(08) section 4 - dec 2004

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATIONSECTION 4

Environmental Assessment Certificate Application for the Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Rapid Transit Project

4-1 December 2004

4 Consultation and Communication

4.1 Public Consultation and Communication

4.1.1 Program Summary

The potential extension of rail rapid transit from Vancouver to Richmond and the Vancouver International Airport has been discussed in a variety of pubic forums and planning documents during the last three decades (see Table 4.1). More focused public consultation regarding a proposed RAV line began in March and April 2001 during the Needs Assessment/Concept Feasibility Phase of the project. Participants in this consultation process examined the results of a cost/benefit analysis and discussed various project-related aspects, as proposed at that time. Consultation activities involved a website, open houses, small group meetings and presentations, and a public opinion survey conducted by MarkTrend.

Table 4.1 Land Use and Transportation Planning Documents

Concerning the Vancouver/Richmond Corridor

Date of Report

Report Title

1970 Report on the Greater Vancouver Area Rapid Transit Study 1971 Kelly Report 1975 GVRD’s The Livable Region 1976/1986

1979-80 GVRD’s Light Rail Transit Studies 1980 GVRD’s Official Regional Plan 1981 Hickling Report (examines Cambie and Arbutus) 1989 GVRD’s Freedom to Move Study 1990 BC Transit’s Vancouver-Richmond Rapid Transit Project: Vancouver

International Airport Transit Connector Report 1992 BC Transit’s Vancouver-Richmond Rapid Transit Project 1993 GVRD’s Transport 2021 – A Long Range Transportation Plan for Greater

Vancouver 1993 GVRD’s Transport 2021 – A Medium Range Transportation Plan for

Greater Vancouver 1994 BC Transit’s Review of Intermediate Capacity Transit Systems:

Richmond-Vancouver Corridor


December 2004 4-2

Date of Report

Report Title

1995 BC Transit’s Summary of Intermediate Capacity Transit System Studies in Greater Vancouver

1995 BC Transit’s Multiple Account Evaluation of Rapid Transit Operations in Greater Vancouver

1996 GVRD’s Livable Region Strategic Plan 1997 City of Vancouver Transportation Plan

1998-2000 City of Richmond Transportation Plan 1999 Vancouver International Airport’s Rail Access to the Vancouver

International Airport 1999 TransLink Strategic Transportation Plan 2002 City of Vancouver Downtown Transportation Plan

Since 2001/2002, the public consultation process for the RAV Project has proceeded through Project Definition Consultation, completed in March 2003, and Pre-Design Consultation, initiated in November 2003 and completed in May 2004. Upcoming consultation phases will proceed as follows:

• EAC Application Public Review – anticipated to take place in January

2005 • Preliminary Design – tentatively scheduled for early 2005 • Detailed Design – to be undertaken after award of the DBFOM contract • Construction and Operations Community Liaison and Notification – to be

undertaken after contract award

RAVCo will be responsible for community and public consultation throughout the procurement stages of the project (i.e., RFP and BAFO stages). Once a Concessionaire has been selected and commercial conditions are agreed upon between RAVCo and the Concessionaire, responsibility for consultation and community liaison will shift to the Concessionaire, with RAVCo maintaining an oversight role. On this basis, RAVCo is responsible for undertaking Project Definition, Pre-Design, EAC Application, and Preliminary Design Consultation, while the Concessionaire will carry out all consultation during Detailed Design and the Construction and Operation phases.


4-3 December 2004

Consultation goals and objectives, activities undertaken or planned for each project phase, as well as RAVCo’s approach to access to information and freedom of information, are described in more detail in the following sections.

4.1.2 Program Goals and Objectives

The consultation process being followed by RAVCo includes the essential elements of the BCEAO’s Public Consultation Strategy/Framework for Lower Mainland Infrastructure Projects (2003). The goals of the RAV Project public consultation program are to ensure that:

• the public is consulted, on both a regional and a

community/neighbourhood level, consistent with the Public Consultation Strategy/Framework for Lower Mainland Infrastructure Projects (2003), and BCEAA and CEAA requirements;

• the review process is open, accountable and considers regional and local/community interests;

• community support for the overall project planning process is fostered; and

• ongoing relations with local communities are strengthened.

Specific objectives of the consultation program are to: • encourage public awareness of the RAV Project and opportunities for

public input; • meet the consultation and communications requirements of the

harmonized BCEAA/CEAA project review process; • raise public awareness regarding the scope, necessity and benefits of the

RAV Project to the region and the communities it will serve; • identify interested parties and their project-related concerns; and • demonstrate how public input will be considered in project design, within

technical and financial constraints.


December 2004 4-4

4.1.3 Access to Information

Efficient and open access to available information and meaningful dialogue regarding any potential environmental and socio-economic concerns associated with the RAV Project are key to ensuring public confidence in the eventual outcome of the assessment and review process. To assist persons seeking project-related information, or who have questions or concerns regarding the project, RAVCo has established a website at www.ravprapidtransit.com. The RAV office at Suite 1700 – 409 Granville Street, Vancouver, has set up a report library and reading room. Members of the public or other interested persons wishing to visit the reading room can do so by calling the RAV office ([604] 484-7287) to make an appointment.

4.1.4 Freedom of Information

RAVCo has requested that the RAV Project be listed under Schedule II of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The application for listing was approved by the Minister of Management Services on April 1, 2004. RAVCo became subject to the provisions of the Act as of that date.

4.1.5 Pre-Application Consultation

4.1.5.1 Project Definition Phase Consultation

Program Elements From early spring 2001 to March 2003, during the Project Definition Phase, RAVCo’s technical and financial specialists conducted an analysis of the proposed RAV line in order to:

• define the requirements of a rail rapid transit line connecting Vancouver,

Richmond and the Vancouver International Airport; • identify a structure to build and pay for the line; and • evaluate whether it would be feasible to complete construction of the line

by 2009.

In February 2003, RAVCo launched an interactive website www.ravprapidtransit.com for the Project Definition Phase. The website


4-5 December 2004

provided a vehicle by which the public could gain access to consultant reports, press releases and other project-related information. In February and March 2003, RAVCo undertook Project Definition Consultation, a multi-media process, to share the results of the Project Definition Phase, to determine whether the public supported the project as defined, and to identify issues of concern. Public input was also sought regarding whether: • the project should proceed within the defined funding envelope of $1.5

billion to $1.7 billion; • the route should follow the Granville Street – Cambie Street - No. 3

Road – Grant McConachie Way corridor; and/or • the vertical profile of the line should be as proposed (i.e., a combination of

below ground, at-grade and above-grade levels). More than 1,500 people participated in this phase of public consultation. Participants provided input through a consultation Discussion Guide and Feedback Form (see APPENDIX 4-A), and attended open houses/public workshops at Vancouver City Hall, Richmond City Hall, Richmond Centre, and the Vancouver International Airport; participated in one public workshop in Richmond and two in Vancouver; and attended 17 small group meetings. They also accessed information and provided feedback through the web, by fax, and through written correspondence. Consultation materials were available in English and Chinese. The public workshops provided residents with an opportunity to learn more about the RAV Project. Each workshop began with an overview of the regional transportation network, followed by an overview of the proposed project. Workshops included a question and answer session and participants were encouraged to complete feedback forms. RAVCo kept a record of each public workshop. Small group meetings were held with 17 community organizations in February and March 2003 (Appendix 4-B). Each of these meetings gave participants an opportunity to become better informed about the RAV Project, to have their questions answered and to provide feedback on the proposed project.


December 2004 4-6

Overall, 82% of those who filled out the feedback form indicated that they somewhat or strongly agreed with the project proceeding at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion. Of those that responded to the question regarding the proposed route, 73.2% supported the route in its entirety. Regarding the vertical profile of the system, 64.6% of participants expressed a preference for elevated over at-grade if underground is not possible; 71.1% preferred underground to elevated, if at-grade is not possible; and 82.1% preferred underground to at-grade, if elevated is not possible. Complete details of feedback form results are available in the Consultation Summary Report for the RAV Project, which can be found on the BCEAO website at http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/html/deploy/epic_document_208_15002.html. Table 4.2 summarizes the consultation activities conducted during the Project Definition Phase of the RAV Project.

Table 4.2 Summary of Project Definition Phase Consultation Activities

Item Date Actions Notification and Information Sharing Discussion Guide & Feedback Form

03 Mar 03 Launched on web at www.ravprapidtransit.com

Notice of Consultation

03 Mar 03 Posted in Vancouver Sun, Province, Ming Pao, Sing Tao, Richmond Review & Richmond News

Newspaper Information Piece & Feedback Form

06 Mar 03 Placed in Vancouver Sun, Province, Ming Pao & Sing Tao

Open Houses and Public Workshops Open Houses 03 – 14 Mar

03 Displays in Richmond and Vancouver city halls, Vancouver Int’l. Airport & Richmond Centre Mall

Public Workshop – Richmond

08 Mar 03 ½ day workshop using the Discussion Guide & Feedback Form to focus discussion and collect feedback.

Public Workshop – Vancouver

12 Mar 03 Evening public meeting, including a presentation and question & answer session. The Discussion Guide was circulated and feedback was collected through the Feedback Form.

Public Workshop – Vancouver

15 Mar 03 ½ day public meeting, including a presentation and question & answer session. The Discussion Guide was


4-7 December 2004

Item Date Actions circulated and feedback was collected through the Feedback Form

Small Group Meetings

Feb & Mar 03

17 meetings with community organizations

Reporting Out Consultation Summary Report

28 Mar 03 Presented with a Technical Report to Contributing Agencies and Participating Agencies

Issues Identified by the Public and Stakeholders Issues identified by the public and stakeholders during Project Definition Phase Consultation activities are included in Tables 4.3 to 4.5. Table 4.3 summarizes issues identified in the written commentary provided on feedback forms, Table 4.4 summarizes issues identified by the public and stakeholders during open house and workshop events, and Table 4.5 summarizes issues identified by the public and stakeholders during small group meetings.

Table 4.3 Summary of Issues Identified in Feedback Forms

Key Themes Identified Issues

Richmond § Whether to Proceed

with the Project § Need to get on with building the project § Rail rapid transit line is long overdue

§ No. 3 Road § At-grade system on No.3 Road will increase congestion and negatively effect businesses

§ No.3 Road is too narrow to accommodate a rail rapid transit system

§ Arbutus § Arbutus corridor would be cheaper and provide more direct access to UBC

§ Bicycles § RAV line should be able to carry bicycles § Underground, Street-

Level or Elevated System

§ Concern about visual Impacts of an elevated system § Concern about issues of congestion caused by an at-

street level system, particularly on No.3 Road in Richmond

§ Park-and-Ride § Park-and-Ride facilities need to be integrated into RAV line plans in Richmond & Vancouver

Vancouver § Whether to Proceed § Get on with building the RAV Project as soon as


December 2004 4-8

Key Themes Identified Issues with the Project possible

§ Notion that Vancouver needs to catch up with other large cities in the world

§ Need for financial accountability and transparency § Concern about system cost; project should be built for

under $1billion § Cambie vs. Arbutus § Support for Cambie corridor as it has highest density

and would serve the most people § Arbutus corridor is a superior choice for rail rapid transit

relative to the Cambie corridor § Arbutus corridor is less expensive because of existing

rail corridor on Arbutus § Buses and Rapid

Transit Technology § Need improved bus service § Consider buses as rapid transit technology, rather than

the RAV Project § Support SkyTrain as it has low operating costs and high

carrying capacity; SkyTrain is safe, fast and has frequent schedule – all things that make it attractive to users

§ Underground, Street-Level or Elevated System

§ Preference for underground along Cambie § Aboveground (elevated) systems provide better views § No street-level system because of concern regarding

cross traffic and travel time delays § Bicycles § Encourage bicycle use by allowing bicycles on RAV line

as well as SkyTrain lines § Consider ‘arterial’ bicycle route adjacent to RAV line,

plus a safe and convenient bicycle feeder network to and from the RAV line

§ Economic Benefits § RAV line will serve employment destinations and create jobs for those involved in construction and operation of the line

§ Private Sector Involvement

§ Concern that RAV line should be operated by the public sector

§ Future Consultation § If project proceeds, use direct mail to households directly affected by the line

§ Further consultation unnecessary if a decision to go ahead is made

§ Consultation is not useful and is a waste of money


4-9 December 2004

Table 4.4 Summary of Issues Identified at Open Houses and Public Workshops

Key Themes Identified Issues

Richmond § No. 3 Road and

Congestion § Concern that No. 3 Road would be even more congested

with a street-level system, therefore, system should be elevated

§ Concern about bus routing to the proposed bus terminal at Richmond Centre and concern about the terminal itself

§ Interest expressed in types of rail rapid transit technology being considered, safety issues and how the line would connect with Richmond Centre

§ Concern about local impacts (i.e., visual & traffic impacts) and suggestions for system extension at both ends (i.e., out to UBC and to Steveston)

§ Support for wide range of consultative methods to address community concerns if project proceeds

§ Cambie vs. Arbutus § Desire for more extensive look at option of using Arbutus Corridor as preferred route for RAV line, based on concerns over trees on Cambie Heritage Boulevard, potential for increased crime, potential impact on single-family residences, and impacts on local bus service

§ Build proposed RAV line along Cambie without delay based on reference plan; support for grade separation, specifically an elevated system wherever it is technically or financially feasible

§ More Information on RAV line

§ More information about costs, decision-making process, etc., wanted by a Vancouver contingent; support expressed by this group for Arbutus route; wanted a fuller range of options and technologies to be considered

Vancouver § Cambie vs. Arbutus § Support for Cambie corridor with its higher density and

employment § Use SkyTrain technology along Cambie § Run underground along Cambie to Marine Drive § If system is to run at-grade or elevated along Cambie,

avoid median


December 2004 4-10

Key Themes Identified Issues § Support for RAV Project, but disagreement over whether it

should follow Cambie or Arbutus § Opposed to Cambie corridor

§ Cambie Heritage Boulevard Preservation

§ Preserve Cambie Heritage Boulevard; important to the quality of life of those living on Cambie Street and those living in Vancouver, generally

§ Boulevard leaves positive impression on tourists entering Vancouver

§ Buses and Rapid Transit Technology

§ Support for RAV Project, but expand bus and trolley bus system

§ Oppose RAV Project; enhance bus service on Cambie to increase transit capacity

§ Underground, Street-Level or Elevated System

§ Visual impact of an at-grade or elevated system will be similar to SkyTrain

§ Safety and Security § Potential for increased crime if RAV line is built § Bicycles § Need for bicycle access to the system § Project Costs § Concern about estimated cost of the project; project

requires careful review and consideration § Private Sector

Involvement § Concern about using a public-private partnership and

whether the public interest will be protected § Consultation § Concern about RAV consultation process; inadequate

information about impacts (e.g., on bus system, on aesthetics of Cambie corridor etc.)

§ Costing information on alternative routes and systems needed before public could adequately participate

§ Hold referendum on decision to proceed


4-11 December 2004

Table 4.5 Summary of Issues Identified at Small Group Meetings

Key Themes Identified Issues § Whether to Proceed

with Project § General support for rapid transit between Vancouver,

Richmond and airport § Suggestions on where to extend the system after initial

RAV line is completed § Stations § Public organizations want their students and employees to

be well served by the proposed line § Commercial enterprises interested in potential commercial

opportunities in and around new stations, and how revenues from these enterprises might be used to financially support the system

§ Include parking close to stations to encourage those using their automobiles to park and ride

§ Buses § Support for maintaining and, in some cases, expanding the bus system to make sure there are efficiencies for bus riders and those using the RAV line

§ Concern for those currently using the bus system (e.g., Granville Rapid Bus) and what might be done to ensure continuing service for these people

§ Bicycles § New system should be bicycle friendly; want ability to take bicycles on the trains

§ Future Consultation § Interested in specific details of proposed project that would be addressed in next consultation phase should a decision be taken to proceed

4.1.5.2 Pre-Design Phase Consultation

Program Elements Pre-Design Phase consultation was initiated in November 2003 to: • communicate key design topics outlined in the Project Definition Phase; • seek ideas and advice about station design and guideway structure in an

effort to produce draft design objectives; • seek advice regarding the design and content of future public

consultation; and


December 2004 4-12

• provide input to development of the community consultation section of the EAC Application.

