Appendix 2: Consultation Materials

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Phase 1 Understanding the Need GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT PHASE 1 UNDERSTANDING THE NEED CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT MARCH 2013 Appendix 2: Consultation Materials A. Sample Print Advertisements B. Stakeholder Meeting Letter C. Advertising Record D. Media Release and Info Bulletin E. Discussion Guide F. Feedback Form G. Presentation H. Meeting Notes I. Written Submissions

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project STAKEHOLDER MEETING December 7, 2012 Summary of the Agricultural Stakeholder Group Meeting for Phase 1 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, held December 7, 2012, at Delta Town & Country Inn, Delta, B.C. ATTENDEES Participants Robert Butler, DFI Administration Nancy Chong, Farmer Kevin Eng, City of Richmond Martin Hamming, Farmer Lucas Hoglar, Farmer Brent Kelly, DFI Agricultural Advisory Committee Nicole Kelly - Farmer Todd May, RFI/Richmond AAC Dave Melnychuk, Consultant - DFI Counsellor Ian Paton, Corporation of Delta Tony Pellett, Agricultural Land Commission Lydia Ryall, Agricultural Advisory Committee, Corporation of Delta Marcy Sangnet - Corporation of Delta John Savage, DFI President Steve Vereschagia, Farmer Paul van Westendorp, Ministry of Agriculture Project Team Representatives Geoff Freer, Executive Project Director Ron LePage, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Pam Ryan, Facilitator Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting - Summary Held December 7, 2012 Page 1 of 8

1. Welcome Pam Ryan, Facilitator, welcomed participants and the meeting began at 10:00 a.m. Ms. Ryan reviewed the agenda, and explained the intent of the meeting, noting that this was the first in a series of planned stakeholder meetings and open houses. 2. Introductions Ms. Ryan recognized representatives present and asked for a round of introductions, including the project team. 3. Presentation & Discussion Guide Geoff Freer provided a presentation about the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and the consultation process being undertaken to provide input into planning for a replacement. 4. Discussion - Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange with Project Team present: Is the tunnel definitely on its way out? R: There are no preconceived notions and the project is not necessarily a replacement project. In response to questions from the team, participants noted that they were unaware of any specific vision for the tunnel in the long-term regional agricultural plans. What is the estimated cost to rehabilitate the existing tunnel? R: Technical work is currently being done and historical data is being looked at. New technologies such as LED lighting would definitely make a difference. The team is exploring all options. It is anticipated that costs to rehabilitate would be in the hundreds of millions. The discussion guide shows the relative percentage of users, and 9-15% are trucks. This does not necessarily take into account the footprint of each vehicle represented. Given the congestion during last trucking strike, would the team consider restricting truck traffic to lower usage hours? R: All options are being considered a truck ban, restricted hours, etc. All feedback is being taken into consideration. From a technical perspective, different types of trucks use the tunnel (not just port trucks) and that needs to be considered, i.e. small, service-related vehicles may not be served by a night-only truck restriction. Page 5 of the discussion guide references the various usages what is date of this research? Did they try and determine how much agricultural or food service was represented in the numbers? Was that level of detail done? Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting Summary Held December 7, 2012 Page 2 of 8

R: It is based on 2008 research. The team is now awaiting the 2011 data from TransLink. There is now more traffic coming into Delta for agricultural events. Are you tracking any of that movement in the data? R: Not at this time, but the team is open to suggestions on how to obtain that level of detail related to events or truck contents. Can you consider how to weed out container trucks? There is frustration amongst those who live in Surrey or Delta. With traffic coming from Tilbury, a truck may take up a full light cycle. They may only make up 9% of usage but they are a large part of the problem. They are the slowest moving vehicles. Markets are now open 24 hours a day. Deliveries do not need to be made exclusively during the day. If container trucks were kept away from cars, it would make it so much smoother going through the tunnel. As a short term fix, can you look at new lighting, white tiling, or entering Number 5 Road to Ironwood by a loop through the tunnel or through Rice Mill Road? Would you consider alternative exits such as where the old scale was? 10 years is too long a time frame to wait. R: These are good suggestions. The Ministry and City of Richmond have been working together to investigate all possible options. Thank you for your due diligence. You will likely get many different opinions from various users. What are some ideas that are being proposed currently? R: There are only so many technical options. That is why consultation is being done. We need to know the cost of fixing the current tunnel, the extent of upgrades that are required, if the tunnel can be twinned, or if a bridge would work at the site. Concurrent work is being done for cost calculations but the team is looking for feedback from the consultations to help develop a list of viable options. Consider creating a parking lot on the landfill site and extending the Skytrain from Richmond to there. R: Transit is an important consideration. The trick is figuring out how to serve those who can and who cannot use transit. The highest percentage of transit use is seen in the highest density areas of the world, and only about 30% can use it. The key is finding balance to serve all users. How many would use a perfect transit service, and who would still need to be served? Many still need to use the tunnel for economic considerations. We are hoping that the new South Fraser Perimeter Road highway will take most of the container trucks away from the tunnel but volume will not be alleviated. Build a 10-lane bridge. Do not use farmland. Add to the existing freeway. Create additional peak capacity by making Oak Street one-way Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting Summary Held December 7, 2012 Page 3 of 8

