmond
to Highway 91 in Delta. Proposed improvements include replacing the Westminster Highway, Steveston
Highway and Highway 17A interchanges; widening Highway 99 to accommodate dedicated transit/highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; and providing multi-use pathways for cyclists and pedestrians across the
bridge that connect with the existing cycling and pedestrian networks on either side. The general
alignment of the Project will follow the existing Highway 99 corridor, including across the Fraser River.
The Project is designed to reduce congestion and improve travel times and reliability for commuters,
transit, commercial vehicles, and tourists; improve safety; provide new travel options for cyclists and
pedestrians; and provide capacity for improved transit.
Consultation Process
The Ministry adopted phased public and external stakeholder consultation program to support project
planning and development. This included:
Phase 1: Understanding the Need (November to December 2012) Focused on understanding the
need and potential constraints to develop the project scope and design requirements.
Phase 2: Exploring the Options (March to April 2013) Based on Phase 1 consultation results and
preliminary technical work, Phase 2 sought input on the draft project scope and goals, five potential
replacement scenarios and on the criteria to evaluate these options.
Phase 3: Project Definition Report (December 16, 2015 to January 28, 2016) Sought feedback on
the full Project scope and business case, including Project goals, design features, benefit and cost
analysis, draft performance evaluation/Project success measures, and tolling to fund the Project.
This report summarizes input received from Phase 3 consultation, which included participation from the
public and stakeholders from across the Greater Vancouver region. Phase 1 and 2 results are available
under separate cover and online at masseytunnel.ca.
Participation
1,037 people submitted a feedback form

258 people signed up for project update emails (in addition to the 1,487 who had previously signed up)
750 people attended the open houses
102 people representing more than 60 organizations participated in the nine stakeholder meetings
11 organizations provided written submissions
266 people emailed the Project Office
29 Mar 2016
GMT Project
310 people visited the Project Office in Richmond

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

Sections 1 to 3 of this report provide the overview and context for the Project and the consultation
process as well as participation levels. Section 4 summarizes the key findings from each input source,
including discussions at stakeholder meetings and open houses, feedback form responses, and written
submissions. Additional information is available in the report appendices.
The Ministry will consider this input along with technical, financial, environmental and policy
considerations as Project planning continues. This includes preparing the Application for Environmental
Assessment Review, which will be submitted in spring 2016, and in confirming the funding strategy for
the Project.
29 Mar 2016
ii
GMT Project
1. OVERVIEW
1.1 About the Project
The George Massey Tunnel (Tunnel) is an important link in the regional and provincial transportation
system, serving an average of 80,000 vehicles each day and connecting to key gateways that fuel our
national, provincial and regional economies. Since the Tunnel opened in 1959, Metro Vancouvers
population has grown considerably. The Tunnel is now at capacity during the morning and afternoon rush
hours and near capacity throughout the rest of the day. Population and employment on both sides of the
Tunnel is forecast to continue growing, with demand at the Tunnel increasing by about 20 per cent over
the next 30 years.
In response to growing concerns about the impact of congestion and recognizing the age and condition of
the existing George Massey Tunnel, the Government of British Columbia announced in September 2012
that planning for a replacement would begin immediately. Since then, the Ministry of Transportation and
Infrastructure (the Ministry) has been conducting technical work and consulting with municipalities,
aboriginal groups, Metro Vancouver, TransLink, the agricultural community, first responders, recreational
groups, local businesses, local residents, cyclists, marine users, other stakeholders, and the public to
assist in developing a project scope and business case for proceeding, to ensure that Highway 99
continues to serve regional, provincial, and national transportation needs.
The Project will replace the Tunnel with a new 10-lane bridge (eight lanes plus two dedicated transit/highoccupancy vehicle lanes) spanning the Fraser River South Arm, decommission the Tunnel, and improve
Highway 99 from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to Highway 91 in Delta. Proposed improvements include
replacing the Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges; widening
Highway 99 to accommodate dedicated transit/high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; and providing multiuse pathways for cyclists and pedestrians across the bridge and to connect with the existing cycling and
pedestrian networks on either side. The general alignment of the Project will follow the existing Highway
99 corridor, including across the Fraser River.
The Project is designed to reduce congestion and improve travel times and reliability for commuters,
transit, commercial vehicles, and tourists; improve safety; provide new travel options for cyclists and
pedestrians; and provide capacity for improved transit.
1.2 Previous Consultation and Engagement

Since announcement of the Project in September 2012, the Ministry has been conducting technical
analysis, raising awareness about the Project, engaging interested parties in dialogue, and responding to
Project-related enquiries.
More than 2,000 people have participated in earlier phases of consultation as summarized below. More
than 3,300 people have visited the Project Office in Richmond, and 1,745 people have signed up to
receive Project e-updates.
Phase 1: Understanding the Need (November to December 2012) Conducted early in the Projects
planning process, this phase of consultation sought to understand travel demand, operating conditions,
and opinions and interests on the importance of various design considerations. A total of 1,150 people
participated in this phase of consultation. Participants identified congestion relief and economic growth as
the most important factors when considering solutions for the Tunnel.
Many participants strongly advocated moving forward quickly to replace the Tunnel, with many specifically
indicating that doing nothing was not an option. Participants noted the importance of considering all users,
including drivers, goods movers, transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians. Participants were also interested
in short- term solutions while planning for a long-term solution continued. The consultation summary
report and related consultation materials are available on the Project website.
29 Mar 2016
GMT Project
Phase 2: Exploring the Options (March to April 2013) Sought input on five potential Tunnel
replacement scenarios and the criteria to evaluate these scenarios. More than 1,000 people participated.
Participants expressed general support for Project goals and evaluation criteria. There was an overall
preference for a new bridge on the existing corridor (Scenario 2), with strong opinions for and against
other options, particularly maintaining and upgrading the Tunnel (Scenario 1), as well as constructing a
new crossing along a new corridor to the east (Scenario 5).
Participants asked questions and expressed concerns about the safety of tunnels and sought confirmation
that plans for the new bridge would allow for future rapid transit. Participants also requested more
information about cost and funding options. The consultation summary report and related consultation
materials are available on the Project website.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement (ongoing) Following completion of Phase 2 consultation,
the Ministry has continued to engage with stakeholders and community members as Project planning
continued. This has included:
More than 90 presentations to business, professional and community groups