During this time, draft design objectives were provided as part of the BAFO instructions to the two finalist proponent teams that had been selected to proceed to BAFO stage of the procurement process. Pre-Design Consultation was undertaken by RAVCo in three steps as follows: Step 1: Small Group Consultation (November/December 2003) Step 2: Broader Public Consultation (March 2004) Step 3: Public Consultation Reporting (April/May 2004) Step 1 of Pre-Design Consultation was undertaken to generate ideas and advice that was compiled into draft design objectives and presented to the broader public at open houses in March 2004. The objective was to meet with groups and/or individuals with a specific interest in the RAV Project. The consultation was designed to recognize the unique needs of communities along the three major segments of the line: Richmond, Vancouver International Airport and Vancouver. A public consultation firm was contracted to carry out activities in each of these communities/segments. A list of groups that was potentially interested in discussing this stage of the RAV Project was identified during the February/March 2003 Project Definition Consultation. Following review by representatives of the VIAA and City of Richmond and Vancouver staff, the list was further refined. Fifty-one pre-consultation meetings were held between November 17, 2003 and December 12, 2003 (Appendix 4-C). A total of 270 individuals participated in these meetings. Participants were guided through a Draft RAV Project Pre-Design Work Book to seek their advice on each design topic, on construction and operational issues, and on future consultation. Participants documented their feedback on the perforated panels of the Work Book, and these were collected at the end of each meeting. Five design topics were discussed in the meetings:


4-13 December 2004

• Access and Connectivity to Stations • Safety and Security • Local Area Context • Urban Design between Stations • Station Design - Elements of Continuity and Distinction. In addition to these design topics, four additional subject areas were put forward to participants for comment: • Construction Issues • Operations Issues • Future Contact and Consultation Participants were asked to consider each topic both as a rapid transit user and as a representative of their organization and community, and to provide RAVCo with advice to be considered in developing draft design objectives, construction and operations procedures, and ongoing consultation. Based on the outcome of the Pre-Design Consultation meetings involving small groups, the discussion guide was refined and a feedback form was developed for use during Step 2 – Broader Public Consultation. The Broader Public Consultation step involved a series of mall displays and open houses in communities along the three segments of the RAV line, as follows: § Richmond Segment

− March 11 - mall display at Yaohan Centre Mall − March 20 - mall display at Richmond Centre Mall − March 27 - open house at Minoru Cultural Centre − March 30 - open house at Minoru Cultural Centre

§ Vancouver International Airport Segment

− March 10 - public display at YVR South Terminal − March 11 - public display at YVR Level 3 Departures Concourse

(between domestic and international terminals) − March 25 - open house at YVR Level 3 Departures Concourse of

International Terminal


December 2004 4-14

− April 3 - open house at Sea Island Community Centre

§ Vancouver Segment − March 16 and 20 – mall display at Pacific Centre Mall − March 22 and 23 – mall display at Oakridge Centre Mall − March 24 – open house at Annie B. Jamieson Elementary School − March 31 – open house at Roundhouse Community Centre

In addition to these consultation activities, a telephone survey was completed by Synovate Inc., on behalf of RAVCo, as a benchmark for the information obtained from feedback forms submitted as part of the Broader Public Consultation.

Issues Identified by the Public and Stakeholders Table 4.6 summarizes the comments received from participants involved in Step 1 – Small Group Meetings and Step 2 – Broader Public Consultation. A more complete description of the outcome of Pre-Design Consultation is presented in the Pre-Design Consultation Summary Report, which is available on the RAVCo website at http://www.ravprapidtransit.com/en/consultation_current.php.

Table 4.6 Summary of Draft Design Objectives Identified during Step 1 - Small Group Meetings and Step 2 – Broader Public Consultation

Design Issue Suggested Design Objectives

Access and Connectivity

§ enhance interconnectivity of new RAV line with all other modes of transportation (i.e., pedestrian, bus, bicycle, car, other)

§ enhance access and provide facilities for cyclists to promote ease of access to all parts of system (i.e., stations, area around stations, trains)

§ increase user protection form Greater Vancouver’s rain and winds. This would include protection when waiting for a train or when moving from one mode of transportation to another. In addition, VIAA participants said that draft design objectives should protect users from ambient noise

§ make provisions for access to business centres such as


4-15 December 2004

Design Issue Suggested Design Objectives Richmond malls, the cruise-ship terminal and Pacific Centre, as well as institutional centres such as Vancouver General Hospital and others. At the same time, the draft design objectives should minimize impacts on existing infrastructure, such as No. 3 Road in Richmond

§ ensure the use of clear, easily identifiable and understandable signage on trains, as well as inside and outside stations. In general, this concerns access and egress during general operations, as well as ease of egress (particularly from underground stations) during emergencies

Safety and Security

§ include use of safe lighting levels (often described as “bright lighting”) in and around the stations

§ include use of security cameras with continuous monitoring § use uniformed staff (operating or security) to enhance security,

decrease fare evasion and discourage criminals from using the stations

§ maximize visibility to enhance security such as making sure there are clear sight-lines inside and outside the stations (i.e., no angles, alleyways, hiding places or landscaping interfering with sight-lines); others suggest security would be enhanced with glass walls and elevators

§ take into account lighting impacts on neighbours § allow for possibility of retail spaces within the stations (e.g., flower

shops, bicycle shops, restaurants and coffee shops, and vendors). Increased numbers of people in the stations would add to the overall safety of the system

Local Area Context Richmond § reflect notion that entire RAV line in Richmond should express a

sense of being in a different, unique place § reflect difference in character of areas around Bridgeport Station

& Richmond Centre § reflect and cater to Richmond’s ethnic diversity § use pictographic-based directional signage, to encourage foreign

tourists to visit Richmond as they travel from the Airport via RAV


December 2004 4-16

Design Issue Suggested Design Objectives Vancouver International Airport

§ consider sight-lines from houses on Miller Road (e.g., not breaking up mountain views, ensuring the guideway is as attractive as possible)

§ consider importance and value of integrating transit users with the surrounding natural environment of the Fraser River estuary

§ local area should be reflected in station design. A number of potential themes were identified: First Nations, BC, nature, aviation, airport integration, & Sea Island

§ Airport Stations 4 and 5 should reflect character of domestic and international terminals, respectively and seamlessly integrate with them

Vancouver § context of downtown to Broadway was generally seen as different from lower density area along Cambie corridor

§ consider rezoning Cambie Street south of 45th Avenue to allow for increased density, creating small compact urban centers, and work with neighborhoods and City of Vancouver staff to address this issue

Urban Design Between Stations

§ account for need for landscaping to address system’s visual impacts

§ address heritage values of Cambie Heritage Boulevard § contribute to development of a multi-modal (e.g., pedestrian,

cycling, rollerblading, etc.) system running parallel to the line § address impacts of system on viewscapes § facilitate pedestrian and traffic movement across RAV line where

at-grade or in-trench segments are being considered

Station Design - Continuity and Distinction

§ recognize that elements relating to safe and efficient system operation (e.g., platform edges, signage, escalators, safety systems) should be continuous through all stations and with the SkyTrain line, if possible

§ public art in the stations should be used as elements of distinction; consider selection of seating, architectural form, landscaping, shape of the support beams and guideways (elevated portions), and surface of concrete walls (i.e., cover them or sculpture them) as part of station art


4-17 December 2004

Design Issue Suggested Design Objectives § options for distinctiveness should be considered during further

consultation activities and should take account of local area context – distinctiveness by segment, by interior design, and by exterior design

§ some participants suggested all stations should be the same

Construction § want information about construction schedule and impacts to be available in a timely and reliable manner

§ minimize noise levels associated with system construction and operation

§ Richmond participants expressed concern about traffic impacts on No. 3 Road and maintenance of local access to businesses along this corridor; VIAA participants were concerned about congestion points such as the Arthur Laing Bridge, especially as passengers try to access terminals; Vancouver participants were concerned about the ability to travel on Cambie Street during construction

§ contradictory solutions suggested (e.g., limit construction during peak transportation hours, or during working days or around special events; adopt a 24-hours per day, 7 days per week construction schedule)

§ well-developed traffic management plan recommended

Operations § consider a system that runs 24-hours to accommodate shift workers

§ design system so it can readily be kept clean and well maintained, something that promotes system use and deters vandalism

§ use swipe cards or proximity cards instead of tickets to accelerate entry time and offer greater security to passengers

§ increase train frequency to address increased ridership volume during rush hours, holidays, summer months, cruise season, and other special events

§ address parking concerns during construction phase and once system is built


December 2004 4-18

Design Issue Suggested Design Objectives Future Consultation and Communications

§ use a variety of consultation methods including open houses, mall displays, group meetings or focus groups, presentations, community discussion forums, newspaper inserts, project website with electronic feedback forms

§ use electronic and print media including ethnic media and by direct mail, e-mail, and website to advise of consultation events

§ set up a project site office during construction; keep public and stakeholders informed of future consultation activities

4.1.5.3 Liaison with Municipal Governments and the Vancouver

International Airport Authority

RAVCo has been engaged in municipal liaison activities with the cities of Richmond and Vancouver since early in the Pre-Application stage of the project. RAVCo has also consulted with the VIAA, which holds a long-term federal lease and controls development of the Vancouver International Airport lands on Sea Island. Table 4.7 summarizes the municipal liaison activities carried out during the RAV Project Pre-Application stage. In addition to the staff level municipal liaison activities identified above, RAVCo has also provided project information updates to Richmond and Vancouver councils and senior municipal managers, and TransLink Board members, at regular intervals beginning in March 2003 and continuing through submission of this EAC Application. Topics discussed have included: • project procurement updates; • consultation process and outcomes; • access agreements; • design advisory and construction approvals processes; • business community interests; • project funding; and • municipal coordination.


4-19 December 2004

4.1.5.4 Liaison with Federal and Provincial Government Agencies

Federal Briefing and Liaison In addition to the negotiation of Funding Agreements with the lead Federal department, Infrastructure Canada, RAVCo has briefed departmental and ministerial representatives with an interest in the file. The following is a list of Federal departments whose representatives have been briefed by RAVCo: • Infrastructure Canada • Transport Canada • Finance Canada • Treasury Board of Canada • Environment Canada • Industry Canada • Western Economic Diversification Canada Individual Members of Parliament expressing an interest have also been briefed and provided with project updates. Provincial Briefings and Liaison In addition to the negotiation of Funding Agreements with the lead Provincial department, the Ministry of Transportation, RAVCo has briefed departmental and ministerial representatives with an interest in the file. The following is a list of Provincial department or related agencies whose representatives have been briefed by RAVCo: • Ministry of Transportation • Partnership BC Individual Members of the Legislative Assembly expressing an interest have also been briefed and provided with project updates.


4-20 December 2004

Table 4.7 Summary of Staff-Level Municipal and VIAA Liaison Activities Liaison Activity Timeframe Participants Issues/Input

Procurement Process

Input to RAV Project Design/Build/ Operate/Maintain Request for Proposals

28 Apr. 2003 to 13 May 2003

City of Richmond & City of Vancouver councils

Council resolutions on elements of the project considered by the two municipalities as essential for inclusion in the RAV Project (see RFP @ www.ravprapidtransit.com

Review of Design/Build/ Operate/Maintain Proposals

23 Jan. to 27 Feb. 2004

City of Richmond &City of Vancouver staff

Municipal staff participated as members of the Design & Construction Subcommittee (6 meetings), and Third Party Consultation Subcommittee (4 meetings) as part of the evaluation process designed to select two finalist proponents to proceed to the BAFO stage of procurement.

Input to Best and Final Offer Instructions

29 Mar. to 30 Apr. 2004

City of Richmond & City of Vancouver staff

Municipal staff provided input to instructions that will guide the two finalist proponent teams in developing their BAFO submissions.

Municipal Liaison

Joint Municipal Coordination

Aug. 2003 to Mar. 2004

City of Richmond, City of Vancouver, & RAVCo staff – 15 meetings VIAA & RAVCo staff – 3 meetings

Overall coordination of public consultation, municipal liaison, structure and mechanism for receiving municipal design input and construction approval process.


4-21 December 2004

Liaison Activity Timeframe Participants Issues/Input Street Access Agreement Mar. to

Nov. 2004 City of Richmond & City of Vancouver staff – 4 meetings VIAA staff – 3 meetings

Development of an agreement for access to city streets during RAV Project’s construction and operation phases Development of an agreement for access to airport lands during RAV Project’s construction and operation phases.

Station Precinct Studies Aug. 2003 to Mar. 2004

City of Richmond & RAVCo staff – 6 meetings City of Vancouver and RAVCo staff – 4 meetings

RAVCo resource staff participated in city-led station precinct studies to provide RAV Project-related information where required to help guide discussions.

Specific Topic Meetings Aug. 2003 to Mar. 2004

City of Vancouver & RAVCo staff – 5 meetings City of Richmond and RAVCo staff – 4 meetings

To discuss Cambie corridor issues. RAVCo provided support to Richmond staff in a PhotoshopTM visualization exercise for elevated and at-grade structures on No. 3 Road.

Pre-Design Consultation Program

Step 1: Small Group Meetings

17 November to 12 Dec. 2003

City of Richmond staff – 13 meetings

Staff participated in small group meetings at which draft design objectives were discussed. Provided staff with an opportunity to hear what issues were of


December 2004 4-22

Liaison Activity Timeframe Participants Issues/Input City of Vancouver staff – 24 meetings VIAA staff – 10 meetings

concern to local public interest and business groups.

Debriefings of Step 1: Small Group Meetings

Jan. to Feb. 2004

City of Richmond staff – 2 meetings with RAVCo City of Vancouver staff – 1 meeting with RAVCo

The outcome of Step 1: Small Group Meetings was presented to municipal staff in a series of meetings.

Step 2: Public Consultation – Program Preparation

Feb. 2004 City of Richmond staff – 2 meetings with RAVCo City of Vancouver staff – 2 meetings with RAVCo VIAA staff – 1 meeting with RAVCo

RAVCo reviewed design and content of Step 2 program, including mall display, open house and website ‘virtual’ open house, and obtained municipal and VIAA sign-off of the program.

Step 2: Public Consultation – Implementation

Mar. 2004 City of Richmond, City of Vancouver, and VIAA staff

Participated in 2 mall displays and 2 open houses in each of their respective jurisdictions; enabled staff to provide information to the public, and hear about any public issues or concerns.


December 2004 4-23

4.1.5.5 Other Consultation Activities

During the Pre-Application stage, RAVCo met with representatives of the buildings trades unions on several occasions to discuss labour sourcing issues. These meetings were held on April 15, May 9, July 15 and November 10, 2003, and on February 9, 2004. The RAVCo Board received public delegations as part of its March 5 and March 26, 2004 meetings. Although RAVCo allocated time for public delegations at its October 18, 2004 meeting, no delegations registered for this meeting. Table 4.8 summarizes the input received from the March 5 and March 26 public delegations. A complete record is included in Appendix 4-D.

Table 4.8 Summary of Input Received from Public Delegations

Delegation Summary of Input March 5, 2004 Richard Campbell - supported integration of a cycle and

pedestrian path on proposed RAV bridge over the North Arm of the Fraser River

Jack Baker, Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition

- supported unrestricted access to transit, and unlimited bicycle use in the system

- train design should support use of bicycles

- new bike lanes and routes should be established into neighbourhoods

- cycling facilities should be in pace before opening the RAV line to attract commuters and maximize revenue

Steven Regan, Tourism Vancouver - supported plans to construct the RAV line

- RAV line would encourage greater movement within GVRD and provide efficient network as part of regional tourism vision


December 2004 4-24

David Nesbitt, Children and Women’s Health Centre of BC

- health care employees continue to support establishment of the RAV line

- consideration should be given to closer, more convenient and safer access to stations

- estimated that one-third of CWHC employees are potential RAV line users

- health care employers continue to support improved transit access to health care sites in close proximity

- suggested station at West 29th Avenue and Cambie which would be central to GF Strong, St.Vincent’s and CWHC

Don Toffaletto, Re-Think RAV - concerned RAVCo withholding information regarding liability for tunneling cost overruns

- maintained GVRD support for RAV Project was based on unknown liability for ridership shortfalls and tunneling cost overruns

Clive Justice, Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society

- Cambie Boulevard is one of a number of city-wide landscapes, unique among North American urban areas, which are a legacy of the 1920’s Harland Bartholomew Plan

- Cambie Boulevard was the city’s first recipient of Heritage Urban Landscape Status (1994)

- Cambie Boulevard has a unique collection of 1000 ornamental trees

- Any surface development of the Boulevard from King Edward to Southwest Marine Drive would not be supported

Maurizio Grande, Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society

- reasonable steps should be taken to desist from destroying the Cambie Boulevard

- RAVCo should make a commitment to


4-25 December 2004

make information available to the public

Dr. Gordon Jones, Re-Think RAV - supported a strategy to improve transportation within the GVRD, but was opposed to RAV due to lack of transparency on ridership and financial numbers

Dave Park, Vancouver Board of Trade - RAV line is the next logical piece of the network

- This is the opportune time to proceed with the project as funding has been secured and the public finds the project acceptable

- RAV line would be environmentally friendly and draw people out of their automobiles

- Important to proceed with the RAV line in time for 2010 Winter Olympic Games

March 26, 2004 Gerry Cunningham, Canadian Union of Public Employees

- Strongly opposed to operating and managing the RAV line privately due to higher costs paid for by taxes and fares

- Challenged discount rate used in PricewaterhouseCoopers Report

- Union rejects concept that public-private/partnership is required to obtain government funding

- Open up the process as it is too secretive at present

John MacLean, Expanded Vancouver Convention Centre

- RAV Project is important because it will increase the quality of life in the region

- Traffic congestion is adding $300 million to transportation costs in Vancouver

- Tourism is a major contributor to the economic well-being of the Province

- RAV line will be an investment that attracts high-yield tourists


December 2004 4-26

4.1.6 Proposed Consultation during EAC Application Public Review

In November 2003, RAVCo provided the BCEAO office with a document entitled “Community and Public Consultation Plan”. This plan outlined a proposed approach to public consultation intended to satisfy requirements set out in the Public Consultation Policy Regulation and the Procedural Order, dated September 10, 2003, that specified how the RAV Project assessment process was to be conducted. In addition, RAVCo’s ‘Community and Public Consultation Plan’ incorporated many of the features and activities that the RAV Project Team had addressed during the course of their initial consultation activities with the public. As set out in the BCEAA, public review of the EAC Application is required to: • provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment on the

document; • inform the public about the selected rail system technology, specific

alignment and station locations, as per the design developed by the preferred proponent; and

• ensure that all relevant issues relating to the RAV Project are identified and addressed as part of the project review process.

