(13) Section 9 - Dec 2004

SOCIO-ECONOMIC/SOCIO-COMMUNITYASSESSMENT

SECTION 9

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

9-1 December 2004

9 Socio-Economic/Socio-Community Assessment

9.1 Executive Summary

This section of the EAC Application presents the results of a socio-economic and socio-community assessment of the RAV Rapid Transit Project, prepared by Pierce Lefebvre Consulting with the assistance of Compass Resource Management Ltd. and Stuart Gale & Associates Ltd. The assessment, conducted with reference to the proposed RAV corridor, includes an analysis of the types of socio-economic trade-offs that may be involved with various vertical alignment and rail technology options. While considering relevant aspects of the conceptual design and required performance standards, the analysis acknowledges that details of the vertical alignment, technology and systems, as well as work site requirements, will not be finalized until a Concessionaire has been selected. The primary purpose of this socio-economic/socio-community assessment is to provide a general understanding of how construction and operation of the RAV line will impact communities, residents, businesses, property owners and users of public services located near the transit line. The intent is to identify the general categories and relative magnitudes of expected socio-economic/socio-community impacts. This assists in making technology or alignment decisions, and in devising mitigation strategies for any potentially negative impacts. This assessment is not intended to be an overall cost-benefit or financial analysis of the project. On the basis of this socio-economic and socio-community assessment, it is concluded that the RAV Project will have significant overall net positive socio-economic/socio-community impacts, under any reasonable set of impact weighting assumptions.

9.1.1 Summary of Findings

The RAV Project will be significant to the regional economy and bring benefits to the neighbourhoods through which it travels: • Construction costs are expected to range between $1.5 billion and $1.7


December 2004 9-2

billion. Major financial contributors to the project will include the Federal and Provincial governments, the Greater Vancouver Regional Transport Authority (TransLink), the Vancouver International Airport Authority and the selected Concession.

• The project will generate between 12,800 and 14,800 direct Person Years

(PY) of employment over the five years required to design, construct and commission the line. In addition, for every direct PY of employment, there will be spin-off benefits through the purchase of supplies and services.

• The RAV line will generate general regional productivity gains, which may

enhance economic growth in the GVRD, primarily as a result of time savings to transit riders and motor vehicle users.

• The time savings associated with less traffic congestion and better transit

service constitute the main social benefit expected from the project. The value of the time savings will depend on the vertical alignment and choice of technology, but a 2001 study estimated savings ranging between $35 million and $100 million per year by the year 2021, before accounting for inflation. Approximately 60% of those savings would accrue to transit riders and 40% would accrue to motor vehicle users.

• VIAA is a project partner and has committed funding for the airport spur

line. Rapid transit between Vancouver, the airport and Richmond is a key component to the successful growth of the Vancouver International Airport. An efficient transit link will improve transportation options for the 26,000 employees who work at the airport and will support the continued growth in passenger traffic.

• The RAV line will require elevated guideways across the North Arm and

Middle Arm of the Fraser River. Bridges over the North Arm and Middle Arm will not impinge on the existing shipping channels established by the North Fraser Port Authority and the Canadian Coast Guard’s Navigable Waters Protection Division.

• The RAV line is consistent with current land use and transportation plans

including the GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan (1996), the City of Vancouver CityPlan (1995), the City of Richmond Official Community


9-3 December 2004

Plan (1999), and the Vancouver International Airport Master Plan (1996). Figure 9.1 Estimated Population within 1 km of RAV Corridor

• Approximately 107,600 people reside within 1 km of the RAV corridor,

including 28,500 in downtown Vancouver; 51,070 in Vancouver along the Cambie Street corridor; 27,265 in Richmond; and some 750 residents on Sea Island. These residents will benefit from increased accessibility resulting from the RAV line through faster and more reliable transit service.

• The RAV line is expected to result in 10% fewer hours of bus service than

would otherwise occur. Hours of regional and express buses will drop by 39% between Richmond and Vancouver, but part of this may be offset by increased east/west bus service. It is estimated that the RAV line will result in 18,000 fewer weekday automobile trips in the South Vancouver corridor than would otherwise occur. Reduced bus and automobile traffic volumes may improve the liveability of the north/south streets carrying suburban traffic.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Downtown Vancouver

Cambie Richmond

Next 500 m Within 500 m

Estimated Population within 1 Km of RAV Corridor

Note: Data for downtown Vancouver are not split by 500 metre radius segments.


December 2004 9-4

• Mass transit systems are typically much safer than private automobile traffic and the RAV line will likely increase safety along the Richmond/Vancouver corridor, particularly if a fully separated guideway system is chosen.

• The project is likely to have generally positive property value impacts on

residential, office, industrial, institutional and retail properties near the RAV stations.

There are socio-economic concerns related to the impacts of the proposed project on properties and community features adjacent to the RAV line. In general, however, the negative socio-economic impacts that can be associated with construction and operation of a rapid transit system in a built-up urban area have been mitigated by the choice of route and the vertical alignment decisions made to date. • The construction phase of the RAV line will result in short-term, localized

increases in traffic congestion along the alignment. Implementation of traffic management plans will help minimize construction impacts on vehicle movements. Appropriate mitigation measures will also be used to address impacts associated with the operation of tunnel boring machines in Vancouver and the temporary storage and handling of excavated material at the proposed work site at 2nd Avenue and Cambie Street.

• Construction-related traffic, noise, and dust impacts will be addressed by

the Concessionaire in construction and traffic management plans that will be developed in consultation with the City of Vancouver and the City of Richmond.

• Depending on the vertical alignment, there may be some visual impacts

associated with the RAV line south of 49th Avenue along Cambie Street. Due to the width of the Cambie Heritage Boulevard and the setback of the houses from the front yard property lines, residents of the 109 single-family/duplex units (many are side-by-side duplexes which are included as two units) and the 39 ground-oriented multi-family units between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive will not suffer a significant loss in privacy as a result of the proposed line. Moreover, the proposed RAV line will be facing the front yards of the properties along Cambie Street, which is less


9-5 December 2004

intrusive than if it were adjacent to the backyards of those properties. The proposed elevated line and station south of SW Marine Drive may have some visual and noise impacts on the 17 ground-oriented multi-family units and one side-by-side duplex adjacent to Cambie Street in this area.

• All of the properties adjacent to Cambie Street south of 49th Avenue will

be within 1 km of a rapid transit station, and only 39 single family/duplex residences, eight townhouse units and two high-rise towers are outside 0.5 km of a station. In general, properties which are within a 1 km radius of a rapid transit station experience a positive influence on their market values, but for properties adjacent to Cambie Street, the benefits may be partially or totally offset by the negative influence associated with the visual impacts of a trench or an elevated system.

• An elevated guideway near Richmond Centre where No. 3 Road narrows

may be more intrusive and obstructive, reducing visibility and exposure for businesses in that area.

• No significant noise impacts are anticipated in association with the

underground portion of the RAV line. The remainder of the route from Vancouver to Richmond will run primarily along high volume traffic corridors on Cambie Street in Vancouver and No. 3 Road in Richmond. BKL Consultants Ltd. has completed an overall noise impact assessment of the RAV line from Waterfront Station to Richmond Centre on behalf of RAVCo (see SECTION 12).

• Transit systems are public places and as such they may be the subject of

safety and security concerns. Based on the general history and knowledge of safety and security issues near the SkyTrain, the proposed RAV transit system may have the greatest impacts on safety and security issues near the proposed park-and-ride facility. Safety and security issues may require measures such as security patrols, as well as the adoption of station designs that follow basic Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.

The RAV line is unlikely to cause a noticeable increase in crime in any of the neighbourhoods along the proposed route. The application of CPTED


December 2004 9-6

principles in station design should help alleviate potential safety and security concerns.

• Five First Nations have identified Statement of Intent boundaries that coincide with at least a portion of the proposed alignment of the RAV line. These include: Tsawwassen First Nation, Musqueam Indian Band, Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Sto:Lo Nation and the Squamish Nation. Discussions with these First Nations, as well as the Katzie Indian Band, are ongoing, as described in SECTION 4.2: FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION AND

COMMUNICATION.

Potential impacts from the RAV Project pertaining to First Nations include: loss or disturbance of fish and fish habitat during construction of the two Fraser River crossings, and the potential for excavation of archaeological artifacts in the vicinity of underground stations and cut-and-cover tunnel segments of the line.

As part of this assessment, a multi-attribute impact analysis was undertaken which included the development of a summary social impact index based on applying ratings and weights to various indicators. The multi-attribute impact analysis was used to help demonstrate potential trade-offs that may exist: • By RAV Line Segment: Social impacts were assessed individually for

each of the line segments. • By Alternative Vertical Alignments and Technologies: Social impacts

were assessed for various vertical alignment and technology options for Segments 3, 4, 6 and 7 (i.e., cut-and-cover tunnels vs. bored tunnels vs. elevated vs. trench vs. partially separated at grade system).

• By Project Phase: Social impacts were assessed separately for the construction and operation phases of the project.

The purpose of multi-attribute analysis is to demonstrate trade-offs and the potential relative importance of individual impacts or categories of impacts. Multi-attribute impact analysis is particularly useful in this complex assessment, as it involves examining nearly 50 impact indicators for both construction and operations phases of the project, across nine segments of the proposed RAV line for several different vertical alignment scenarios. In addition to the discussion of impacts by category, the social impact index


9-7 December 2004

allows a graphic summary of the potential impacts and an indication of the trade-offs associated with different vertical alignment scenarios. The analysis requires that scores be assigned and weights be chosen for each of the impact indicators. Selection of weights is a very subjective process and, as a result, the analysts prepared a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the summary social impact index is affected by different weight assignments. The multi-attribute analysis provides a concise summary of impacts and their relative significance, and perspective on the overall balance between positive and negative socio-economic/socio-community influences of the RAV Project.