into the city and Knight Street one-way out. Do not just build for today build for 20 to 50 years out. Transit systems do not work for all users. Build for 100+ years. The tunnel has been there for 50 years and it could go another 50. The land use plans and population growth plans from 20 years ago are now wrong. You now must apply common sense from an investment perspective as to what will work in the long term. The discussion guide notes five options that were previously considered, but I only see four noted? R: There were two different options for the tunnel. Do you envision additional options or are these the base? R: The report that has been circulated today gives a good overview of what the possibilities are. The team is hoping to reduce those to a smaller number of options in the New Year. In 1991, the options suggested were rather blue sky but now the project is reducing the options to those that are realistic. The world has changed since 1991. We are hoping that there is now better information gathering with a better picture and better forecast of future needs. It has been seen in other municipalities like Surrey where the development was radically different than what had been projected and it is assumed that kind of change will continue over the next 15 years. R: Yes, that is the goal and that work is ongoing. There seems to be an increasing east-west transportation link to the Abbotsford Airport. Will long-term regional plans be involved in your considerations? R: Long-term considerations have come from the work on the Gateway Project. Some suggestions such as a network road across the border do not seem feasible. There is need for basic network roads but the South Fraser Perimeter Road may be the best option as Highway 10 does not work with all intersections. Many people are even using Highway 15. From a planning perspective, I m not sure that the plans are completely wrong. We could not have anticipated how far people will drive to their jobs. Tolerance for long commutes seems to be getting greater. I m not sure that the trend will be reversed unless bold moves are made regarding development. The tunnel is the most direct way to get from south Delta to downtown Vancouver. Alternatives seem like they would have a large impact on agriculture. North Delta has the Alex Fraser Bridge. Anything else may just funnel more traffic through Delta. R: Planners are often asked to do the impossible forecast what people will do. We are seeing some numbers changing in regard to travel patterns Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting Summary Held December 7, 2012 Page 4 of 8

since planning for the Gateway Program began. More people are crisscrossing the region as opposed to just driving into Vancouver. Richmond has become more of a job centre. Richmond is still a large centre for farming. It is important to create more traffic funneling to minimize the impact on agriculture. It is a great opportunity to mitigate some issues faced in traffic with the current crossing and alignment. The focus needs to be on agriculture and how it will impact those on the ground. Good work has been done on the last few projects through dialogue between farmers and government. There are many good ways to mitigate the impact on farmers. Some things are not tangible. You cannot segregate or dissect agricultural lands. That may lead to slow death of agriculture in the region. Participants were asked to describe how they regularly use the tunnel and how they respond to traffic events such as accidents in the tunnel. We listen to the radio and plan trips based on activity. We telecommute and or stay home if it is bad enough. There are many other single occupancy vehicles that could do the same thing. In Europe when infrastructure is built, it is quickly filled up. As soon as we build a brand new structure here it will be filled up again. If people want to go through the tunnel they should pay a congestion fee. Build a massive parking lot on top of the dump and introduce a rapid transit option. We have been caught many times coming home, stuck in traffic for hours. We now listen to traffic reports and divert over the Alex Fraser Bridge if necessary. If we have business in the afternoon in Richmond, we plan to eat out or do something else until the rush is over. We choose an alternate route or change timing. From an agricultural perspective, when dealing with perishable goods, you do not have the same choices or you cannot make alternative choices. Scheduling is very important and we need to make use of the crossing that is there. We often harvest in the morning and have to be in Vancouver with our product by noon. This is increasingly difficult to do because of traffic problems. It is important that we get the product to market as quickly as possible. Timing is everything with product. This summer we had a big issue with our blueberries. We could not get on the roads due to congestion. Blueberries must be cooled within 2-3 hours of picking to extend the shelf life. Any delays can result in significant losses in shelf life, quality ratings, and ultimately what we get paid for our product. This summer we had many issues in July and August. It took over an hour to get on the overpass for River Road from 68 th in the middle of the day. We can do 5-7 truckloads daily to the packing plant in Abbotsford, but not if we are stuck in traffic. We had incidences this summer where trucks were Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting Summary Held December 7, 2012 Page 5 of 8