Meetings with City of Richmond and Corporation of Delta representatives (more than 60 meetings
held with each municipality since December 2012)
More than 180 meetings with other municipalities, regulatory agencies, elected officials, regional
government agencies, agricultural organizations, business organizations, community and resident
groups, commercial and recreational marine users, cycling groups, and first responders
Meetings with First Nations as part of a separate, but related, Aboriginal Engagement program
1.3 About this Report

This report provides a summary of feedback received during Phase 3: Project Definition Report
(December 16, 2015 January 28, 2016), which sought feedback on the full Project scope and business
case, including Project goals, design features, benefit and cost analysis, draft performance
evaluation/Project success measures, and tolling to fund the Project. The Project Definition Report and
related documents including consultation display boards, a technical presentation, draft reference concept
drawings, and the feedback form are available on the Project website. Feedback was gathered through the
feedback form, stakeholder group meetings, open houses and written submissions.
2. PHASE 3 CONSULTATION PROCESS

2.1 Overview
The Ministry undertook Phase 3 consultation (December 16, 2015 to January 28, 2016) to seek feedback
on the Project Definition Report, the business case and tolling as a funding source. Key tools and activities
during the six-week consultation period included advertising and notification, email and social media
engagement, stakeholder meetings, two open houses, and a feedback form available in print and online.
Details about the forms of notification and timing for each are presented in the subsections below.
The Ministry will consider this input along with technical, financial, environmental and policy
considerations as Project planning continues. This includes preparing the Application for Environmental
Assessment Review, which will be submitted in spring 2016, and in confirming the funding strategy for
the Project.
29 Mar 2016
GMT Project
2.2 Notification
The Ministry invited public participation through a variety of communication techniques as identified in the
following table. Copies of all notification materials are included in Appendix 1.
Form of
Notification
Description
Date(s)
Newspaper
advertising
Consultation launch public notices in the Vancouver Sun,

The Province, the Richmond News and the Delta Optimist
17-18 December, 2015
Public notices placed in the Vancouver Sun and

The Province, and eight Lower Mainland community
newspapers including one Punjabi language and two
Chinese language newspapers, to announce open house
dates
11-14 January 2016
Media event and

release
Media event at the Project Office in Richmond to launch

consultation, as well as a media release and two
backgrounders distributed to Lower Mainland media
outlets, which generated significant media coverage
16 December 2015
Media release
Media release to announce consultation open house dates
14 January 2016
Website
Three public notices posted online at masseytunnel.ca
16 December 2015
4 & 26 January 2016
Social media
17 tweets @TranBC
16 December 2015 28 January 2016
Project Information
Office
Office hours: 8:30 4:30 p.m. (Mon-Fri)

Information line: 1-8-555-MASSEY staffed during regular
office hours, with target response call within two business
days or less
Email: masseytunnel@gov.bc.ca
Office opened
January 2014
3 emails sent to the 1,700+ Project database subscribers
16 &17 December 2015

26 January 2016
22 January 2016
Email and letter

drop notices
21 letters distributed to residents living at Riverwoods in

Delta, adjacent to the Tunnel
Phone/email since
November 2012
Stakeholder
meeting invitations
Invitations to 28 stakeholder groups as well as elected

officials in Delta and Richmond
16 December 2015
Follow Up Phone
Calls
Follow up phone calls and emails were made to remind

stakeholders about the open houses and feedback
opportunities
Weeks of
16 December 2015
and 28 January 2016
2.3 Engagement Methods

2.3.1 Online Engagement
As with previous phases of consultation, the primary hub for Phase 3 information was the Project website,
masseytunnel.ca, which was built and promoted on the GovTogetherBC engagement platform.
29 Mar 2016
GMT Project
2.3.2 Consultation Discussion Guide and Feedback Form
The 40-page Project Definition Report served as the consultation discussion guide, providing information
about the Project and the consultation topics. A 20-question feedback form invited questions and
comments about the project scope, traffic management during construction, the upcoming environmental
review, level of agreement with specific Project elements, draft Project evaluation/success measures, and
tolling as a funding source. The Project Definition Report and feedback form were available in hard copy at
the open houses, stakeholder meetings, and the Project Office as well as online throughout the
consultation period.
2.3.3 Stakeholder Meetings
The Ministry hosted nine meetings with stakeholder groups who requested an opportunity to discuss the
Project in more detail, including two City of Richmond committees, as noted in the following table:
Stakeholder Group
Date
Vancouver Board of Trade Transportation Committee
18 December 2015
Richmond Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
12 January 2016
Cycling groups
12 January 2016
BC Trucking Association
13 January 2016
City of Richmond Active Transportation Committee
13 January 2016
Steveston 20-20 Group (a group representing

Steveston Village non-profit organizations)
18 January 2016
City of Richmond General Purposes Committee
18 January 2016
Rotary Club of Steveston
19 January 2016
Richmond Farmers Institute
25 January 2016
Meetings included a presentation from Project staff followed by a facilitated discussion. Meeting notes
were taken to capture the key themes and discussion at each meeting (see Appendix 5).
2.3.4 Open Houses
The Ministry hosted two open houses, as noted in the table below. These open houses were jointly
hosted by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) and the Ministry, and provided participants an
opportunity to ask questions and to comment on the Project Definition Report (Phase 3 consultation) and
the Project Description and Key Areas of Study (pre-application for the environmental review).
Each open house included an informal drop-in style session where participants could view display boards
and Project design reference concepts, and speak with Project staff. Each participant was asked to sign in
and was offered a copy of the Project Definition Report guide and hard copy feedback form.
Open houses were scheduled late in the Phase 3 consultation period to run concurrent with the
environmental assessment public comment period, which commenced on 15 January 2016. This ensured
that interested parties would not have to attend two consultation events in short succession.
Community
Date/Time
Venue
Richmond
Tuesday, January 26, 2016

2:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m.
Sandman Signature Hotel Vancouver Airport