To facilitate the multi-attribute analysis, the RAV corridor was divided into major segments as follows: • Segment 1: from Waterfront Station/Cordova to Robson, along Granville

Street; • Segment 2a: from Robson Station to False Creek; • Segment 2b: from False Creek to Cambie Street and 6th Avenue; • Segments 3a: along Cambie Street from 6th Avenue to King Edward

Avenue; • Segment 3b: along Cambie Street from King Edward to 37th Avenue; • Segment 4a: along Cambie Street from 37th Avenue to 49th Avenue; • Segment 4b: along Cambie Street from 49th Avenue to SW Marine Drive; • Segment 5: between SW Marine Drive Station and Bridgeport Station

across the Fraser River; • Segment 6: between Bridgeport Station and Westminster Highway along

No. 3 Road; • Segment 7: between Westminster Highway and Richmond Centre along

No. 3 Road; and • Segments 8 and 9: across to Sea Island and the Vancouver International

Airport terminal.

The findings are as follows: • The social benefits of the RAV line are spread among a large number of

people over the operation phase of the project. The social costs, however, are often concentrated in a few segments along the line and/or


December 2004 9-8

occur during the construction period. Therefore, on a social basis alone, any analysis of impacts will show a net positive impact unless construction impacts or impacts on a specific population group are given significantly larger weighting than more general operational impacts.

• Figure 9.2 shows that under the assigned weightings, all three alternatives illustrated have a positive social impact index.

Figure 9.2 Social Impact Index by Category of Indicators

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Notes: All three alternatives assume bored tunnels from downtown Vancouver to Cambie St. & 6th Avenue, cut-and-cover tunnels from 37th Avenue to 49th Avenue and an elevated system from SW Marine Drive to Bridgeport Station and for the Airport segment of the line. Alternative A: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, trench from 49th Avenue to SW Marine and

elevated in Richmond Alternative B: Bored tunnels to 6th Avenue, cut-and-cover tunnels from 6th Avenue to

SW Marine; and elevated system in Richmond Alternative C: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, and partially separated at-grade system

between 49th Avenue and SW Marine and from Bridgeport Station to Richmond Centre.

The Economic Development impact category includes direct project employment impacts and impacts on economic activity on the Fraser River. It does not include impacts on the general economic efficiency or productivity in the region, which are assumed to be captured in the Time Savings indicator.

All Segments

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Vis

ual,

Noi

se &

Vib

ratio

n

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC


9-9 December 2004

Figure 9.3 Social Impact Index by RAV Line Segment

Total

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8&9

Segment

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC

Notes: A: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, trench from 49th Avenue to SW Marine and elevated in Richmond B: Bored tunnels to 6th Avenue, cut-and-cover tunnels from 6th Avenue to SW Marine Drive; and elevated system in Richmond C: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, and partially separated at-grade system between 49th

Avenue and SW Marine and from Bridgeport Station to downtown Richmond. For time savings and some of the other indicators, system wide impact ratings are applied equally to each segment; this explains why index values differ across the vertical alignment alternatives even for segments where the vertical alignment does not change across the three alternatives.

• The analysis shows that the partially separated Alternative C is less attractive than the other alternatives as a result of the lower ridership and resulting lower time savings and less positive traffic impacts.

• Under the weightings assigned by the analysts, all segments of the route

stand to gain from the project on balance. Segments 4b (49th to SW Marine Drive) and 5 (SW Marine Drive to Bridgeport Station) are, on the whole, less positively affected than the others.


December 2004 9-10

9.1.2 Conclusions

The RAV line will be a large scale construction project located in a highly developed and disturbed urban environment. To balance the anticipated regional transportation benefits and planning objective achievements, it may be expected that such a project would result in some very significant negative community, social and economic impacts. The system routing and vertical alignment choices made to date for the RAV line, however, have considered and mitigated many of these potential negative impacts, leaving a very substantially positive net balance of socio-economic and socio-community impacts. The RAV line will impose several types of socio-economic costs on adjacent communities, residents, businesses and property owners, but these costs appear to be very modest in most cases, and often result from temporary negative influences associated with line construction. Moreover, many of those experiencing negative impacts from the RAV Project will also experience counterbalancing benefits.

9.2 Introduction

9.2.1 Study Purpose and Scope

Since project design will not be finalized until a Concessionaire is selected, detailed information regarding the vertical alignment of the system in some segments, the transit system technology to be employed and the precise location of the system/work sites with respect to individual properties and public spaces will not be known until that time. This analysis was undertaken with reference to the base concept and project performance standards, taking into consideration several different alignment options. The primary purpose of this socio-economic/socio-community assessment is to provide a general understanding of how construction and operation of the RAV line will impact communities, residents, businesses, property owners and users of public services located near the transit line. The intent is to identify the general categories and relative magnitudes of expected socio-economic/socio-community impacts, information which is useful in making


9-11 December 2004

technology and/or alignment decisions, and in devising mitigation strategies for any negative impacts. This assessment is not intended to be an overall cost-benefit or financial analysis of the project. 9.2.2 Approach and Methodology

The approach to the socio-economic and socio-community assessment included: • development of key indicators for assessing the impacts of the project

from a social perspective • a review of existing studies conducted for the RAV and other transit

projects in Vancouver, including the Millennium Line • collection of data on quantitative indicators such as current and forecast

population levels, traffic levels, etc. • data collection and interviews with city staff, consultants and others to

obtain information on various socio-economic indicators such as the potential impacts on noise levels, visual quality, property values, etc.

• assessment of socio-economic and community impacts and the development of a framework in which to present the advantages and disadvantages of alternative design parameters from a social perspective

• a description and comparison of the various alternatives for each of the line segments, using a methodology that develops impact ratings for a set of indicators, assigns weights to each indicator and facilitates the relative comparison of indicators.

This assessment investigates the impacts associated with the construction phase of the RAV Project, as well as those expected during RAV line operation and maintenance. It also identifies the potential for mitigating some of the negative socio-economic impacts that may be associated with the project. The assessment includes an overview of the potential impacts on First Nations from the RAV Project based on existing studies and reports, a review of publicly available data on local First Nations, discussions with Cornerstone Planning Group, the consulting firm responsible for identifying First Nations interests for RAVCo, and a personal interview with representatives of the Tsawwassen First Nation, one of the affected First Nations.


December 2004 9-12

9.3 Project Background

9.3.1 Ridership

The following data are taken from the RAV Project Community Consultation Discussion Guide:

• “Some 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 and this number is expected to grow to 40,000 by 2021 (TransLink RAV Rapid Transit Project 2003a).”

Ridership on the proposed RAV line is forecast to range between 26 million and 38 million riders per year by 2010 (or between 1.33 million and 1.95 million riders per km per annum) and to between 31 million and 45 million riders per annum (or between 1.59 million and 2.3 million riders per km per annum) by 2021(Kirk and Co. 2003a). By comparison, ridership for the existing SkyTrain (Expo Line) is 1.60 million riders per km per annum (2000), which is almost twice the ridership of the Edmonton LRT system. SkyTrain ridership is comparable to the Calgary LRT system and is less than half the ridership per km for the Montreal and Toronto metro systems (Halcrow Group Limited et al. 2003).


9-13 December 2004

Figure 9.4 Ridership per Annum per Km for Selected Rapid Transit Systems

Note: Represents 2001 ridership, except for Vancouver where the data are for 2000. Source: Prepared by Pierce Lefebvre Consulting based on data from: Halcrow Group Limited et al. 2003. Figure 9.4 shows 2000 data rather than 2001 or 2002 data for the SkyTrain Expo Line because the more recent data are not as comparable to the RAV line data: • In 2001, ridership for the SkyTrain Expo Line was 43.5 million riders,

down 7.7% from 2000, due to a loss of bus and SeaBus connections during a four month strike at the Coast Mountain Bus Company (TransLink 2002a)

• In September 2002, TransLink opened the Millennium Line and for 2002,

TransLink reports 52.0 million boardings for the SkyTrain, which include 46.25 million at stations along the Expo Line and 5.8 million boardings along the Millennium Line stations over the September to December time period (TransLink 2002b.). TransLink expects boardings to increase to 67.2 million by 2003, but average ridership per km for the entire SkyTrain is expected to drop as the Millennium Line has a different service target than the Expo Line. The Millennium Line does not pass through any high-density employment centres. The number of jobs located within 500 m of the Millennium Line is less than one-quarter of the jobs within 500 m of the Expo Line (TransLink 2002a).

Ridership per Annum per Km for Selected Systems (million riders per annum per km)

2.311.95

0.881.471.6

4.774.19

0123456

Mon

treal

Toro

nto

Van

couv

erEx

po L

ine

Calg

ary

Edm

onto

n

RAV

201

0

RAV

202

1

High

Low


December 2004 9-14

It is expected that in the morning peak hour, 61% of RAV passengers would board in Vancouver and of those, 68% would board outside of the downtown area (City of Vancouver 2003b). 9.3.2 Cost and Financing

The RAV Project will be financed as a public – private partnership or P3. The project is expected to cost between $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion, of which $1.32 billion will be funded by various levels of government and the public sector. Public sector funding committed to date is described in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1 Proposed Public Agency Contributions Real 2003 $ (1) Government of Canada $ 419 million (2) Province of BC $ 304 million (3) Vancouver International Airport Authority $ 297 million (4) Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

$300 million

Total $1, 320 million

In addition to this public sector funding, the Concessionaire will also partially finance the project. The exact amount of private funds will be the subject of negotiations. Additional project funds may also come from in-kind contributions from municipal partners and related development opportunities.

9.3.3 Major Options

The RAV Project will likely include a combination of underground and elevated sections. At this point, the most likely scenario is that the line will be underground from downtown Vancouver to at least 49thAvenue on Cambie Street. The line will be built using tunnel boring machines between Waterfront Station and False Creek South, and through cut-and-cover techniques for the 37th Avenue to 49th Avenue section. The underground portion of the line between False Creek and 37th Avenue may be built using tunnel boring machines or cut-and-cover techniques. Table 9.2 summarizes the vertical alignment options for each major horizontal line segment:


9-15 December 2004

Table 9.2 List of Options for the Proposed RAV Rapid Transit Project Partially Separated Fully Separated At-Grade Underground Trench Elevated

1 Waterfront to Robson Station X ü

2 a) Robson Station to False Creek ü x

b) False Creek to Cambie & 6th Avenue ü x

3 a) Cambie Street between 6th Avenue and King Edward ü x

b) Cambie Street between King Edward and 37th ü x x

4 a) Cambie Street between 37th and 49th ü x x

b) Cambie Street between 49th to SW Marine Drive u u u u

5 SW Marine Drive to Bridgeport Station ü

6 Bridgeport Station to Westminster Highway along No. 3 Road u u

7 No. 3 Road between Westminster Highway and Richmond Centre u u

8 & 9 Bridgeport Station to Airport Station 3/Terminal ü Note: Underground tunnels may be built using tunnel boring machines or cut-and-cover techniques. Legend:

x Eliminated by RAVCo as per RAV Project Definition Report (urban incompatibility, visual impacts, traffic and development impacts).

u Remains possible option as per RAV Project Definition Report.