stuck in the mid-day heat and the berries were downgraded once they arrived because they had not been cooled in time. We also had large farming machinery get caught in congestion. We could not get it from one field to another. We started at 6 a.m. but had to send the morning and afternoon shifts home because they could not use the machinery. The day finished very late, around 1 a.m. We experienced difficulty in moving silage from one piece of the farm to another because of backed up traffic. The impact is always on agriculture. Whether it is regulation or changes to transportation, we need to find ways to alleviate the toll on farmers. It is not just the land that is lost. It is also the negative impact to the cost of farming. We still have to pay drivers and trucks and fuel to sit and wait in congested traffic. There is a conflict on the roads for urban and rural use in terms of speed, size of vehicles, etc. Much of the large farm equipment is not very road worthy going only about one mile per hour. We operate a fairly large farm in Delta and traffic and infrastructure has impacted our ability to farm. We now have to plan harvest schedules around the Highway 99/Highway 10 interchange. With orders going to BC Fresh, sometimes it takes two hours round trip to go two miles. We also have problems with trains. The train will stop across the road and we still need to pay all our drivers, for equipment, etc., while waiting for the train. It is almost impossible to carry on business on the dike during the weekends. The regional park has no benefit to agriculture. We run 500 loads of potatoes and we try to harvest when there is less traffic. We adjust our harvest schedule based on uses of surrounding lands. It creates huge costs for doing business. Participants were asked to comment on what they saw as the most desirable options, apart from obvious improvements in existing circumstances. There are significant amounts of agricultural land on the sides of the road (Hwy 99). Many farmers have farmed the highway medians planting hay or something. You could reduce the median widths and allow farming. In the new design please consider speed limits and road widths. Farm equipment is slower and uses wider widths. Participants were asked to comment on whether they had a preference for a tunnel or bridge crossing if the current alignment was used. If there has to be large cloverleaf or on ramps, there would be a large impact to agricultural land. Twinning the tunnel seems to have the lowest impact. Traffic is now cheating through the scale, etc. There seems to be enough options. Another lane could be added. The Rice Mill Road overpass is never used. An exit could take room from the tourist centre. Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting Summary Held December 7, 2012 Page 6 of 8

Consider options that could happen sooner. One tunnel south and one north. If the footprint is changed much to the approaches, many Delta farmers might as well retire and go home. Agriculture has been impacted so much. So much land has been taken already. Do not take so much farmland, make due with what we have. Think about the impact of taking land as well as the impact to operations. Highway 99 has an extra lane. There is a lot of vacant land not being used right now. The No. 5 Road and Steveston Highway overpass is only two lanes and often backs up with traffic onto the highway. Alleviate the traffic on the overpass. Is one option to keep the tunnel and build a new crossing? The tunnel could be used for Steveston Highway only. Or you could reduce the footprint across the bridge if there was no access from Steveston Highway. R: All options are being considered at this time. We want to work together with various levels of government to minimize impacts. Are there plans with the Matthews interchange that will come soon? You could update the interchange in that if you turn left on Hornby Drive, traffic can still get by, as well as creating a new cloverleaf loop to the highway. With acceleration or deceleration lanes by the Matthews interchange, there is not time to get 40 foot transport truck up to speed. It needs to be lengthened for safety purposes. Delta has heard our concerns and stepped up and helped farmers in that area. Kudos to Delta for their efforts made. We must do something with the interchange at Highway 17/99. It is costing a pile of money when trucks are stuck on the road. If the approach is changed to the river, it seems insane to remove crossings. At high tide there is still 40 feet of water over the tunnel. That should be enough water to accommodate large ships in the future. The more crossings the better. Consider the crossing at 80th or 72nd Street. New developments also include cranberry dikes in Richmond. Has anyone tried walking across the overpass at the Matthews exchange sidewalk? There is no access. You must cross freeway traffic. Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting Summary Held December 7, 2012 Page 7 of 8

Although it has been messaged from the outset that the main concern is the tunnel, other projects should not be considered side projects. A comprehensive package should be put forth. 5. Report Out Key Themes (Facilitator) The Facilitator summarized the following key themes: Congestion has an impact on farming especially with perishable goods There is a desire to use the existing corridor Look for mitigation options that benefit agriculture The project should not just be about the tunnel consider all implications and how far back to go on Highway 99 Keep working together Consider needs of slower moving traffic Implement short-term improvements in the interim. 6. Closing Remarks/Next Steps (Facilitator) Ms. Ryan advised that the team would like to hear input from the farming community. She encouraged participants to complete the feedback forms provided, and discussed the benefit of receiving feedback on specific examples. Reference materials can be found on-line and feedback will be welcomed until December 19, 2012. Mr. Freer thanked participants for their time and asked that feedback continue to come in from their community. The meeting concluded at 12:00 p.m. Agricultural Stakeholder Meeting Summary Held December 7, 2012 Page 8 of 8

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project STAKEHOLDER MEETING December 11, 2012 Summary of the First Responder Stakeholder Group Meeting for Phase 1 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, held December 11, 2012, at Richmond City Hall, Richmond, B.C. ATTENDEES Participants Dan Copeland, Delta Fire Gerry Grexton, BC Ambulance Rob Guilley, Richmond RCMP Kevin Jones, Delta Police Department Lorne Lecker, Deas Island RCMP Kevin Lin, Richmond RCMP Dave Savoy, RCMP- LMDTS Harj Sidhu, Delta Police Department Ken Sim, Delta Fire Project Team Representatives Geoff Freer, Project Executive Director Jason Sanders, Project Manager Brian Atkins, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Derek Drummond, Assistant Regional Director, South Coast Region, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Pam Ryan, Facilitator Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses 1. Welcome Pam Ryan, Facilitator, welcomed participants and the meeting began at 12:00 p.m. She reviewed the agenda, and explained the intent of the meeting, noting that this was one of a series of planned stakeholder meetings and open houses. Stakeholder Meeting Summary held December 13, 2012 Page 1 of 6

