TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, January 7, 2013

SCRD Cedar Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER 10:30 A.M.

AGENDA

1. Adoption of Agenda

MINUTES 2. Draft Transportation Advisory Committee minutes of October 29, 2012

ANNEX A Pages 1 – 6

UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES

3. Report on Bike Lane Maintenance Priorities (TraC) – Deferred from October 29, 2012 meeting

Verbal Report

4. Speed Limit on Highway 101 (Board Resolution 435/12 of November 8, 2012) – For information

ANNEX B page 7

COMMUNICATIONS

5. Jef Keighley, Chair, Sunshine Coast Senior Citizens (COSCO-BC), regarding “Our Ferries, Our Future”

ANNEX C pp 8-19

6. Jakob Knaus regarding BC Ferries’ October Traffic Statistics

ANNEX D pp 20-24

7. Roger Richmond, Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee,

regarding “S” bends, 3200 and 3300 Block, Beach Avenue, Roberts Creek

ANNEX E page 25

8. Donna McMahon, Gibsons & District Chamber of Commerce, regarding GDCC Position on BC Ferries

ANNEX F pp 26-28

REPORTS

9. Sunshine Coast Speed Watch Survey, Beach Avenue Roberts Creek – For Information

ANNEX G pp 29-31

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\ISC - TAC\2013-JAN-07 TAC Agenda draft.doc

10. Speed Watch Monthly Report for October and November, 2012 – For information

ANNEX H pp 32-33

11. Speed Watch Report, Port Mellon Highway, October 31, 2012 – for information

ANNEX I page 34

NEW BUSINESS

12. Transportation Advisory Committee 2013 Meeting Dates – For information

ANNEX J page 35

ROUND TABLE

NEXT MEETING – February 25, 2013 ADJOURNMENT

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

October 29, 2012

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD IN THE CEDAR ROOM OF THE SUNSHINE

COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT OFFICES, 1975 FIELD ROAD, SECHELT, BC.

PRESENT: Director, Electoral Area E, Chair Lorne Lewis

Director, Town of Gibsons Gerry Tretick

Director, District of Sechelt Alice Lutes

Director, Electoral Area A Frank Mauro

Director, Electoral Area B Garry Nohr

Director, Electoral Area D Donna Shugar

Director, Electoral Area F Lee Turnbull

ALSO PRESENT: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Don Legault

Alt. Director, Area F & Rte13 Ferry Adv.Com. Joyce Clegg

Manager, Transportation and Facilities Brian Sagman

Insurance Corporation of BC Tom Webster

RCMP Todd Bozak

RCMP Hwisong Kahng

BC Ferries, Langdale Terminal Operations Mgr. Maureen Darragh

Capilano Highways Eric Paris

S. Sunshine Coast Ferry Advisory Committee Barry Cavens

Sunshine Coast Speed Watch Jon Hird

Citizens On Patrol, Sechelt Ruth McLarty

Constituency Assistant to MLA Simons Kim Tournat

Trustee, School District No. 46 Silas White

Cycling Advocate Martin Prestage

Parks Planning Coordinator Sam Adams (partial)

Recording Secretary Diane Corbett

Media 1

Member of the Public 1

CALL TO ORDER 10:30 a.m.

AGENDA The Agenda was adopted as amended, with addition of the following

items under New Business:

Use of Chip Seal

Meeting with Minister at UBCM regarding passenger ferry

Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs meeting on ferry consultation

1

ANNEX A

Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting of October 29, 2012 Page 2 of 6

MINUTES

Recommendation No. 1 Minutes

The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the minutes of September 10, 2012

be adopted as circulated.

Recommendation No. 2 Community Bus Workshop Notes

The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the notes of the Community Bus

Workshop of September 19, 2012 be received.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

Speed Zone on Roberts Creek Road

Chair Lewis explained that the School District had written to the Regional District in 2011

regarding the speed zone on Roberts Creek Road, and at that time there had been no further

follow up to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Recently SCRD Chair Nohr had

sent a letter to the Ministry requesting the change to playground zone signage.

Mr. Legault reported that a request had been submitted for replacement signs.

Report on Bike Lane Maintenance Priorities

Mr. Prestage reported that a survey was underway and that information was being gathered on

areas of concern between the Langdale and Sechelt. He noted it was taking longer than

expected, and that TraC (Transportation Choices Sunshine Coast) members hope to have this

completed for the next meeting.

Recommendation No. 3 Unfinished Business Items

The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the following items be received:

Speed Zone on Roberts Creek Road

ICBC Crash Map and Crash Statistics for Route 101, Roberts Creek

Report on Bike Lane Maintenance Priorities

COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Darragh, BC Ferries’ Langdale Terminal Operations Manager, described the work and

collaborative efforts with the RCMP and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure that had

been undertaken to address bypass congestion at the Langdale terminal.

Directors Lewis and Turnbull extended thanks for BC Ferries’ efforts to manage the traffic.

2

Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting of October 29, 2012 Page 3 of 6

Recommendation No. 4 Correspondence

The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the correspondence from Mike

Corrigan, President and CEO of BC Ferries, to Chair Nohr, dated, July 30, 2012 be received.

REPORTS

VeloCity International Bike Conference

Parks Planning Coordinator Sam Adams acknowledged the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure (MOTI) grants to communities throughout BC that allowed staff to attend the

international bike conference in Vancouver. Staff described five ways to encourage people to

ride a bike: reduce speed limit; build and upgrade bikeways; provide education and supportive

policies; encourage use of electric bikes; and through bicycle tourism. Staff noted that a regional

biking paths workshop would be held the following day with MOTI, local government staff and

cycling advocates invited to attend.

The growing trend in the use of scooters and the regulations applicable to scooters were

discussed. The Motor Vehicle Act requires that an electric vehicle without pedals must be able

to travel 60 kilometers per hour, and travel in the driving lane. However, in the Town of

Gibsons, Council had decided that scooters were in the same category as electric wheelchairs

and mobility aids, and must be on the sidewalk, with the same rules as apply to pedestrians.

Concerns were raised about the need for both driver and cyclist education regarding the rules of

the road.

Recommendation No. 5 Report on VeloCity International Bike Conference

The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the staff report to the Community

Services Committee meeting of September 13, 2012, titled “VeloCity International Bike

Conference”, be received.

Recommendation No. 6 Speed Watch Monthly Report

The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the Speed Watch report for the

month of September 2012 be received.

NEW BUSINESS

Roberts Creek Elementary Bus Pull-Out/ Timberland Road Widening

Mr. Legault discussed with Mr. White the background and geometrics pertaining to options to

widen Timberland Road adjacent to the Roberts Creek Elementary School, noting that there was

no room for a pull-out for school buses and that the cost of building on top of the adjacent ditch

would be expensive.