ü Most probable option; while there are still uncertainties due to budget considerations, the RAV Project Definition Report strongly recommends this option


December 2004 9-16

The stations are assumed to be sited as shown in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3 Approximate Distance Between Proposed RAV Stations

Approximate Distance from Previous RAV Stations (km)

Richmond: Richmond Centre (Park Road)1 0.1 Westminster Highway 0.6 Alderbridge Way 0.7 Cambie Road 0.8 Bridgeport2 1.8

Sub-Total 4.0 km

Vancouver: SW Marine Drive 2.0 49th Avenue 1.9 Oakridge 0.7 King Edward 1.9 Broadway 1.6 Pacific Boulevard/ Davie 1.5 Robson 0.9 Cordova/Waterfront 0.7 Sub-Total 11.2 km Vancouver International Airport (3 Stations):

4.3 km

TOTAL 19.5 km Notes: Represents distance from beginning of station to end of line. Includes lot/parkade of 1,100 spaces (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003). Source: Maps prepared by ND Lea Consultants Ltd. and Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2002 and 2003.

Additional RAV stations are being considered for 2nd Avenue and 57th Avenue along Cambie Street in Vancouver, Capstan Way in Richmond, and on Sea Island, in association with future airport operations. These stations are not considered in this analysis.


9-17 December 2004

9.3.4 Key Construction Parameter Assumptions

Detailed final design and construction plans for the proposed RAV Project will be developed once a Concessionaire has been selected. The socio-economic/socio-community assessment was carried out in reference to the following assumptions regarding baseline construction parameters, identified in reports prepared by various RAV Project engineering consultants and during discussions with representatives of RAVCo (RAVCo, pers. comm. 2003):

• The twin tunnels through downtown and across False Creek through to

Cambie Street will be constructed using tunnel boring machines. • The tunnel boring machines may also be used along Cambie Street

between False Creek and 37th Avenue. In that case, the main work sites for launching the tunnel boring machines would likely be just south of False Creek near the Cambie Street Bridge and bored tunnel exit portals would be at 37th Avenue and Cordova Street (for the downtown section).

• A potential False Creek work site has been identified at the City of

Vancouver work yard located at 2nd Avenue and Cambie Street. That work site may have a slurry separation plant including hydro-cyclones, clarifiers, centrifuges, etc.

• Stations will be built using cut-and-cover techniques rather than

underground mining techniques.

• Cut-and-cover techniques will also likely be used for the underground portion of the line between 37th Avenue and 49th Avenue, and may be used along Cambie Street between 2nd Avenue and 37th Avenue, and between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive.

• The route has been chosen with consideration of major utility corridors

(i.e., gas, electricity, water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines). The Concessionaire will be required to consider potential utility conflicts. This assessment assumes that resolution of utility conflicts will not result in any significant service disruptions. In general, tunnel boring should avoid utility conflicts; excavations, including stations, cut-and-cover tunnel and


December 2004 9-18

trench, are more likely to entail utility conflicts; and at-grade and elevated systems are likely to pose fewer utility conflicts than excavations but more than tunnel boring (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002.; RAVCo, pers. comm. 2003). Cut-and-cover tunnelling under the northbound lanes of Cambie Street would likely be less disruptive to utility service than cut-and-cover tunnelling under the Cambie Street median or under the southbound traffic lanes.

• Significant volumes of dirt/spoils will be produced through the building of

tunnels and underground stations. If the entire Vancouver portion of the line were to be built underground, approximately 2.8 million m3 would be excavated (Sandwell et al. 2003). It is estimated that approximately 1.8 million m3 of this spoil may be disposed of at the False Creek site (equivalent to approximately 300,000 truckloads, assuming 6 m3 per truckload). Should the underground tunnels stop at 49th Avenue, then one might expect another 0.5 million m3 of spoil to be trucked to a site near SW Marine Drive (equivalent to approximately 83,000 truckloads). The remainder of the line between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive could generate up to another 0.5 million m3 of spoils, depending on the chosen vertical alignment.

• At present, the options for spoil disposal include ocean disposal, landfill

disposal and re-use as fill in a construction application. Assuming no suitable land-based alternatives exist for spoils disposal, it is expected that truck traffic for the removal of this material will travel from the work site at Cambie Street and 2nd Avenue to a barge facility on False Creek, thereby limiting truck traffic along major Vancouver routes.

• On average, construction of each underground station will require about

100 days for excavation and 545 days for structure completion (Sandwell et al. 2002). Traffic and noise disruption at each site will be greatest during the excavation phase, with only minimal disruption once the excavation is complete.

• No impacts on nearby buildings are anticipated in association with tunnel

construction. The downtown corridor is near and, in a few cases, beneath some commercial and retail buildings. A report prepared by Sandwell et al. (2002) notes that there is “ample precedence for carrying out


9-19 December 2004

tunnelling beneath similar structures” and that it is expected that tunnelling can be carried out without inducing unacceptable vibration (Sandwell et al. 2002).

• The crossing of the North Arm of the Fraser River will involve building an

approximately 1.5 km long elevated guideway, including the bridge structure. This structure will be the fifth major crossing in the area, the others being the Arthur Laing Bridge, Oak Street Bridge, CP Rail Bridge and Knight Street Bridge. Construction will take approximately 18 months (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002). The length of the main bridge section is expected to be approximately 445 m, with possible span arrangements of varying length. The height clearance will be the same as the Oak Street Bridge and will allow passage of all forms of commercial shipping that currently use the North Arm of the river (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002).

• The construction of the North Arm crossing will require a nearby

construction site. There are various industrial sites nearby, including the Western Forest Products/ Doman sawmill site and sites on Mitchell Island that may serve as a construction site for the bridge.

• The crossing of the Middle Arm of the Fraser River will involve

construction of a bridge upstream of the recently completed Moray Channel and Airport Connector bridges. The construction of the bridge should be able to proceed without significant disruptions to existing river traffic (IBI Group et al. 2002).

• The RAV Project also requires the construction of an Operations and

Maintenance Centre (OMC). • Traffic management plans will be required on and adjacent to public

roads. It is likely that the municipalities will require construction plans that address the noise by-laws of the City of Vancouver and the City of Richmond, although variances may be granted by the municipalities where appropriate and warranted.


December 2004 9-20

9.4 Community Context of the RAV Project

9.4.1 Consistency of RAV Project with Long-Term Community Plans

Long-term planning visions for the areas containing the proposed RAV corridor are expressed through the GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) (1996), the City of Richmond Official Community Plan (OCP) (1999), the City of Vancouver CityPlan (1995) and the VIAA Master Plan (1996). Each of these plans envisions a rapid transit corridor that is generally consistent with the currently planned RAV horizontal alignment.

9.4.1.1 Greater Vancouver Regional District Livable Region

Strategic Plan

The GVRD is a partnership of 21 municipalities and one electoral area in the lower Fraser Valley. The GVRD is mandated by Part 25 of the BC Municipal Act to develop and implement a regional strategic plan to protect the quality of life in the region, and deliver services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The LRSP, adopted by the GVRD Board of Directors and deemed to be a regional growth strategy by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1996, builds on earlier regional plans and expresses a broad vision of regional growth management for the member municipalities. Four fundamental and interdependent strategies drive the LRSP’s approach to growth management in the region: protect the green zone, build complete communities, achieve a compact metropolitan region and increase transportation choice. The LRSP outlines several transportation choice policies including:

“16.1 to plan and implement a transit-oriented and automobile-restrained transportation system for the region based on intermediate capacity transit facilities (including light rail transit, SkyTrain and high-capacity busways) within identified corridors” (GVRD 1999).

The LRSP’s Regional Transit System map illustrates the identified conceptual corridors for intermediate capacity transit systems, including a conceptual route from downtown Vancouver to Richmond that roughly coincides with the


9-21 December 2004

proposed RAV line route. Also illustrated is a bus lane connecting the Airport and Sea Island to the Vancouver/Richmond intermediate capacity transit corridor (GVRD 1999).

”…16.6 to plan and implement transportation services and facilities with priority given to areas identified for above-trend population and employment growth” (GVRD 1999).

While Richmond and Sea Island are not within the “Growth Concentration Area” defined in the LRSP, population and/or employment growth in those areas have been above average for the GVRD region since the LRSP was adopted. 9.4.1.2 City of Vancouver CityPlan

The Vancouver Charter empowers Vancouver City Council to create and enforce development plans and zoning bylaws by which to plan and manage the growth and development of the city. The current expression of the broad development vision for the city is CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver, approved by City Council in 1995. Major elements of this vision include: neighbourhood centres, neighbourhood housing variety, jobs close to home, priority to transit, walking and biking, and a vibrant central area. CityPlan aims to reduce dependency on automobiles, concentrate major office employment in the downtown and central Broadway areas near transit, retain the industrial land base, concentrate neighbourhood change in neighbourhood centres offering a wider variety of housing forms, and continue with generally low-scale buildings outside the central area. There are four more specific City of Vancouver plans that are of particular relevance to the RAV Project, including the Vancouver Transportation Plan (1997), the Downtown Transportation Plan (2002), the Central Area Plan (1991) and the Oakridge Langara Policy Statement (1995). The Vancouver Transportation Plan and the Downtown Transportation Plan include the basic policies that overall road capacity into downtown will not be increased above the present level, that increases in peak period trips to downtown will be accommodated by transit, and that light rail transit will be


December 2004 9-22

established in high density corridors such as Broadway and a north-south route to downtown. The Central Area Plan was adopted by City Council in 1991, and is referred to, reinforced, and added to by CityPlan. The vision for the Central Area is for two major office districts: the downtown central business district, and the “uptown” medical-civic district on Broadway between Cambie Street and Oak Street. By focusing major office development in compact business districts, surrounded by a variety of residential neighbourhoods, the office precincts can be more easily serviced by transit, and a balance of job growth and resident workforce growth can be encouraged. The Oakridge Langara Policy Statement was approved by Council in 1995 and amended in 1998. This document provides very specific direction for accommodating population growth of about 35% over the then existing level, in the area south of 37th Avenue between and including the Cambie Street and Oak Street corridors. It identifies a number of sites that may accommodate population growth through rezoning and redevelopment, and indicates preferred building forms and densities for many of these sites. The Oakridge Langara Policy Statement anticipates a rapid transit line along Cambie Street, and expresses several associated policies including: • “11.1 Ensure that the arterial street system continues to provide flexibility

for the expansion of transit service to and through the study area. • 11.2 In the event of a rapid transit link to Richmond, ensure the routing

and technology takes into account public concern about the potential impacts on the community.