2. Introductions Ms. Ryan recognized representatives present and asked for a round of introductions, including the project team. 3. Presentation & Discussion Guide Jason Sanders, Project Manager, provided a presentation about the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and the consultation process being undertaken to provide input into planning for a replacement. 4. Discussion - Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange with Project Team present: Heavy trucks making up only 9% of the users seems low. R: The numbers are during peak periods. Off-peak is likely to be higher. One heavy truck can have a larger footprint than a passenger vehicle and their speed of movement can distort the perception also. The most recent data is from 2008, but TransLink will be sharing its 2011 information with the team once it is available in January 2013. Additionally, Port Metro Vancouver has implemented pilot GPS with transport drivers, and they are willing to share the data they collect with the project. What impact do you anticipate the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR) will have on truck traffic through tunnel? R: The SFPR traffic moves more east and west. The tunnel serves more north/south. With the changing role of Richmond as a distribution point, it appears that the tunnel is getting busier with truck traffic. Participants were asked to comment on their current experience with the tunnel or the challenges they face with the tunnel in their roles. Any incident in the tunnel impacts the entire community. All areas turn into gridlock in surrounding communities. This forms a serious response problem. In the tunnel there are no emergency pullouts for disabled vehicles or for emergency vehicles to drive in to reach the event. The Alex Fraser Bridge has so many lanes that an incident needs to be very severe to shut down the bridge. The tunnel only has two lanes and no shoulder. It is difficult to get into. The median gates were implemented but First Responder Stakeholder Meeting - Summary Held December 11, 2012 Page 2 of 6

they take too long to activate. We can easily be cut off from Annacis lsland and can cause gridlock for 4-5 hours. There are too many roadways merging in a congested and small area. There is a lot of volume and it creates gridlock due to lack of capacity and drivers struggling to merge. Please consider utilizing a system to regulate merging. River Road out of Tilbury and Deas Island has too many lights with a small window on the lights. Hwy 17 and River Road where they meet Hwy 99 is a huge problem. There is no turn around or escape route to avoid the tunnel if there is a problem. Consider managing traffic until they can go into the tunnel. Consider delineators to force drivers to the end of the merge lane and set it up as more of a queue lane than merge lane. Put in signage to teach drivers how to merge. Drivers will drive over the plastic poles there needs to be a barrier. Smart reader boards could be used to inform drivers on how to merge. Other areas have reported good results by doing this and it has reduced backups significantly. Where two lanes of Hwy 17 and extra counter-flow lanes all merge in one space, staggering merge points could provide relief. Participants were asked to comment on any challenges for enforcement, safety issues or driver behaviour issues they experience in or near the tunnel. There are many unsafe lane changes, people follow too close. There is no way to enforce drivers in the tunnel. If someone is pulled over it just adds to gridlock. Participants were asked to comment on what their primary interests or preferred options would be looking forward. The Cassiar Tunnel design would be ideal. The way it is designed, there is ample room for vehicles plus a full shoulder. A disabled vehicle can pull over or an emergency vehicle can maneuver around traffic. There is no feeling of being constricted and it creates a continuous flow of traffic all the way through. Go brighter, bigger. Go big or go home. You must have the same number of lanes as roads feeding it. Provide greater capacity for those exiting Richmond. Instead of merging out of Steveston Hwy, have a lane entering direct. Provide dedicated lanes earlier than just before entering the tunnel. Have separate and distinct HOV lanes. Have the HOV lanes in the centre instead of the side. First Responder Stakeholder Meeting - Summary Held December 11, 2012 Page 3 of 6

Change the HOV lanes to express lanes. HOV and bus lanes are under utilized and have not appeared to have changed drivers behavior to get out of SOVs. The HOV lane should be the Steveston Hwy exit lane. Make it a marked run from Blundell. The HOV lane could be better used. The bus lane is underutilized and a waste of space. Enforcement is unable to pull cars over. Most drivers in the bus lane do not realize that it is bus-only. The symbol is confusing. Great concept but poor in use. Another HOV lane would be of better use than the bus lane. Is a toll being considered? If it is tolled it will increase pressure on the Alex Fraser Bridge. R: All options are being considered at this time. We would prefer a bridge, it s easier to access for emergency vehicles. You are also not dealing with fumes and chemicals inside a structure if there is an incident. For policing Air One could see what is happening. They currently have no view once someone goes in the tunnel. Are you committed to the location? R: Some studies were done in 1991 to consider other options. The options presented including the current location are listed in the discussion guide. There has been significant development since then and a change in origin/destination of drivers. Participants were asked to comment on any difference the crossing location or type would make from an emergency response perspective. Additional changes would be needed to accommodate Hwys 17 and 99 if the location and structure were kept. A bridge encourages traffic flow. It is less affected by weather events. A tunnel would be fine if it is like the Cassiar. Currently the tunnel acts like a giant traffic calming measure. We would like the tunnel to be divided unless you could use it to access the alternate lanes. The challenge for ambulance is much the same as for police and fire. We often have to come right down River Road against traffic. From a fire perspective, incidents in the tunnel are nasty accidents confined space, smoke and fire. It is difficult to evacuate non-ambulatory persons. There are major issues. Communications is also an issue, radios do not work in the tunnel. Departments are currently working together to try First Responder Stakeholder Meeting - Summary Held December 11, 2012 Page 4 of 6