3

Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting of October 29, 2012 Page 4 of 6

The issue of ‘no parking’ signs in rural areas was raised. The difficulties and costs related to

enforcement were mentioned. Director Shugar noted her concerns about the parking congestion

at the Roberts Creek Pier in the summer, when people ignore or do not see ‘no parking’ signs,

and remarked that it was a problem that needs to be addressed from a safety perspective,

especially in terms of access for emergency vehicles. The director was urged to send a letter with

the history of the issue to the Sechelt RCMP Detachment Sergeant McCarthy, Operational

Manager. It was mentioned this was also an issue on Hopkins Road and in other areas.

Recommendation No. 7 Parking Congestion in Rural Areas

The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the issue of illegal parking in the

rural areas and the impacts on safety be referred to the Community Services Committee for

further discussion.

Use of Chip Seal

Director Nohr raised an issue of concerns with the application of a chip seal coating on

Rutherford Road in Halfmoon Bay. A Halfmoon Bay resident present at the meeting described

local citizens’ experiences with this surfacing material: difficulty riding bikes and tricycles,

loose gravel at intersections, impacts on drainage, pedestrians hit by flying gravel, concern that

the road was not as smooth as previously and that this surface material was substandard.

Director Mauro also noted potholes that had developed on roads in Pender Harbour Area that

had been chip sealed. Director Shugar commented that her road had been chip sealed twenty

years previously and did not have the issues described.

Mr. Legault explained that the durability of the chip seal depended on the volume of traffic and

characteristics of winter freezing. The price to do a single seal was $2.50 to $3 per square metre

compared to asphalt at $40-$45 per square metre.

Mr. Paris indicated he would check out the roads mentioned by Director Mauro, and would

engage in further discussion with the member of the public from Halfmoon Bay to seek a

resolution to the issues on Rutherford Road.

Meeting with Minister at UBCM regarding Passenger Ferry

Director Nohr described his interaction with the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure at

the recent UBCM conference. The Director mentioned that the SCRD wrote a letter to the

Minister as recommended at the last Transportation Advisory Committee meeting regarding

concerns with increased fares and any plans to reduce service.

Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs Meeting on Ferry Consultation

Mr. Cavens commented that the Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs had provided feedback to the

Province regarding the ferry consultation process. He noted it would be an opportunity to talk to

4

Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting of October 29, 2012 Page 5 of 6

the Province on its long term strategy and potential service reductions. Information on the

ferries consultation process now underway is available at www.coastalferriesengagement.ca.

Alternate Director Clegg remarked that the community engagement meetings should be done

before year end, and that a report on the results of the public consultation would be forwarded to

the Province by the end of February. Locally, there would be a stakeholders meeting from

10:00am to 12:00pm and an open house from 1:00pm to 4:00pm on December 1, 2012 at the

Cedars Inn in Gibsons.

ROUNDTABLE

Director Lutes advised that she had been contacted by constituents regarding a request for a bus

shelter for the stop beside St. Mary’s Hospital, and hoped that this could come forward in the

future.

Director Turnbull commented on traffic issues and speeding at intersections on Marine Drive, at

YMCA Road, Central Avenue, and Harvey Road.

Alternate Director Clegg remarked that the new parking lot in New Brighton was getting lots of

use. The Gambier Community Association was working on signage.

Director Shugar expressed thanks on behalf of local residents to the Ministry of Transportation

and Infrastructure for deciding not to extend Lysander Road. The Director commented on recent

ditching work on Crowe Road. Mr. Legault responded that there was a need to re-install culverts

in that location.

Constable Kahng explained he was involved with an RCMP program in which he was required

to find a problem in the community and tackle ways to address it. He suggested that highway

safety awareness would be a good topic; he would do research on high crash locations on the

coast to see which spots could use signage and report back at the next meeting.

Recommendation No. 8 High Crash Locations on Highway 101

The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that a discussion on the topic of high

crash locations on Highway 101 be placed on the agenda of the next meeting.

Director Mauro commented that roads require central line painting, and said he would give a

list to Mr. Legault.

Constable Bozak noted that a lot of truckers were complaining about the foliage blocking views

at Payne Road where it meets Reed Road. He noted he would forward this information to the

Town of Gibsons.

Mr. Paris made note of Capilano Highways contact number; a staffed phone line would be

available 24/7 at: 1-800-665-3135.

5

Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting of October 29, 2012 Page 6 of 6

Mr. Sagman announced that BC Transit was doing a Transit Future Plan and would consult with

the public at the end of November into December. Data will be collected on buses to see what the

ridership looks like. There was quite an impact on transit with the recent paving in Sechelt; Mr.

Sagman wondered if there was a good way that SCRD Transit could be advised in advance.

Subscribing to DriveBC was suggested; Mr. Sagman was urged to discuss this at an upcoming

stakeholder meeting.

Director Nohr expressed thanks to MOTI for the bike paths along Redrooffs Road through

Coopers Green.

Mr. White reported on the pick-up and drop-off policy at Gibsons Elementary, and said that the

principal would look into the history of how the ‘no drop-offs’ sign got there originally as it is

not being enforced.

Constable Bozak commented that parents were picking up kids near Gibsons Elementary on

O’Shea Road, causing congestion and creating a hazard for pedestrians. Mr. Hird’s concern

was that people were parking on crosswalks and sometimes on sidewalks at that location.

Mr. Prestage announced that the directors of TraC voted to make a bid for the 2013 Bike-To-

Work-Week, as the SCRD would not have a Community Energy Manager in place. He indicated

TraC would go to the SCRD Infrastructure Services Committee in December and to Bike-To-

Work-Week Victoria with requests for funding.

Director Lewis extended thanks to ICBC’s Tom Webster for dropping off the state-of-the-art

pedestrian reflectors. These would be given out by Transit drivers to people travelling on buses

at night.

Director Lewis inquired about work being done on Japanese Knotweed by the Ministry. Mr.

Legault noted the Ministry provides funding to the Coastal Invasive Plants Council as well as

other agencies, who identify locations requiring some attention. There is a certain period of time

during the summer when the plants can be treated.

Mr. Hird noted the item from the staff report on biking, the relationship of vehicle speed to

pedestrian fatality: 5% fatalities at 30 km/hour compared to 45% fatalities at 50 km/hour.

Ms. Tournat commented on cycling at Burton Road, where there was a report of a lot of gravel

by the postal boxes. Mr. Legault noted that Capilano Highways had recently done some work

there to address the issue that seemed to be working.

Regarding Ms. Tournat’s inquiry about who monitors backcountry roads for speeding, she was

advised that this was unregulated.

Ms. Darragh announced that she would not be attending the meeting for BC Ferries on a regular

basis but would be happy to attend upon request.