• 11.4 Encourage multi-modal use of any transit bridge across the Fraser River to allow for pedestrian/cyclist access to the banks of the river.

• 11.5 In the event of a rapid transit link to Richmond, evaluate areas around potential station locations to determine whether additional sites should be considered for changes in land use and/or density ” (City of Vancouver 2001).


9-23 December 2004

9.4.1.3 City of Richmond Official Community Plan

Mandated by the BC Municipal Act, the City of Richmond adopted a new Official Community Plan in 1999 that provides a vision for development and growth management to the year 2021 and is consistent with the GVRD LRSP. This vision includes basic elements of the previous 1989 OCP, such as protection of agricultural land, maintenance of a single-family character and direction of urban growth to the Richmond City Centre sub-area. New direction provided by the 1999 OCP includes dramatically improved transit services, more pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets and a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented City Centre emerging as ‘downtown Richmond’. Section 4.2 of the OCP contemplates a Richmond/Sea Island/Vancouver transit corridor for either a fast bus or light rail transit service running down No. 3 Road to the core of the Richmond City Centre area. The OCP designates 13 planning areas in Richmond with separate plans for each area. The RAV corridor runs through two of these planning areas, Bridgeport and City Centre. Within the Bridgeport plan area, the corridor would run through the Van Horne and West Bridgeport sub-areas. The stated plan objective for the Van Horne sub-area is to maintain and enhance the viability of the area for industrial uses (City of Richmond 2002). There is no specific mention of a rapid transit corridor, and although the proposed RAV line would pass through the Van Horne sub-area before crossing the North Arm of the Fraser River, there would be no station located in this sub-area. The West Bridgeport sub-area would be serviced by a major station site accommodating: transfer between the Airport/Vancouver and Richmond/Vancouver lines, transfer between bus services and the RAV line, and a park and ride facility. The Bridgeport Area Plan notes that the West Bridgeport sub-area has substantial redevelopment potential in the near future, and that this potential will be influenced by the VIAA third runway and the rapid transit route and station location (City of Richmond 1999). Planning for this sub-area was postponed until these impacts are known with greater certainty.


December 2004 9-24

Light rail transit linking Richmond City Centre to downtown Vancouver is a key component of the City Centre Area Plan. While a specific route is not mentioned in the City Centre Area Plan, the criteria for selecting a light rail transit alignment include linking key business areas within the City Centre, and conveniently linking local bus, shuttle services and road networks (City of Richmond 1999). The stated primary goal of the City Centre Area Plan is “…to achieve a City Centre for Richmond capable of accommodating a major portion of the city’s population and employment increase over the next two decades, and offering a sustainable combination of social well-being, a strong economy, and a liveable environment” (City of Richmond 1999). Through increased population and employment density in the City Centre, a more pedestrian friendly environment, parking management, and major improvements to transit services, the plan aims to reduce the dependency on automobiles in the functioning of Richmond’s City Centre. The vision for No. 3 Road in the City Centre is to decrease surface parking, bring shops and services closer to the street edge and create a more ‘downtown’ urban environment. With respect to rail transit, the City Centre Area Plan expresses a policy to “…support the use of conventional light rail transit which can operate at grade and complement the high-amenity, pedestrian character of the downtown district” (City of Richmond 1999). 9.4.1.4 Vancouver International Airport Official Master Plan

The Vancouver International Airport Authority assumed the management and operation of the airport from Transport Canada in 1992. The airport is operated under the provisions of a long-term lease with the Government of Canada. The current master plan was adopted in 1996 and approved by the Federal Minister of Transport. The plan provides for substantial growth in air passenger and air cargo traffic, as well as ancillary services, over a 20-year planning horizon on Sea Island. Elements of the master plan of particular relevance to the RAV Project include:


9-25 December 2004

“A central corridor from the Arthur Laing and Moray Channel Bridges is protected for ground access, including a future mass transit corridor. Transportation demand management initiatives will be considered to create incentives to use public transit and to create disincentives to use private automobiles” (VIAA 1996).

9.4.2 Population Trends in the GVRD

The GVRD population (Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area) reached 1,986,965 on May 15th, 2001. Figure 9.5 shows the GVRD population in 1976 and 2001 for selected municipalities. The 1976 data include the City and District of Langley, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, even though they were not part of the GVRD in 1976. The Richmond/Delta area is the third largest conglomeration after Vancouver and Surrey/White Rock. Figure 9.5 highlights the rapid growth of Surrey and White Rock, and the significant growth of the Northeast sector and the Richmond/Delta area between 1976 and 2001. The Langley, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows areas, included with the “Other” municipalities on the graph, have also grown at a fast rate during the same period. Richmond/ Delta grew by 81% between 1976 and 2001, with Richmond growing by 105% and Delta by 50%.

Figure 9.5 Population of Selected GVRD Municipalities, 1976 and

2001

GVRD Popula tion, 1976 and 2001

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

North S

hore

Vancouver

Burnaby/N

.W.

North East

Rich/Delta

Surrey/W

.R.

Other

1976

2001


December 2004 9-26

The regional population grew by 8.5% between 1996 and 2001 and by 14.3% between 1991 and 1996. Surrey grew the most in terms of absolute population growth between 1996 and 2001 (up 43,300 residents), followed by Vancouver (31,700), Richmond (15,500) and Burnaby (14,700) (GVRD 2002). Figure 9.6 shows the population growth rates between 1991 and 2001 for selected GVRD municipalities. Figure 9.6 1991 – 2001 Population Growth Rates for Selected GVRD

Municipalities

GVRD Population Growth (%)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

North S

hore

Vanco

uver

Burnab

y/N.W

.

North E

ast

Richmon

dDelt

a

Surrey

/W.R.

Other

GVRD Ave

rage

1991-96

1996-2001

The GVRD’s LRSP aims to concentrate future employment and population growth in certain areas including Vancouver, Burnaby/New Westminster, Surrey/White Rock and the North East sector. The LRSP does not earmark Richmond as a “growth concentration area” but it is expected that the Richmond population will grow from the 2001 level of 164,345 people to some 212,000 people, an increase of 29%. Richmond’s OCP provides for a capacity of 92,550 households, 212,000 people and employment of 150,000 (City of Richmond 1999).

The LRSP supports higher densities along rapid transit corridors to help encourage higher ridership levels. The 2001 Census data show that the population along the corridor for the Expo Line of the existing SkyTrain system has grown at a faster rate than the average for the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area, resulting in higher population densities along the corridor. The population impacts were greatest within 500 m of the SkyTrain line, increasing by 37% between 1991 and 2001, compared to 31% within


9-27 December 2004

1,000 m of the SkyTrain stations and a 24% increase for the entire region. Figures 9.7 and 9.8 show that, during the same period, population and population density grew at a faster rate in the Vancouver metro core than either the average for the region or the average near SkyTrain stations. Figure 9.7 Percentage Growth in Population Near SkyTrain Expo Line,

1991 to 2001

Percentage Growth in Population

20%17%

20%21%

8%

37%

31%

14%12%14%

24%

46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Within 500 m ofSkyTrain Line

Within 1000 m ofSkyTrain Stations

Vancouver MetroCore

Vancouver CMA

91-96

96-01

91-01

Source: GVRD 2002 Figure 9.8 Population Density Near SkyTrain Expo Line, 1991 to 2001

Population Density (People per Hectare)

25

66

26 24

95

262122

29

79

3230

0102030405060708090

100

Within 500 m ofSkyTrain Line

Within 1000 m ofSkyTrain Stations

Vancouver MetroCore

Vancouver CMA

1991

1996

2001

Source: GVRD 2002


December 2004 9-28

9.4.3 Population near Proposed RAV Corridor

Approximately 107,600 people reside within 1 km of the RAV corridor. This includes: • 28,500 in downtown Vancouver (approximate, based on a review of

population data in the Downtown Transportation Plan); • 51,070 in Vancouver along the Cambie Corridor; • 27,265 in Richmond; and • 750 residents (approximate) on Sea Island, mainly in the small

community of Burkeville in the South East corner of Sea Island. Of the 28,500 people residing in downtown Vancouver within approximately 1 km of the proposed RAV corridor, 44% are in the Central Business District, Downtown South, Yaletown/Roundhouse and Granville Slopes between Burrard and Granville. The other 66% include the populations in the Triangle West/Coal Harbour area, Central Waterfront, Downtown Eastside and False Creek North. The population in many of these areas is forecast to more than double and the City of Vancouver expects that almost 54,000 people will reside there by 2021. This does not take into account the Vancouver downtown population that lives in close proximity to the Burrard Station and the Main Street Station and will gain access to the RAV line through the existing SkyTrain Expo Line. Of the 51,070 people residing in Vancouver along the Cambie Street corridor, 28% reside within 500 m of a proposed station; the remaining 72% reside between 0.5 km and 1 km of a proposed station (see Figure 9.9).


9-29 December 2004

Figure 9.9 Population Within 1 Km of Proposed Cambie Street RAV Stations

Population Within 1 KM of Cambie Street Stations

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,000

Broadway King Edward Oakridge 49 th AvenueStation

Marine Drive

Next 500 m

500 m

Of the 27,265 people residing in Richmond within a 1 km radius of a proposed RAV line station, 38% reside within 500 m of a station while the remaining 62% reside within 0.5 and 1 km of a station (see Figure 9.10).