Round Room
10251 St. Edwards Drive, Richmond, BC
Delta
Wednesday, January 27, 2016

2:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m.
Delta Town & Country Inn

Ballroom
6005 Highway 17A, Delta, BC
29 Mar 2016
GMT Project
2.3.5 Other Methods
Throughout the Phase 3 consultation, members of the public continued to visit the Project Office and the
telephone and email enquiry program established in November 2012 to manage and respond to Projectrelated questions. Project staff responded to email inquiries, generally within two business days.
3. PARTICIPATION
Format
Participation
Website
More than 14,200 website visits during the consultation period

258 people signed up for Project update emails (in addition to the 1,487
people who had previously signed up)
Open Houses
750 people attended the open houses, which were reported by 19 media
outlets
Stakeholder Meetings
102 attendees representing at least 60 organizations participated
Feedback Forms
1,037 people completed feedback forms, of which 905 were completed

online
Project Office
310 people visited the Project Office

67 people called the Project Information Line
266 people sent emails
Written Submissions
11 organizations provided written submissions
4. SUMMARY OF INPUT
Input was collected through four key sources stakeholder meetings, open houses, the feedback form
and written submissions. Key theme summary results from each of these sources are described in the
subsections that follow.
4.1 Participant Mix

Most stakeholder meeting and open house participants live in Delta and Richmond; 42 per cent of
feedback form respondents were from these municipalities.
Approximately one quarter of feedback form respondents who live in Delta work in Vancouver and about
13 per cent work in Richmond. Richmond respondents work primarily in Richmond (41 per cent) or
Vancouver (15 per cent).
Of the 20 per cent of feedback form respondents from Vancouver, most (75 per cent) work in locations
that dont require use of the Tunnel.
Stakeholder meeting participants tended to be frequent users of the Tunnel, and just over half (54 per
cent) of feedback form respondents use the Tunnel at least once per week. Most (63 per cent) of
respondents indicated they will use the new crossing about the same amount of time as they do today,
while 13 per cent will use it more and 19 per cent will use it less frequently once the Project is complete.
Participants from all sources represented a broad mix of mode shares. Feedback form respondents were
primarily transit or carpool users (53 per cent), followed by single occupant vehicle drivers (39 per cent).
29 Mar 2016
GMT Project
4.2 Summary of Input from All Sources

4.2.1 Project Scope
General support for the Project overall and interest in more detail about specific elements including
interchange designs, traffic forecasts, and the upcoming environmental assessment
General support for the following physical scope elements:
o Strong support for proposed transit, cycling and pedestrian measures
o Strong support for capacity improvements to address congestion
o Support for the proposed interchange improvements
o Miscellaneous recommendations for additional Project scope items
Respondents from Delta and Richmond were more likely to be supportive of the Project as compared
with Vancouver residents, who were more likely to say that the Project is not needed
4.2.2 Funding
Mixed support for tolling as a funding mechanism:

o Most participants who commented about tolls supported tolling as a funding mechanism;
however, many participants suggested that tolling should be applied in the context of a
regional tolling policy some for reasons of equity and others as a potential means to
lower the cost of the toll
o Some participants opposed any toll, for a variety of reasons
Strong support for use of other funding sources such as a federal funding contribution and
contributions from Port Metro Vancouver
Vancouver residents were more likely than residents of other areas to indicate support for tolls, while
Richmond residents were more likely to suggest tolling of all bridges at a lower rate and Delta
residents were more likely to oppose tolling
4.2.3 Other Themes
Concerns about potential increased traffic congestion at the Oak Street Bridge and, to a lesser
extent, other Fraser River North Arm crossings
Keen interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and how the Project will contribute to this
Questions about tunnel decommissioning and the potential effects of increased marine
traffic/industrialization of the Fraser River if the Tunnel is removed
Interest in additional transit improvements including timing of potential future rapid transit
extension some participants expressed a preference for transit improvements instead of the Project
Some participants asked for more information about previous phases of consultation and the
rationale for a new bridge as compared to other alternatives explored in Phase 2 consultation
29 Mar 2016
GMT Project
4.3 Stakeholder Meetings Summary

The Project Team attended meetings with stakeholder groups on request. The following table provides a
summary of key themes from each of these meetings.
Organization
Date
Strong support for the Project

Appreciation for the full Project scope, particularly improvements at
Highway 91/Westminster Highway
Discussion of Highway 99 as an important national and provincial trade
and tourism corridor, and the need for efficient goods movement
Support for tolling and suggestion that tolls collected should also be
used to help fund the next phase of improvements in the future
Questions about plans to review the provincial tolling policy and
consideration of regional tolling
Questions about potential effects on congestion at the Oak Street
Bridge given that traffic is primarily regulated by the traffic lights at 70th
Avenue in Vancouver
Questions about HOV traffic merging to and from designated HOV
lanes
Strong support for the Project
Questions about funding, including how much will be funded through
user tolls, how much federal funding can be anticipated, if any, and
potential future plans for regional tolling
Questions about how the Project benefits were quantified
Questions about soil conditions in the area
Preference for a Blundell interchange, but expectation that highway
widening between Steveston Highway and Westminster Highway may
go a long way to addressing congestion in this area of the Highway 99
corridor
The meeting included a detailed discussion of proposed cycling
improvements at Bridgeport, Odlin/Shell Road, Westminster Highway,
Blundell Road, Steveston Highway and River Road, and across the new
bridge. Key themes were:
Vancouver Board of
Trade Transportation
Committee
(18 December 2015)
Richmond Chamber of
Commerce Board of
Directors
(12 January 2016)
Cycling groups
(12 January 2016)
29 Mar 2016
Strong support for the proposed improvements, and preference for