NEXT MEETING January 7, 2013

ADJOURNMENT 12:32 pm

6

Sunshine Coast Regional District 1975 Field Road, Sechelt BC V0N 3A1

Phone: 604-885-6800 / Fax: 604-885-7909 www.scrd.ca

File No.:

Memo

To: Transportation Advisory Committee

From: Transit Administration

Date: 06/12/2012

Re: Highway 101 Speed Limit

Board Resolution of November 8, 2012

435/12 Recommendation No. 2 Highway 101 Speed Limit

THAT in response to the concerns raised at the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting, staff send a letter to the Lower Mainland District Traffic Services Division of the RCMP with copies to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and Insurance Corporation of BC, inviting them to conduct the necessary research to determine if and where a speed limit reduction is appropriate on Highway 101.

7

ANNEX B

8

ANNEX C

1

OUR FERRIES

OUR FUTURE

“Infrastructure: the basic structural foundations of a society , ie. roads, bridges, sewers, etc. regarded as a country’s economic foundation.” Canadian Oxford Dictionary

British Columbia is blessed with a vast and varied landscape. Our people live in remote villages tucked into mountain valleys, in vibrant coastal communities and in bustling urban centers. We live and prosper in this place we proudly call Beautiful British Columbia because we cooperate to ensure that our citizens have access to the infrastructure and services we all need without regard to where they live in the province. We don’t always succeed, but we always try. Building the infrastructure necessary to connect our people across our rugged province; transportation networks, electrical power, water, hospitals, schools, community centers, policing and communications has never been easy and has never been inexpensive, but that has never stopped British Columbians. Our road transportation network, roads, bridges, tunnels, inland and coastal ferries, is one of our most basic infrastructure needs. It significantly impacts the quality of life we enjoy within our respective communities. The ability to come and go as our lives demand or as the spirit moves us; to deliver goods and services where they are needed, when they are needed is critical to our collective well being.

“The only long term, sustainable resolution to managing the costs of providing coastal ferry service is to take BC Ferries back under direct government control as a crown corporation and treat our coastal ferries as we do our highways. The entire capital and maintenance costs of the shore facilities and the fleet should be borne by general revenues with ferry fares covering labour and fuel costs. This would result in a dramatic reduction in fares and would go some distance to re-vitalizing coastal communities and restoring fairness for coastal residents. The only way to achieve this outcome is to change the mandate and eliminate the fiction that our coastal ferries can or should attempt to operate on a user pay model. It hasn’t worked and it can’t work and the sooner it is eliminated, the better.”

Sunshine Coast Senior Citizens (COSCO-BC)

A New Mandate to Re-Vitalize

British Columbia’s Ferry

Dependent Communities

9

2

Seniors Reject The Province’s so-called ‘Long Term Vision’ for BC Ferries The current mandate of BC Ferries is not working for our coastal communities. That was clearly evident in the town hall meetings convened by Ferry Commissioner Gordon Macatee in 2011 and was referenced in his January 2012 report. It is the reason for this current round of BC Coastal Ferries Consultation and Engagement process. The Sunshine Coast Senior Citizens (COSCO-BC) rejects the so-called ‘long term vision’ set out by the provincial government. That ‘long term vision’ has dictated three more years of greater than inflation fare increases to 2016 and an additional saving of $30 million more through fares, service cuts and options for property or gas tax increases in ferry dependent communities. Coastal citizens deserve to be treated fairly with all other British Columbians and in our view that is not happening. We strongly support returning BC Ferries to a crown corporation delivering a public transportation service as an integral component of our provincial transportation infrastructure that is affordable, efficient and sustainable over generations. Someone from Victoria has every right and expectation of being able to drive to Dawson Creek just as someone from Prince George has every right and expectation to drive to Nanaimo, all via publicly owned and operated transportation infrastructure, whose quality and safety the travelling public can count on. Throughout the province the Department of Highways operates 14 inland ferries as part of our integrated provincial highway system. All inland ferries are free of charge to the users and the full costs of their operations are covered by the BC Highways budget, which is financed by the taxes of all British Columbians, including British Columbians living in coastal ferry dependent communities. Our coastal ferries are operated by BC Ferries, a hybrid semi-autonomous corporation. All of BC Ferries’ assets, the shore facilities and the physical ferry fleet, are ultimately owned by the Province, that is, by the people of British Columbia. We own BC Ferries. The BC Ferries Corporation is simply the operator of the coastal ferry system on our behalf, not dissimilar to BC Transit or Coast Mountain Bus’s roles in operating our public transit system. It is important to note that the corporation is not called the ‘Coastal Ferry Corporation’; it is the ‘BC Ferry Corporation’. It serves the interests of BC as a whole, just as the Department of Highways serves the interests of BC as a whole. BC Ferries operates 36 vessels on 25 routes servicing 47 destinations. All BC Ferries routes are subject to substantial fares for both vehicles and passengers, fares that of late have been increasing at well beyond the rate of inflation.

10

3

BC Ferries came into being under the premiership of WAC Bennett. He realized that the then private operator, Black Ball Ferries, was not prepared to make the level of investments in shore facilities and fleet expansion that a developing British Columbia needed. Just as Bennett bought out the BC Electric Company to create BC Hydro, he bought out Black Ball to create the base of BC Ferries, which commenced operation in on June 15, 1962, 50 years ago this year. For forty years, BC Ferries functioned under direct government control and ownership and the service expanded and modernized as service demands increased. BC Ferries is a vital link for the over 800,000 British Columbians who live in ferry dependent communities, some 20% of our total population of 4.6 million people. It is also a vital link for hundreds of thousands of British Columbian and visitors who use and enjoy our coastal ferries. Fast forward to April 2, 2003, when under the premiership of Gordon Campbell BC Ferries was set up as nominally independent company. The BC Ferry Authority is a corporation set up by the Province without any share capital and owns the single issued voting share of BC Ferry Services (BC Ferries). The Province of BC in turn owns 100% of the preferred shares of the BC Ferry Authority but has no voting interest in either the Authority or BC Ferry Services (BC Ferries). Notwithstanding this seemingly arm’s length relationship between the Province and BC Ferries, ultimately, all of the assets of BC Ferries are assets of the provincial government and BC Ferries operates under a contract or mandate to provide ferry services as dictated solely by the government. The Province can re-write the mandate any time is chooses and those of us who live in ferry dependent communities believe it’s past time to do so. The Province turned over direct control over BC Ferries, through the arm’s length relationship with BC Ferries noted above, so as to off-load costs to ferry dependent communities and put some political distance between the inevitability of disgruntled ferry community residents and the government. Less direct control was seen as a trade off against reduced contributions from general revenues. It hasn’t worked. Since we believe the only long-term resolution is to significantly re-write BC Ferries’ mandate such that provincial general revenues cover the capital and maintenance costs of the fleet and shore facilities, just as occurs with our highways, with fares covering the ongoing operations costs, such as fuel and labour, that the Province will necessarily and prudently require more direct control over BC Ferries operations in keeping with greater general revenue financing. It should be noted that those of us who have had close contact with BC Ferries management and staff are impressed by their professionalism and commitment to serving the needs of the travelling public, notwithstanding some notable excesses in executive compensation. We do not find substantial fault with BC Ferries management and staff. We believe they do a good job providing a critical public service and are deserving of decent pay and working conditions. The primary points of contention with the fares and schedules of BC Ferries emanate from the