and address these issues. There are serious considerations with a tunnel. R: All options are being considered at this time and stakeholder input is very important. It sounds like the tunnel is more of a concern for first responders because it is a confined space and heavy on trucks. We realize however that there will be no perfect solution. In regard to hazardous goods, how much needs to be bypassed on a daily basis? R: We are meeting with transportation stakeholders to try and assess this. They used to move jet fuel through the tunnel from Cherry Point. We were not aware that those trucks were going through the tunnel until we got involved in a consultation years ago. As a result, the Hazardous Materials Act needed to be changed to capture those loads out of the tunnel. R: If there are any other records or statistics regarding this, jet fuel for example, please forward them to the team. A hazardous goods study was done for the Olympics, looking at jet fuel in particular. Participants were asked to comment on any lessons learned from previous projects that could be used as take-aways. The Alex Fraser Bridge seemed to be at capacity or almost over capacity as soon as it opened. Consider the long-term needs of the region. Build lots of exits and egresses to help speed up those getting off the roads. Avoid traffic lights. Allow for more options for travelers to exit funnel roads if there is an incident to clear the roads. Ensure the structure is designed so that fluids or spills will flow to a collection area and if a bridge is built, that the spills cannot simply flow down onto structures below creating further safety issues. Buses do not seem to be the answer for people but rapid transit might make a big difference. It seemed to make a difference at Oak Street for Highway 99. Ensure that consultation with emergency services keeps happening. Historically, requests from this group have not materialized. In the SFPR, for example, we were consulted in the beginning, but it then ended. Now there is consultation again but not all of the original feedback was incorporated and the changes are difficult to implement later like not having a bike lane right next to a truck route without barriers, or not having First Responder Stakeholder Meeting - Summary Held December 11, 2012 Page 5 of 6

pullouts for enforcement vehicles to sit in. Participants were asked if there were any other main arteries that could use remedy in addition to Steveston Highway. Blundell. Much of the congestion is due to limited access to the highway. You could divide traffic and have additional on and off options at alternate locations. Sea Island Way and Canada Way are a disaster. The exit to the main intersection does not have enough capacity to hold the congestion. That 1km can be the hardest part of the drive to the airport. There should be an off ramp dedicated to airport that goes directly into the airport. 5. Report Out Key Themes (Facilitator) The Facilitator summarized the following key themes: Prefer a new bridge instead of a tunnel due to concerns related to driver behaviour and emergency response concerns with a tunnel Consider access and egress as well as future capacity Need shoulders, pull-outs and U-turn routes Need to improve merging (use electronic message boards) Consider designated lanes (trucks, HOV, local traffic) Look at the impact of minor motor vehicle incidents and how it causes gridlock Appreciate the opportunity for early input and encourage Ministry to continue consulting 6. Closing Remarks/Next Steps (Facilitator) Geoff Freer, Project Executive Director, thanked participants for their time, and noted that cooperation from emergency services stakeholders has been very valuable. The meeting concluded at 1:45 p.m. First Responder Stakeholder Meeting - Summary Held December 11, 2012 Page 6 of 6

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project STAKEHOLDER MEETING December 13, 2012 Summary of the Port and Business Stakeholders Group Meeting for Phase 1 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project held Thursday, December 13, 2012 at the SFU Segal Graduate Centre, Room 1500, 500 Granville Street, Vancouver, B.C. ATTENDEES Participants Kareem Allam, Vancouver Board of Trade Brittany Alison, Fraser Surrey Docks Larry Baloun, Lehigh Hanson Lisa Barratta, WESTAC Dennis Bickle, Port Metro Vancouver Stephen Brown, Chamber of Shipping of BC Mike Brown, YVR Allen Cadenhead, Transport Canada Raymond Kan, Metro Vancouver Steven Lan, Corporation of Delta Heather McNell, Metro Vancouver Jennifer Natland, Port Metro Vancouver Phillip Nelson, Council of Marin Carriers Robert Paddon, TransLink Jeff Scott, Fraser Surrey Docks Bob Wilds, Greater Vancouver Gateway Council John Winter, BC Chamber of Commerce Project Team Representatives Geoff Freer, Executive Project Director Jason Sanders, Project Manager Neil Valsangkar, Director of Engineering Elizabeth Robbins, Consultation Coordinator Pam Ryan, Facilitator Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses 1. Welcome Pam Ryan, Facilitator, welcomed participants and the meeting began at 11:00 a.m. Ms. Ryan reviewed the agenda and explained the intent of the meeting, noting that this was one of a series of planned stakeholder meetings and open houses. Stakeholder Meeting Summary held December 13, 2012 Page 1 of 6