considering additional improvements within the Highway 99 corridor
Preference for bi-directional multi-use paths on both sides of the bridge,
for convenience and as a traffic calming measure; if path is only on one
side of the bridge, ensure efficient cross access routes to and from it
Preference for the multi-use path(s) to be under the bridge, as a
weather protection measure
Suggestion to use the Golden Ears Bridge cycling access/connections
as a best practice guide, including signs, sight lines, grades, etc.
Recommended using a skid-resistant surface and reflective markings,
given the planned grade (5 per cent) of the new bridge
Request to design connections to cycling networks and to the
integrated transit stops in a manner that appropriately considers the
needs of all cyclists (all ages and abilities)
Suggested adding zero fatality as a specific goal and to include
cycling incidents in the Projects performance measures
Request for more information about the cycling connections planned on
the south side of the river
GMT Project
Organization
Date
Strong support for the Project, including the new Rice Mill Road
accesses at Steveston Highway/Highway 99
Questions about traffic management during construction, and
recommendation to convene a traffic management advisory committee
to assist in planning and evaluating traffic management measures
Questions about soil conditions
Specific questions about the reference concept
Questions about procurement timing and use of local suppliers
Questions about what future developments are included in traffic
forecasts (e.g. build out of Deltaport Terminal 2)
Questions about traffic forecasts with respect to tolling
Questions about Tunnel decommissioning
The meeting included a detailed discussion of proposed cycling
improvements at Bridgeport, Odlin/Shell Road, Westminster Highway,
Blundell Road, Steveston Highway and River Road, and across the new
bridge. Key themes were:
Strong support for the proposed cycling improvements, particularly at
Westminster Highway and Steveston Highway
Recommended additional improvements at Bridgeport/Van Horne
Discussion of options for ramp connections to/from the new bridge
some prefer spirals, while some prefer switchbacks provided that the
turning radii are large enough
Suggestion to have one-way cycling traffic similar to the Burrard Street
Bridge, given the likelihood for significantly increased demand; would
require good connections and clear information signs
Recommendations for human scale lighting along the bridge
suggestion to use the City of Richmonds trail system lighting standards
Support for proposed transit improvements and questions about when
rapid transit will be extended
Questions about feedback to date on tolling measures and potential
consideration of region-wide tolling
Questions about the toll rate and potential effects on Alex Fraser Bridge
as a free alternative
Questions about how the Tunnel will be decommissioned
Questions about the traffic forecasting methodology and how traffic
volumes on other tolled bridges compare with forecasts
Questions about trucks/heavy construction equipment and potential
effects on traffic during construction
Appreciation for the presentation and the level of information provided
Questions about traffic volumes and how the most recent origindestination data was collected
Questions about the Steveston Highway interchange design and where
the additional Highway 99 lanes will pick up and drop off
Questions about the toll payback period assumptions, how much
federal funding and municipal funding is anticipated, and if the Project
can proceed without a federal contribution
Questions about Tunnel decommissioning and whether the
decommissioned tunnel could remain in place rather than be removed
Questions about how rapid transit will be incorporated in the future
Questions about the potential popularity of the new multi-use paths and
anticipated volume of cyclists and pedestrians as well as suicide
prevention measures on the new bridge
(13 January 2016)
City of Richmond Active

Transportation
Committee
(13 January 2016)
Steveston 20-20 Group

(18 January 2016)
29 Mar 2016
GMT Project
Organization
Date
City of Richmond
General Purposes
Committee
(18 January 2016)
Rotary Club of Steveston

(19 January 2016)
Richmond Farmers
Institute
(25 January 2016)
29 Mar 2016
Preference for an upgraded tunnel instead of a new bridge

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

Two open houses were held during which participants had the opportunity to speak with Project staff and
technical specialists as well as EAO staff. Project staff made note of their interactions with participants,
which are summarized in the following table.
Event
Key Themes
Richmond
General support for the Project, particularly with respect to Steveston

Highway interchange improvements and transit improvements at
Bridgeport Road
Questions of clarification about the Project scope, including
height/footprint of the new Steveston interchange
Concerns about potential impacts to the Oak Street Bridge and other
North Arm crossings between Richmond and Vancouver
Concerns about potential effects to agricultural land
Questions about the origin-destination traffic data
(26 January 2016)
Concerns about increased industrialization of the Fraser River
Delta
(27 January 2016)
Most people support the Project but many had concerns about tolling and
related effects for people living south of the Fraser River
Concerns about port expansion and the potential for larger vessels to
begin using this area of the Fraser River
Suggestions that Port Metro Vancouver should assist in funding the
Project
Concerns about temporary construction impacts, given the amount of
construction that has happened in Delta over the past several years
Questions about potential effects to migratory birds
Questions about implications for the salt wedge
Questions about increased transit and potential new park and ride areas
Questions about how impacts to Deas Island Regional Park and the
neighbouring sloughs will be avoided
Concerns about potential increased noise levels during construction and
long-term operation of the new bridge
Questions about access to/from Highway 99, especially at River Road
4.5 Feedback Forms Summary

The Ministry received 1,037 feedback form responses during the consultation period. Nine people sent in
feedback forms from previous phases of consultation and these have been recorded as input but are not
incorporated into the response summaries included below.
It is important to note that almost all respondents answered questions about the Project scope elements
and tolling (questions 5-7 and 9), and most responded to the demographic questions. Significantly fewer
respondents provided comments or questions about other aspects about the Project. The number of
respondents is noted for each question in the sections that follow.
29 Mar 2016
10
GMT Project
4.5.1 Project Scope Elements
Participants were invited to provide comments or questions about the Project scope.
Q1. The Project includes a new 10-lane bridge to replace the Tunnel, reconstructing the Westminster
Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges, a multi-use pathway for cyclists and
pedestrians on the new bridge, new transit/HOV lanes and improvements to Highway 99 between
Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91 in Delta. What questions do you have, if any, about the
draft project scope?
309 respondents (30%) provided no comments
55 respondents (5%) specifically stated they have no concerns
664 respondents (65%) provided comments or questions
o 24% were generally supportive
o 31% indicated conditional support
o 10% were generally opposed
Key themes are summarized in the following table.
Comments/Questions About Project Scope
Top Key Themes
(n=1,028)
# Respondents
Did not answer
309
30%
Requests for improvements to rapid transit as part of Project scope
103
10%
Concerns about Oak Street Bridge traffic effects
69
7%
Comments that the bridge is too big/too many lanes
62
6%
Statements that respondent has no comments/concerns
55
5%
Requests for improvements to other highways and bridges in region
50
5%
Questions about bridge exits/entrances and highway interchanges
41
4%
Comments about tolling
33
3%
Questions about potential traffic and noise management during construction
31
3%
Comments about the pedestrian and bike multi-use pathway
29
3%
Preference for an updated tunnel instead of a new bridge
29
3%
Suggestion to toll all bridges
24
2%
Statements of support for the Project
23
2%
Questions about construction and procurement
23
2%
Questions about why the Project did not go to plebiscite/referendum
23
2%
Other Key Themes
Note: Respondents may have commented on more than one topic.
29 Mar 2016
11
GMT Project
Q5. Please rate your level of agreement with the proposed transit/HOV lane extensions, which would
add one lane in each direction to the new crossing for use by transit and carpool vehicles with two or
more persons.
73% of respondents agree
(49% strongly, 24% somewhat) with
transit/HOV lanes
12% of respondents disagree
(8% strongly, 4% somewhat)
9% neither agree nor disagree
6% of respondents did not answer the question
Strongly Disagree
8%
No answer
6%
Disagree
4%
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
9%
Strongly Agree
49%
Agree
24%
Respondent base = 1,028
Q6. Please rate your level of agreement with the proposed addition of one general-purpose traffic
lane in each direction, which would provide room for slower-moving and merging traffic, and
accommodate for future growth, while maintaining the three lanes in each direction for other traffic that
exist in the peak direction today.
(34% strongly, 20% somewhat) with the additional
general purpose lanes
No answer
7%
Strongly
Disagree
17%
Strongly Agree
34%
Disagree
7%
Neither Agree nor