11

4

mandate BC Ferries management is directed to work under and it is the provincial government that dictates the mandate. When the Campbell Government dictated BC Ferries’ then new mandate it created an impossibility, that is, it created a so-called independent company whose mandate was to deliver a public service, the coastal ferry portion of our public transportation infrastructure, all the while striving to have ferry dependent users/taxpayers finance an increasingly larger share of the operating costs through the fares collected. The purpose was and is to limit the contribution to BC Ferries out of general revenues while demanding those same users/taxpayers finance the provincial highways in addition to financing the ferry portion of our highway. This has the effect of asking ferry dependent community user/taxpayers to shoulder a disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining our overall integrated transportation infrastructure. If our health care system was set up to be financed only by those who were ill and in need of care, rather than by the whole of our population, it would collapse. If our school system was set up to be financed only by those parents whose children are currently enrolled in school, rather than by the whole of our population, it would collapse. If our highway system had to be paid for only by those who drove the particular section of highway, like the other examples above, it too would collapse. We are able to manage our complex infrastructure system because the risks and benefits of the system as a whole are borne and shared by our whole population. Maximizing the size of the amortization pool minimizes the costs and the risks and maximizes the benefits in a fair and equitable manner. Our coastal ferries, like our inland ferries are part and parcel of our highway system and should be treated as such and paid for by the British Columbia population as a whole. By and large, they remain a reasonably cost effective way to connect people, goods and places. There are some who advocate building bridges and highways as a substitute for continuation of ferry services. It may well be that some of our coastal ferries might well be replaced by bridges connected to highways, at which point there would be no reasonable argument that the said bridge/s and highway ought not be part of our highway system and budget. But in the present circumstances the hard economic arguments tend to support the proposition that for virtually all of our coastal ferry routes, if bridges and highways were cheaper to build and maintain than continue to operate the ferry service, they would already have been built. Past ‘The Tipping Point’ The current BC Coastal Ferries Consultation and Review follows up on the January 2012 Report by Ferry Commissioner Gordon Macatee’s report. He found that that ferry fares had reached ‘the tipping point’, that is, the point at which the escalating fares had were producing a decline in usage. The recent round of fare increases and the ferry utilization statistics show that our downward slide in utilization is steepening. Long before the Macatee report it was clear to those of us living in ferry

12

5

dependent communities that the fares and changing schedules had combined to depress local economies, reduce visits to and by family and friends and had made commuting much less viable for coastal residents. They are strangling our respective communities. Notwithstanding the fact that Commissioner Macatee pointed to the fact that fares in 2011 had already reached ‘the tipping point’ and that ferry usage was on a downward slide, the Liberals dictated further fare cap increases of 4.1% for 2013/14, 4.0% for 2015/16 and 3.9% for 2015/15, all well above estimates of projected inflation for those years. This can only exacerbate our decline. Relying on the statistics provided in the ’25 Years of Change’ chart on page 3 of Consultation and Review Discussion Guide it is not difficult to see why ‘the tipping point’ was reached. Over those ‘25 years of change’, and its not small change, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for British Columbia increased by 70%. During that time, depending on the route considered, ferry fares increased from a low of 168% to a high of 437%. On our Horseshoe Bay – Langdale route the fare increase was 204%, almost 3 times the rate of inflation. There are other comparisons than can be made. During the 10 years of the NDP from 1991-01 the CPI increased 18.2% while fares increased 40%. During the 11 years of the Liberals from 2001-12 the CPI increased 21.1% while fares increased 74%. When you look to the time frame since the Liberals set up BC Ferries as a nominally independent company and dictated the user pay mandate 2003 – 2012, the CPI increased 16% while fares increased 74%, or 4 ½ times the rate of inflation! Stated another way, for the years prior to the creation of BC Ferries as a nominally independent company, fares increased on average by 4.6% per year during 1987-02 whereas for the years since, 2002 – 2012 fares increased 6.7% per year. The above figures are approximations, as the ’25 Years of Change’ chart does not provide exact year-to-year statistics. However, what is clear is that the user pay mandate dictated to BC Ferries management by the provincial government has created unfairness for coastal communities when it comes to the cost of transportation infrastructure and cannot be made fair under the user pay mandate. As has already been stated, the management and staff of BC Ferries do a reasonably good job of running our coastal ferries within the restrictive mandate they have been given. In our view the problems faced by coastal communities lies not so much with BC Ferries but rather the problem is that it is the wrong mandate! BC Ferries have since it creation, always been and will always be simply another component of our integrated provincial transportation infrastructure, no different than roads, bridges and tunnels, a means to travel from point A to point B, and should be treated and funded as such, as a public service financed through general revenues.

13

6

During Commissioner Macatee’s public town hall meetings during the fall and winter of 2011 the message rang out loud and clear: our ferries are our highways. We don’t mind paying our fair share of the overall provincial highway budget. We don’t even mind paying reasonable ferry fares to help finance the ongoing operation of BC Ferries, but we do take issue with being expected to pay our fair share of the highways budget and having to pay the lion’s share of our coastal ferries. That message was stated loud and clear and it was reflected in the MacAfee Report to the provincial government, but is appears to have fallen on deaf ears! With this latest Consultation and Engagement process, the provincial government has, without regard to the interests of coastal communities, set down it’s own ‘long term vision’, even as future fare caps have been set well in excess of anticipated inflation, further tipping the balance against our coastal communities. This ‘long-term vision’, apparently fogged by ‘free market’ ideology, now seeks input from coastal communities on how to effect a further $30 million in cuts by 2016, through service cuts, fare increases and/or coastal property or fuel tax increases. The current BC Government thinking is that new bridges and highways ought to be paid for, at least in part, via the collection of tolls. However, that position is modified by the caveat that tolls will only be charged for new infrastructure where a non-tolled transportation route is available to the travelling public. For coastal ferry dependent communities, there are no non-tolled options, and yet fares are charged to all users, and those fares are escalating rapidly. An intelligent argument could be made that in the interest of fairness that there should be no fares whatsoever charged to ferry users and the whole of the capital and operating expense should be covered as part of the provincial highways budget. However, as stated, those of us who live in coastal ferry dependent communities, in general don’t take particular exception to having to pay something by way of ferry fares, but we do take great exception to being uniquely treated as cash cows by the provincial government who has set out on a path which is bleeding our communities dry. Coastal ferry dependent communities are socially and economically reeling from rapidly escalating ferry fares and the already implemented and now considered cuts to ferry services will make it worse. There is growing angst and anger at the provincial government over their mis-management of the BC Ferries file and there is an election coming. It is with some measure of tongue-in-cheek black humor that coastal communities wonder what the public reaction around the province would be if the provincial government were to say to British Columbians, ‘Sorry folks, from here on in, were going to close your highways from 9 pm until 6 am, and during operating hours, you can only drive the highways in hourly or two hour intervals, after which you have to stop and wait for an hour before you pay again to drive any further. We will also be restricting how many of you will be allowed to use the highway during each of those