As previously described, this component of public consultation will be undertaken by RAVCo in association with the BCEAO and will take place after the EAC Application has been submitted by RAVCo and accepted for review by the BCEAO. It is anticipated that the public review of the Application will be implemented in accordance with regulations established under BCEAA and will commence in January 2005. The availability of the Application and the purpose and time limits of the formal public comment period will be advertised in local community newspapers. The document will be posted on the BCEAO and RAV Project websites and featured in open houses and other public consultation activities and events. The consultation strategy for design of the RAV Project envisages ongoing liaison and information sharing with key stakeholders and the general public,


4-27 December 2004

and will be integrated with consultation related to public review of the Application. RAVCo will continue to consult with the cities of Vancouver and Richmond, both of which are Participating Agencies on the project, and with VIAA, which is one of the Contributing Agencies, throughout the Application review stage. The proposed strategy for consultation during the Application Review Phase is outlined in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9 Proposed Program of Public Information Sharing and

Consultation during Application Review

Information/Activity Methods Maintain Local Dialogue § announcements by RAVCo as deemed

appropriate; § identification and tracking of issues for

stakeholder and EA reporting; and § RAVCo representatives meet with municipal

representatives and VIAA staff to provide project update, obtain EA responses, and discuss future open houses.

Public Comment on EAC Application

§ advertise availability of EAC Application and related materials as prescribed by BCEAO;

§ feature EAC Application, supporting project information and feedback mechanisms in open houses in Richmond, Vancouver & Airport; and

§ provide information and links (including feedback mechanisms) on RAVCo website.

Receive from and Prepare Responses to BCEAO on Public Comments on EAC Application

§ public comments received through feedback mechanisms;

§ responses reported to BCEAO & RAVCo websites; and

§ also reported to elected officials & VIAA staff. Report on Public Comment and Responses Arising from EAC Application

§ via websites and future open houses associated with post-Application consultation.


December 2004 4-28

In addition to consultation associated with project design and the public review of the EAC Application, public delegations are given an opportunity to provide input to the RAVCo Board at quarterly board meetings, at which RAVCo reports on the status of the RAV Project. A Delegation Policy and Request Form is posted on the RAV Project website (http://www.ravprapidtransit.com/en/meeting_delegations.php) and those individuals wishing to speak during a RAVCo Board meeting are asked to register 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting. 4.1.7 Post-Certification Communication and Consultation

4.1.7.1 Preliminary Design Phase Consultation

Following selection of the Concessionaire, Preliminary Design Consultation will be undertaken by RAVCo, with support provided by the selected DBFOM team.

The purpose of the Preliminary Design Phase Consultation is to: • provide an update on the procurement process; • provide an update on the consultation process; and • seek further advice on selected alignment and station design issues in

light of the submissions provided by the DBFOM teams as part of their BAFO proposals.

It is anticipated that this program will be implemented in early 2005. The Preliminary Design Consultation program will be developed based on input from the Pre-Design Phase Consultation and the public review consultation associated with the EAC Application, along with input from RAVCo, City of Vancouver, City of Richmond and VIAA staff.

4.1.7.2 Detailed Design Consultation

Detailed Design Consultation will be undertaken by the preferred DBFOM team (referred to as the “Concessionaire” once the contract is signed) and will constitute an integral part of the Municipal Design Process. The purpose of the Detailed Design Phase Consultation is to inform the public about the rail system technology, route and station locations, and to seek advice on the


4-29 December 2004

refinement of detailed station design, as part of the municipal and VIAA development processes. The Detailed Design Consultation program will be developed by the Concessionaire, as part of its BAFO proposal, with input from RAVCo, City of Vancouver, City of Richmond and VIAA staff. The consultation strategy for design of the RAV Project envisages ongoing liaison and information sharing with key stakeholders and the general public, and will be integrated with consultation related to public review of the EAC Application (see SECTION

4.1.6)

4.1.7.3 Construction and Operations Phase Period Community Liaison and Notification

A Community Liaison and Notification Program will be developed and implemented by the Concessionaire. During RAV Project construction, the program will be used to inform the public about construction-related activities and to respond to requests for information. The program will also provide a point of contact should issues arise for which the public has construction-or traffic-related questions or concerns. During RAV system operation, the program will be used to respond to requests for information and to inform the public about both routine and emergency operations- and maintenance-related activities. It will also provide a point of contact should issues arise for which the public has questions or concerns. The program will be developed as part of the DBFOM team’s BAFO proposal, and will be implemented prior to the start of construction, scheduled for mid-2005, and continue throughout the concession period.

4.2 First Nations Consultation and Communication

4.2.1 First Nations Consultation Requirements

Court decisions have established that provincial government activities cannot infringe on existing aboriginal rights and/or title without proper justification. The courts have stated that, where a First Nation has asserted but not yet proved aboriginal rights and/or title, there is a constitutional and fiduciary


December 2004 4-30

responsibility to consult and consider the interests being asserted. Actual proof of aboriginal title or rights is not required for the Crown to be obligated to consult. The Provincial Policy for Consultation with First Nations (2002) describes the Province’s approach to consultation with First Nations with respect to aboriginal rights and/or title. The Policy recognizes that the Province, through consultation, must consider and attempt to address and/or accommodate aboriginal interests before making decisions that may affect those interests. 4.2.1.1 Consultation and Environmental Assessment

In the BCEAA process, aboriginal interests are considered in order to ensure that First Nations issues and concerns are identified and the Province’s legal obligations towards First Nations are met. To aid in accomplishing this, the BCEAO expects project proponents to establish meaningful dialogue with First Nations and to resolve issues that arise as part of the consultation process. To ensure that aboriginal interests are protected, the BCEAO: • invites First Nations whose traditional territories are within or in the vicinity

of the project area to be members of Working Groups • expects project proponents to undertake studies to identify the existence

of aboriginal rights, the extent of possible infringements of those rights that may occur as a result of the project, and the measures that the proponent proposes to use to avoid or minimize adverse effects on those rights

• expects project proponents to consult with First Nations whose traditional territories are within or in the vicinity of the project area, and to report back to the BCEAO regarding the issues identified by aboriginal people and the proposed action(s) to be taken to address those issues

• monitors and evaluates the proponent’s performance during its consultation with First Nations and, where necessary, initiates its own consultations with First Nations

• expects that, where issues arise, the proponent will establish agreements with First Nations that provide for the protection of aboriginal rights and/or


4-31 December 2004

agreements so that the First Nations will accept the project, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions

4.2.2 Pre-Application Stage: First Nations Consulted

The RAV Project falls within the asserted traditional territories of the following First Nations groups: § Musqueam Indian Band § Squamish Nation § Sto:lo Nation § Tsleil-Waututh Nation § Tsawwassen First Nation

Early in the project planning process, these groups were identified by the BCEAO and RAVCo as the First Nations with whom consultation efforts should be undertaken. The asserted traditional territory of the Katzie First Nation lies to the east of the RAV Project area. To determine whether the Nation had any interest in the RAV Project, initial discussions were carried out between Band representatives and RAVCo. During those discussions, Katzie representatives indicated that the Band did not have a material interest in the project. Subsequently, in July 2004, the Katzie indicated an interest in participating in the EAC Application review process. The asserted traditional territories for each of these First Nations are depicted by Statement of Intent maps filed with the B.C. Treaty Commission (see Figures 4.1 to 4.6)


December 2004 4-32

Figure 4.1 Katzie First Nation Traditional Territory (Asserted)

Figure 4.2 Musqueam Indian Band Traditional Territory (Asserted)


4-33 December 2004

Figure 4.3 Squamish Nation Traditional Territory (Asserted)

Figure 4.4 Sto:lo Nation Traditional Territory (Asserted)


December 2004 4-34

Figure 4.5 Tsleil-Waututh Nation Traditional Territory (Asserted)

Figure 4.6 Tsawwassen First Nation Traditional Territory (Asserted)


4-35 December 2004

4.2.2.1 Katzie First Nation

The boundaries of the Statement of Intent map prepared for treaty discussions illustrates that the Katzie Band’s asserted traditional territory encompasses a large portion of Garibaldi Park, Pitt River and the mouth of the Fraser River, as well as large portions of Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Surrey, White Rock, Richmond and Delta. Although the map indicates that the proposed RAV line alignment is not located in the asserted traditional lands of the Katzie Band, RAVCo representatives have undertaken discussions with and continued to communicate their willingness to discuss the project with the Band. 4.2.2.2 Musqueam Indian Band

The traditional territory claimed by the Musqueam Indian Band includes all of Vancouver, North Vancouver, South Vancouver, Burrard Inlet, New Westminster, Burnaby and Richmond. Over 140 archaeological sites support the claim that the entire Lower Mainland area contains village sites, burial places, seasonal camps and fishing sites once associated with the Musqueam people. The entire RAV line alignment falls into the asserted traditional territory of the Musqueam Indian Band. The main Musqueam community is located on the banks of the Fraser River in South Vancouver. The Band holds a total of three reserves on 254.2 hectares (ha) in the area.

4.2.2.3 Squamish Nation

The Squamish Nation’s asserted traditional territory extends from the Lower Mainland to Howe Sound and the Squamish River watershed, encompassing the northern section of the proposed RAV corridor through Vancouver. A significant proportion of Band members currently reside in North Vancouver. Since, historically, there was frequent inter-marriage between the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam residing in Burrard Inlet, all three groups claim a number of the same former settlements.


December 2004 4-36

4.2.2.4 Sto:lo Nation

Approximately 20 communities make up the Sto:lo First Nation, all of which are located in the Fraser Valley between Hope and Langley. Sto:lo traditional territory is located in the southwestern area of BC, and covers almost 17,000 km2. Geographically, this territory extends from the US border in the south, to Garibaldi Provincial Park in the north, and from the City of Vancouver in the west to just past the community of Hope in the east. Sto:lo traditional territory includes the regional districts of Central Fraser Valley, Dewdney-Alouette, Fraser-Cheam and Greater Vancouver - virtually all of the urban communities in the Lower Mainland. The Kwantlen Band is the westernmost Sto:lo member with traditional territory in the vicinity of the proposed RAV line. The Kwantlen were once one of the most powerful tribes on the lower Fraser River and their asserted traditional territory includes sections of the RAV corridor from Cambie Street south, across the North Arm of the Fraser River, west to Sea Island and south to Richmond Centre. 4.2.2.5 Tsleil-Waututh Nation

Most Tsleil-Waututh First Nation members currently live in a community located between Maplewood Flats and Deep Cove on the north shore of Burrard Inlet (i.e., Burrard Reserve). There are also two small Tsleil-Waututh reserves at the end of Indian Arm called Inlailawatsh 4 and 4A, for a total of 108.3 ha on three reserves. The recent acquisition of fee-simple forest lands at the head of Indian Arm has allowed the Tsleil-Waututh to consider options for expanding their community settlement and economic activities in a less urbanized portion of their traditional territory. The asserted traditional territory of the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation includes a diverse area that ranges from the forested lands on the north shore of the Burrard Inlet, to the urban areas of North Vancouver, Vancouver, Burnaby, Port Moody and Coquitlam. Tsleil-Waututh traditional territory includes the Vancouver portion of the RAV corridor, from Waterfront Station to the North Arm of the Fraser River.


4-37 December 2004

4.2.2.6 Tsawwassen First Nation

The Tsawwassen First Nation is comprised of one reserve of 273 ha situated in Delta along the shores of Roberts Bank, between the Tsawwassen BC Ferry Terminal and the Roberts Bank Superport. Tsawwassen’s asserted traditional territory includes lands throughout the Fraser River delta to Point Roberts and the Gulf Islands and extends northeast along the Pitt River to the Pitt Lake area. All of the lands along the proposed RAV corridor, south of the North Arm of the Fraser River, are located within Tsawwassen asserted traditional territory. In March 2004, the Tsawwassen First Nation signed an agreement-in-principle with the Province in the BC Treaty Process. Proposed settlement lands include Crown land parcels in Richmond, Steveston, New Westminster, Annacis Island, Surrey and Delta.

4.2.3 First Nations Consultation Program

As described in SECTION 4.2.1, court decisions have determined that federal and provincial regulatory authorities have a duty to consider First Nations interests in decision-making processes that could affect those interests, and to consult and seek workable accommodation, where appropriate. Specifically, court decisions have stated that the duty to consult arises with First Nations that have a strong claim of aboriginal rights and/or title in lands affected by a project, even before those interests have been established by the courts. Courts have held that project proponents can assist the Crown in fulfilling its duty of consultation and in some circumstances, have extended the duty of consultation to project proponents. The objective of RAVCo’s First Nations consultation program is to consult with the First Nations whose interests may be affected by the RAV Project, consistent with the Provincial Policy for Consultation (2002), and in accordance with the BC Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and applicable court decisions. In general, BCEAO requirements placed on a proponent regarding First Nations consultation include, but are not limited to:


December 2004 4-38

• Conduct direct consultation with First Nations; • Carry out the consultation program set out in the EAC Application; • Report on consultation activities; • Report on the issues identified by First Nations during consultation; and • Report on how the proponent proposes to address and/or attempt to

accommodate any potential adverse impacts to First Nations. The RAV Project’s consultation program was based on a number of additional principles including: • First Nations must be involved in identifying and designing a meaningful

consultation plan; • Consultation approach needs to be flexible and designed to meet the

needs of each First Nation; • Consultation approach must be inclusive of all First Nations who identify

that their interests may be affected; • Consultation approach must provide an opportunity to effectively

participate; and • Consultation approach must be accountable. These principles are described in more detail in the following sections. 4.2.3.1 First Nations Involvement in Design of Consultation

Plan

In November 2003, RAVCo provided the BCEAO office with a document entitled “First Nations Consultation Plan”. This document outlined the proposed approach that would be taken to consulting with First Nations to satisfy the requirements set out in the “Provincial Policy for Consultation with First Nations” (2002), and the guidelines established by the BCEAO through its Supplementary Guide to First Nations. In addition, RAVCo’s First Nations Consultation Plan incorporated many of the features and activities that RAVCo had addressed in its initial discussions with First Nations. Although RAVCo’s approach to First Nations consultation was guided by the requirements established by the provincial government, it was equally influenced by the recognition that First Nations have different interpretations of the legal requirements for consultation. That is, RAVCo realized that, for


4-39 December 2004

consultation to be meaningful, the process needed to address the consultation needs and perspectives of each of the involved First Nations. Therefore, RAVCo’s consultation approach was based on the outcome of a meeting held with representatives of each First Nation to identify what they considered to be an appropriate and meaningful consultation approach. This approach was intended to ensure that each First Nation could be involved in designing a consultation process appropriate to its unique circumstances and needs, and to develop communication mechanisms capable of fostering co-operative problem solving. In adopting this approach, RAVCo recognized that even if all matters could not be resolved through agreement, the consultation process would help to clarify underlying issues, identify options for dealing with outstanding agreements, and build respect and understanding between RAVCo and each involved First Nation. 4.2.3.2 Design of Flexible Consultation Approaches

Throughout the consultation process, RAVCo was prepared to be flexible with regard to how consultation with First Nations was conducted. To address the concern that a standard approach would not fit the needs of each First Nation, a unique consultation process was designed based on input received from each First Nation. 4.2.3.3 Inclusiveness

The third principle used to develop RAVCo’s consultation approach provided for inclusion of all First Nations who had identified a significant interest in the project. Although RAVCo identified those First Nations with asserted aboriginal interests in the project area based on reference to Statements of Intent and other research, the objective was to ensure that any First Nation that expressed an interest in the project would be consulted. As a result, efforts were made to ensure that interested parties, including those which were not initially identified by RAVCo as having interests (e.g., Katzie First Nation, Kwantlen First Nation, urban aboriginal representatives), were provided with opportunities to discuss and be consulted on the project.