Figure 9.10 Population Within 1 Km of Proposed Richmond RAV

Stations

Population Within 1 KM of Richmond Stations

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,000

Bridgeport Cambie Alderbridge Westminster RichmondCentre

Next 500 m

500 m


December 2004 9-30

The population data referred to in Sub-section 9.4.3 for downtown Vancouver, City of Vancouver and City of Richmond are presented in Appendix 9-A. 9.4.4 Types of Properties along the Proposed RAV

Corridor

Table 9.4 summarizes the types of properties immediately adjacent to each segment of the proposed rapid transit line:


9-31 December 2004

Table 9.4 Types of Properties Adjacent to the RAV Line

Segments: Approx.

Distance (km) Type of Properties

1 Downtown Vancouver: Cordova to Robson Station

0.8 km Mix of commercial, retail and hotel space, with a preponderance of office buildings with street level retail space.

2a Robson Station to False Creek 1.1 km Mix of commercial, retail and hotel space, with residential high-rise and mid rise buildings.

2b False Creek to Cambie Street and 6th Avenue

0.9 km Mainly residential, high density in False Creek and mainly commercial near 6th Avenue.

3a Cambie Street between 6th Avenue and King Edward

1.9 km Mainly commercial, retail and multi-family apartment unit properties.

3b Cambie Street between King Edward and 37th Avenue

1.4 km Residential: includes some 90 single family dwellings and no commercial or retail properties.

4a Cambie Street between 37th and 49 th

1.2 km The area between 37 th and 49 th includes 48 single family dwellings, mainly between 37 th and 39 th and south of 43rd Avenue, as well as commercial, retail and institutional properties.

4b Cambie Street between 49th and SW Marine Drive

1.9 km The area between 49th and SW Marine Drive includes some 107 single family/duplex units, mainly between 49th and 54th and south of 58th Avenue, as well as four high-rise apartment towers, multi-unit townhouses, a golf course and some institutional buildings. The multi-family units that are adjacent to Cambie Street include 39 townhouse units, four garden apartment units right at 49th Avenue and two high-rise towers each with 84 apartments or approximately five on each floor.


December 2004 9-32

Segments: Approx.

Distance (km) Type of Properties

5 SW Marine Drive to Bridgeport Station

2.0 km The area between SW Marine Drive and Bridgeport Station includes some commercial/retail properties, industrial properties and some institutional buildings. Just south of SW Marine Drive on Cambie Street, there are also ground-oriented multi-family residential developments, including 17 units which are directly adjacent to Cambie Street and are part of larger developments; also, one older style duplex remains.

6 Bridgeport Station to Westminster Highway

3.3 km Mainly industrial between Bridgeport and Cambie; proceeding on No. 3 Road, mainly commercial and retail properties with some complexes also including large residential developments.

7 No. 3 Road between Westminster Highway and Richmond Centre

0.7 km Mainly commercial and retail properties, with some complexes also including large residential developments.

8 & 9

Vancouver International Airport/ Sea Island

4.3 km Mainly industrial/commercial properties relating to airport businesses

Total 19.5 km


9-33 December 2004

There are some 247 single family/ duplex dwelling units along Cambie Street south of King Edward, of which 109 are south of 49th Avenue. Figure 9.11 describes the number of single family and duplex residences along Cambie Street.

Figure 9.11 Approximate Number of Single Family and Duplex Units

Along Cambie Street

Number of Single Family and Duplex Dwellings Along Cambie Street

35 3149

55

17

58

20

20

40

60

80

100

120

King Edward to37th Avenue

37th to 49th 49th to MarineDrive

South of MarineDrive

West

East

Note: For this analysis, each side-by-side duplex is counted as 2 units.

The estimated 247 single family/duplex dwelling units along Cambie Street are all located within 1 km of a station; 195 of these are located within 500 m of a station. Of the 82 single family/duplex dwellings situated more than 500 m from a station, 43 units are located between King Edward and 37th Avenue, while 39 units are between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive. Appendix 9-B provides additional data regarding these residences.

The block-by-block analysis is consistent with the data reported by the City of Vancouver in their analysis of the RAV Project (City of Vancouver 2003b). That report indicates that there are 218 residential properties along Cambie Street between King Edward and SW Marine Drive, but does not differentiate between properties with multiple dwelling units and single family dwellings.


December 2004 9-34

The vast majority of multiple-family dwellings along the proposed rapid transit line are located in segments where the line will likely be underground (i.e., downtown Vancouver and along Cambie Street between False Creek and 49th Avenue). Between 54th and 57th Avenue and between Cambie and Neal Street (just East of Heather Street), Langara Gardens provides 604 rental units on a 21-acre site in a mix of high-rise apartments, garden apartments and townhouses: • Two of the four high-rise towers are adjacent to Cambie Street, each with

84 apartments or approximately five on each floor; and • There are two clusters of ground-oriented multi-family units, which include

a total of eight units adjacent to Cambie Street. Between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive, there are 56 ground-oriented multi-family units located adjacent to Cambie Street. These include: • Eight units, mentioned above, that are part of Langara Gardens; • 17 units on the east side of Cambie Street between 49th Avenue and 54th

Avenue; • 14 units that are between 65thAvenue and SW Marine Drive; and • 17 units south of SW Marine Drive. There is also an apartment building at 49th Avenue and Cambie Street that faces 49th Avenue. Approximately four units of that apartment building are adjacent to Cambie Street. The multi-family dwellings along No. 3 Road in Richmond generally consist of large high-rise towers such as the Three West Centre and the Perla apartment towers on Saba Road, just east of No. 3 Road. 9.4.5 Traffic Along the RAV Corridor

Cambie Street is one of the main north/south arteries in Vancouver. As shown in Figure 9.12, traffic counts in a one-hour period between 8 AM and 9 AM on a weekday in 2001 indicate in excess of 2,500 vehicles at both Cambie Street and Broadway and Cambie Street and 41st Avenue. While


9-35 December 2004

Cambie Street is a major north/south corridor, it has less traffic than Oak Street and Granville Street, which in that same one-hour time period each averaged over 3,000 vehicles. Figure 9.12 Week Day Vehicle Counts between 8 AM and 9 AM for Key

Vancouver Intersections

Week Day Vehicle Counts Between 8 AM and 9 AM

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000

Cambie &Broadw ay

Cambie & 41st Cambie & SWMarine

Oak & 41st Granville & 41st

North South

Source: City of Vancouver, 2002b Traffic Counts, VanMap.

The City of Vancouver Truck Traffic Study shows that truck traffic along Cambie Street accounts for approximately 4% of all traffic. During peak hours, at some of the key intersections along Cambie Street, a truck passes every 35 seconds either northbound or southbound (based on the 41st

Avenue and Cambie Street intersection traffic counts). Truck traffic along Cambie Street seems to be fairly evenly split between heavy trucks and lighter trucks and truck traffic continues fairly evenly throughout the day as shown in Figure 9.13.


December 2004 9-36

Figure 9.13 Week Day Truck Traffic along Cambie Street

Week Day Truck Traffic Between 8 AM and 9 AM

3348

15

27

25

16

1516 7

1314

19

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Cambie & Broadw ay Cambie & 41st Cambie & SW Marine

Heavy - SouthHeavy - NorthLight SouthLight - North

Example of Week Day Truck Traffic at Cambie and 41st Avenue

020406080

100120140

8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10-11AM 11-12 PM 12-1 PM 1-2 PM 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM

Light Trucks Heavy Trucks

Note: Light trucks have two axles with dual rear wheels and heavy trucks have three or more axles. Source: City of Vancouver. 2003a.

In Richmond, the No. 3 Road artery is also one of the busiest north/south streets (see Figure 9.14). The following graphs show the vehicle counts for average week day northbound and southbound traffic between 8 AM and 9 AM, and for between 2 PM and 3 PM for key intersections on No. 3 Road.


9-37 December 2004

Figure 9.14 Average Week Day Vehicle Traffic on No. 3 Road – Morning and Afternoon

No. 3 Road Week Day Vehicle Counts: 2 PM to 3 PM

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Cambie Alderbridge Westminster Park

North South

Note: Includes all northbound and southbound vehicle traffic on No. 3 Road and key intersections. Source: City of Richmond. 2002. Traffic Counts, based on selected days.

No. 3 Road Week Day Vehicle Counts: 8 AM to 9 AM

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Cambie Alderbridge Westminster Park

North South


December 2004 9-38

As shown in Figure 9.14 and Figure 9.15, No. 3 Road traffic volume builds throughout the day. Figure 9.15 Average Week Day Vehicle Traffic on No. 3 Road Between

8 AM and 5 PM

Week Day Vehicle Traffic on No. 3 Road at Westminster Highway

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10-11AM

11-12PM

12-1 PM 1-2 PM 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM

North South

Note: Includes all northbound and southbound vehicle traffic along No. 3 Road at the Westminster Highway intersection. Source: City of Richmond, 2002 Traffic Counts, based on selected days.

9.4.6 Community and Heritage Features Along the

Proposed RAV Corridor

The Cambie Boulevard was identified in the 1929 Bartholomew Plan (City of Vancouver 2003b). It is one of the City of Vancouver’s landscaped boulevards, similar to King Edward Avenue and portions of Boundary Road and SW Marine Drive. The City of Vancouver reports that the Cambie Boulevard features approximately 1,000 shade, ornamental and coniferous trees along the boulevard, including over 50 species of native and imported trees. Ornamental species include: golden elm, giant redwood, Japanese flowering cherries and dogwoods. In 1993, in response to an earlier transit proposal, Vancouver City Council designated the Cambie Street central median between King Edward Avenue and SW Marine Drive as a heritage landscape and named it the “Cambie Heritage Boulevard”. Other community features immediately adjacent to the proposed RAV line


9-39 December 2004

along Cambie Street include: • Queen Elizabeth Park, a 52 hectare (130 acre) park that attracts an

estimated six million visitors a year and features beautiful gardens and panoramic views of Vancouver. The site holds a City of Vancouver drinking water reservoir system, which was undergoing major reconstruction during the period in which this study was conducted.