14

7

intervals. If you are towing a travel or boat trailer, we will charge you more because you are taking up a greater length of highway as you drive. Further, we intend to raise the tolls for driving your highway each and every year well in excess of the rate of inflation and we reserve the right to change the driving schedules, as we deem necessary. Finally, if you don’t like it, don’t complain to us, it’s your own fault for choosing to live in Kelowna, or Prince George, or Nelson, or Smithers, or…..”. The current round of coastal ferry consultations being convened by the Province are viewed with extreme skepticism across coastal ferry dependent communities. Rather than go out with a mandate to find out what coastal communities want and need by the way of dependable and cost effective ferry service, the province has already implemented cuts to ferry services, they have dictated additional fare increases for the next several years, once again well in excess of inflation and now they now say to our communities, we are ‘consulting’ you as to how we save $30 million dollars. They say they want to hear from us as to what combination of additional fare increases and service reductions would we recommend to make our lives more difficult and the lives of our communities more precarious. It’s a little like being told that you will be executed at dawn, as the executioners feign interest in your preference in the manner of your death! Rethinking the Coastal Ferry System The Consultation and Engagement Discussion Guide posits ‘two broad questions’ and lists a number of ‘considerations’ under the disingenuous sub-heading ‘Rethinking the Coastal Ferry System’. We want to give brief responses to each of those considerations. 1. What is the best way to connect coastal communities? (a) Is there an opportunity to connect coastal communities using alternative ferry technologies, such as cable ferries or passenger-only vessels? With respect to the issue of cable ferries, the short answer is yes. There is one route only that could employ a cable ferry and if it is cheaper and still provides those residents with reliable service, they probably don’t care what the motive force of the ferry is so long as it works. This is not a question for suitable for province-wide public consultation, it is more properly a provincial government decision taken in conjunction with BC Ferries management and the Department of Highways in consultation with the residents of that community. Is there a case for passenger only ferries? Yes, on some routes commuters would welcome such a service but those who need vehicle service should not be short-shrifted to pay for the passenger only vessels.

15

8

(b) Are there some routes that could be served using a combination of passenger-only ferries and a barge that carries vehicles? Possibly. The intent behind the question is somewhat unclear. Barges can be self-propelled or can require an independent motive force such as a tugboat. Does the question suggest that vehicles would be moved by barges that carry vehicles only with passengers having to make the crossing via passenger-only ferries, travelling at different times, thereby forcing passengers to commit more overall time having to recover their vehicles on the other side? If so, this is wholly unworkable. Does the question suggest that passengers and vehicles travel together on the same barge, self-propelled or moved by tug, in which case, is this really very different from a basic ferry. Whatever is intended by asking the question, what can be safely said is that in general travelers are less concerned with the specifics of the vessel that provides the transportation service than they are with the frequency, reliability and convenience of the service. This is also not a question suitable for province-wide consultation, rather it is a decision that should be taken by the provincial government in conjunction with BC Ferries management and in consultation with the potentially affected ferry communities. (c) Are there routes where the proximity and service needs are such that two or more routes could share a car ferry and a passenger-only ferry on alternate days or parts of days? The terse answer is ‘Are there BC communities that would tolerate only having access to their highway every second day or for only part of the day?’ The answer to that is NO! Condemning people to vehicle access only every second day would mean a forced two night stay away from home every time they needed to travel with their vehicle, which for most low volume routes, where transit service is non-existent, would be for most of their trips. For people with mobility difficulties, this would be a particular hardship as their ability to make use of passenger-only services is often problematic. One could envision a resultant legal action against BC Ferries and the Province for discrimination in service delivery on behalf of handicapped people. (d) While a bridge between Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland is not possible in the foreseeable future, should the feasibility of a bridge be explored on other smaller routes? The answer is yes. Most ferry dependent communities would trade reduced ferry service for 24-7 road access, especially if the resultant road and bridge costs were properly covered by the Department of Highways budgets, thereby eliminating ferry fares. This is a discussion best suited to provincial government consultation with those particular communities.

16

9

(e) Is there an opportunity to improve linkages between ferry terminals and communities with better cycling connections or better public transit service?

This could work well with a plan to improve service for people while reducing the necessity for larger automobile ferries on the routes in question.

Similarly, the promotion of cycling infrastructure could encourage passengers to shift from the heavy, more expensive vessels that carry vehicles.

Yes, more cycling and transit connections should be encouraged. On the Sunshine Coast it could result in a boost in tourism and would certainly be welcomed by commuters. However, for the vast majority of ferry users, vehicle transportation services will still be the core required service, given the travel distances from home to the ferry and to their final destination/s on the other side and the items that must be carried in both directions. Families, friends and businesses are not necessarily neatly positioned along major transit routes. Most of us in ferry dependent communities have our ‘city lists’ of things that are either not available or are in such limited availability in our home communities that we turn to the city to supply those needs and we run around throughout our respective urban centers ticking off our ‘city lists’ at numerous locations, few of which are easily accommodated using public transit. Urban retailers would not likely appreciate the loss of business that restricted vehicle service and therefore restricted purchasing would produce, nor would our provincial and federal tax roles benefit from the loss of those sales. Better public transit would see higher passenger only use of our ferries, but if the cost were reduced vehicle service, most ferry dependent communities would not see that as a fair trade off. Cycling should be encouraged but is not a realistic alternative mode of transport for the vast majority of ferry dependent community populations, and never will be, especially in the fall, winter and spring when the rains that make our coastline so green deliver their liquid load or for those with mobility challenges. (f) Would you support the use of alternative fuels, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG), to power ferries where it is economically feasible?

LNG is currently cheaper, is plentiful and produces less particulate pollution and carbon dioxide that the diesel fuel currently used by the BC Ferries fleet.

This is an issue for BC Ferries management and is not appropriate for public consultation. If an alternative fuel is economically feasible and produced less pollution, then just do it! If the current price advantage cannot be relied upon in the long run, then the lower pollution aspect might be reason sufficient regardless of price, but this is properly a BC Ferries management decision, not a public consultation issue. This question has been clearly added to create the illusion of consultation more than the substance.