December 2004 4-40

4.2.3.4 Effective Participation

The fourth consultation principle was that involved First Nations should be able to effectively participate in the consultation process. During initial discussions, First Nations informed RAVCo that, due to the many projects currently taking place on traditional lands, there was limited capacity to participate in effective and meaningful consultation. In response, RAVCo indicated that it was prepared to enter into contribution agreements with those First Nations who required resources to allow them to participate in the consultation process. This included opportunities to receive assistance to: • conduct community consultation; • participate in archaeological assessments; • identify economic/employment opportunities; and • review the EAC Application. 4.2.3.5 Accountability

Finally, RAVCo was committed to ensuring that the process was accountable to the agreed upon consultation plan. Communication mechanisms were established to ensure that the issues, concerns and opportunities identified by the First Nations were acknowledged. This was accomplished by reporting back to First Nations with respect to identified issues, concerns and opportunities, using effective communication tools including meetings, telephone discussions, letters and emails. To ensure that the commitment to accountability could be met, RAVCo engaged a First Nations Consultation Advisor. The Advisor reports to the RAVCo Vice President of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs and serves as the key contact between RAVCo and respective First Nations. In consultation with the RAVCo Vice President of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, the First Nations Consultation Advisor is responsible for maintaining relationships with First Nations, providing them with project-related information, organizing and chairing meetings to discuss First Nations


4-41 December 2004

interests in the project, negotiating agreements, and other tasks as appropriate. 4.2.4 Pre-Application Stage: First Nations Consultation

Activities

The consultation approach was initiated with a letter from RAVCo to each First Nation community, formally introducing the project and indicating that a follow-up call would be initiated. The second step was to contact the Chiefs to identify their interest in meeting to discuss the project. If the offer to meet was accepted, then an introductory meeting was held at which time the following topics were discussed: • description of the RAV Project; • most appropriate means through which to consult; • proposed project and environmental assessment process; • environmental studies to be undertaken; and • areas where the First Nation required more information or had specific

concerns. The third step was to embark upon the consultation plan that had been discussed and agreed upon at the initiation meeting. A description of the consultation process with each of the First Nations is provided in the following sections. 4.2.4.1 Katzie First Nation

On March 17, 2003, an information package and letter were sent to Chief Peter James of the Katzie First Nation to introduce the RAV Project, identify the First Nations Consultation Advisor and describe his role in the consultation process. The letter also requested that a meeting be held in order to allow the Advisor to provide more detailed information on the project and to hear how the Katzie Nation wished to be consulted.


December 2004 4-42

On March 31, 2003, the First Nations Consultation Advisor contacted Chief Peters who indicated that he had received the letter and would be discussing the project with Council. When contacted on April 10th, the Chief explained that despite the project’s location within their traditional lands, the Katzie First Nation would not take an active role in the project and did not require a meeting with RAVCo representatives. He added that the Katzie chief treaty negotiator would write a letter to RAVCo confirming this response. On May 6, 2003, the chief treaty negotiator was contacted and confirmed that the Katzie First Nation would not be taking an active role in the project and that a letter confirming this would be prepared. In August 2003, the First Nations Consultation Advisor contacted the chief treaty negotiator who indicated that the letter was drafted, however Chief Peters had provided additional comments for the letter and those needed to be included. She explained that, although the letter indicated that a meeting would not be required, the Katzie would like to continue receiving project-related information and that the Nation did have an interest in the archaeological investigations. The First Nations Consultation Advisor responded that the archaeological assessment process was to begin shortly and the letter would be useful to ensure that Katzie interests were identified. The Katzie representative noted that the Nation did not need to be involved in the field work but would be interested in seeing the completed archaeological report. Contact was maintained with the Katzie chief treaty negotiator in an effort to obtain a copy of the letter identifying Katzie interests. In February 2004, the First Nations Consultation Advisor contacted the Katzie to determine the whereabouts of the letter. A Katzie representative indicated that the Nation would be interested in receiving information regarding the project schedule, as well as archaeology and fisheries issues. The representative explained that the Katzie wanted an opportunity to review information on these issues, but did not have the capacity to participate in the review process due to their involvement in negotiations concerning other


4-43 December 2004

initiatives. In response, RAVCo offered to meet to discuss the project, committed to provide information updates and provided information regarding the project schedule. Contact was maintained with the Katzie throughout spring and summer 2004 and regular updates were provided on scheduling, economic opportunities and progress of the project. During a July project update telephone conversation, the Katzie indicated that they would be interested in reviewing the EAC Application as it relates to archaeology, fisheries and air quality and expressed interest in securing resources that would enable them to do so from RAVCo. RAVCo acknowledged and requested written confirmation of Katzie interests. The letter confirming Katzie First Nation interests was received in mid September 2004, and a contribution agreement was sent to the Katzie to allow them to effectively review the EAC Application and be consulted on the project. In October, the Katzie indicated that they would participate in the review of the EAC Application. It was agreed that following Katzie’s initial review of the Application, RAVCo representatives would communicate with the First Nation to identify any outstanding issues. Table 4.10 summarizes the issues raised by the Katzie First Nation and RAVCo responses to those issues.

Table 4.10 Summary of Katzie First Nation Issues and Responses

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Cultural/Heritage: Request for archaeological reports, once completed.

5/8/03

Communicated that archaeological report will be included as part of the EAC Application.

5/8/03

Consultation: Indicate that they do not require a meeting but wish information updates.

10/4/03

Requested a letter confirming conversation and type and kind of information that would be most helpful.

6/5/03 – 1/23/04

Request for access to BCEAO website.

12/11/03

Information on the best way to access site provided.

12/11/03


December 2004 4-44

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Request for information on key project milestones

6/2/04 Information provided by e-mail. 5/5/04 6/2/04

Express interest in reviewing EAC Application, particularly archaeological, air quality and fisheries issues. Also requested resourcing to assist in this review.

9/14/04 Letter acknowledging Katzie interest sent, along with a contribution agreement to assist the Katzie in their review of the EAC Application.

9/21/04

4.2.4.2 Musqueam Indian Band

On February 10, 2003, RAVCo representatives arranged a meeting with representatives of the Musqueam Band that would enable them to introduce the project at an early stage of development. At this meeting, the Musqueam explained that the project was in their territory and that lack of capacity/resourcing would hamper their ability to take part in the consultation process. On April 11th, RAV Project representatives met with the Musqueam for the second time and requested that they recommend a preferred method of communication for undertaking project-related discussions. The Musqueam representatives reiterated their need for resources before they could take part in consultation and asked the RAVCo representatives to identify the nature and extent of information that would be required from the Band. Resourcing requirements could be discussed based on the information provided by RAVCo representatives. Between April 24 and May 9, 2003, communication between RAVCo representatives and the Musqueam continued, resulting in confirmation of capacity funding. In August 2003 and January 2004, information updates were provided to the Band. In February 2004, Musqueam indicated that the Executive Director of the Musqueam Indian Band would lead the consultation process. The First Nations Consultation Advisor and RAVCo Vice President of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs met the Executive Director and at this meeting, a


4-45 December 2004

mutual and renewed commitment was made to enhance ongoing discussions. On April 16, 2004 RAVCo signed a contribution agreement with the Musqueam Indian Band, agreeing to provide funding that would enable the Musqueam to review the EAC Application. In May 2004, the First Nations Consultation Advisor and RAVCo Vice President of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs met once again with the Executive Director of the Musqueam Indian Band to provide a project update. During this meeting, the Executive Director expressed interest in a number of project areas, including economic development opportunities, fisheries issues and the incorporation of Musqueam art/culture into the design of any stations located on VIAA lands. In July 2004, VIAA invited the Executive Director of the Musqueam Indian Band and RAVCo representatives to discuss opportunities incorporating Musqueam art/culture into the design of a station to be located within its jurisdiction. At this meeting, a commitment was made by all parties to continue to meet to develop a mutually supportive approach. Shortly thereafter, RAVCo was informed that the Executive Director was no longer with the Musqueam and in September 2004, RAVCo representatives contacted the Band and were introduced to a new contact. As requested, project information, as well as an invitation to meet to discuss the project and continue with the ongoing consultation initiatives was sent to the new Musqueam representative. Musqueam and RAVCo representatives met on October 22, 2004 to discuss a number of issues including potential economic development opportunities, the environmental assessment process, inclusion of Musqueam art/culture into the design for YVR Station #4, and the North Arm and Middle Arm crossings of the Fraser River. Table 4.11 summarizes the issues identified by the Musqueam and the responses provided by RAVCo representatives.


4-46 December 2004

Table 4.11 Summary of Musqueam Indian Band Issues and Responses

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Economic: Interest in employment opportunities during construction and in the operation phase.

4/11/03

Capacity funding offered to facilitate discussions. Invitation extended to meet with RAVCo Technical Director to gain further understanding of project opportunities. Bidders receive instructions on the need to meet with First Nations to identify opportunities in both the RFP and BAFO stages.

5/9/03 7/15/04 8/25/03 7/7/04

Environmental: Concerns regarding the impact of the project on creeks and streams.

4/11/03 Letter to Musqueam inviting their participation in the fisheries and aquatic impact assessment. Offer extended by RAVCo to discuss issues with Musqueam fisheries department. See Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Assessment (SECTION 6) for further discussion.

4/24/03 9/14/04

Wish to ensure that Fraser River crossings do not adversely affect fisheries.

5/20/04 Meet with Musqueam and the Band’s fisheries department to review project design, identify proposed mitigation and receive comments. Agreed to meet again following Musqueam’s initial review of EAC Application.

10/22/04


4-47 December 2004

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Request information on environmental studies and work plans.

4/11/03 Letter providing details of current and proposed studies and inviting participation in BCEAO working groups.

4/24/03

Cultural/Heritage: Interest in opportunities to incorporate Musqueam themes in the design or the naming of the stations.

2/10/03 Letter identifying RAVCo’s interest in meeting to discuss design issues. Musqueam participate in meeting with VIAA to discuss opportunities. RAVCo amends BAFO instructions provided to two final bidders. Further discussions to take place upon selection of Concessionaire.

1/24/04 7/15/04 8/4/04

Interest in archaeological work. 4/11/03 Letter sent to Musqueam confirming funding provided for participation. Representatives of Musqueam participate in fieldwork.

6/25/03 Ongoing from July -Dec. 2003

Consultation Process: Require capacity funding to participate in consultation process.

2/10/03 4/11/03

Confirmation of capacity funding letter sent to Musqueam and confirmed in subsequent communication.

5/9/03


December 2004 4-48

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date

Contribution Agreement ratified by RAVCo to support Musqueam review of EAC Application

4/16/04

Require understanding of readership of minutes. 4/11/03 Understanding reached that minutes are to be circulated to RAVCo Project Director.

4/11/03

Interest expressed in assistance to review EAC Application.

9/2/04 Acknowledged and a Contribution Agreement was provided to allow for assistance in reviewing the EAC Application.

4/16/04


December 2004 4-49

4.2.4.3 Squamish Nation

On March 14, 2003, an information package and letter were sent to Chief Bill Williams of the Squamish Nation, briefly introducing the RAV Project, identifying the First Nations Consultation Advisor and describing his role in the consultation process. The letter also requested that a meeting be held in order to allow the Advisor to provide more detailed information on the project and to hear how the Squamish Nation wished to be consulted. An information meeting took place in April 2003 with Byron Joseph, the co-chairman of the council. On June 2,, 2003, during a telephone discussion, Chief Bill Williams indicated that a meeting was not required at that time. However, Chief Williams went on to explain that the Squamish Nation would like to be involved in any archaeological work and would like to maintain contact with RAVCo regarding contracting and employment opportunities. Chief Williams further indicated that Chief Ian Campbell would be the designated contact person for the Nation. A follow-up telephone conversation with Chief Ian Campbell on June 13, 2003 identified the Squamish Nation’s interest in discussing: § opportunities for economic development and employment; § participation in heritage and archaeological studies; § opportunities to incorporate Squamish themes in design or naming of

stations; § capacity to review technical reports; and § provision of regular project updates. Telephone conversations and correspondence were maintained with the Squamish Nation from June through December 2003. In January 2004, an exchange during a telephone call allowed the First Nations Consultation Advisor to provide an update of project status and to be further informed of the interests identified by the Squamish Nation. This conversation led to a meeting during which these interests were further discussed and agreement reached on next steps. RAVCo subsequently sent a letter to the Squamish Nation confirming these steps.


December 2004 4-50

Communication between the Squamish Nation and RAVCo continued throughout 2004. Meetings and discussions focused on identifying steps that the Squamish could take to maximize employment and economic opportunities as well as to ensure that the Squamish had the capacity to effectively participate in the review of the EAC Application and identification of economic opportunities. By September 2004, RAVCo and the Squamish Nation had agreed on a process that would allow the Nation to effectively participate in Application review, consult with RAVCo and pursue economic opportunities. A contribution agreement was signed on September 15, 2004. As noted in Table 4.12, RAV Project and Squamish representatives have committed to maintaining dialogue and consultation.


December 2004 4-51

Table 4.12 Summary of Squamish Nation Issues and Responses

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Economic: Interest in employment opportunities during construction and in the operation phase.

1/5/04 4/11/03 6/13/03 10/10/03

Fax to Squamish with draft wording on First Nation’s employment and contracting to be included in RFP. Telephone discussion suggesting Squamish approach DBOM proponent teams. Meeting and follow-up letter identifies opportunities and next steps. Bidders receive instructions on the need to meet with First Nations to identify opportunities in both the RFP and BAFO stages. Squamish meet with RAVCo’s Technical Director to explain potential economic and employment opportunities and ideas for approaching two final bidders.

7/9/03 1/5/04 1/20/04 8/25/03 7/7/04 7/20/04

Cultural/Heritage: Interest in ensuring that Squamish heritage interests are protected.

2/6/03 Letter sent to Squamish confirming funding provided for participation in archaeology study.

6/25/03


December 2004 4-52

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Representatives of Squamish participate in fieldwork. Draft report submitted to Squamish for comment.

Ongoing from July - Dec. 2003

Interest in opportunities to incorporate Squamish themes in the design or the naming of the stations.

2/6/03 20/1/04

Letter confirming RAVCo interest in meeting to discuss design issues. Meeting confirms avenues for inclusion will be created.

6/16/03 1/20/04

Consultation Process: Interest in maintaining communication on the project on employment/contracting and archaeological issues.

2/6/03

Letters confirming Squamish interests and providing update. Telephone discussions and meetings confirming process and providing update on interests.

6/3/03 6/2/03 8/28/03 10/11/03 1/5/04 2/25/04 7/7/04 7/14/04 7/20/04 8/27/04


4-53 December 2004

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Interest expressed in assistance to review application.

13/6/03 Letter sent confirming Squamish interest and suggesting discussion in January/04. Meeting to discuss contribution agreement and draft contribution agreement provided to Squamish for comment. Discussions occur on contribution agreement and agreement signed.

6/16/03 1/20/04 1/20/04- 9/15/04


4-54 December 2004

4.2.4.4 Sto:lo Nation

On March 14, 2003, an information package and letter were sent to the head of the Sto:lo Government (the Yewal Siyam), Chief Clarence Pennier. The letter introduced the RAV Project, identified the role of the First Nations Consultation Advisor and described his role in the consultation process. The letter also requested that a meeting be held in order to allow the Advisor to provide more detailed information on the project and to hear how the Sto:lo Nation wished to be consulted. Subsequently, Clarence Pennier contacted the RAVCo First Nations Consultation Advisor to inform him that the Sto:lo contact person would be the Acting Director of the Sto:lo Aboriginal Rights and Titles Advisory Committee. On May 13, 2003, RAVCo representatives met with the Sto:lo Aboriginal Rights and Titles Advisory Committee and provided information on the RAV Project. Sto:lo representatives stated that the meeting was for information purposes and did not represent consultation. RAVCo representatives confirmed that the meeting was an information session and would not be construed as consultation. Sto:lo representatives asked numerous questions about the project related to funding and safety issues. At the end of the meeting, it was agreed that Tim Peters would be the Sto:lo contact for the project and that information from the meeting would be taken to the House of Chiefs. The House of Chiefs would, in turn, identify the Sto:lo interest in the project. In June 2003, during a discussion with Sto:lo representatives, RAVCo representatives explained the proposed process to undertake a preliminary archaeological impact assessment. In this discussion, it was agreed that funding would be provided to the Sto:lo to allow them to contribute input to permit preparation, provide information regarding archaeological interests, involve members of the Sto:lo in field work, and review a draft archaeological report. Conversations with Sto:lo representatives in the summer and fall of 2003 indicated that no official position had been developed by the Sto:lo and that,


4-55 December 2004

based on the May meeting, it is unlikely any major issues or concerns will arise. Nevertheless, it was agreed that RAVCo representatives would attend a second meeting of the Aboriginal Rights and Titles Advisory Committee. A second RAV Project presentation was provided to the Committee in October 2003. Sto:lo representatives stated that the meeting was for information purposes and did not represent consultation. RAVCo representatives confirmed that the meeting was an information session and would not be construed as consultation. Sto:lo representatives asked numerous questions, and it was agreed that the next step was for the Sto:lo to identify their interests and the process for consultation. In November 2003, RAVCo representatives received a telephone call from the Sto:lo relaying the message from the Committee that the Sto:lo’s interest would, at this time, be limited to receiving information updates. RAVCo representatives were informed that a letter would be issued confirming this decision. The letter, sent to the RAVCo First Nations Consultation Advisor, was received on April 1, 2004. Communication links continue to be maintained with Sto:lo representatives. Based on discussions with Sto:lo representatives, RAVCo representatives were informed that the Kwantlen First Nation traditional lands were in proximity to the proposed project. Although the Kwantlen First Nation is a member nation of the Sto:lo, and has representatives on the Committee, RAVCo representatives decided to confirm that the Kwantlen approach was congruent with that of the Sto:lo Nation. RAVCo representatives began communicating with the Kwantlen representative in September 2003 and continue to provide the Band with verbal updates every two months. The Kwantlen have indicated they have received numerous other referrals, which they are responding to, and were uncertain of their response to the RAV Project. During the most recent conversation in September 2004, the Kwantlen indicated that they appreciated receiving the verbal updates and would be interested in reviewing the archaeological assessment report as part of the EAC Application. RAVCo representatives agreed to inform Kwantlen when the Application becomes available and will continue to maintain dialogue with the Kwantlen and respond to expressed opportunities and issues.