Disagree
15%
Agree
20%
29 Mar 2016
12
GMT Project
Q7. Please rate your level of agreement with the proposed multi-use pathway on the bridge for
cyclists and pedestrians, connecting to Steveston Highway in Richmond and River Road in Delta.
(48% strongly, 21% somewhat) with the proposed
multi-use pathway
Strongly Disagree
8%
No answer
6%
Disagree
6%
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
11%
Strongly Agree
48%
Agree
21%
4.5.2 Traffic Management During Construction

Participants were invited comment or ask questions about traffic management during construction.
Q2. The new bridge and Highway 99 improvements will be constructed while keeping traffic as it does
today. This includes maintaining counterflow operations throughout construction. What questions do you
have, if any, about traffic management during construction?
365 respondents (36%) provided comments or questions, as highlighted in the table below:
Comments/Questions About Traffic Management During Construction
Top Key Themes
(n=1,028)
# Respondents
Did not answer
559
54%
104
10%
Questions about the traffic management plan
68
7%
Questions about Tunnel operations during construction
27
3%
Questions about congestion impacts during construction
27
3%
Statements of opposition to the Project
26
3%
Questions about impacts to interchange traffic flow during construction
24
2%
Concern about increased traffic on alternate routes during construction
23
2%
Questions/suggestions for increased/improved transit during construction
23
2%
Questions about construction hours of work/time of day
19
2%
Other Key Themes
Other Key Themes

# Respondents
Concerns about construction delays
16
2%
Concern about traffic flow in Ladner during construction
15
1%
Concern about environmental impacts during construction
12
1%
10
1%
29 Mar 2016
13
GMT Project
4.5.3 Environmental Assessment Review
Participants were invited to provide comments or questions for the Ministry and the EAO to consider
during the upcoming environmental assessment review.
Q3. The Project will undergo Provincial Environmental Assessment review, which will consider the
potential effects of the Project and how to appropriately address them. What questions do you have, if
any, about the environmental review for this Project?
95 respondents (9%) specifically stated they have no concerns or comments
424 respondents (41%) provided comments or questions. Of these:
o 33% were generally supportive
o 22% indicated conditional support
o 13% were generally opposed
Comments/Questions About Environmental Assessment Review
Top Key Themes
(n=1,028)
# Respondents
Did not answer
509
50%
95
9%
Questions and comments about the transparency of the process
60
6%
Questions about the Environmental Assessment review process
60
6%
Questions about impacts to farm land (Agricultural Land Reserve)
52
5%
Questions about climate change, GHG and emissions
50
5%
Comments and questions about impacts to wildlife
31
3%
Questions about increased traffic on the corridor
23
2%
Questions about potential increases in marine traffic
21
2%
Questions about tunnel decommissioning
19
2%
Comments and suggestions for improvements to rapid transit
17
2%
Comments and questions about impacts to fish and fish habitat
16
1%
Questions about potential noise impacts during construction
14
1%
Questions about impacts of construction
13
1%
13
1%
Other Key Themes
Specific comments and questions related to the environment are being considered as part of the
Environmental Review process. Many comments mirror those sent directly to the Environmental
Assessment Office during the concurrent public comment period for the Project Description and Key
Areas of Study. The Ministry will prepare an overview of comments received during PDR consultation and
submit this to the EAO.
29 Mar 2016
14
GMT Project
4.5.4 Project Success Measures
Participants were invited to provide comments or recommended changes to draft performance/Project
success measures in determining success in achieving each of the Project goals as identified in the
Project Definition Report.
Q8. Page 30 of the Project Definition Report provides information on how each of the Project goals will be
measured and evaluated. Would you add or change any measurements to help determine the Projects
success?
Comments specifically related to recommended changes or new project success measures include:
Traffic Measures
Increased transit capacity and ridership

Change in mode share including cycling and walking
Change in transit travel time
Change in emergency response times
Change in vehicle-kilometres travelled
Change in vehicle idling times
Change in traffic volumes on other crossings
Number of cars per capita
Environmental Measures
Air quality
Carbon footprint/Greenhouse Gas emissions
Farmland protection
Silt levels in Green Slough/changes in water quality
Drainage and stormwater runoff
General comments about a need for more specific
environmental success measures
Economic Measures
Improved goods movement flow

Economic benefit of construction jobs
Economic impact of tolls on south of Fraser residents
Toll payback period
Community Development Measures