17

10

(g) Should BC Ferries look at standardizing vessels and docks to allow the flexibility to switch ferries and crews between routes?

The BC Ferry Commissioner has recommended that the ferry service move to three sizes of ferries (small, medium and large), which would provide flexibility to switch ferries and crews between routes, thereby saving training costs.

This is another question that should be directed towards BC Ferries management and is not appropriate for public consultation and in our view has been added to create the illusion of consultation more than the substance. Decisions on vessel design and acquisition are beyond the expertise of the general public. The need for and the acquisition of a renewed fleet to meet any criteria will and should take decades to accomplish. As marine design improves over time, it is doubtful that any given vessel design would or should remain static and therefore it is to be expected that there will be necessary and specific training required for the safe operation of each and every vessel. Acquiring marine vessels is not like buying a fleet of identical minivans, in small, medium and large sizes. As to the stated rationale behind the question, the capital cost of fleet acquisition compared to and potential ‘savings on training costs’ is so disproportionate as be laughable that training costs could ever be a significant driving force behind vessel acquisition. 2. What is the best way to provide community funding to support the ferry service in the long term? (a) Should property tax be increased in coastal communities to help fund ferry service? The short and definitive answer is NO! Shifting to coastal community property tax in addition to fare increases or as a substitute for some amount of fare increases still punishes coastal communities disproportionately compared to the province as a whole. Further it punishes residents to help subsidize vacation travel and those businesses that cater to vacation travel. And while vacation travel can certainly boost coastal community revenues, the benefits of the same are not equally distributed among citizens as a whole. Further, burying ferry costs in property taxation simply serves to obfuscate and reduce transparency and public accountability vis a vis the true costs of operating the ferries, which perhaps is the rationale behind the question in the first place! (b) Should fuel taxes be increased in coastal communities to help fund ferry service? Again, the short and definitive answer is NO! British Columbians, including coastal residents, are already pay fuel taxes, which go to finance for our highway infrastructure. Raising fuel taxes in coastal communities only would simply

18

11

continue the unfairness of singling out our communities to fund what is a component of provincial infrastructure. However, the Province could easily adjust fuel taxes, across the province, and allocate some portion of those revenues to help fund BC Ferries operations. That would help strike some balance of fairness about how we collectively finance our transportation infrastructure. Conclusion – Change the Mandate The only long term, sustainable resolution to managing the costs of providing coastal ferry service is to take BC Ferries back under direct government control as a crown corporation and treat our coastal ferries as we do our highways. The entire capital and maintenance costs of the shore facilities and the fleet should be borne by general revenues with ferry fares covering labour and fuel costs. This would result in a dramatic reduction in fares and would go some distance to re-vitalizing coastal communities and restoring fairness for coastal residents. The only way to achieve this outcome is to change the mandate and eliminate the fiction that our coastal ferries can or should attempt to operate on a user pay model. It hasn’t worked and it can’t work and the sooner it is eliminated, the better. If the current provincial government cannot be persuaded to change the mandate for BC Ferries, then perhaps its time to change the government! Sincerely, Jef Keighley, Chair – Sunshine Coast Senior Citizens (COSCO-BC) 8580 Redrooffs Road, Halfmoon Bay, B.C., V0N 1Y1 604 885-2290

19

Susan Hunt

Subject: FW: BCFerries, October traffic statisticsAttachments: Trafficallroutes 121 3.xls; trafficrte3 private 121 3.xls; trafficrte3 corn mercial 121 3.xis;trafficR3l2l3.xlsSCAD

RE CE I \‘ ED

NOV 1 3 2812From Jakob Knaus [madto falconiktelus net] C H A I RSent: November-15-12 10:14AMTo: Jakob Knaus; Mike Shanks; chris moore; Jordan Louie; Lee Ann Johnson; Jef Keighley; David Dick; Barry Cavens;Carolyn ArchibaldCc: Silas White; sechelt visitorcenter; gibsons visitorcenter; downtownbusiness sechelt; SCRD General Inquiries;Touristpartnership S.C.; w rowe; bedbreakfast president; gibsons municipality; Local; Brian Hollingshead; JohnHenderson; Garry Nohr; Sunshine Coast Community Foundation; Catharine Esson; Reporter Editor; Sechelt district; radiockay.ca; sechelt chamber; pender chamber; gibsons chamber; Ingrid AbbottSubject: BCFerries, October traffic statistics

Dear friends,

The declines in traffic compared with last year continue, both for our Route. 3 and “All Routes”. We do not see a halt orreversal in this trend until such time that above CPI percentage fare increases are arrested or reversed.At our FAC’s conference call on Nov. 2nd, we again brought up the problem of freeloading of trucks from Langdale toHorseshoe Bay. We were anticipating a proposal from BCF for a solution.

The public consultations for our Route 3 are scheduled to take place as follows:

Date/Location - December 1St 2012 at Cedars Inn Hotel and Convention Center in Gibsons.

There will be two meetings:Small Group Meeting from 10 am to noon - participants 40 - 50 people. The meeting is open to the public.(For participants RSVP required by e-mailing “coastalferriesenqaqement(qov.bc.ca or calling 1 855-387-7882)Public Open House from 1 pm to 4 pm. The first part of the session will be a presentation by the Ministry/Consultant,followed by a question and answer session with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure project team.It is recommended that people prepare for the meeting(s) by reviewing the Discussion Guide and Feedback Form and theRoute Specific Information for route 3 Langdale-Horseshoe Bay and route 13 Langdale-Keats Island-Gambier Island.They are available at coastalferriesenqaqement.ca

There was an advertisement in the Coast Reporter last week for these meetings

We hope for a good turnout by the public to demonstrate to Government that rte. 3 and 13 are our lifelines and makingservice adjustments (cuts) to the service might adversely affect our quality of life on our Southern Sunshine Coast.Kind regardsJakob (with the help of Barry)

1

20

ANNEX D

TR

AFF

ICA

LL

RO

UT

ES

2012

113

2011

1121

2012

/13

2011

112

Mon

thV

ehic

les

count

(not

AE

Qs)

Pas

sen

ger

sm

onth

%cu

mcu

m%

month

%cu

mcu

m%

Apr

il60

8580

-3.2

0%62

8603

1522

851

-3.3

0%15

7510

8M

ay67

5106

112

8368

6-1

.166

9191

1297

794

1717

398

0.1

3240

249

-1.6

1716

699

3291

807

June

7111

57-2

.819

9484

3-1

.773

1535

2029

329

1808

846

-3.8

5049

095

-2.4

1880

652

5172

459

July

8581

13-3

.528

5295

6-2

.388

9182

2918

511

2395

221

-4.7

7444

316

-3.2

2513

703

7686

162

Aug

ust

9606

391.