December 2004 4-56

4.2.4.5 Tsleil-Waututh Nation

On March 14, 2003, an information package and letter were sent to Chief Leah George Wilson, briefly introducing the RAV Project, identifying the First Nations Consultation Advisor and describing his role in the consultation process. The letter also requested that a meeting be held in order to allow the Advisor to provide more detailed information on the project and to hear how the Tsleil-Waututh Nation wished to be consulted. A community election at the end of March 2003 stalled communication until May 16, 2003 when a meeting was held at which the Tsleil-Waututh outlined their consultation expectations. These included discussions on a consultation and communication process; capacity support for community consultation and consultation with the proponent on project-related issues and opportunities; capacity support to assess employment and economic opportunities; and measures to assist First Nations in securing employment and contracts. Following the meeting, and throughout the following 10 weeks, numerous informal meetings were held between the Tsleil-Waututh and RAVCo representatives, resulting in an understanding of the consultation process. From August 2003 to the present, RAVCo and Tsleil-Waututh representatives have maintained an open dialogue and have met regularly to discuss issues and opportunities. Table 4.13 summarizes the interests identified by the Tsleil-Waututh and the responses of RAVCo representatives to date. Between late 2003 and early 2004, the Tsleil-Waututh administered a community survey to 75 adult Band members to gauge levels of concern and/or support for the proposed RAV line. Survey findings indicated strong qualified support for the RAV Project, primarily due to its ability to improve the public transit system and reduce traffic and associated pollution levels, and to create jobs. Concerns identified by Band members regarding the project included potential damage to streams, fish habitat, shorelines and cultural sites. Although only 31% of survey respondents anticipated using the RAV line, more than half indicated an interest in receiving training and employment opportunities associated with project construction and operation. There was general consensus among survey participants that the Tsleil-Waututh First


4-57 December 2004

Nation should be directly involved in both construction and operation of the RAV Project. RAVCo has held a number of meetings with the Tsleil-Waututh to identify opportunities for employment and contracting opportunities. The focus has been on facilitating dialogue between the First Nation and the two final bidders.


4-58 December 2004

Table 4.13 Summary of Tsleil-Waututh Nation Issues and Responses

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Economic: Interest in employment opportunities during construction and operation phase.

16/5/03

Consideration of Tsleil-Waututh input included in RFP for DBOM proponents and discussed with bidders. Bidders receive instructions on the need to meet with First Nations to identify opportunities in both the RFP and BAFO stages. Tsleil-Waututh meet with RAVCo’s Technical Director to share ideas on potential economic and employment opportunities and ideas for approaching bidders. Assistance provided to Tsleil-Waututh to explore opportunities with bidders.

9/15/03 8/25/03 7/17/04 7/20/04 11/1/04

Interest in securing construction contracts. 16/5/03 Assistance provided for Tsleil-Waututh to explore opportunities with the bidders.

11/5/03

Interest in participation as a partner of a consortium to bid on project.

16/5/03 Avenues for Tsleil-Waututh participation discussed and encouraged.

12/4/03


4-59 December 2004

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Environmental: Community survey identifies concerns regarding the impact of the project on streams, fish habitat and shorelines.

4/25/04 See Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Assessment (SECTION 6) for further discussion.

Cultural/Heritage Interest in archaeological work. 16/5/03 Letter sent to confirm funding provided for

participation in archaeology study. Representatives of Tsleil-Waututh participate in fieldwork and draft report submitted to for comment.

6/25/03 Ongoing from July -Dec. 03

Consultation Process: Interest in agreement on a consultation process.

16/5/03 Series of meetings result in agreement on process 8/5/03

Interest in receiving assistance for community consultation and participation in assessment.

16/5/03 Assistance provided as part of the co-operation protocol.

8/5/03

Capacity building for contracting/ employment opportunities.

16/5/03 Assistance provided by way of a Contribution Agreement following a series of meetings.

5/11/03

Interest in involvement in developing terminology related to First Nations for proposal to the four bidders.

16/5/03 Consideration of Tsleil-Waututh input included in RFP for DB proponents. Bidders receive instructions on the need to meet with First Nations to identify opportunities in both the RFP and BAFO stages.

5/16/03 8/25/03 7/17/04


December 2004 4-60

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Interest in community input into issues and opportunities.

16/5/03 Assistance provided. 5/8/03

Interest expressed in receiving assistance to review EAC application.

16/5/03 Assistance provided.

5/11/03


December 2004 4-61

4.2.4.6 Tsawwassen First Nation

On March 14, 2003, an information package and letter was sent to Chief Kim Baird, briefly introducing the RAV Project, identifying the First Nations Consultation Advisor and describing his role in the consultation process. The letter also requested that a meeting be held in order to allow the Advisor to provide more detailed information on the project and to hear how the Tsawwassen Nation wished to be consulted. In a follow-up conversation with Chief Baird, RAVCo representatives were informed that the Tsawwassen contact for discussions would be the Band’s Resource Analyst. On May 1, 2003, RAVCo representatives met with the Band’s Resource Analyst. Key issues which arose are identified in Table 4.14. The Resource Analyst also met directly with the consultants involved in the fisheries and aquatic resources impact assessment and the socio-economic/socio-community assessment. RAVCo’s First Nations Consultation Advisor was also informed that the economic opportunities associated with the project should be discussed with representatives of the Naut’sa mawt Resources Group. Meetings and discussions with Naut’sa mawt Resources Group occurred from June 2003 to January 2004. In March 2004, as part of a routine project update conversation, the Band representative indicated that the Tsawwasen had recently hired an Economic Development Coordinator and that future discussions on economic issues should be directed to this individual. RAVCo has held a number of meetings with the Economic Development Coordinator to identify opportunities for employment and contracting opportunities. The focus has been on facilitating dialogue between the First Nation and the two final bidders.


4-62 December 2004

Table 4.14 Summary of Tsawwassen First Nation Issues and Responses

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Economic: Interest in employment opportunities during construction and in the operation phase, and suggests contacting Naut’sa mawt Resources Group.

1/5/03

Telephone discussion with General Manager of Naut’sa mawt and project information forwarded. Meeting with General Manager and discussion of opportunities to meet with DBOM proponent teams. Maintain contact with General Manager of Naut’sa mawt Resource Group Meet with Economic Development Coordinator Bidders receive instructions on the need to meet with First Nations to identify opportunities in both the RFP and BAFO stages. Tsawwassen meets with RAVCO’s Technical Director to identify potential economic and employment opportunities and ideas for approaching two final bidders.

6/25/03 10/16/03 June 2003-Jan. 2004 4/19/04 8/25/03 7/7/04 7/20/04

Cultural/Heritage: Interest in archaeological work. 1/5/03 Letter sent to confirm funding provided for participation in

archaeology study.

6/25/03


4-63 December 2004

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Representatives of Tsawwassen participate in fieldwork. Draft report submitted to TWN for comment.

Environmental:

Concerns regarding impact of the project on the Fraser River, and in particular, protection of fish and their habitat. Suggest river-related work should be conducted in winter.

1/5/03 Tsawwassen meets with fisheries and aquatics consultant to share ideas and the issue is addressed in the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Habitat Assessment (see SECTION 6).

RAVCo meets with Tsawwassen to discuss river crossings and proposed mitigation and addresses concerns

5/15/03 10/29/04

Concern also that navigation on the Fraser River not be impeded.

Tsawwassen meets with fisheries and aquatics consultant to share ideas and the issue is addressed in the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Habitat Assessment (see SECTION 6).


5/15/03 10/29/04

Concerns regarding pilings in the river and water quality.

Tsawwassen meets with fisheries and aquatics consultant to share ideas. Consideration that no treated pilings will be used and concern addressed in the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Habitat Assessment (see SECTION 6).


5/15/03 10/29/04

Consultation:

Wish to be involved in any discussion if project uses Crown land.

1/5/03 Most of the land is municipal and private. Some Crown land in the Bridgeport area and Sea Island is Crown land managed by VIAA. Information on Crown lands provided.

5/1/03 5/30/03


December 2004 4-64

Issues Raised Date RAVCo Response Date Interest expressed in assistance to review application.

15/10/03 Verbal commitment made to explore providing assistance. Draft Contribution Agreement discussed and provided to Band for review.

10/15/03 2/9/04

Contribution Agreement ratified by RAVCo. 3/11/04


4-65 December 2004

4.2.5 Application Review Stage: Proposed First Nations Consultation Program

Following submission of the EAC Application, the BCEAO will provide both the public and First Nations with an opportunity to comment on the EAC Application (see SECTION 2.9.1, TABLE 2.8 for an outline schedule of pre-construction and design/construction activities). The Application Supplement to be provided to the BCEAO in December 2004, which will present detailed information regarding the selected project, will be made available to First Nations and the public. In cases in which First Nations expressed interest in the RAV Project in general, or in the environmental, socio-economic or cultural issues in particular, they were provided with an opportunity to receive assistance to review the RAV EAC Application. Based on discussions to date, it is anticipated that the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh, Tsawwassen, Katzie, and Squamish First Nations will participate in the BCEAO Working Group EAC Application review process, including review of the Project EAC Application, and provision of comments as necessary, within the timelines set by the BCEAO. It is also anticipated that the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh, Tsawwassen, Katzie, and Squamish First Nations will continue to engage in consultation meetings with RAVCo representatives to: • identify any aboriginal interests which may be potentially affected by the

Project, as identified in studies or project background material developed during the Pre-Application stage; and

• suggest measures to avoid, mitigate or, where appropriate, otherwise accommodate aboriginal interests.

The Sto:lo Nation has requested information updates on the RAV Project and RAVCo will maintain regular contact with this organization.


December 2004 4-66

4.3 References

BC Environmental Assessment Office. 2003. Public Consultation Strategy/Framework for Lower Mainland Infrastructure Projects. Vancouver, B.C.

BC Environmental Assessment Office. 2003. Supplementary Guide to First

Nations: The British Columbia Environmental Assessment Process. Victoria, B.C. Available at: http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/publicat/guide-2003/guide-sections/sup-guide-fn.pdf

Government of BC. 2002. Provincial Policy for Consultation with First Nations.

Available online at: http://www.gov.bc.ca/tno/down/consultation_policy_fn.pdf

Project Definition Consultation- Discussion Guide and Feedback Form

APPENDIX 4-A

C O M M U N I T Y C O N S U L T A T I O N

D I S C U S S I O N G U I D E A N D

F E E D B A C K F O R M

M A R C H 2 0 0 3

R I C H M O N D • A I R P O R T • V A N C O U V E R R A P I D T R A N S I T P R O J E C T

!

w w w. r av p r a p i d t r a n s i t . c o m

We are considering an important addition to the region’s transportation network.

The Richmond•Airport•Vancouver rail rapid transit project is a collaboration of eight agencies; theGovernment of Canada, the Province of British Columbia, TransLink and Vancouver InternationalAirport (Contributing Agencies) and the Cities of Richmond and Vancouver, the Vancouver PortAuthority, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) (Participating Agencies).

The agencies have just completed the Project Definition Phase with the objective of;

• defining the requirements for a rail rapid transit line connecting Vancouver, Richmond and the Airport,

• identifying a structure to build and pay for the line, and

• evaluating whether it was feasible to complete construction of the line by 2009.

The purpose of the community consultation is to share the results of the Project Definition Phasethrough a consultation Discussion Guide and feedback form. Public feedback will be summarizedin a Consultation Summary Report and presented with technical reports to the Contributing andParticipating Agencies as they consider whether to proceed to finance and build the line.

Over the next decade, as population increases, we will improve rapid transit into the region’snorth east sector, we will build a new crossing over the Fraser River near the Port Mann Bridge, wewill improve bus service and replace the trolley bus fleet, and we will continue to ask the publichow we can improve the movement of people and goods throughout this region.

This Discussion Guide is designed to provide you with summary information about the proposedrail rapid transit line between Richmond, the Airport and Vancouver. If you want more detailedinformation, we encourage you to go to the RAVP web site at www.ravprapidtransit.com toaccess the Project Definition Report, which summarizes the work of the project team over the last10 months. If you would like even more detail, you can access the financial and technical reportsat the same website.

We want your feedback on this proposed rail rapid transit line. After years of study and recenttechnical reviews, we are ready to make important decisions.There is a proposed alignment alongNo. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way at the Airport and along Cambie to downtown andthe Waterfront station.We would like your feedback on this proposed alignment.We haven’t chosenthe type of rail rapid transit that might operate on the line and we’re interested in your preferencesregarding systems that operate underground, at street level or above street level (elevated).

In short, we want to share the most recent information about the line and get your feedback.Please participate via the web, newspaper information piece, open houses or public workshops.The Discussion Guide and consultation materials are available in English and Chinese in print andon the web to encourage broad participation.

Thank you for your interest in helping us consider an important addition to the region’s trans-portation network.

We look forward to your comments.

Pat Jacobsen Jane BirdCEO, TransLink Project Director, RAVP

March 2003

I N T R O D U C T I O N

This community consultation Discussion Guide is designed to provide the public with summaryinformation about the proposed rail rapid transit line connecting central Richmond, the Airportand Sea Island, central Broadway and downtown Vancouver. A rapid transit line would connectwith existing rapid transit lines at Waterfront Station and with major east/west transit services,creating a transit network to serve the region. The guide contains highlights of the regionaltransportation network and describes how the Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Rapid Transit linefits within the network of roads, buses and rapid transit systems including;

• the proposed location of the rapid transit line;

• proposed performance standards for the line, such as safety, travel time and reliability, and

• the proposed alternative elevations of the line: some sections may be underground, someat street level and some above street level (elevated).

A feedback form is attached to encourage readers and those who participate in the March 2003community consultation activities to provide their feedback and suggestions via the website,the newspaper information piece, open houses and workshops.

Public Consultation – Discussion Guide & Feedback Form

Mar. 3 Discussion Guide and feedback form launched on the web Notice of Consultation in The Vancouver Sun, Province, Ming Pao and Sing Tao

Open Houses and Public Workshops

Mar. 3-14 Open Houses Open House materials will be displayed in Richmond andVancouver City Halls and at Vancouver International Airport. A Discussion Guide & Feedback form will be available.Locations: Richmond City Hall – No.3 Road & Granville

Vancouver City Hall – 3rd floor, 453 W12th Ave.Vancouver International Airport –Domestic Arrivals Level

Mar. 8 Public Workshop – Richmond.A half-day workshop will use the Discussion Guide & Feedback form.Time and Location: 9:00 am – 12:00 pm,Richmond City Hall - No. 3 Road & Granville, Council Chambers

Mar. 12 Public Workshop – Vancouver.A workshop will use the Discussion Guide & Feedback form.Time and Location: 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm,Vancouver Public Library, Alice MacKay Room – 350 W. Georgia St., Vancouver

Mar. 15 Public Workshop – Vancouver.A half-day workshop will use the Discussion Guide & Feedback form.Time and Location: 9:00 am – 12:00 pm,Plaza 500 Ballroom – 500 W. 12th Ave., Vancouver

Feb. 24 - Small Group Meetings Meetings with community organizations are Mar. 24 being scheduled throughout March, 2003

1

!

2

R A P I D T R A N S I T

Across the globe, a thriving rapid transit

system is an integral part of vibrant cities.

!

W H A T I S T H E R I C H M O N D • A I R P O R T • V A N C O U V E R R A P I D T R A N S I T P R O J E C T ?

The Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Rapid Transit Project is a proposed rail rapid transit line

connecting central Richmond, the Airport and Sea Island, central Broadway and downtown

Vancouver. A rapid transit line would connect with existing rapid transit lines at Waterfront

Station and with major east/west transit services, creating a transit network to serve the region.

The Richmond/Vancouver corridor is the primary north/south corridor in the Lower Mainland.

It is one of the busiest corridors in the region, home to one-third of the region’s jobs and 20%

of the population.