2. Introductions Ms. Ryan recognized representatives present and asked for a round of introductions, including the Project Team. 3. Presentation & Discussion Guide Neil Valsangkar provided a presentation about the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and the consultation process being undertaken to provide input into planning for a replacement. 4. Discussion Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange with Project Team: What is the current serviceable life of the tunnel? R: The tunnel has a serviceable life of 10 to 15 years before many of the major operating systems, such as electrical and ventilation systems, will require replacement. However, even with these investments, the tunnel will never have the vertical and horizontal clearances of a modern tunnel. The George Massey Tunnel and the Pattullo Bridge face similar challenges. What is the estimated cost to replacing the tunnel? R: We do not have a cost estimate because the potential options have not been developed. Compared to other projects, it will likely be closer to $2 billion than $1 billion. Have you quantified the costs as a result of the delays in urban goods movement? R: This will be completed as part of the cost/benefit analysis that will be done later. What options are being considered to replace the tunnel? From a mariner s perspective, a bridge will transfer the congestion on the land to the water. R: No preferred options have been identified. The current phase is focusing on understanding the needs to inform the development of options. Phase 2 of the consultation will take place in 2013 and will include a discussion of potential options. Both a bridge and a tunnel in the current and alternate alignments have been considered and documented in previous reports, available on the www.masseytunnel.ca. Are other locations being considered? Where? How will they impact Highway 99? R: Other upstream alignments identified in the previous studies. There is also limited ability to go downstream. How much traffic that goes through the tunnel ends up on the Oak Street Bridge? Stakeholder Meeting Summary held December 13, 2012 Page 2 of 6

R: There has been some discussion about offloading traffic to the Oak and Knight Street Bridge but over 50% of the traffic that goes through the tunnel is destined for Richmond. The Project Team is currently reviewing the current traffic patterns with model data for input into the planning process. Forecasting modeling should be done in conjunction with TransLink. Metro Vancouver can also assist by providing updated land use assumptions. What impact will the South Fraser Perimeter (SFPR) have on the origins and destinations of the tunnel traffic? R: We do not expect the SFPR to have a significant impact on tunnel traffic. The SFPR provides an alternate and is expected to be the route of choice for those in the southeast portion of the region. Are options being considered whereby the existing tunnel can be left intact to service a portion of the traffic? R: This is an option. Some have suggested to use the existing tunnel to separate trucks and cars. Another option could be to use the existing tunnel for local traffic only. The tunnel is becoming more and more of a problem from a commuter standpoint. Congestion east/west is also a problem. From an industrial perspective, a bridge would be preferable. I would not support a blended bridge/tunnel solution. How will the options be evaluated to come up with the best solution? R: Multiple account analysis is used traditionally. The art will be in the assignment of the correct weighting to the components. It would be useful to have objective measurements wherever possible in order to make the best investment decision. You stated that 1% of the vehicles carry 26% of actual passengers utilizing transit. What are the opportunities for transit? With the SFPR, there will be industrial growth in the Tilbury area and much more employment in Delta. There are challenges attracting employees to Tilbury and it would be helpful to have cycling access to allow people to use bicycles to commute. Transit will also play a major role. Is there an opportunity in the Highway 17 area for an interchange that would provide an integrated solution? The Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS) is an outcome-based process. We need to look at what we want to achieve with a new facility and broaden scope of the project to include transit and traffic demand management measures at the outset. It would be useful to understand how the George Massey Tunnel replacement aligns with the RTS. R: We agree that it is important to include the tunnel in the RTS. However, there will always be a portion of the population that cannot use transit and we need to address their needs as well (currently 77% are SOV). Stakeholder Meeting - Summary held December 13, 2012 Page 3 of 6

The priority is to get some traffic off the road and onto the water. Whether the decision is to build a tunnel or a bridge, it must accommodate marine traffic. Chose either a tunnel or a bridge. If a new bridge is built, you need to remove the tunnel because it will be a limiting factor for marine traffic. The ability for port expansion in the Burrard Inlet is limited. There are opportunities to do more on the Fraser River in the future. The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project will add significant container capacity by 2024. The tunnel is a major constraint on Port Metro Vancouver to realize opportunities on the Fraser. River. The marine industry would prefer the bridge option. I support replacement of the existing tunnel. There needs to be a long-term fleet forecast for the river that is used as input in the design consideration of the tunnel replacement. I am concerned with the grades required for the bridge approaches to allow trucks to use it as well as to allow ships to get under it. The value of the economic development opportunity on the Fraser River needs to be accounted for in the development of the tunnel replacement solution. Rail transportation should also be considered. The size of the bridge may impact YVR and the Boundary Bay Airport flight paths. This needs to be taken into consideration. TransLink is currently developing the Transport 2045 Plan. The current Transport 2040 Plan includes the goal of having the majority of trips taken by modes other than SOVs. How do you achieve this along with facilitating goods movement? The Province is now talking about another road infrastructure project. This is frustrating when there has not been a decision on funding for transit and replacing the Pattullo Bridge. R: The George Massey Tunnel replacement was part of the initial Gateway Program. The Port Mann Bridge replacement and the SFPR were higher priorities and the tunnel replacement was deferred. Now that those two projects are nearing completion, it is time to move forward with planning for the tunnel replacement. There is a need to accommodate population growth while protecting the green zones. The impact of transit investments makes it a viable option to the car. What would the impact be if there were truly viable transit options to the SOV? R: We agree with the idea, but we need the data to support it. There are always some who cannot use transit. We need to be specific about the nature of the jobs in industrial growth areas to determine if those employees can be served by transit. Stakeholder Meeting - Summary held December 13, 2012 Page 4 of 6