• The Langara Golf Course, located between 54th and 57th avenues. The proposed RAV line will cross the North Arm and Middle Arm of the Fraser River. At present, the shoreline is primarily industrial along the North Arm with a recreational trail and marinas along the Middle Arm. The riverfront near the proposed Bridgeport Station, at the junction of the North Arm and Middle Arm, is being redeveloped with a new casino. Other future developments in the area will be guided by the Bridgeport Area Plan (City of Richmond 2002) to recognize and enhance the recreational and scenic resource values of the Fraser River.

9.5 Community Attitudes toward the RAV Project

In early 2003, RAVCo commissioned an attitude survey of Lower Mainland residents, including Vancouver and Richmond, and undertook a public consultation process in which approximately 1,500 people participated1. Subsequent to issuing the RAV Project Consultation Summary Report, the RAV Project Office received 457 feedback forms, the comments from which were summarized in a supplementary report. In general, the majority of residents support the line and choice of route. Key findings from each process are listed below and illustrated in Figure 9.16: Attitude Survey (Synovate 2003):

• Support for the project among Lower Mainland residents stands at 79% (50%

support the entire route, 29% support parts of the route).

1 For an update of recent RAV Project public consultation activities, see SECTION 4.1.


December 2004 9-40

• Richmond residents show the strongest support regionally. • Corridor residents show the least support regionally, although seven in ten

still believe that the project should proceed (data not split along the corridor). • Grade-separated options are preferred over “at street level” options.

RAV Community Consultation results (Kirk and Co. 2003a):

• 82% somewhat or strongly agree with the project proceeding at a cost

ranging between $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion (69% strongly agree and 13% somewhat agree).

• 73% of consultation participants support the route in its entirety; an additional 12% support parts of the route for a combined total of 85%.

Figure 9.16 Level of Support for and Opposition to the RAV Project

Level of Support For and Opposition to RAV Project

70% 72% 73%

13%1%

85%

11% 12% 12%19% 16% 15%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Richmond Vancouver Other Total

Support All Support Parts Oppose

Source: Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd., 2003a. The data provided by the Community Consultation Summary Report is not split between corridor residents and non-corridor residents. Local residents are most concerned with the preservation of the Cambie Boulevard, and in particular, implications for the boulevard’s heritage value. Many of the residents along Cambie Street, as well as the Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society, are strongly opposed to any system other than an underground system.


9-41 December 2004

In general, participants in the consultation meetings prefer an underground system (71.1% prefer an underground system to an elevated system, and 82% prefer an underground system to street level systems). Where operating underground is not possible, the participants expressed their preference for an elevated system (see Figure 9.17). Municipality of residence does not seem to be a significant factor in determining attitude toward the project. Figure 9.17 Level of Support for a Street-Level vs. Elevated RAV System

Level of Support For "At Street Level" vs. "Elevated" (Where Underground is Not Possible)

37% 34% 36% 35%

63% 65%64%66%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Richmond Vancouver Other Total

At Street Level Elevated

Note: Based on 638 respondents. Source: Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd., 2003a. Additional information provided in the Supplementary RAV Project Consultation Summary Report (Kirk & Co. 2003b) indicates the following: • 93% of consultation participants support the proposed route in its entirety. • 66% of participants prefer an elevated to street level line if an underground

line is not possible.


December 2004 9-42

9.6 Description and Summary of Impacts for Socio-Economic Indicators

9.6.1 Economic Development

9.6.1.1 Construction Phase Employment

The RAV Project will require five years to construct, from mid 2005 through late 2009. Direct Person Years of employment are estimated at 14,800 under the fully separated alternative, and at 12,800 under the partially separated alternative. Average direct PYs of employment per year of construction will range between 2,500 PYs and 3,000 PYs, depending on the alternative that is chosen. This is shown in more detail in Appendix 9-C. In addition, for every direct PY of employment, there will be spin-off benefits through the purchase of supplies and services (indirect impacts) and the re-spending effects of the direct and indirect employees (induced impacts). Very conservatively, this will generate at least 0.5 PYs of indirect and induced employment for each direct PY of employment. The employment impacts will be significant. However, it is unlikely that a project of this size would result in labour shortages. Approximately 60% or 1,800 direct PYs per annum would be in construction (i.e., civil works, maintenance facility and storage and station construction), which represents 3% of the total construction workforce in the GVRD. (In 2001, the labour force in construction industries in the GVRD was 55,400 people).

9.6.1.2 Operation Phase Employment

Employment during the operation phase will depend on the technology chosen for the system. The existing SkyTrain is an automated light rail system, with unmanned trains, a central operator, and attendants who patrol both trains and stations. For the RAV line, a fully-automated system would also likely require only a central operator, while an at-grade partially separated system would require drivers on each train. TransLink forecasts that the proposed RAV line will result in fewer buses than would be required without a rapid transit system. It estimates that the RAV


9-43 December 2004

line will result in a 17% increase in bus ridership by 2010, instead of a 25% increase if the line does not proceed. By 2021, bus ridership is projected to increase by 35% with the RAV Project, instead of 50% without the project.

9.6.1.3 Impacts on River-Based Activities

As previously described, the proposed line will cross the North Arm of the Fraser River, linking Vancouver to Richmond, and the Middle Arm of the Fraser River, linking Richmond to Sea Island and the Vancouver International Airport. The North Fraser Port Authority is responsible for the administration of marine traffic along the North Fraser River. The North Arm is a commercially important channel to the forest industry with sawmills and industrial sites located on both sides of the river. There is no deep sea shipping in North Fraser Harbour and marine traffic consists primarily of tug boats and barges or tug boats and log booms. Logs and wood manufacturing by-products account for 87% of the inbound cargo (i.e., 14.5 million tonnes) and 46% of the outbound cargo of the North Fraser. The balance consists of aggregates, iron/steel and general cargo (NFPA 2003). Other industrial activities in the North Fraser Harbour include: fuelling operations on Sea Island and the Middle Arm, shipbuilding and repair, and commercial fishing. There are also First Nations food fisheries in certain areas of the North Fraser. The North Fraser is also important to recreational boating. The NFPA reports that there are 1,050 pleasure boat berths at marinas along the Middle Arm. In addition, there are two small boat launching areas, including one at Musqueam Reserve No. 2 and one at McDonald Landing on Sea Island. At the latter site, there are over 5,000 boat launchings per year. ND Lea Consultants Ltd. (2002) identified the following impacts to marine users on behalf of RAVCo: • During low tides, some river users require tug assists. The proposed

crossing will change the float path of regular river users and will likely require additional tug assists.


December 2004 9-44

• The rapid transit bridge will have the same vertical clearance as the Oak Street Bridge. In this reach of the river, high water is at an elevation of 18.3 m at the harbour headlines/ edge of the navigation channel.

• To minimize impacts on marine users, the design of the piers at water level should be coordinated with the logging industry to minimize the potential damage to log booms that may contact the piers. Also, fendering will be required for the piers in the water.

RAVCo is working with the NFPA, Transport Canada and other stakeholders to address and minimize these impacts. Although the nature and extent of the impacts on marine users will depend on pier structure and spacing, the bridges will not infringe on the existing shipping channels. The vertical and horizontal clearances of the bridges will be consistent with existing adjacent bridge structures and will allow all existing marine uses of the river to continue.

9.6.1.4 Impacts on Other Industries

The Vancouver International Airport Authority is a project partner and has committed funding to pay for the Sea Island portion of the line. Rapid transit between Vancouver, the airport and Richmond is a key component to the growth of the airport. An efficient transit link will improve transportation options for the approximately 26,000 employees who work at the airport and will support the continued growth in passenger traffic. The RAV line will also generate productivity gains which might enhance economic growth. As part of the 2001 Multiple Accounts Evaluation commissioned by TransLink for the proposed RAV Project, Eric Vance & Associates estimated that for each percentage increase in transit presence, there might be a 0.044% increase in annual regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Eric Vance & Associates 2001). They also estimated that the RAV Project will bring an estimated 4.4% increase in transit presence in the GVRD, bringing the GDP impact to 0.19% of GDP. As the GDP for the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area is estimated at $58 billion dollars (market prices, constant 1992 dollars), even a small increase in GDP yields significant benefits (Eric Vance & Associates 2001). A large part of the increase in GDP that may be attributed to the RAV line will


9-45 December 2004

result from time savings to transit users and to drivers along the corridor who will benefit from reduced traffic congestion. 9.6.2 Time Savings and Other Benefits to Riders

9.6.2.1 Time Savings

In 2001, TSi Consultants conducted an extensive analysis of user benefits related to time savings associated with a rapid transit line (TSi Consultants 2001). The study estimates the time savings benefits that would accrue to RAV riders as well as road users. Major assumptions underlying this analysis are shown in Table 9.5, along with the key parameters for the RAV Project.


December 2004 9-46

Table 9.5 Time Savings Estimates Associated with the RAV Project Assumptions Made by TSi

Consultants Parameters for RAV Rapid Transit

Project Travel Time: • 98 B-Line: Waterfront to

Richmond Centre • 43 minutes • Observed time ranges between 42 and 58

minutes depending on traffic2 Time Savings Estimates: • Rapid Transit System: from

Waterfront Station to the Airport and Richmond Centre

• Grade-Separated (GS): 22 minutes to the Airport/ Richmond Centre (i.e., 21 minute improvement from B-Line)

• At-Grade (AG): 31 minutes to the Airport & 36 minutes to Richmond Centre ( i.e., improvement of 7 minutes from B-Line)

• RAV Line Performance standards: − 25 minutes to the Airport − 30 minutes to Richmond Centre − Represents improvement ranging

between 12 minutes (assuming trip takes 42 minutes) and 28 minutes (assuming trip takes 58 minutes) for B-Line

Annual Ridership/ Boardings: • By 2010 • GS: 32.9 million riders • Ranges between 26 and 38 million

boardings • By 2021 • GS: 42.4 million riders • Ranges between 31 and 45 million

boardings Value of Time: • $14 per hour for transit riders and

automobile drivers, • $36 per hour for light trucks and $45

per hour for heavy trucks.

2 Richmond•Airport•Vancouver (RAV) Rapid Transit. 2003. (p. 34).


9-47 December 2004

The TSi study highlights the importance of the choice of technologies on the overall value of the rapid transit system. The time savings for the RAV line will depend on a variety of factors, including the configuration and technology chosen for the system, but the current RAV line concept is within the range of assumptions used in the TSi study. The TSi results can therefore be used to assess, on a very preliminary basis, the potential range in time savings, and what those time savings might be worth. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 9.18.