338

1359

5-1

.494

8721

3867

232

2710

944

2.2

1015

5260

-1.8

2653

903

1034

0065

Sep

tem

ber

7102

36-1

.645

2383

1-1

.472

1920

4589

152

1813

898

-1.1

1196

9158

-1.7

1833

783

1217

3848

Oct

ober

6156

71-1

.751

3950

2-1

.462

6054

5215

206

1527

854

-2.6

1349

7012

-1.8

1568

220

1374

2068

Nov

embe

r53

2360

5747

566

1266

588

1500

8656

Dec

embe

r58

8122

6335

688

1495

158

1650

3814

Janu

ary

4552

1367

9090

111

0287

2:1

7606

686

Feb

ruar

y48

0350

7271

251

1153

026

1875

9712

Mar

ch56

6668

7837

919

1410

265

2016

9977

7837

919

2016

9977

2012

/13

fore

cast

“not

muc

hch

ange

inth

efo

rese

eabl

efu

ture

”I

II

II

Min

d!F

ebru

ary

2012

isa

leap

yea

rF

ebru

ary

(1day

traf

fic

=3.

57%

)

8521

915

vehi

cles

8578

710

vehi

cles

8130

356

vehi

cles

rece

ssio

n82

5962

8ve

hicl

es81

3444

4ve

hicl

es78

3791

9ve

hicl

es

2166

4953

pas

senger

s21

7884

61p

asse

ng

ers

2072

7493

pas

sen

ger

sre

cess

ion!

2103

7169

pas

sen

ger

s20

7452

22p

asse

ng

ers

2016

9977

pas

sen

ger

s

Fuel

Sur

char

ge20

.07,

2012

Rte

.3

2%

Tre

nd20

06/0

720

07/0

820

08/0

920

09/1

020

10/

1120

11/1

2

Maj

ors

Min

ors

2% 2%un

ch

Tra

ffic

allr

oute

si21

3

21

Rou

te3

Pri

vate

Tra

vels

Pri

vate

Tra

vel_

Veh

icle

s_

(co

un

t_n

ot

AE

Q)

2012

/13

2011

112

UH

VO

HV

MC

Tota

lm

th%

mth

Cu

m%

cum

Tot

alm

thC

umA

pri

l77

260

3852

793

8190

5-1

.683

260

May

8428

545

0518

6990

659

0.1

1725

64-0

.790

531

1737

91Ju

ne

8469

947

1016

6291

071

-3.5

2636

35-1

.794

391

2681

82Ju

ly10

5088

6688

3376

1151

52-1

.237

8787

-1.6

1165

6938

4751

Aug

ust

1152

5672

2743

9212

6875

0.4

5056

62-1

.112

6424

5111

75S

epte

mbe

8680

251

6927

9794

768

0.1

6004

30-0

.994

644

6058

39O

ctob

er77

305

4124

864

8229

3-1

268

2723

-0.9

8328

568

9104

Nov

embe

r73

773

7628

77D

ecem

ber

8196

484

4841

Janu

ary

6353

990

8380

Feb

ruar

y66

616

9749

96M

arch

7685

910

5185

5T

otal

1051

855

basi

s:ve

hicl

eco

unt

(not

AE

Q5)

-si

ngle

voya

ges

EI

Min

d!F

ebru

ary

2012

was

ale

ap

year

(1day

traff

ic=

3.57

%)

traf

ficr

te3p

riva

tel 2

13jk

22

Route

3C

omm

erci

alT

rave

lO

rdin

ary

60fe

et

________

2012

113

2011

112

2012

1132

2011

l12

mon

thm

onth

%cu

m%

mon

thcu

mm

onth

%cu

m%

mon

thcu

mA

pril

1778

-4.7

1865

1445

13.2

1277

May

1990

-3.1

3768

-3.8

2052

3917

1441

-4.1

2886

3.8

1503

2780

June

-5.5

5695

-4.4

2039

5956

1440

-7.3

4326

-0.2

1553

4333

July

1876

-1.8

7571

-3.8

1910

7866

1430

2.6

5656

0.5

1394

5727

Aug

ust

1836

-9.3

9407

-4.9

2024

9890

1386

-8.4

7142

-1.4

1513

7240

Sep

tem

be

1719

-11.

411

126

-5.9

1941

1183

111

95-1

1.2

8337

-2.9

1345

8585

Oct

ober

1768

-4.1

1289

4-5

.718

4413

675

1384

5.9

9721

-1.7

1306

9891

Nov

embe

r—

1858

1553

3—

1273

1116

4D

ecem

ber

1531

1706

411

1812

282

Janu

ary

1527

1859

111

0313

385

Feb

ruar

y16

1420

205

1171

1455

6M

arch

1844

2204

913

5615

912

2204

915

912

basi

s:ve

hicl

eco

unt

(not

AE

Q5)

-si

ngle

voya

ges

Min

d!F

ebru

ary

2012

was

ale

apy

ear

(1d

aytr

affi

c=

3.57

%)

noft

noft

no.

no.

ft.H

SB

/Lda

le78

524

026

5835

1787

07O

ctob

er70

1A

pI/O

ct47

9231

3939

Lda

le/H

SB98

328

758

7059

2102

3468

349

2931

8977

duff

135

3308

1026

2679

5-1

813

750

38$6

.15

Apl

Oct

$193

,891

$30,

984

Api

lOct

tota

lord

inar

yan

dse

mis

(sho

rtfa

ll)

($22

4,87

5)

jk20

10/1

1A

pI/M

arch

($31

1,12

4)tr

affi

crte

3co

mm

erci

al12

1320

11/1

2A

pI/M

arch

($37

8,55

0)

Not

e!A

tthe

Nov

.2n

dSS

FAC

-BC

FSI

conf

eren

ceca

llB

CF

men

tion

edth

atth

e“f

reel

oadi

ng”

isno

ta

prob

lem

.B

CF

have

rese

arch

edit

and

foun

dno

dist

urbi

ngdi

ffer

ence

s.T

hefi

gure

sap

pear

non-

relia

ble

(alth

ough

we

find

the

BC

Est

atis

tics

very

relia

ble)

.O

bvio

usly

the

prob

lem

of“f

reel

oadi

ng”

isno

ta

prio

rity

for

BC

F.Jk

23

Traf

ficR

oute

320

1211

312

011I

1220

12I1

320

11I1

21m

onth

veh

icle

sco

unt

(not

AE

Qs)

pas

senger

sm

onth

cum

cum

%m

onth

cum

mon

th%

cum

cum

%m

onth

cum

Apr

il85

248

-1.5

0%86

513

1918

84-2

.10%

1957

35M

ay94

225

-0.1

1794

73-0

.794

268

1807

8121

5535

0.3

4074

19-0

.821

4907

4106

42Ju

ne

9464

8-3

.627

4121

-1.7

9821

327

8994

2195

15-3

.162

6934

-1.6

2263

2963

6971

July

1187

39-1

.239

2860

-1.6

1202

1139

9205

2981

11-4

.492

5045

-2.5

3117

2394

8694

Aug

ust

1303

140.