I support some improvement in transit as part of the solution. The results of the 2011 Trip Diary Survey indicate that there is important movement between Richmond and Delta. A 2008 study indicates that the George Massey Tunnel carries 22,000 vehicles/lane, which is higher than other crossings in the region and other Canadian cities. Safety is a big concern that also drives the need to find a replacement. We need to find a way to get workers to their places of employment and get them out of their cars. Trucks avoid the tunnel because of the unpredictability of tunnel traffic. If it was possible to use the tunnel, the number of trucks would be higher than the 12% currently shown. There are significant cost impacts to trucks not being able to use the tunnel but it is difficult to measure all the ripple effects. R: Any observed data on the costs of avoiding the tunnel would be very helpful to the Project Team. The recreational sector also avoids the tunnel. This impacts the Experience the Fraser project. There is lost potential as a result of the current tunnel. We cannot lose sight of Port Metro Vancouver s 2050 Plan. We need to think about the growth opportunity in the future. R: We have been talking to TransLink and Port Metro Vancouver. In addition, we will be meeting with municipalities to discuss their employment forecasts and the impacts of tunnel traffic on local transportation. These will all be inputs into the development of options. Will this be a P3 or a design/build project? R: This will be determined as part of the procurement phase. Would getting rid of the traffic light on 72 nd Street and Highway 91 shift some of the traffic to the Alex Fraser Bridge? R: The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is looking at ways to address this congestion point. Delta has indicated that it would prefer to find transit options to get people out of SOVs to address the congestion. We need to have opportunities to share discussions over the next nine months as there will be many things happening over this time. The main competition to the Fraser River is the Portland River. A draft of 17 to 18 metres would be optimal for the future. It is very important to do a long-term fleet forecast. Channel width and the clearance to the bridge footings are other considerations if the decision is made to build a bridge to replace the tunnel R: The bridge footings would likely be placed on either side of the river. Stakeholder Meeting - Summary held December 13, 2012 Page 5 of 6

5. Report Out Key Themes (Facilitator) Ms. Ryan reported on the key themes that were expressed during the meeting: The existing tunnel has implications for marine traffic and is mobility constrained It is unclear what opportunities might be realized because the tunnel is so constrained All modes of transportation need to be considered Make sure you look long-term Importance of green zone and recreation on both sides of the Fraser River Make sure you work together because there are a lot of long-term plans being developed. 6. Closing Remarks/Next Steps (Facilitator) Participants were requested to complete the feedback form. The form is available at online at www.masseytunnel.ca. Submissions, other than through feedback forms, are also welcome. The deadline for comments is December 19, 2012. Stakeholder Meeting - Summary held December 13, 2012 Page 6 of 6

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project STAKEHOLDER MEETING December 13, 2012 Summary of the Richmond Community Stakeholder Group Meeting for Phase 1 of the consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project held Thursday, December 13, 2012 at the Richmond Oval, 6111 River Road, Richmond, B.C. ATTENDEES Participants Barry Grabowski, Richmond Chamber of Commerce Howard Harowitz, Richmond Chamber of Commerce Peter Mitchell Bruce Rozenhart, Steveston Heritage Centre Harold Steves, City of Richmond Victor Wei, City of Richmond Project Team Representatives Geoff Freer, Executive Project Director Jason Sanders, Project Manager Pam Ryan, Facilitator Presentation and Comment The following abbreviations are used throughout this summary: Q/C=Question/Comment, R=Project Team Responses 1. Welcome Pam Ryan, Facilitator, welcomed participants and the meeting began at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Ryan reviewed the agenda and explained the intent of the meeting, noting that this was one of a series of planned stakeholder meetings and open houses. 2. Presentation & Discussion Guide Geoff Freer provided a presentation about the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and the consultation process being undertaken to provide input into planning for a replacement. 3. Discussion - Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange with the Project Team: Richmond Community Stakeholder Meeting - Summary held December 13, 2012 Page 1 of 5