Figure 9.18 2001 Estimated Values of Time Savings Associated with

the RAV Project

Annual Value of Time Savings from 2001 Study of Possible Rapid Transit Line ($ millions)

020406080

100120

Partial GS -2010

Partial GS -2021

Full GS -2010

Full GS -2021

TrucksAutomobilesTransit

Notes: The 2001 estimates are based on various assumptions regarding travel times, number of riders and time value of money. While these assumptions are within the range of possibilities for the proposed RAV Project, factors such as the choice of technologies will affect the time savings that will ultimately be achieved. Source: Prepared by Pierce Lefebvre Consulting based on data from TSi Consultants 2001.

The value of time savings is significant, ranging from $35 Million to $100 Million per year by the year 2021, before accounting for inflation. Approximately 60% of the time savings accrue to transit riders and 40% accrue to motor vehicle users. The TSi analysis takes into account the distributional changes in travel behaviour that may arise as it becomes easier to travel between Richmond and Vancouver.


December 2004 9-48

ND Lea Consultants Ltd. (2003a) assessed the difference between travel times through South Vancouver for various technology alternatives. An at-grade system will involve longer travel times than a fully separated system due to the requirement for interactions between the rapid transit vehicles and other types of traffic. Key assumptions include: • travel speeds: 80 km/h for fully separated underground system and 50

km/h for an at-grade system; and • signal delays: traffic signals at 41st, 49th, 57th and 59th avenues with either

no signal delay (dynamic system, train-controlled) or a 145 second delay. The ND Lea Consultants Ltd. (2003a) findings are shown in Table 9.6. Table 9.6 Travel Time between King Edward and SW Marine Drive -

At-Grade System

Fully Separated

to:

No Signal Delay

% Difference from 5.75 Minutes

145 Second Signal Delay

% Difference from 5.75 Minutes

25th 480 seconds (8.0 minutes)

+39% 625 seconds (10.4 minutes)

+81%

37 th 430 seconds (7.2 minutes)


+53%

49th 390 seconds (6.5 minutes)


+23%

SW Marine Drive

345 seconds (5.75 minutes)

0% 345 seconds (5.75 minutes)

0%

Source: ND LEA Consultants Ltd. 2003a.

Based on this study and compared to a fully separated system, an at-grade system between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive would add 45 seconds to that portion of the trip, assuming no signal delays, and would add 80 seconds with signal delays. Moreover, an at-grade system between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive would result in a 13% increase in time required to travel along the King Edward to SW Marine Drive portion of the line, assuming no signal delays, and a 23% increase in time with signal delays.


9-49 December 2004

The time savings associated with less traffic congestion and better transit is the main benefit expected from the rapid transit line between downtown Vancouver and the City of Richmond. The magnitude of the time savings will depend on various system-related factors that have not yet been determined, including whether the line will be fully or partially separated from traffic. The time savings also depend on the degree of traffic congestion that will develop in the future without any rapid transit system, and the ability of the RAV line to attract new riders.

9.6.3 Traffic and Safety

9.6.3.1 Construction Phase

Construction of the RAV line will likely lead to a temporary increase in road congestion, however, alternate routes exist for most types of vehicle traffic. Certain existing bus routes, including some of the Granville Mall bus routes, may need to be temporarily re-routed during the construction period. Significant spoil volumes will be produced during bored tunnel construction and the excavation of cut-and-cover tunnels and underground stations. The proposed removal of some spoil volumes from the 2nd Avenue and Cambie Street work site to a barge site in the False Creek area for ocean disposal would minimize excavation-related truck traffic. It is expected that ocean disposal of tunnel spoils may be selected if suitable land-based options are unavailable. Traffic impacts associated with construction in Richmond will be significant along No. 3 Road, particularly south of Cambie Road, where the street is particularly congested. Also, the 98 B-Line may need to be temporarily re-routed during construction, resulting in some traffic disruption on the alternative route. Construction of the proposed RAV line will temporarily disrupt traffic in parts of both Vancouver and Richmond. Implementation of traffic management plans will control the movement of construction-related traffic and help to minimize these impacts. Construction-related traffic, noise, and dust impacts will be addressed by the Concessionaire in construction and traffic management plans that will be developed in consultation with the City of


December 2004 9-50

Vancouver and the City of Richmond.

9.6.3.2 Operation Phase

The growing traffic volume and road congestion along the Richmond/Vancouver corridor is a key regional growth issue that will be addressed by the RAV line. As noted earlier, approximately 500,000 people travel daily between downtown Vancouver, central Richmond and the Airport along the Vancouver corridor that is defined as Main, Cambie, Oak and Granville streets. Vancouver’s population is expected to grow by 18.8% by 2021 and the City of Richmond’s population is expected to grow by 22% (TransLink 2002b). Congestion has increased significantly since 1988, with travel time in the Vancouver corridor increasing by 20% to 60% (TransLink RAV Rapid Transit Project 2003b). The Arthur Laing, Oak Street and Knight Street bridges across the North Arm of the Fraser River between Richmond and Vancouver are at or above capacity during peak hours and are near capacity throughout the day (RAV Rapid Transit 2003). Total vehicle traffic over these bridges has grown by 54% over the last 15 years, an annual compounded rate of 3.1% per year. Average daily crossings of the North Arm (see Figure 9.19) are comparable to the number of vehicle crossings for the Main Arm via the Queensborough, Patullo and Port Mann bridges.


9-51 December 2004

Figure 9.19 Increase in Vehicle Crossings of the North Arm of the Fraser River, 1985 to 1999

Average Daily Vehicle Crossings of the North Arm of Fraser River, 1985 to 1999

020,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000

Arthur Laing Oak Street Knight Street

1985

1996

1999

There are no plans to increase road capacity along the Richmond/Vancouver corridor and the City of Vancouver discourages any increase in north/south automobile traffic capacity through South Vancouver. A rapid transit line offers a transportation alternative to the use of personal vehicles and increased road congestion. The capacity of the proposed RAV line has not been determined, but the performance standards suggest that the capacity delivery will be approximately 5,200 passenger spaces per hour by 2010 and 5,800 passenger spaces per hour by 2021 (RAV Rapid Transit 2003). The RAV rapid transit line is expected to result in 18,000 fewer week day automobile trips in the Richmond/Vancouver corridor (reported in City of Vancouver 2003b). By comparison, approximately 90,000 vehicles cross each of the Oak Street and Arthur Laing bridges on a typical 24-hour week day (RAV Rapid Transit 2003). The main impact of the RAV Project on vehicle traffic, however, is expected to be the reduction in bus traffic along the corridor and parallel routes. TransLink estimates that the main impact of the RAV line on bus service will be to reduce the demand and annual hours of bus service for the express and regional buses as well as the 98 B-Line. There will be 10% fewer hours


December 2004 9-52

of bus service and 39% fewer hours of regional and express bus service than would be the case without the RAV line. The elimination of the 98 B-Line, and a reduction in the demand for express and regional buses along the Richmond/Vancouver corridor, will more than offset the increase in hours for east/west feeder bus service. As identified by the City of Vancouver report on the RAV Project, the decrease in the number of diesel buses in Downtown South will enhance the liveability of that neighbourhood, particularly the increasingly residential streets such as Seymour, Howe and parts of Richards. The RAV line will also improve the liveability of north/south streets carrying suburban traffic consisting of diesel buses and cars. Without RAV, TransLink expects the annual hours of regional, express and 98 B-Line bus services to more than double by the year 2021, from 307,200 hours of bus service in 2002 to over 663,000 hours by 2021. With the RAV line, the increase will be limited to 35%, and most of that increase will be in express and regional bus routes from Richmond to the University of B.C. While the annual hours of bus service for express and regional buses are expected to decline, TransLink estimates that the RAV Project will result in an increase in the number of hours of local bus service in Richmond and Vancouver due to increased demand for transit service relative to the use of personal vehicles. The demand for certain routes within the system will also change as a result of the rapid transit line, with an increase in the demand for east/west transit routes, relative to north/south routes. Figure 9.20 summarizes TransLink’s estimates of bus traffic with and without the RAV Project.


9-53 December 2004

Figure 9.20 Annual Hours of Bus Service With and Without the RAV Line

Annual Hours of Bus Service (millions)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2002 2010 - NoRAV

2010 WithRAV

2021 - NoRAV

2021 - WithRAV

Richmond Local Vancouver Local Express/Regional 98 B Line

9.6.3.3 Safety/Number of Injuries

Rapid transit systems are typically much safer than motor vehicles, while fully separated systems such as the existing SkyTrain offer the greatest degree of safety to its passengers and others travelling along the same routes. A US study of public safety on light rail systems reported that use of motor vehicles was associated with fatality rates of 1.44 per 100 million passenger miles, compared to 0.73 for heavy rail systems and 0.27 for light rail systems (City of Seattle 1999). Other data from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation show that of the 295 fatalities associated with transit accidents in 2000, some 30% resulted from buses, 30% from commuter rail, 30% from heavy rail systems and 10% from light rail systems; van pools and automated guideways accounted for no fatalities (U.S. Bureau of Transportation 2002). Safety is definitely a concern with partially separated systems as a result of interactions between the light rail system, pedestrians and motor vehicles. There are many studies that investigate ways to improve the safety of transit users, pedestrians and vehicle traffic surrounding light rail transit on city


December 2004 9-54

streets. Accidents may occur for a variety of reasons including: • system design failure such as malfunctioning of traffic signals and

motorists queuing across light rapid transit tracks; • failure to observe signs and warning devices (e.g., motorists going around

gates; pedestrians and bicyclists not obeying signs and automatic gate mechanisms); and

• failure to understand traffic signal and routing (e.g., motorists may be confused with the traffic signals, particularly tourists or motorists not accustomed to the area).

In summary, mass transit systems are typically much safer than automobile traffic.

A fully separated system such as SkyTrain is one of the safest types of transit systems. A partially separated system would not be as safe but would still be much safer than motor vehicle traffic. Ultimately, the safety of a partially separated system will depend on the design features of that system and enforcement measures to prevent risky behaviour on the part of motorists and pedestrians.