Three Decades of PlanningThe Vancouver/Richmond corridor is one of three trunk corridors identified for rapid transit in

the GVRD’s Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) and TransLink’s Strategic Transportation Plan. It

is also part of city planning policy in Richmond and Vancouver. In addition to transportation

policy work, there have been many technical studies regarding a rapid transit connection in the

north/south corridor, dating back to the 1970s.

A Multi-Agency InitiativeContinued growth in Richmond and Vancouver and on Sea Island at the Airport and growing

congestion prompted renewed attention to the need to add transit capacity. The most recent

review of the feasibility of rapid transit in this corridor began in 2000, with funding from

Canada, the Province, TransLink and Vancouver International Airport (Contributing Agencies)

and with participation by the Cities of Richmond and Vancouver, the Vancouver Port Authority,

and the GVRD (Participating Agencies).

3

!THE RICHMOND • AIRPORT • VANCOUVER CORRIDOR

is the primary north/south corridor in the Lower Mainland and one of the busiest corridors in the region

is home to one-third of the region’s jobs and 20% of it’s population

connects Richmond and the Airport to central Broadway, downtown Vancouver, Canada Place and the

convention centre, and Vancouver Port cruise ship facilities

connects to the regional transportation network through existing east/west rapid transit lines at the

downtown Vancouver Waterfront terminus and through east/west transit services, creating a transit

network to serve the Greater Vancouver region

!!

!!

70’s 80’s 90’s 2000 2001 2002 2003

vario

us st

udie

s

of R

ichm

ond/

Vanc

ouve

r rai

l lin

e

City o

f Van

couv

er ‘s

“Clo

uds o

f Cha

nge”

GVRD

’s “L

ivea

ble

Regi

on S

trate

gic P

lan”

Prov

ince

/GVR

D’s

“Tra

nspo

rt 2

021”

City o

f Van

couv

er’s

Tran

spor

tatio

n Pl

an

Tran

sLin

k’s S

trate

gic

Tran

spor

tatio

n Pl

an

City o

f Van

couv

er’s

Dow

ntow

n Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Plan

RAV

2001

/200

2

“Nee

ds A

sses

smen

t”

RAV

2002

/200

3

“Pro

ject

Def

initi

on”

!

4

R E G I O N A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N N E T W O R K

!

T H E R E G I O N A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N N E T W O R K - I M P R O V I N G T R A V E L O P T I O N S

The proposed rail connection between Richmond, the Airport and Vancouver is part of a much

larger family of road and transit services throughout Greater Vancouver including:

• 2,200 km of roads.

• Public transit, including the Coast Mountain Bus Company, Blue buses, Community Shuttle

buses and HandyDart.

• The Expo and Millennium rapid transit lines and the West Coast Express commuter rail.

TransLink’s New Road and Transportation Priorities To meet the demands of population growth, address congestion and provide broader travel

options throughout the region, TransLink has established four immediate priorities including:

• Rapid Transit to the North East sector

• A new road crossing of the Fraser River

• Trolley bus replacement and bus expansion

• A Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Rapid Transit line

TransLink’s Capital PlanTransLink plans to make significant capital investments in roads & bridges, trolley buses, and

transit service to improve the movement of goods and people throughout the region.

TransLink’s Service PlanLooking past the near and mid-term planning horizons to the longer term, Greater Vancouver

will double its bus service and have a mature rapid transit network including a new Richmond

Airport Vancouver line, Coquitlam line and a Broadway line.

W H Y D O W E N E E D A R I C H M O N D • A I R P O R T • V A N C O U V E RR A I L R A P I D T R A N S I T L I N E ?

A Richmond/Vancouver line has been studied since the ‘70’s and has been part of the regional

plan for 10 years. The regional plan calls for increased transit capacity in this corridor. The north-

south corridor between Richmond, the Airport and Vancouver is one of the busiest in the

region. Over the next 20 years, population will grow significantly; by 50% in Vancouver’s central

business district and by 75% in central Richmond. By 2021, employment will grow by 25% in

Vancouver’s central business district, 70% in central Richmond and 70% at the airport.

Congestion is increasing. Greater congestion slows down the movement of people and goods.

It increases air pollution, hinders our economy and, ultimately diminishes our overall quality-of-

life. We need to add capacity in a sustainable way.

5

!!

Population, Employment & Traffic Growth

• By 2021, population in the Lower Mainland is forecast to grow by more than 40%

• By 2021, employment in the Lower Mainland is forecast to grow by 50%

• Between 1985 and 1999, daily vehicle traffic crossing the Oak, Arthur Laing and Knight

Street Bridges grew at 54% (3% per year )

Percentage of Richmond and Vancouver residents who think a rapid transit line that connects Richmond,Vancouver and the Airport will be good for their community. (MarkTrend 2001)

6

FAST FACTS - A BUSY CORRIDOR

About 500,000 people travel daily between downtown Vancouver, central Richmond and

the Airport along the Vancouver corridor (Defined as travel along Main, Cambie, Oak

and Granville Streets).

Vancouver anticipates a 35% increase in trips to/from and within downtown Vancouver

in the next 20 years.

26,000 people currently work on Sea Island at the Airport; this number is expected to

grow to 40,000 by 2021.

The Vancouver/Richmond corridor and Broadway corridor to UBC have the highest bus

passenger volumes in the region by a very significant margin.

Travel Time on the Vancouver corridor (Main, Cambie, Oak and Granville Streets)

has increased by 20% - 60%, since 1988, depending on the route, time-of-day and

direction of travel.

!!

!!

83%

!

FAST FACTS - THE PR OPOSED RICHMOND AIRPORT VANCOUVER R APID TR ANSIT LINE

Length: 19.5 km

Number of Proposed Stations: 18 to 19

Major Employment Centres: Vancouver downtown (Coal Harbour, Canada Place, the central business

district), central Broadway (Vancouver Hospital, Vancouver City Hall), Vancouver International Airport

(Sea Island) and central Richmond (Richmond Hospital, Richmond City Hall, Worker’s Compensation Board)

Travel Time: 25 – 30 minutes Airport/central Richmond to downtown Vancouver

(varies depending on configuration)

Estimated Cost: $1.5 – $1.7 billion

Ridership Estimates: Approximately 26 - 38 million boardings annually in 2010 (100,000 per day),

growing to 31 - 45 million by 2021

Construction Period : 5 years; 2005 -2009

!!

!!

!

H O W M U C H W I L L T H E R I C H M O N D • A I R P O R T • V A N C O U V E RL I N E C O S T ?

It is estimated that a rail rapid transit line will cost $1.5 to $1.7

billion to build. Similar to virtually all transit systems in the

world, a Richmond•Airport•Vancouver rapid transit system

cannot pay for construction with fares alone and will require a

significant amount of public funding. A project of this size will

also require some private sector investment. TransLink, the

Province and the Airport are discussing their respective contri-

butions. These contributions, together with funding from the

Federal Government, could provide sufficient public funding.

The successful conclusion of these discussions will depend on

funding from the Federal Government of approximately $450

million. A summary financial analysis by Pricewaterhouse-

Coopers (available at www.ravprapidtransit.com) concluded

that with these public sector contributions and a contribution

from the private sector, the RAV rapid transit line is financially

feasible. The study says that depending on the configuration,

ridership will be approximately 26 – 38 million per year by

2010, which will produce enough fare revenue to cover

operating costs in certain configurations.

7

!

!

!

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

00% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Capi

tal C

ost (

$ m

illio

n)

Degree of Separation from Traffic

Impact of Grade Separation on Capital Costs

Impact of Grade Separation on Operating Costs

T H R E E P H A S E S O F R E C E N T T E C H N I C A L W O R K2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 3

Eight agencies agreed to participate in the Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Rapid Transit Project:

the Federal Government, the Province, Vancouver Airport Authority, TransLink, City of Vancouver,

City of Richmond, GVRD and the Vancouver Port Authority.

These agencies participated and provided oversight in three phases of technical analysis:

• Phase One—Goals & Objectives consisted of developing agreement on the RAVP

organization and objectives (Sept. 2000).

• Phase Two – Concept Feasibility consisted of an assessment of the need to build a

rapid transit connection by 2010, and the potential to fund it. (Oct. 2000 – Apr. 2002)

• Phase Three - The Project Definition Phase The objective of the Project Definition Phase was to define the requirements for a rapid

transit line connecting Vancouver, Richmond and the Airport, and to identify a structure,

including private and public sector participation, to build and pay for the line as defined.

The work was also to evaluate whether it was feasible to complete construction of the

Project by 2009 (Apr. 2002 - Jan. 2003).

S A F E T Y , T R A V E L T I M E , S E R V I C E H O U R S

Performance Standards are the proposed minimum acceptable service levels that would

apply to the Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Rapid Transit project. They are:

• Safety The rail rapid transit system will meet or exceed all relevant safety standards.

• Direct Travel The rail rapid transit system will provide direct travel between; central

Richmond and downtown Vancouver and direct travel between YVR and downtown

Vancouver.

• Hours of Operation Service will be provided throughout the day and evening on every

day of the week. Longer hours of service may be provided as demand warrants.

• Maximum Time Between Trips The maximum time between trips will be determined

to satisfy passenger demand. As proposed, the maximum time between trips will be 7.5

minutes to 20 minutes depending on the time of day and day of the week.

• Maximum Target Travel Time As proposed, the travel times are

Richmond Centre to Waterfront Station – 30 minutes.

YVR to Waterfront Station – 25 minutes.

8

!!

THE PUBLIC SECTOR WILL OWN THE R AV LINE, and CONTR OL FARES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

As proposed, the private sector will design, build and

operate the RAV line. However, the public sector will

own the line , control the fare levels and control the

bus system. In addition, TransLink will require that all

safety, travel time, reliability, hours of operation and

other performance standards are met.

P R O P O S E D R I C H M O N D • A I R P O R T • V A N C O U V E RR A P I D T R A N S I T R O U T E

Cambie, No. 3 Road & Grant McConachie Way included in Corridor Study AreaWhile the exact alignment has not been selected, as proposed, the line follows No. 3 Road in

Richmond, Grant McConachie Way to the Airport, along Cambie Street into downtown

Vancouver, and along Granville Street, terminating at the existing Waterfront Station.

Are there Alternative Routes?Over the past 30 years various technical studies have evaluated many different routes. From that

work, Arbutus and Cambie emerged as the route options south of False Creek in Vancouver.

The Cambie Route is the proposed alignment because:

• It is shorter;

• It has many more employment centres (e.g. Vancouver Hospital, Langara College, Oakridge

Shopping Centre, Vancouver City Hall);

• It generates higher ridership and therefore, revenues; and

• It has potential for future ridership growth.

9

!

!

P R O P O S E D R A V P R O U T E

10

!

Will the RAV Line be Underground, Run at Street Level or Run Above Street?No Decisions Have been Made about Underground, At Street Level, or Above Street Level(elevated) or about the Type of Rail Rapid Transit It is likely that the RAV line will include some

sections that run underground, some sections that run at street level and some sections that

run above street level. The Agencies and the RAV project team have made no final decisions

regarding how much of the line could be underground, at street level or above street level.

Further, no decision has been made about the type of rail transit system that could best meet

safety, travel time, reliability and other performance standards. Some of these decisions

require further consideration of how each section would best be integrated with its

surrounding community and some of these decisions require input from the private sector

who will be asked to propose the most effective ways of meeting the performance

standards.

11

UNDER GR OUND/AT STREET/ABOVE STREET

Rail rapid transit systems that are separated from the street by being

underground or above street (elevated) are called grade separated. They

generally cost more to build, and, in the case of elevated lines, have sig-

nificant visual impacts. However, they are generally faster, safer and

more reliable than systems that run at street level and cross intersections.

In the case of the RAV line, technical analysis indicates that a fully grade

separated line (ie fully underground or elevated) would be more expen-

sive to build but would be less expensive to operate in the long term than

a rail rapid transit system running at street level.

!Impact of Grade Separation on Travel Time Impact of Grade Separation on Safety

12

A B O V E S T R E E T , S T R E E T L E V E L , U N D E R G R O U N D

!

Above Street (Elevated)

Street level

UndergroundNote: These are graphic illustrations

W H A T A R E T H E O B J E C T I V E S O F T H E R I C H M O N D • A I R P O R TV A N C O U V E R R A I L R A P I D T R A N S I T L I N E ?The primary objective is increasing transportation capacity in the corridor in a sustainable way.

Specific objectives include:

• Increasing transportation choice

• Improving travel times

• Improving the quality of the travel experience

• Improving the regional transportation network

• Improving travel within Vancouver and Richmond

• Addressing congestion

• Increasing transit ridership (in the Richmond/Vancouver corridor and region wide)

• Increasing the percentage of total trips by transit

Other objectives include:

• Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and improving local air quality, over the long term.

• Providing infrastructure to improve the movement of goods and people in the region,

and to improve the economy generally

• Improving overall quality of life in the region

H O W W I L L B U S S E R V I C E B E A F F E C T E D ?

When the RAV rail service is introduced, it will integrate with the bus system. Many bus services

will be improved to connect with the rail line and to accommodate increased ridership, while

buses which duplicate the rail service will be discontinued . As well, new regional bus services

will be added to provide better connections between Richmond and regional destinations

such as Burnaby Metrotown, North Delta and Surrey. Highlights include the following:

• Vancouver: East/west bus services will be improved to better connect with the line.

North/south trolley bus routes on Oak, Cambie and Main Street would continue although

service levels would be adjusted to reflect the introduction of the rapid transit line. The RAV

line would replace the #98 B-Line with more capacity, speed and frequency.

• Richmond: The frequency of local bus routes will be improved to serve the line. Direct

express buses to UBC will be maintained. Local bus services within Richmond will be

rerouted to connect at the Richmond Centre (No. 3 Road and Cook) and Bridgeport Stations.

The #98 B-Line and existing express services would be discontinued.

• Delta, White Rock and South Surrey: Express Coach frequencies will be improved. Express

Coach services will be rerouted to the Bridgeport Station in North Richmond for connection

to RAV rail services to Vancouver, the Airport and Richmond Centre.

• In 2010, after the RAV line is in place, local bus services in Vancouver and Richmond overall

will have increased by 20% over 2002.

• In 2021, after the RAVP line is in place for 10 years, local bus services in Vancouver and

Richmond overall will have increased by 35% over 2002.

13

!!

H O W I S T H E C O M M U N I T Y B E I N G C O N S U L T E D A B O U T T H E R A V L I N E ?

A Long History of Consultation

A north/south transit line (Vancouver/Richmond) is part of the GVRD’s Livable Region Strategic

Plan. A connection between Richmond, Vancouver and the Airport is part of TransLink’s

Strategic Transportation Plan, Vancouver’s Downtown Transportation Plan, Richmond’s Official

Community Plan and the Airport’s Master Plan, all of which were developed over the last 10 or

more years with extensive public consultation.

RAVP Consultation 2001-2002

The Richmond Airport Vancouver Project most recently consulted with the public in

March/April of 2001, at the conclusion of Phase 2. At that time, the consultation involved the

results of the cost/benefit analysis and posed the question “do we need to build the project by

2010?” The conclusion was yes. The consultation involved a website, open houses, small group

meetings and presentations and a public attitude survey. The majority of participants and a

significant majority of those polled in the region-wide attitude survey supported the line at

that stage.

RAVP Consultation 2003

The current RAVP consultation includes:

Public Consultation – Discussion Guide & Feedback Form

Mar. 3 Discussion Guide and feedback form launched on the web

Notice of Consultation in The Vancouver Sun, Province, Ming Pao and Sing Tao

Open Houses and Public Workshops

Mar. 3-14 Open Houses Open House materials will be displayed in Richmond and

Vancouver City Halls and at Vancouver International Airport. A Discussion Guide

& Feedback form will be available.

Locations: Richmond City Halls – No.3 Road & Granville

Vancouver City Hall – 3rd floor, 453 W12th Ave.

Vancouver International Airport – Domestic Arrivals Level

Mar. 8 Public Workshop – Richmond.

Half-day workshop will use the Discussion Guide and Feedback form.

Time and Location: 9:00 am – 12:00 pm,

Richmond City Hall - No. 3 Road & Granville, Council Chambers

Mar. 12 Public Workshop – Downtown Vancouver.

Workshop will use the Discussion Guide and Feedback form.

Time and Location: 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm,

Vancouver Public Library, Alice MacKay Room – 350 W. Georgia St., Vancouver

14

!

Mar. 15 Public Workshop – Vancouver.

Half-day workshop will use the Discussion Guide and Feedback form.

Time and Location: 9:00 am – 12:00 pm,

Plaza 500 Ballroom – 500 W. 12th Ave., Vancouver

Feb. 24 - Small Group Meetings Meetings with community organizations are being

Mar. 24 scheduled throughout March, 2003

Consultation Summary Report

March Consultation Summary Report will be presented with a Technical report to

24 - 31 Contributing Agencies and Participating Agencies

How Public Feedback Will Be Used

Feedback gathered through this consultation via the web, fax, newspaper information pieces,

open houses and public meetings will be recorded and summarized in a Consultation Summary

Report, which will be presented with a Technical report to Contributing Agencies; TransLink,

Provincial Government, Airport Authority and to Participating Agencies; City of Vancouver, City

of Richmond, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Consultation Summary Report

will also be posted on the web and distributed to consultation participants.