When do you expect that construction could begin? R: Construction could begin in as early as 3 to 4 years. Are you able to determine the number of cars using the tunnel for commuting versus business purposes? The congestion may be having a significant economic impact on the service sector. R: We do not currently have that information but it is something that we do need to know. How does the number of trips destined for Vancouver travelling through the tunnel compare with other Fraser River crossings? Perhaps people are utilizing other crossings and diverting through Richmond rather than going through the tunnel. It is quicker to take the tunnel from Richmond to Langley rather than the Alex Fraser Bridge. R: We will be looking at the Alex Fraser Bridge, in addition to the tunnel replacement, to address congestion. What is being done to provide information on traffic to enable traffic management? This type of information has been available in Toronto for 20 years. R: Many people are starting to use Drive BC and the information is improving all the time. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is starting to use electronic signs to provide traffic information. Steveston is growing as a tourism destination. There is a concern that the problems at the Highway 99/Steveston interchange will isolate Steveston. You need to take Steveston and South Richmond into account when developing the tunnel replacement options. R: Discussions are fairly advanced between the City of Richmond and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to twin the Highway 99/Steveston interchange as a short-term solution to address congestion. The north/south corridor is a major transportation corridor. The Project Team should seek input from the Vancouver Board of Trade and the BC Chamber of Commerce. It is interesting the amount of press and federal support that the Detroit Windsor Bridge received. The fact that the tunnel does not cross the Canada/US border seems to reduce its visibility to the federal government and they are conspicuously absent. We should be expecting funding and support from the federal government because Highway 99 is a vital economic corridor. R: There have been discussions with the federal government on the Richmond Community Stakeholder Meeting - Summary held December 13, 2012 Page 2 of 5

importance of the tunnel and the Fraser River marine corridor. What percentage of the traffic is taking the Steveston overpass as opposed to continuing north on Highway 99 to avoid the Steveston interchange? Richmond has offered options to reduce congestion, all of which have been declined: move the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal to Iona Island; build a twin tunnel to be used for rapid transit; reach agreement with Fraser Port Authority to disallow trucks from using the tunnel; and have Port Metro Vancouver operate at night to take the trucks off the road during the day. R: Many of the trucks using the tunnel are not on Port Metro Vancouver related business. Even if Port Metro Vancouver trucks moved at night, there would still be a lot of trucks travelling in the tunnel. What is the capacity of the tunnel? R: For general planning purposes, 1,500 to 1,800 vehicles/lane per hour is used as the capacity of the tunnel. The growth of South Surrey means that the traffic congestion is only going to get worse. What is the cause of the high number of accidents at the tunnel? R: We do not have that information but the tunnel does not have the safety standards of a modern tunnel. First responders have talked about the challenges of getting to an incident in the tunnel because of the lack of shoulders. Although there are other crossings where the number of accidents is higher, the impact of tunnel accidents is much greater because of the access challenges. What consultation is taking place with First Nations? R: We have already had discussions with the Tsawwassen First Nation and will be talking to them again. We have spoken to the Musqueam Band and plan to speak to the Semiahmoo First Nation. Given the high cost of the crossing, it will be very important to know the origins and destinations of the traffic in the tunnel. TransLink s Trip Diary is a very small sample size and may not be justify making such a significant investment. Traffic modeling should not be the only tool considered. Richmond and Delta s Official Community Plans should be included with the other plans being considered. There is a lot of latent demand from the Alex Fraser Bridge that comes through the tunnel. What is being done to improve congestion north of the tunnel? Richmond Community Stakeholder Meeting - Summary Held December 13, 2012 Page 3 of 5

R: We will be looking at all of the exits on Highway 99. More than 50% of the tunnel traffic is destined for Richmond. We will not be proposing an option that simply moves the queue from the tunnel to the Oak Street Bridge. We will also be looking at congestion points south of the tunnel such as Highway 91 and 72 nd Street. I have extreme reluctance to seeing any new bridge or tunnel through a new corridor because of the potential impact. I expect that a bridge would impact more land than a tunnel would. Assuming the costs of a tunnel and a bridge are roughly the same, would a replacement tunnel be more feasible in terms of a lower environmental impact than the bridge option? R: We are looking at all options but tunnels are generally more expensive. A bridge could be fit within the current alignment with very little impact. The daily opportunity cost in terms of lost productivity and environmental impacts creates a sense of urgency that has likely been there for a long time. How can the business community support and maintain this sense of urgency? R: The tunnel replacement was identified as part of the Gateway Program in 2003. Now that the higher priority projects of the Port Mann Bridge replacement and the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR) are nearing completion we are shifting our attention to the George Massey Tunnel replacement. We believe that there is a dearth of observed data that would be helpful to provide information. Filling out the feedback forms and encouraging others to participate would be helpful. Private individuals appear to be the audience for the feedback form and it does not address business needs. You need to collaborate on what kind of information you want and the Richmond Chamber of Commerce and BC Chamber of Commerce can help to mobilize the business community to provide you with the information you need. R: That would be very helpful and the Project Team will be taking you up on your offer. We need to prevent Delta from growing any faster. Do not increase the capacity of the tunnel to the degree that it encourages too much growth in Delta. Providing direct routes to Surrey would be better than providing direct routes to Delta. If remediation is done on the tunnel, how long can you extend the life of the tunnel? We need to carefully consider the option of remediation because of the significant cost required to replace it. R: If significant funds are spent to replace the major operating systems, the life of the tunnel can be extended by 40 to 50 years. R: The Project Team has heard that there is a need to provide for transit because many residents have expressed a desire to use transit. Richmond Community Stakeholder Meeting - Summary Held December 13, 2012 Page 4 of 5