Change in residential/industrial development patterns
Surveys of business customers in Richmond and Delta
Aesthetic design of the new bridge
Construction Performance Measures
On time/early completion
On or under budget at completion
Keeping traffic moving during construction
Many respondents used this question as an opportunity to reinforce earlier comments rather than to
recommend new measures. Results of the key themes are as follows:
Comments/Questions About Project Success Measurements
Top Key Themes
(n=1,028)
# Respondents
Did not answer
529
51%
90
9%
Requests for improvements to rapid transit
70
7%
Comments about reduced traffic congestion
42
4%
Comments about increased traffic on alternate routes
35
3%
Comments and complaints about process and transparency
31
3%
Comments about bridge usage by cyclists and pedestrians
28
3%
28
3%
Miscellaneous comments about the Project scope
27
3%
Comments about alternate crossing options
26
3%
Comments about climate change, GHG and emissions
26
3%
Comments about the overall Project budget
25
2%
Other Key Themes
29 Mar 2016
15
GMT Project
Comments/Questions About Project Success Measurements
(n=1,028)
Comments about potential environmental impacts
24
2%
Requests for no tolls
21
2%
Comments on tolling
18
2%
4.5.5 Other Comments and Questions

The Project Definition Report outlines the proposed Project scope, rationale, and the business case for the
Project moving forward. Participants were invited to offer any specific questions.
Q4. What other questions do you have, if any, as the Project moves forward?
432 respondents (42%) did not have any questions
Key themes of questions are summarized in the following table.
Key Comments/Questions as the Project Moves Forward
Top Key Themes
(n=1,028)
# Respondents
Did not answer
432
42%
Questions about tolling operations and costs
82
8%
Questions about transit improvements and increased service
80
8%
Questions about Project funding and budget
60
6%
45
4%
Statements of opposition to tolling
36
4%
Questions about the why the Project did not go to plebiscite/referendum
35
3%
Questions and comments about the Project planning process and transparency
32
3%
Questions about Project scope
31
3%
Suggestions to toll all bridges
30
3%
28
3%
Questions about potential increased congestion at Oak Street Bridge
23
2%
Questions and comments about the consultation process
21
2%
20
2%
Questions/comments about specific highway interchanges
20
2%
Concerns about increased traffic on alternate routes
20
2%
Questions about alternate crossing options
20
2%
Other Key Themes
In addition, some participants took the opportunity to provide additional comments (Q20).
446 respondents (43%) did not provide additional comments
582 respondents (57%) provided comments
29 Mar 2016
16
GMT Project
Key themes of these comments are summarized below.
Additional Comments/Questions
Top Key Themes
(n=1,028)
# Respondents
Did not answer
446
43%
180
18%
Appreciation for opportunity to comment and consultation process
96
9%
Recommendations for various transit improvements and service increases
75
7%
General concerns about potential environmental impacts
66
6%
Recommend lower toll rates/discounted toll rates
43
4%
Concerns about increased traffic on alternate routes
40
4%
Comments about the Project process and transparency
27
3%
Comments about the size of the new bridge (too many lanes)
25
2%
Comments about the bridge design
17
2%
Comments about the pedestrian and bike multi-use pathway
12
1%
12
1%
Questions about potential for increased marine traffic
12
1%
10
1%
Suggestions to toll all bridges
1%
Other Key Themes
4.5.6 Tolling as a Funding Source

Participants were invited to provide comments about tolling as a funding source.
Q9. The Province intends to fund the Project through user tolls and is working with the federal
government to determine potential funding partnerships. Please provide your comments about tolling
as a funding source.
874 respondents (85%) provided comments or questions. Of these:
o 13% support of tolling as proposed
o 44% indicated conditional support for tolling (lower toll or toll all bridges)
o 14% recommended alternative sources of funding
o 22% opposed tolling
Vancouver residents were more likely than residents of other areas to indicate support for tolls as a
funding source generally. Richmond residents were more likely to indicate support for tolling if all bridges
were tolled at a lower rate, while Delta residents were more likely than other respondents to oppose
tolling about 26 per cent of respondents from Delta indicated a preference for no tolls.
29 Mar 2016
17
GMT Project
Comments/Questions About Tolling as a Funding Source
Top Key Themes
(n=1,028)
# Respondents
Suggestions to toll all bridges at a lower rate
384
37%
229
22%
Did not answer
154
15%
Statements of support for tolling
135
13%
Suggestions that current taxes should fund Project
80
8%
Concerns that tolling is unfair to local residents and businesses
79
8%
Requests for discounted toll for high-frequency users and off-peak hours
69
7%
Comments about alternate funding sources
58
6%
Comments about increased traffic on alternate routes
32
3%
Suggestions to improve rapid transit instead of building a bridge
27
3%
Comments about tolling operations
14
1%
Concerns about increased marine traffic
11
1%
Comments about the planning process and transparency
1%
Comments about traffic management and comparisons to other projects
1%
No concerns
1%
Other Key Themes
4.5.7 Participant Demographics

Current Use of the Tunnel and Highway 99
Participants were asked to indicate how frequently they use Highway 99 today, how they typically travel
and where they typically enter or exit the highway.
Q10. On average, how frequently do you use the
George Massey Tunnel?
Most respondents (54%) use the Tunnel at least
once a week.
o 28% use it four or more days/week
o 26% use it at least once a week
Q13. When using the Tunnel, how do you most
frequently travel?
53% of respondents carpool or take transit
39% of respondents are single occupant drivers
3% of respondents are commercial vehicle
drivers (large and small)
Cycling or walking,
and used the
shuttle service
1%
Transit
7%
Other commercial
vehicle (smaller
truck, bus, taxi,
delivery vehicle,
service vehicle)
2%
Commercial
vehicle, over 5,500
kg
1%
Private vehicle,
with other
passengers
46%
No answer
4%
Private vehicle,
alone
39%
See chart to the right for details

29 Mar 2016
18
GMT Project
Origins and Destinations
Respondents were asked to indicate where they usually enter and exit Highway 99 when they travel.
Q11. When you travel Highway 99 between Oak Street Bridge and the U.S. border, where do you usually
enter Highway 99 (e.g., from what on-ramps)?
Q12. When you travel Highway 99 between Oak Street Bridge and the U.S. border, where do you usually
leave the Highway (e.g., from what off-ramps)?
The most common points of entry and exit are noted in the table below.
Most Common Points of Entry
Most Common Points of Exit
Oak Street Bridge or north
25%
Highway 17A/River Road
19%
Highway 17A/River Road
15%
Oak Street Bridge or north
14%
Steveston Highway
10%
Steveston Highway
10%
Note: Respondents may have selected more than one option.
Future Use of the Tunnel and Highway 99