Future RAVP Consultation -- Neighbourhood Consultation

Subject to project approval, a Neighbourhood Consultation program will include discussions

with individuals, organizations and neighbourhoods along the RAV line about station area

planning, system integration into communities, bus connections and service amenities.

F I R S T N A T I O N S C O N S U L T A T I O N

The RAVP will meet consultation standards set by court decisions and government regulations

to address issues and concerns that may be raised by the First Nations. Through discussion with

provincial and federal agencies responsible for managing the First Nations treaty process, a list

of First Nations whose Aboriginal rights or interests may be affected by the RAVP had been

developed.

15

!

Q U E S T I O N S A N D A N S W E R S

1. Who is going to pay for this?

It will take three levels of government, the Airport Authority and the private sector to fund a

project of approximately $1.5 to $1.7 billion. If each agency contributes something, we may

have a financially viable project.

Contributing Agencies include the Federal Government, Provincial Government, TransLink ,

and the Airport.

Participating Agencies include the Cities of Vancouver and Richmond, and the Greater

Vancouver Regional District.

2. Will the Federal government contribute?

The Federal Government has demonstrated strong support so far in co-funding two phases of

technical work worth several million dollars. While the Federal Government has not formally

committed to the project, the Province, TransLink and the Airport believe the Federal

Government sees this transit line as a significant infrastructure investment that connects

Federal facilities and demonstrates a real commitment to sustainable transportation and

strong, competitive urban regions.

3. Is Coquitlam a rapid transit priority?

Yes, TransLink is working on options and funding opportunities for this line.

4. In Vancouver, are there alternative routes to Cambie?

Over the past 30 years various technical studies have evaluated many different routes. From that

work, Arbutus and Cambie emerged as the route options south of False Creek in Vancouver.

The Cambie Route is the proposed alignment because:

• It is shorter;

• It has many more employment centres (e.g. Vancouver Hospital, Langara College, Oakridge

Shopping Centre, Vancouver City Hall;

• It generates higher ridership; and

• It has potential for future ridership growth.

5. Has the rail technology been decided?

No decision has been made about the technology (ie the type of rail rapid transit system).

While the project assumes rail rapid transit is the most appropriate option for this corridor,

keeping the type of rail rapid transit open has been a key objective to encourage the most cost

effective solutions. Performance standards such as transit capacity, speed and reliability have

been developed to guide selection of the best performing, and most cost-effective technology.

6. Will the private sector be involved?

The private sector will be involved – so will the public sector.

• The Contributing Agencies - the Province, TransLink and the Airport have clearly indicated

that they have limited resources and want to seek private sector investment for this

project.

16

!

• The public sector will own the RAV line and will maintain control of things such as fares

and safety and will require that the private sector comply with service standards such as

speed, reliability, comfort etc.

7. Has anyone asked the public?

A potential rail connection north/south to Richmond has been the subject of many studies -

and public dialogue dating back to the early 70’s.

Reflecting further back….A north/south transit line (Vancouver/Richmond) is part of the

GVRD’s LRSP, TransLink’s Strategic Transportation Plan, Vancouver’s Downtown Transportation

Plan, and the Airport’s Master Plan, and Richmond’s Official Community Plan all of which were

developed with extensive public consultation.

The Richmond•Airport •Vancouver Project most recently consulted with the public in

March/April of 2001, at the conclusion of Phase 2. At that time, the consultation involved the

results of the cost/benefit analysis and posed the question “do we need to build the project by

2010?” The conclusion was yes. The consultation involved a website, open houses, small group

meetings and presentations and a public attitude survey. The majority of participants and a

significant majority of those polled in the region-wide attitude survey supported the line at

that stage.

A community consultation program is scheduled for late February continuing through March

2003. This consultation includes:

• A Notice of Consultation in The Vancouver Sun, The Province, Ming Pao and Sing Tao

March 3, 2003

• A discussion guide on the web with feedback form at www.ravprapidtransit.com

• A series of workshops, open houses and small group meetings in February and March 2003.

For information call the RAVP Project Office at 484-7287 or email: [email protected] or

visit the website at www.ravprapidtransit.com

Subject to project approval, a second phase of community consultation will include discussions

with neighbourhoods about such things as station area planning, bus connections and services.

8. Is this an Airport line?

By far the majority of the riders will be travelling between Richmond and Vancouver – and

between regional destinations along the line. The line to the Airport will serve the growing

employment population there (currently 26,000 people work at the Airport) – as well as

passengers and tourists. The Airport has agreed in principle to pay for the cost of the Airport

segment.

17

9. Is this an Olympic project?

Vancouver and Whistler can certainly host the games without this line. The Olympics is relevant

because it provides an opportunity for Federal funding for a key part of the regional trans-

portation network. This line has been considered for decades. In fact, according to regional

transportation plans, this line was to be completed by 2006. Olympic dates are important –

if we are going to build the line in the next 10 years – it will be important to be complete by

2009 – so it is ready for the games, rather than being under construction.

10. Can the amount of tunnel be minimized to reduce costs?

We want to achieve a financially feasible project that supports the transportation objectives for

the corridor. In terms of tunnel, we have looked at where the line needs to be above street level

or in tunnel and where it could run at street level.

It is probably best to think of this line as responding to characteristics of the surrounding

community rather than one homogeneous line; in Richmond, because of the water table, it

would be difficult to tunnel the line, whereas in some places in Vancouver it may need to be

in a tunnel to deal with relatively steep hills and traffic concerns. In other places, it may run at

street level. On Sea Island, it will likely be elevated (above street level) to access the existing and

future terminals. As proposed, some of the line would be underground, some at street level and

some above street level (elevated).

18

F E E D B A C K F O R M

The Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Rapid Transit Project is a proposed rail rapid transit line connecting central Richmond, the Airportand Sea Island, central Broadway and downtown Vancouver. A rapid transit line would connect with existing rapid transit lines atWaterfront Station and with major east/west transit services, creating a transit network to serve the region.

The Richmond/Vancouver corridor is the primary north/south corridor in the Lower Mainland. It is one of the busiest corridors in the region, home to one-third of the region’s jobs and 20% of the population.

The purpose of the community consultation is to share the results of the project definition phase through a newspaper piece, aDiscussion Guide and feedback form, open houses and public workshops.

How Your Feedback Will Be UsedPublic Feedback will be summarized in a Consultation Summary Report and presented with technical reports to the contributingand participating agencies as they consider whether to proceed to finance and build the line. The Consultation SummaryReport will also be posted on the web.

1. No. 3 Road, Grant McConachie Way, Cambie Street to Waterfront Station The proposed general alignment of the RAV line is No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island, CambieStreet into Downtown Vancouver along Davie and Granville Street terminating at the existing Waterfront Station? Do you…(check one)

Support the route in its entirety

Support parts of the route

Oppose the route

Comments:

2. Direct Travel Do you agree with the following statement; It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers willnot have to transfer, between Richmond City Centre and downtown Vancouver. (check one)

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

It is important to provide direct travel, meaning passengers will not have to transfer, between the Airport and downtownVancouver.(check one)


3. Travel Time By bus or car, the current travel time from Richmond Centre to downtown Vancouver is about 45 to 50 min-utes, depending on the time of day and amount of traffic. Do you agree with the following statement; With a new rail rapidtransit line, the travel time from Richmond Centre to Waterfront Station should be no more than 30 minutes. (check one)


With a new rail rapid transit line, the travel time from the Airport to Waterfront Station should be no more than 25 minutes. (check one)


!

YES NO

. . . continued on reverse

YES NO

YES NO

4. Underground, At Street Level, Above Street Level (elevated) Rail rapid transit systems can operate underground, atstreet level or above street level (elevated). The underground and above street level options are more expensive to build, andwhere elevated, have greater visual impacts. However, underground and elevated systems are cheaper to operate, faster, saferand more reliable than at street level systems because they don’t cross road intersections.

If approved, the Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Line will probably have some underground segments, some street-level seg-ments and some elevated segments depending on whether they are technically and financially feasible.Please check one for each of 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3:

4.1. on those segments where operating underground is not possible, which alternative would you prefer?: check one

a. at street level b. elevated

4.2. on those segments where operating at street level is not possible, which alternative would you prefer?: check one

a. elevated b. underground

4.3. on those segments where operating above street level (elevated) is not possible, would you prefer? check one

a. underground b. at street level

5. Transit Use If this Richmond•Airport•Vancouver rapid transit service is completed how likely do you think you would be to use it? (check one)

Very Likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not at all likely

6. If you were to use the Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Rapid Transit line, which of the following would be most important

to you? (indicate with a rating of 1, 2 or 3 your top three choices)

Hours of operation Being able to board (system capacity) Travel time

Reliability of the system Easy station access Views from the train

Easy connection to other parts of the transit system (ie. Bus connections) Reasonable fares

Other, please specify

7. The Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Rail Rapid Transit line This line is expected to cost between $1.5 and $1.7 billion,cost shared by the federal and provincial governments, TransLink, Vancouver International Airport Authority and the privatesector. Do you agree with the project proceeding? (check one)


8. RAVP Neighbourhood Consultation (future) How would you like to be consulted if this proposed rail rapid transit projectproceeds? (check your choices)

Neighbourhood group Web surveys Information in the newspaper

Community meetings Open houses

Other, please specify

9. Additional Comments Please add any additional comments you may have about the proposed rapid transit line.

Travel in the Corridor 10. Have you taken transit in the last 30 days?

11. Have you travelled between Vancouver & Richmond in the last 30 days

For Further Informationwww.ravprapidtransit.com (or www.translink.ca)Phone: RAVP Project Office 604/484-RAVP (7287)Fax: 604/484-6799Email: [email protected]

YES NO

YES NO

(optional) If completed, this information will form part of aRAVP mailing list.

Name

Address

Email

For Further Informationwww.ravprapidtransit.com (or www.translink.ca)Phone: RAVP Project Office 604/484-RAVP (7287)Fax: 604/484-6799Email: ravpconsultation @ravp.ca

49th Ave

Oakridge

King Edward

Broadway

Davie

Marine Drive

Bridgeport

Capstan Way

Cambie

Alderbridge

Westminster

Richmond Centre

Robson

Waterfront

Oakridge Shopping Centre

BC Children's/Women's Hospital

Vancouver Hospital/BC Cancer Agency/City Square

Vancouver City Hall

Langara College

Lansdowne Park Shopping Centre

Richmond Hospital

Richmond CentreRichmond Civic Precinct

WCB Offices

YVR 1*

YVR 2*

YVR 3*Terminal*

Aberdeen Mall

*Station configuration under discussion as YVR updates Master Plan

Proposed Route and Stations

2010 Station

Future Station

Employment Centres

SFU Downtown

BCITUBC Robson Square

Terminal/Hotel

Air Canada

Courier/Food Services

Phone: RAVP Project Office 604/484-RAVP (7287)Fax: 604/484-6799Email: ravpconsultation @ravp.cawww.ravprapidtransit.com

R I C H M O N D • A I R P O R T • V A N C O U V E R R A P I D T R A N S I T

Project Definition Consultation - Small Group Meetings(March 2003)

APPENDIX 4-B


1 December 2004

Appendix 4-B Project Definition Consultation

Small Group Meetings March 2003

No. Organization Date

1 Oakridge Shopping Centre 07 March 03

2 Richmond Centre Mall 10 March 03

3 Langara College 11 March 03

4 Best Environmentally Sustainable Transportation (BEST)

12 March 03

5 Kwantlen University College 14 March 03

6 Greater Vancouver Gateway Council 18 March 03

7 Past-president of Cambie Heritage Boulevard Society & Colleagues

19 March 03

8 Lansdowne Centre 19 March 03

9 Vancouver Economic Development Commission Board

19 March 03

10 UBC Transportation Advisory Committee 19 March 03

11 Children’s and Women’s Health Centre, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, Providence Health Care, et al.

20 March 03

12 Workers’ Compensation Board 21 March 03

13 Vancouver Regional Construction Association 21 March 03

14 Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition 21 March 03


December 2004 2


15 Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association

24 March 03

16 Transport 2000 B.C. 24 March 03

17 Cambie Heritage Boulevard Society 27 March 03

Pre-Design Consultation - Small Group Meetings(November-December 2003)

APPENDIX 4-C


1 December 2004

Appendix 4-C Pre-Design Consultation Small Group Meetings

November/December 2003


Richmond Segment

1 Community Associations 22 November 03

2 Community Associations 22 November 03

3 Shopping Centre Operators and No. 3 Road Property Owners

24 November 03

4 General Business Groups 24 November 03

5 General Social Groups 25 November 03

6 No. 3 Road Business Operators 26 November 03

7 Asian Business Groups 27 November 03

8 Advisory, Security and Education Groups 27 November 03

9 Employee Groups 29 November 03

10 Asian Social Groups 02 December 03

Vancouver Segment

11 Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition 17 November 03

12 Emily Carr Elementary Parent Advisory Committee 18 November 03

13 South Cambie Merchants Association 18 November 03

14 Oakridge Businesses 20 November 03

15 Terasen Gas and other Downtown Businesses 21 November 03


December 2004 2


16 Children’s and Women’s Hospital and other health groups

24 November 03

17 Langara College 24 November 03

18 Vancouver Port Authority and downtown businesses 25 November 03

19 UBC Transportation Committee 25 November 03

20 Yaletown Residents 25 November 03

21 South False Creek Residents 26 November 03

22 Cambie Boulevard Heritage Association 27 November 03

23 Smart Growth BC 01 December 03

24 Vancouver Natural History Society and Heritage Foundation

01 December 03

25 Chinatown Revitalization Association 01 December 03

26 Society Promoting Environmental Conservation (SPEC) 02 December 03

27 Best Environmentally Sustainable Transportation (BEST)

02 December 03

28 Coalition of Persons with Disabilities 03 December 03

29 Cambie Residents Living between 49th Ave. to Southwest Marine

03 December 03

30 Cambie Residents Living between 39th and 49th Avenue 08 December 03

31 Businesses at Cambie and Southwest Marine 09 December 03

32 Cambie Residents Living at 5000 to 5900 Cambie 09 December 03

33 Cambie Residents Living at 4000 to 4900 Cambie 10 December 03


3 December 2004


34 Riley Park and Douglas Park Community Centres 11 December 03

Vancouver International Airport Segment

35 Vancouver International Airport Authority – Environmental Advisory Committee

18 November 03

36 Vancouver International Airport Food Services Providers

19 November 03

37 Car Rental Companies (National, Budget, Hertz, Thrifty) 19 November 03

38 The Fairmont Airport Hotel 20 November 03

39 Richmond Committee on Disability 20 November 03

40 Cruise Ship Industry (Princess, Holland America, Grey Line/Greyhound)

21 November 03

41 Federal Express 24 November 03

42 Air Canada 25 November 03

43 Sea Island Community Association 25 November 03

44 Alan Grimston 26 November 03

45 CCRA, CATSA, Vancouver International Airport Authority

26 November 03

46 HMS Host, WestJet, Vancouver International Airport Authority

27 November 03

47 International Aviation Terminals 27 November 03

48 Southwest Marine Drive Ratepayers Association 02 December 03

49 Richmond Cycling Coalition 03 December 03


December 2004 4


50 Alison Grigg 05 December 03

51 June Binkert (by teleconference) 05 December 03

Pre-Design Consultation- Record of Input Received from Public Delegations

APPENDIX 4-D

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ RAVCO Board of Directors Meeting

Public Delegations held March 5, 2004 Page 1 of 1

RAV PROJECT MANAGEMENT LTD. (RAVCO) BOARD OF DIRECTORS - PUBLIC MEETING

Notes of the RAV Project Management Ltd. (RAVCO) Public Meeting scheduled March 5, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. in Room 420, Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, 580 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC. PRESENT: Attending Directors: Larry Bell, Chair, RAVCO Pat Jacobsen, CEO, GVTA (TransLink) Eva Matsuzaki, Matsuzaki Architects Inc. Sheri Plewes, Vice President, Capital Management & Engineering, GVTA (TransLink) David Unruh, Vice Chairman, Duke Energy Gas Transmission Municipal Attendees: George Duncan, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Richmond Judy Rogers, City Manager, City of Vancouver Attendees: Jane Bird, CEO, RAV John Eastman, Senior VP Technical, RAV Don Fairbairn, Senior VP Finance and CFO, RAV Scott Hanna, Environmental & Regulatory Affairs VP, RAV Ian Haywood-Farmer, Assistant Corporate Secretary, RAV David Rowat, Financial Director, RAV Naina Sloan, Corporate Affairs VP & Corporate Secretary, RAV Also in attendance were approximately 9 presenters

1. Welcome Remarks

Larry Bell, Chair, RAVCO welcomed participants to the meeting at 12:00 p.m., and reviewed RAVCO’s mandate to implement the design, construction and financing of the Richmond Airport Rapid Transit as directed by TransLink. Mr. Bell acknowledged a commitment to public feedback relative to the process, and indicated a schedule of upcoming consultation meetings was available at the meeting.