152

3174

-1.2

1302

4552

9450

3344

001.

312

5944

5-1

.533

0203

1278

897

Sep

t97

811

-0.3

6209

85-1

.198

111

6275

6122

3619

-0.2

1483

064

-1.3

2240

3715

0293

4O

ct85

553

-1.2

7065

38-1

.186

564

7141

2519

1125

-2.2

1674

189

-1.4

1954

8416

9841

8N

ov77

005

7911

3016

6183

1864

601

Dec

8472

387

5853

1963

4920

6095

0Ja

n66

272

9421

2514

6555

2207

505

Feb

6949

410

1161

915

1928

2359

433

Mar

ch80

175

1091

794

1799

3025

3936

310

9179

425

3936

3

201

21/1

32fo

reca

st“n

otm

uch

chan

gein

the

fore

seea

ble

futu

re”

basi

s:si

ngle

jour

neys

II

IM

ind!

Feb

ruar

y20

12w

asa

leap

yea

r(1

day

traf

fic

=3.

57%

)

Yea

rT

otal

Veh

icle

sT

otal

Pas

sen

ger

Pri

vate

Veh

icle

spa

ss/p

rve

hA

nnua

lT

rend

2006

/07

1130

558

2626

258

2007

/08

1129

201

2611

402

1086

901

2.40

3re

cess

ion

2008

/09

1099

683

2527

653

1058

533

2.38

820

09/1

011

1929

025

8501

410

7954

02.

395

2010

/11

1107

080

2571

126

1066

832

2.41

120

11/1

210

9179

425

3936

310

5185

52.

414

jk Tra

ffic

R3

12/1

3

24

Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee (RCOCPC)C/O 1738 Lockyer Rd.Roberts Creek, B.C., VON 2W1Phone (604)885-2395creekclayworks@dccnet.com

November 3’, 2012

Mr. Don Legault,Area Manager,Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure,Sechelt, B.C.

Dear Mr. Legault,

/ NOV-920,2

NOV13 2012

CH £—--V

Re: “S” bends, 3200 and 3300 Block, Beach Avenue, Roberts Creek.

We have not received a reply to our letter of June 27th in regards to the above. This matterremains on our agenda and we would appreciate your reply as soon as possible.

Thank you again in advance for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Roger Richmond,Member,Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee

cc: Donna Shugar, SCRDraffic Advisory Committee, SCRD

Nicholas Simons, MLA

co

CC P ‘r

25

ANNEX E

26

ANNEX F

27

28

Sunshine Coast Speed Watch

Sunshine Coast Regional DistrictTransportation Advisory Committee

Re: Speed Watch SurveyBeach Avenue, Roberts Creek

Following a number of comments and requests from residents ofBeach Avenue, as well as from the Director for Area D, SunshineCoast Speed Watch has conducted an informal driving survey of theroadway serving this residential neighbourhood. The survey wasconducted between Roberts Creek Road and Margaret Road onDecember 15, 2012, and was recorded in two directions using adash-mounted video camera - to take the virtual drive, go to YouTubepage: http://www.youtube.com/nhrboy

The drive required approximately 4 to 41/2 minutes to complete ineach direction, and the maximum speed attained was 40 km/h,however speeds of 25 to 35 km/h were typical and considered moreappropriate for most of the journey.

This section of roadway can be characterized as narrow, winding andwell used by all transportation modalities, as can be readily seen inthe video footage.

HazardsNoted hazards, both real and potential, include; a dozen or more blindcurves, concealed driveways, oncoming vehicles failing to keep right,narrow or nonexistent shoulders, pedestrians and cyclists of all agesand skill levels, skateboarders, bus and truck traffic, animals, apicnic/play area, Camp Douglas and Sunhaven School.

Sicinaqe

29

ANNEX G

A significant amount of signage has been installed; 30 km/h advisorysigns and bend chevrons at the two sets of “S” bends, a singlePlayground advisory sign (eastbound only), a single 50 km/hMaximum sign at the Picnic Ground (eastbound only), along with anumber of nonstandard resident-installed signs at the “S” bends (bothdirections).

School ZoneThe School Zone at Margaret Road is marked with standardizedsignage (pictogram and “30 km/h”, both directions) but does notinclude a tab referring to times and “School Days”. A hand-painted“school zone” sandwich board is also displayed at Beach Avenue andMargaret. The length-of-zone, sign to sign, although meeting theminimum standard, is extremely short and may be a significant factorin the poor level of speed limit compliance routinely recorded at thislocation. That is, the requirement to reduce speed from 50 to 30 km/his more likely to go unheeded when it’s for just a few seconds ofdriving time.

Three months of vehicle speed data at this school zone (Sept, Oct andNov, 2012) indicate a measurable decrease in driver noncompliance(defined as more than 10 km/h over), dropping from 29% to 25%, to17% noncompliance in November. This decrease is likely due to anincreased Speed Watch presence in a school zone that has largelygone unmonitored in the past.

ConclusionsBeach Avenue, Roberts Creek, like so many other residentialneighbourhoods on the Sunshine Coast, is a product of evolutionmore than engineering or highway planning processes. It is attractiveand has many attributes as a neighbourhood, but as an urban 50 kmper hour right-of-way it falls far short. Much of its length is lackingbasic elements such as adequate lane width, sidewalks or suitableshoulders for bike and pedestrian traffic, appropriate sight-lines, etc.

It is assumed that the existing posted maximum of 50 km/h, wasimposed sometime in the distant past without regard to the actual

30

features of this residential street, and that at present there is somestatutory impediment preventing the implementation of a moreappropriate speed limit for its full length. May I suggest that now wouldbebfightiimIoLthiscommitteetoioI[owtheexampleof1ocaL_governments worldwide, including Vancouver and Burnaby, and beginthe process of finding the means to permit the application of speedlimits that will actually contribute to an increase in liveability and safetyin our neighbourhoods.

Jon HirdSunshine Coast Speed Watch

31

32

ANNEX H

33

34

ANNEX I

Sunshine Coast Regional District 1975 Field Road, Sechelt BC V0N 3A1

Phone: 604-885-6800 / Fax: 604-885-7909 www.scrd.ca

File No.:

Memo To: Transportation Advisory Committee, January 7, 2013

From: Transit Administration

Date: 19/12/2012

Re: Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Dates 2013 – For Information

Scheduled Transportation Advisory Committee meeting dates for 2013 as adopted on December 13, 2012 by the SCRD Board (Resolution # 570/12) are as follows:

January 7

February 25

April 29

June 24

September 9

November 4

35

ANNEX J