Participants were asked to indicate their use
of the crossing when the new bridge opens.
Q14. When the new bridge opens, it will
help relieve congestion and provide more
travel time reliability. Because of this my use
of the crossing will
Increase, because I
will travel more
often on this
crossing instead of
others
6%
Increase, because I
will travel more
often generally
7%
63% of respondents will use the Tunnel

about the same as they do today
13% will use it more
19% will use it less
No answer
5%
Will decrease
19%
Will stay about

the same
63%
Place of Residence
Participants were asked to indicate where they live.
Q15. Where do you live?
The vast majority of respondents (89%) live in Metro
Vancouver, including 32% from Delta, 12% from Surrey
and 11% from Richmond.
Respondents from Delta and Richmond were more likely to
be supportive of the Project (as expressed in comments
about Project scope) as compared with Vancouver
residents, who were more likely to say that the Project is
not needed.
With respect to comments about the Project, Vancouver
residents were more likely to have environmental concerns,
while Delta residents were more likely to express concerns
about transparency of the planning process.
29 Mar 2016
Other Metro
Vancouver
7%
No answer
4%
Other
municipality
11%
White Rock
3%
Delta
32%
Richmond
11%
Surrey
12%
Vancouver
20%
19
GMT Project
Age of Respondents
75+
4%
Q19. Please indicate your age range.
Respondents are primarily aged 25 to 44 (33%)

or 45 to 64 (38%)
21% of respondents are aged 65+ (much higher than
the Metro Vancouver average of about 13.5%)
No answer
3%
19-24
4%
65-74
17%
The most common age range for respondents is 45 to 64

for all municipalities except Vancouver, where 61% of
respondents are 25 to 44 years of age.
25-44
33%
45-64
38%
Delta/Ladner/Tsawwassen area respondents are slightly

older than Richmond and Surrey/White Rock area residents.
Recreational Use
Recognizing the recreational value of areas near the Tunnel, the Ministry sought to better understand
whether consultation participants also use these areas. Results are shown in the following two charts.
Q17. In the past year, have you visited Deas Island Regional Park or crossed over the Tunnel using the
Millennium Trail in Delta or the Dyke Road Trail in Richmond?
Yes,%38%%
No,%59%%
No%answer,%3%%
Q18. In the past year, have you visited Deas Slough or one of the marinas near the George Massey Tunnel
by boat?
Yes,% 18%
No,%78%
No%answer,%4%
29 Mar 2016
20
GMT Project
4.6 Written Submissions Summary
The Ministry received 11 written submissions from stakeholders and 80 written submissions from
members of the public. Stakeholder submissions included:
The City of Richmond
Delta HUB
Delta South MLA Vicki Huntington
HUB Cycling
Metro Vancouver
Port Metro Vancouver
Richmond Chamber of Commerce
Surrey Board of Trade
TransLink
Vancouver Board of Trade
Key themes from each of these submissions are summarized in the table below, in chronological order by
date received. Copies of these submissions are included in Appendix 6.
Organization/Date
Key Themes
Vancouver Board
of Trade
(16 December 2015)
Welcome the release of the Project Definition Report and Business Case and
pledge support for the Tunnels replacement in an effort to improve the
movement of goods and people along the Highway 99 corridor.
Support replacing the Tunnel with a 10-lane bridge to support the movement
of commercial goods. Referenced importance of considering overdimensional loads, dangerous goods and long combination vehicles.
Recommendations include:
(27 January 2016)
Tolling all bridge crossings as a move towards mobility pricing and to avoid
traffic diversion
Use Golden Ears Bridge vehicle classifications rather than Port Mann
Institute a Traffic Advisory Committee to help guide traffic management
during construction and include penalty clauses for congestion
Increase vertical clearance of overpasses
TransLink
(27 January 2016)
29 Mar 2016
Support plans to toll the bridge, indicating that it is consistent with the
Regional Transportation Strategy and the Metro Vancouver Mayors Vision.
Suggested that the Project provides a good opportunity to review the
Provincial Tolling Guidelines and move towards a mobility pricing strategy.
Request to include a direct transit ramp at Highway 17A and that if Project
scope is expanded, a direct connection for buses to Ladner Trunk Road.
Note that the Project supports regional goods movement.
Request more information about connections to local cycling and pedestrian
networks on both sides of the new bridge, noting that a south side
connection is critical for access to and from BC Ferries. Also request an
opportunity to review preliminary transit access designs from a passenger
safety and comfort perspective.
Request that greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle-kilometres-travelled and
mode share shift be included in the Project performance measures.
21
GMT Project
Organization/Date
Key Themes
Strongly support a multi-use path on both sides of bridge and provided

detailed recommendations for design and safety for these paths, as well as:
Delta HUB
(28 January 2016)
Coordinated signage
Ground level connections to the multi-use path from both sides of bridge,
to maximize accessibility from all potential origins
Improve community roadway (Vasey Road and 60th Ave) and the regional
cycling gateway as a whole with integrated transit stops at key locations
Request more information about:
Funding of Delta Trails
Plans for park and rides along Highway 99
Potential extension of River Road (Corporation of Delta project)
New overpasses at Highway 10 and 112th Street
Supports many of the objectives outlined in the Project Definition Report and
noted the following outstanding items:
Delta South MLA