2. Adoption of Delegation List The meeting approved the Delegation List as presented.

3. Public Meeting Process Mr. Bell advised that presentations at the meeting would be limited to five minutes, and that responses to presenters’ questions would be provided directly to the respective presenters.



4. Comments from Members of the Public

Presenters provided the following comments: Richard Campbell: • Supported the integration of a cycle and pedestrian path on the proposed RAV

bridge over the north arm of the Fraser River, and suggested that the best access would be north of South West Marine Drive;

• Suggested that in order to maximize benefits and costs, that the path be included in the base cost;

• Expressed concerns regarding cyclist safety on the other avenues outlined in the RFP;

• Suggested that the cost of the path be built in as a requirement of the project, and that proponents be asked to provide an estimate showing the path-related costs removed.

Jack Becker, Director and Treasurer, Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition (VACC): • Noted that Marion Orser, President of Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition was also in

attendance; • Suggested that it would be cost effective to encourage commuters to change their

travel habits; • Suggested that the frustration levels of commuting and the frustration levels of car

travel should be compared; • The VACC strongly recommended RAVCO develop a line that would encourage

motorists to change their commuting habits and maximize bicycle use; • Promoted the idea of cycling being comparable to driving, in actual trip-time; • Felt that that high frequency bus service was not readily available; • Noted that the RAV line would add to the quality of the environment, personal health

and neighbourhoods; • Acknowledged opportunities for growth and investment; • Suggested that for each additional 1,000 riders an economical payback of

approximately $3-$5 million within five years could result; • Noted that a well-designed cycling lane could have the potential to convert a vehicle

commuter to a cyclist, and that a target of 5,000 new cyclists seemed attainable; • Supported unrestricted access to transit, and unlimited bicycle use in the system; • Suggested that the system be designed around popular destinations and include

visible cycling accesses; signage should be clear and visible, and well-marked elevators, ramps, and bicycle parking should be provided;

• Noted that the train design should support the use of bicycles; • Suggested establishing a cycling feeder network to the station to attract less

experienced cyclists; • Proposed new bike lanes and routes be established into neighbourhoods; • Suggested cycling facilities be in place before opening the RAV line in order to draw

commuters and maximize revenue.



Steven Regan, Manager Destination Development, Tourism Vancouver: • Noted that Tourism Vancouver represented over 1,000 businesses related to the

tourism sector; • Tourism relies on the efficient movement of people to and from the region; • Felt that a drive towards improved ridership with strategic connections for critical

masses was essential; • Noted that Tourism Vancouver supported plans to construct the RAV line; • Advised that Board members had participated in open houses and RAV Coalition

Media presentations, and had written support letters to federal and provincial representatives including the Prime Minister and Premier;

• Felt that the Richmond-Vancouver corridor was a key transportation corridor in the region and that it currently negatively impacted the area’s international competitiveness;

• Results of a study conducted indicated that cruise ship passengers rated transportation within Vancouver as ‘low’;

• Noted that half of the visitors to Vancouver used public transport as their main mode of transportation;

• The RAV line would encourage greater movement within Greater Vancouver, connecting all areas and would be an efficient network as part of the regional tourism vision;

• Suggested the RAV project was good for businesses across the region; • Noted the importance of the rapid transit line to the region, offering that current bus

connections had been less feasible alternatives for many commuters. David Nesbitt, Director, Project Planning, Children & Women’s Heath Centre of BC: • Noted that health care employers have had discussions with RAV representatives in

the past and continued to support the establishment of the RAV line; • Requested that consideration be given to closer, more convenient and safer access

to stations for staff; • Referenced the Cambie Corridor health care area as including: BC Cancer Agency,

VGH, BC Centre for Disease Control, GF Strong, Children's & Women's Health Centre of BC, St. Vincent’s and George Pearson Hospitals who collectively employ large numbers of full time, part-time and shift workers;

• Stated that the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre alone employs 5,000 staff including part-time and shift workers;

• Noted that while staff live all across the lower mainland , one-third are estimated to be potential RAV line users;

• Health care agencies have raised support for establishing better transit over the years in order to provide improved access to the health centres and to help reduce the use of single occupancy vehicles;

• Heath care employers continue to support improved transit access to health care sites within close proximity;

• Noted many staff were female, and that careful consideration be given to safe and adequate lighting;

• Suggested the proposed King Edward and Cambie Street Station would not encourage use by staff, as it is too distant and therefore, inconvenient;

• Noted that the proposed King Edward and Cambie Street Station significantly exceeded TransLink’s guideline, to establish stations within 400 - 450 metres from sites;



• Suggested that a station at West 29th Avenue and Cambie Street would be preferable noting that it would be more central to GF Strong , St. Vincent’s Hospitals and Children's & Women's Health Centre ;

• Suggested that consideration also be given to providing easy access to the BC Cancer Centre, Vancouver General Hospital and the BC Centre for Disease Control from the Broadway station;

• Suggested Children's & Women's would be open to discussing property being available for a station entrance at the West 29th Avenue and Heather Street;

• Suggested further planning to ensure close, convenient and safe transit to and from heath care sites.

Don Toffaletto, Re-Think RAV: • Suggested either gross incompetence or a deliberate decision by RAVCO or RAVCO

officials, to withhold information from the public and public representatives regarding the liability for tunnelling cost overruns prior to the GVRD Board vote on TransLink’s $3.9billion ten year transit plan on February 27, 2004.

• Commented that the GVRD voted on February 27th on a plan with $370 million of confirmed RAV funding, based on unknown liability for ridership shortfalls and tunnelling cost overruns.

• Stated that while information was withheld from the GVRD Board prior to the February 27th vote, the real concern was that GVRD residents were not informed of the liability negotiated by RAVCO on their behalf and the GVRD citizens should have had that information available to them prior to the vote so as to be able to communicate their concerns to their elected representatives on the GVRD board.

• Felt that the residents who ultimately paid for GVRD’s salaries and liabilities were slighted in the process, as the extent of liability in dollar figures was not provided;

• Access to information should have been shared, and all three bidding groups should have had adequate information;

• Questioned why the GVRD Board and resident taxpayers were not provided with this information;

• Stated that the RAVCO Board had a responsibility to report publicly on the lack of RAVCO disclosure of public liability for tunnelling cost overruns and that the Board should suggest a remedy.

• Felt the GVRD Board and taxpayers should be on top of all the deliberations.

Clive Justice, Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society: • Stated that the City of Vancouver accommodated a number of city wide urban

landscapes which were unique among North American urban areas, and were a legacy of the 1920’s Harland Bartholomew Plan;

• Examples of wide-landscaped/treed centre medians were provided including: East-West King Edward, West 16th Avenue, North-South Boundary Road and Cambie Street;

• Noted that in 1994 Cambie Street was the city’s first recipient of a Heritage Urban Landscape Status;

• Offered that Cambie Street had majestic Sequioadendrons (planted in 1936), native Pacific Dogwoods (British Columbia’s provincial flower) and “Eddie’s White Wonder Dogwood” (Vancouver’s centennial tree) planted during the 1950’s;

• Noted that the Cambie Street boulevard has a unique collection of 1,000 ornamental trees with a conservative value of $4 million, with an unaccountable value as living art;



• Stated that the removal of any trees would destroy the landscape and could not be replaced;

• Expressed concerns that heritage destroyed could never be reclaimed; • The area accommodates 100 Pink Perfection Japanese Flowering Cherry Trees and

the Daybreak Cherry “Akebono” provided to Vancouver by its sister city Yokohama, for Canada’s 1967 Confederation;

• 26 varieties of Chinese, Japanese and Korean Oriental Cherrie Trees grow throughout the city; and noted that Vancouver’s unique environment would ensure a lifespan for those trees of 75 years or more;

• Stated that the Cambie Heritage Boulevard was a unique urban landscape with a special collection of ornamental trees that qualified it as a national heritage treasure;

• Would not support any surface development for the area of King Edward to South West Marine Drive that affects boulevard or median trees.

Maurizio Grande, President, Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society: • Stated the purpose of the Society was to promote the preservation of Cambie

Heritage Boulevard; • Noted that reasonable steps should be taken to desist from destroying the Cambie

Boulevard; • Referenced the RAVCO mandate of accountability and disclosure, noting that

accountability was an important issue to the Cambie area, • Acknowledged the ability to meet the long term needs of residents in the region,

providing the best value for public money; • Requested a commitment to make information available to the public; • Expressed concerns that the five-minute time limit was too short to discuss the

biggest project in Vancouver; • Felt that there was secrecy involved in the process; • Expressed concerns that the project was going forward without all the facts; • Discussed parts two and three of the procurement process, and suggested a lack of

financial clarity; • Suggested the mandate of RAVCO’s Disclosure and Communication be changed.

Dr. Gordon Jones, Re-Think RAV: • Supported a strategy to improve transportation within the GVRD, however was

opposed to the RAV proposal as presented due to its lack of transparency and verifiable ridership figures;

• Expressed concern regarding a meeting held the week prior, as the majority of the meeting was held ‘in private’;

• Suggested that a one-vote approval margin to move forward with the RAV line was precipitous;

• Expressed concern regarding secrecies and hidden financial material relative to the project, including the “Price Waterhouse Financial Report”;

• Stated that there was a lack of open transparency regarding ridership figures between the preferred Cambie route versus the less expensive Arbutus corridor;

• Requested verifiable and factual numbers supporting ridership for the Cambie route; • Referenced the following quote from a TransLink confidential report dated April 9,

2003 regarding ridership forecasts (obtained via Freedom of Information legislation): “However as pointed out in both the Halcrow report and in the peer review by Booz Allen, the forecast although a ‘best estimate’, is still based on a set of assumptions that may or may not be verifiable”;



• Noted that assumptions that may or may not materialize did not instil confidence in the project as presented;

• Noted the RPF contained a disclaimer for accuracy of outputs from the Ridership Model.

Dave Park, Assistant Managing Director & Chief Economist, Vancouver Board of Trade: • Rapid transit has long been a key component of the transportation plans for the

region; • A rapid transit network must be expanded in an orderly fashion

• Based on existing transit usage, traffic flows and projected growth, the Richmond - Airport - Vancouver line is the next logical piece of the network ;

• Stated that this was the opportune time to proceed with the project as funding sources had been secured along with public acceptability;

• Regional land use and transportation plans recommended this rapid transit line; • The planned corridor would serve the heavy movement of people between

Vancouver and Richmond; • Key employment centres would be served, including:

• Vancouver International Airport; • Vancouver City Hall; • Vancouver General Hospital; • BC Children's and Women's Health Centre; • Oakridge Shopping Centre; • Langara College; • Vancouver's cruise ship terminal; and • The expanded convention centre

• Noted the Richmond-Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit project was anticipated to have highest the ridership per kilometre, of any urban rail project under consideration in North America;

• Suggested that the RAV line would be environmentally friendly and would draw people out of their automobiles;

• The Board of Trade supports the approach of requesting proposals for two different schemes of grade separation, with a final choice being made on cost and other factors in light of firm information;

• Expressed the importance of proceeding with the RAV line so that it would be developed in time for 2010 Winter Olympic Games and would help meet the transportation demands of the Games;

• Noted the importance of proceeding with the project regardless of parochial and other interests that could try to delay or halt it;

• Acknowledged the clear need for the RAV line, noting that the opportunity for funding had been realized;

• Supported proceeding expeditiously.



5. Concluding Remarks from the Chair Larry Bell, Chair, RAVCO, thanked all participants and interested parties for their attendance and reminded everyone that any questions posed during the presentations would be answered directly and would be posted on the website. A schedule of additional consultation sessions was provided at the meeting, and attendance at those sessions was encouraged.

The RAV Project Management Ltd. (RAVCO) Public Meeting held March 5, 2004, concluded at 12:55 p.m.

RAV PROJECT MANAGEMENT LTD. (RAVCO) BOARD OF DIRECTORS – PUBLIC MEETING

Notes of the RAV Project Management Ltd. (RAVCO) Public Meeting scheduled March 26, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 420, Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, 580 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC PRESENT: Attending Directors: Larry Bell, Chair RAVCO Pat Jacobsen, CEO, GVTA (TransLink) Eva Matsuzaki, Matsuzaki Architects Inc. Sheri Plewes, Vice President, Capital Management & Engineering, GVTA (TransLink) David Unruh, Vice Chairman, Duke Energy Gas Transmission Doug MacKay, P. Eng. Municipal Attendees: George Duncan, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Richmond Judy Rogers, City Manager, City of Vancouver Attendees: Jane Bird, CEO RAV John Eastman, Senior VP Technical, RAV Don Fairbairn, Senior VP Finance and CFO, RAV Scott Hanna, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs VP, RAV Ian Haywood-Farmer, Assistant Corporate Secretary, RAV David Rowat, Financial Director, RAV Naina Sloan, Corporate Affairs VP & Corporate Secretary, RAV Regrets: Ardath Paxton Mann, Assistant Deputy Minister (B.C.) Western Economic Diversification Also in attendance were 2 presenters. 1. Welcome Remarks

Larry Bell, Chair, RAVCO, welcomed participants to the meeting that commenced at 1:00 p.m. and spoke of RAVCO’s continued commitment to public feedback on the RAV Project. The Chair also noted that the March 26, 2004 meeting to hear from public delegations had been scheduled specifically to hear from presenters who had not been able to speak at the March 5th meeting. The next meeting to hear from public delegations is scheduled on May 11, 2004.

2. Delegation List The meeting was advised there were three presenters on the registered Delegation List.

3. Review of Presentation Protocols

The Chair advised that presentations at the meeting would be limited to five minutes and that responses to presenters’ questions would be provided directly the respective presenters from the RAV office following the meeting.

4. Comments from Members of the Public: Presenters provided the following comments:

Gerry Cunningham, Local 7000 Spokesperson, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Vice President

• Currently employed by Skytrain for the past 19 years and has made previous presentations regarding the RAV line;

• Strongly opposed to operating and managing the RAV Line privately due to higher costs that will be paid for by taxes and fares;

• Believes there has been an under estimation of the work done by transit workers with respect to the Millennium Line;

• Every effort was make to hand operation and maintenance of the Millennium line over to the private sector and that failed because work was being done more cost effectively and with better service in house.

• Called for a change to what was characterized as the ongoing secrecy of the process citing the PricewaterhouseCoopers Report as an example. Explained that an edited copy of the report was obtained via a FOI1 request and disputed the discount rate that has been used citing work done in England to support the statement. What is the discount figure used for the RAV line?

• As well, recent experiences in Australia indicate that Government agencies are tending to use the pretext of private public partnerships as a protection against the disclosure of information;

• The Union rejects the concept that P32 is the only way that government funding will be obtained;

• The Provincial Government will only come on board in 2007 – no presumption that private or public sector is more effective;

• Asking that the Auditor General review the process - suggesting that the Province does not want this kind of scrutiny;

• Finally, open up the process as at the present it is too secret and the people of the lower mainland need an open process.

1 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 2 Private Public Partnerships

Mr. Cunningham submitted a text of his remarks to the chair John McLean, Executive Director, Expanded Vancouver Convention Centre

• The Task Force for an expanded Vancouver Convention Centre represents many sectors in the Province;

• Supports the project; • The project is important because it will increase the quality of life in

the region and will subsequently enhance it; • An article in the Vancouver Sun yesterday commented that traffic

congestion is adding $300 million to transportation costs in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal;

• Therefore there is lots of justification for looking at well-planned transportation centers;

• Three main reasons to proceed: • BC recognizes the importance of tourism; • Investment in infrastructure attracts high yield tourists; and • Live and work here and do the right thing.

• An Ipsos Reid poll recently said that 92% of British Columbians believe that tourism is a major contributor to the economic well-being of the Province;

• Good business for B.C. and we should do what is necessary to bring high-yield tourists to the area;

• Present infrastructure is in good shape, for example, the airport, cruise ship facility, hotels, restaurants etc., but we are missing the transportation component and we need to make the investment now;

• We live and work here and the quality of life is positive, yet we are seeing a decline in Toronto due to traffic congestion;

• Vision of having airport check-in at the convention centre terminal whereby bags could go out (bonded) to the airport on the RAV line and then the person (s) could elect how they will get to the airport.

• Thank you.

Rob Howard, Richmond City Councilor (Richmond Council representative to the Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Task Force and Chair of the Richmond Public Works and Transportation Committee)

• Not present. 5. Concluding Remarks from the Chair

Larry Bell, Chair, RAVCO, thanked the participants and interested parties for their submissions and attendance and reminded everyone that any questions posed during the presentations would be answered directly and

posted on the website. Attendance at future public consultation sessions was encouraged.

6. Conclusion The RAV Project Management Ltd. (RAVCO) Public Meeting held March

26, 2004, concluded at 1:22 p.m. Approved: ______________________________ _____________________________ Chair Corporate Secretary