Vicki Huntington
(28 January 2016)
Concern that tolling will create inequity for residents south of the Fraser
River
Suggests consultation on a region-wide tolling system and a funding
contribution from Port Metro Vancouver
Request for more information regarding no net loss of farmland
Request for more specific information about how South Delta residents will
access from Highway 17A, including passenger vehicles, transit, foot and
bicycle traffic
Feedback on scope and performance measures related to cycling,
specifically:
HUB Cycling
(28 January 2016)
Request a more comprehensive plan for safe and convenient cycling along
the entire Highway 99 corridor to help address gaps in the regional cycling
network
Recommend creating a clear cycling goal with an objective to increase
cycling along the length of the corridor
Key interests are regional growth management, air quality and climate
change, environment, regional utilities and infrastructure, and regional parks.
Specific comments and requests for additional information include:
Metro Vancouver
(28 January 2016)
29 Mar 2016
Information on transportation patterns associated with a new tolled bridge,

its effect on goods movement, and changes in greenhouse gases
Details on tolling options and refinements to provincial tolling policy
How air emissions will change per vehicle and overall (regional total) and
how will it compare to regional green house gas emission reduction targets
Recommendation to consider air quality impacts in the design of cycling
and pedestrian infrastructure
How climate change impacts are being considered in bridge design and
restoration projects
Recommendation to add a Health Impact Assessment
Details outlining impacts of the Project on agricultural land and possible
mitigation or enhancement options
Detailed information about the planning and design of the area within Deas
22
GMT Project
Organization/Date
Key Themes
Island Regional Park and a request to work with the Ministry to ensure
strong ecological and trail connections to the park
Request to consider opportunities to advance the Experience the Fraser
Concept Plan
Request information about construction and maintenance access
Scope details to ascertain extent of impacts on regional utilities
Port Metro Vancouver
(28 January 2016)
Richmond Chamber of
Commerce
(28 January 2016)
Surrey Board of Trade

(28 January 2016)
Advise that Port Metro Vancouver had reviewed the PDR and does not have
any feedback/comment on the report.
Endorse the concept of a replacement bridge as outlined in Project Definition
Report, in particular the benefits of the new bridge.
Note that in a membership survey conducted in January 2016, 87 per cent of
decided respondents supported a new bridge.
Request that more information be provided about:
Net gain of agricultural land
Specific environmental benefits
Potential effects at Oak Street and 70th Ave
Land use planning for the region
An economic, social and environment benefit-cost analysis, to help
communities understand overall effects of the Project
Support replacement of George Massey Tunnel in principle and
recommended mobility pricing as the preferred option for funding future
infrastructure and transit projects.
Recommend that governments work toward a coordinated regional tolling
policy.
Provided detailed individual responses from members to the questions
outlined in the Ministrys Project Definition Report feedback form.
Support in principle, the objectives of the Project.
Request that the following items be addressed before advancing further
design and procurement:
City of Richmond
(3 February 2016)
More details on plans for no net loss of agricultural land

More details on how riparian management and environmentally sensitive
areas in Richmond will be maintained and protected
How tolling will be implemented
Contingency plan for potential increased traffic at the Oak Street Bridge
Collaboration with Richmond on other infrastructure improvements
An iconic bridge design
Offer specific recommendations for cycling and transit improvements.
Comments primarily with respect to support for the Project and
comments/questions about project funding. Key themes are as follows:
Members of the Public

(16 Dec 2015 to
28 Jan 2016)
29 Mar 2016
Very strong support for a new bridge

Very strong support for adding light rail as part of the project
Strong support for other aspects of the project scope, specifically including:
o Steveston interchange improvements
o Maintaining a River Road off ramp
23
GMT Project
Organization/Date
Key Themes
Highway 17A interchange improvements

Improving HOV and transit travel across the river and for moving these
lanes from the shoulder to the median
o Cycling improvements
Many suggestions to also fix the problem of congestion at Oak Street
Bridge as part of the Project
Very strong opposition to tolling generally
o
o
Numerous suggestions to toll every bridge and/or lower the toll rate
A low number of correspondents offer suggestions to change the project
scope including:
Reduce the number of lanes to on the new bridge to six or eight
Keep the Tunnel in place once it is decommissioned
Construct a new tunnel instead
29 Mar 2016
24

Massey - Phase 3 Consultation Summary Report March 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Massey - Phase 3 Consultation Summary Report March 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL

Advertisements and Other Notifications

Available under separate cover at the Project Office

1,037 people submitted a feedback form

310 people visited the Project Office in Richmond

About this Report

1.2 Previous Consultation and Engagement

More than 90 presentations to business, professional and community groups

1.3 About this Report

2. PHASE 3 CONSULTATION PROCESS

Consultation launch public notices in the Vancouver Sun,

17-18 December, 2015

Public notices placed in the Vancouver Sun and

11-14 January 2016

Media event and

Media event at the Project Office in Richmond to launch

Media release to announce consultation open house dates

Three public notices posted online at masseytunnel.ca

16 December 2015 28 January 2016

Office hours: 8:30 4:30 p.m. (Mon-Fri)

3 emails sent to the 1,700+ Project database subscribers

16 &17 December 2015

Email and letter

21 letters distributed to residents living at Riverwoods in

Invitations to 28 stakeholder groups as well as elected

Follow up phone calls and emails were made to remind

2.3 Engagement Methods

Vancouver Board of Trade Transportation Committee

Richmond Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors

City of Richmond Active Transportation Committee

Steveston 20-20 Group (a group representing

City of Richmond General Purposes Committee

Rotary Club of Steveston

Richmond Farmers Institute

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Sandman Signature Hotel Vancouver Airport

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Delta Town & Country Inn

More than 14,200 website visits during the consultation period

102 attendees representing at least 60 organizations participated

1,037 people completed feedback forms, of which 905 were completed

310 people visited the Project Office

11 organizations provided written submissions

4.1 Participant Mix

4.2 Summary of Input from All Sources

Mixed support for tolling as a funding mechanism:

4.2.3 Other Themes

4.3 Stakeholder Meetings Summary

Strong support for the Project

Strong support for the proposed improvements, and preference for

City of Richmond Active

Steveston 20-20 Group

Rotary Club of Steveston

Preference for an upgraded tunnel instead of a new bridge

4.4 Open Houses Summary

General support for the Project, particularly with respect to Steveston

(26 January 2016)

Concerns about increased industrialization of the Fraser River

4.5 Feedback Forms Summary

Did not answer

Requests for improvements to rapid transit as part of Project scope

Concerns about Oak Street Bridge traffic effects

Comments that the bridge is too big/too many lanes

Statements that respondent has no comments/concerns