9.6.4 Visual, Noise and Vibration Impacts

9.6.4.1 Visual Impacts

There are three main indicators associated with visual impacts for residences (Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. 1998): Privacy: Defined as visual intrusion into residences along the transit corridor; mainly results from elevated systems; in general, residences within 30 m (~100 feet) on either side of the alignment may be affected. Overshadowing: An elevated guideway or station may block the sunlight from reaching residences, businesses or public open spaces; in general, residences, businesses or public open spaces within a 45 degree shadow angle of the guideway or station may be affected (i.e., a 12 m high guideway may cast a shadow 12 m away from the guideway).


9-55 December 2004

View Obstruction: An elevated guideway or station may obstruct the views of residences and businesses along the line. These visual impacts may also be important to commercial properties including hotels, retail shops, industrial operations and office buildings. In addition, elevated guideways may reduce the visibility and exposure of a business, reducing the attractiveness of a particular location for retail or industrial uses. Downtown Vancouver Since the downtown portion of the RAV line will be entirely underground, it will not result in visual impacts at street level. Residences Along Cambie Street The proposed RAV Project will be underground to at least 37th Avenue, and most likely through to 49th Avenue. As a result, it is assumed there will be no visual impacts associated with the line in those segments. Should the line continue underground through the South Cambie area towards SW Marine Drive, there would be no visual impacts associated with underground portions of the line in that segment. Based on aerial photographs and site visits, there are 48 single family/duplex residences between 37th Avenue and 49th Avenue and 107 residences between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive along Cambie Street, many of which are side-by-side duplexes. Also between 49th and SW Marine Drive, there are 39 ground-oriented multi-family units, including 17 units on the east side of Cambie Street between 49th and 54th Avenues, eight units as part of Langara Gardens, and another 14 units south of 65th Avenue. The residences between 49th and SW Marine Drive are located approximately 30 m from the centre of Cambie Street. In that neighbourhood, Cambie Street ranges in width from 30 to 40 m and the setbacks of the houses from the front property line add the difference. Assuming that the transit line is not underground and goes along the median, these residences will be within 30 m of the line, but they will be at least some 25 m away from the line and should not suffer from any significant loss of privacy.


December 2004 9-56

An aboveground RAV line would face the front yards of the properties along Cambie Street, a situation that is less intrusive than if the line was located adjacent to the backyards of those properties. This is in contrast to the SkyTrain Expo Line where the elevated guideway sometimes overlooks the backyards of residential properties lining the corridor. In addition to the single family/duplex residences, there are a few apartments and other multi-unit housing complexes along Cambie Street. These include apartment buildings near 41st Avenue, townhouses between 45th Avenue and 46th Avenue and between 50th Avenue and 54th Avenue on the east side of Cambie Street, an apartment building between 45th Avenue and 46th Avenue on the west side of Cambie Street, and two of the four apartment towers of Langara Gardens at 54th Avenue and Cambie Street. Although Cambie Street ranges in width from 30 to 40 m, these townhouses and apartment buildings often have narrower setbacks from the street than do the single family residences. As a result, these units may be situated between 20 and 30 m from the centre of Cambie Street. If the RAV line remains underground to 49th Avenue, the multi-family dwellings and apartment buildings north of 49th Avenue should experience no significant visual impacts. Although residents of the townhouses on the east side of Cambie Street between 50th and 54th avenues would be more likely to experience visual impacts from an above ground transit line, these dwellings are screened from Cambie Street by fences, hedges and trees. The two Langara Garden apartment towers that are adjacent to Cambie Street at 54th

Avenue are high-rise towers with no ground level suites. The towers rise from a plaza level which is located well above Cambie Street. Between 39th and 45th Avenues along Cambie Street, there are various commercial and retail properties as well as a few institutional buildings and places of worship. Since some of these buildings have very little setback, they are often within approximately 20 m of the centre of Cambie Street. Privacy is not a major concern in this area, however, due to the commercial and retail nature of the property use. Cambie Street narrows south of SW Marine Drive and, consequently, the proposed RAV line may result in visual impacts on the 17 ground-oriented multi-family units and one side-by-side duplex located on the west side of the


9-57 December 2004

street. The viewscape of the multi-family units is already screened somewhat along Cambie Street by fences, hedges and trees, however, and the currently proposed alignment places the elevated line and station on the east side of the street at this point, using a portion of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) claim centre property. This will somewhat reduce the potential visual impacts on those properties. Richmond The industrial/retail/ office properties at the north end of No. 3 Road, north of Bridgeport Road, may be most affected by an elevated guideway, as No. 3 Road narrows considerably and the line may have to run close to or across private property at some points. Properties adjacent to No. 3 Road between Bridgeport Road and Westminster Highway support commercial and retail businesses. Most of these businesses are set well back with surface parking immediately adjacent to No. 3 Road, and will therefore not be affected by the presence of either an elevated guideway or an at-grade system. Between Westminster Highway and the end of the proposed RAV line at Park Road, No. 3 Road narrows and some buildings are sited relatively close to the front property line. An elevated guideway in this area may have negative visibility and exposure impacts on some properties and businesses. Along No. 3 Road, residential properties are high-rise units that should not incur any significant visual impacts from the RAV rapid transit line.

9.6.4.2 Noise and Vibration During Construction

This section presents a general discussion of potential noise impacts during construction. BKL Consultants Ltd. has completed a noise assessment of the RAV Project, as presented in SECTION 12. The BKL noise assessment should be referred to for the verification of technical noise information as well as a description of potential impacts during construction and operation of the RAV line. Residents along the RAV corridor, particularly those who live near the proposed station locations, will likely be most affected by construction.


December 2004 9-58

During construction, contractors will be required to comply with the City of Vancouver and City of Richmond noise by-laws. Bored tunnel construction is not likely to result in any noise or vibration impacts on properties adjacent to the RAV line (Sandwell et al. 2002). For the purposes of impact assessment, the tunnel portal areas have been tentatively set at Cambie and 2nd Avenue and at 37th Avenue and Cambie Street, near Queen Elizabeth Park. Noise related to construction will likely be most pronounced at the main work site at 2nd Avenue and Cambie Street, near the underground stations, at Queen Elizabeth Park near the work site, and along excavated portions of the line. The 2nd Avenue and Cambie Street work site may have a slurry separation plant including hydro-cyclones, clarifiers, centrifuges, etc. Measures may be required to limit noise impacts on the medium to high density residential area located just west of the Cambie Street Bridge. Residential areas near proposed stations and excavated portions of the line will be temporarily affected by construction noise during excavation. Most apartments in the high density residential area near Oakridge are set back away from Cambie Street. The 18th Avenue to King Edward Avenue portion of Cambie Street has several three storey apartment buildings adjacent to Cambie Street and residents of these apartments may be temporarily affected during construction. The construction schedule suggests that excavation of each station will require approximately 100 days. After the structure for the station is established, the rest of station construction should be able to continue with minimal temporary and sporadic disruptions to local residents. Cut-and-cover portions of the line are expected to require three to six months for each segment for excavation, tunnel shell construction and backfill. Hotels near underground stations and immediately adjacent to the line, including those in downtown Vancouver, near the waterfront, and those close to the proposed Davie Station, may be affected by temporary and sporadic noise impacts. Short-term noise impacts may also be experienced at the hotels along No. 3 Road and near the Bridgeport Station site.


9-59 December 2004

9.6.4.3 Noise During Operation

Noise comparisons for different transportation activities have been established for various other projects. In general, conventional light rapid transit is noisier than a SkyTrain-type system or trolley buses, but is less noisy than semi-trailer trucks or large vans. Table 9.7 compares maximum (1 second) passby noise levels for different transportation activities. Table 9.7 Summary of Maximum (1 Second) Passby Noise Levels by

Transportation Activities Measured at 15 m

Event Description Range of Levels Measured (A-Weighted decibels (dBA))

Noisy van 86 Street motorcycle 75.5 Semi-trailer trucks 75-80 Aircraft (flying overhead) 69-85 Conventional LRT 72-80 Large trucks 71-78 Diesel/natural gas bus 70-78 Trolley bus 69-73 SkyTrain 65-73.5 Small motorcycle 67 General busy auto traffic 66-70 Individual automobiles 63-68.5

Notes: • The conventional LRT is based on data provided for the Calgary, Edmonton and

Portland systems. • Sound levels are measured in decibels (dB); a frequency weighting is applied to

the decibel levels to recognize the variation in frequency sensitivity of human hearing with the resulting sound level measurement to be said to be “A-weighted” or dBA.

Source: BKL Consultants Ltd., A Comparison of Single Event SkyTrain Noise Levels to Noise from Other Transportation Sources, 1991; as reproduced in: BKL Consultants Ltd. 1998.

The 1998 BKL noise study is primarily concerned with noise levels associated with SkyTrain. It does point out, however, that “elevated or depressed guideways have less noise impacts than at-grade guideways”, a factor that may need to be considered when assessing the trade-offs of the various


December 2004 9-60

technologies. Moreover, a guideway very close to a high-rise or to elevated houses with a view overlooking the guideway may result in some negative noise impacts. This is because noise levels increase with elevation such that when an observer is level with or above the guideway, the measured passbys are from 2 to 3 dBA higher (BKL Consultants Ltd. 1998). The 1991 BKL study notes that, in the case of SkyTrain, noise arises from three sources: • acceleration and primary braking when entering and leaving stations, an

issue which arises only in the station areas; • wheel/rail contact travelling between stations (i.e., the noise heard when

trains pass); and • the noise of rail cars passing over switches, an issue which is localized to

specific areas. The 1998 BKL study conducted noise assessments for 25 sites along the Broadway-Lougheed and New Westminster route. For most of these sites, the noise impacts were insignificant or modest, however, the noise impacts were deemed sufficient to recommend guideway noise barriers at three of the sites. According to the same study, guideway noise barriers reduce SkyTrain noise by an average of 5 dBA. A review of traffic counts for Cambie Street relative to other north/south corridors in the Lower Mainland shows that during peak hours at some of the key intersections along Cambie, a truck passes every 35 seconds travelling either north- or southbound (based on 41st Avenue and Cambie Street). Moreover, truck traffic along Cambie Street continues fairly steadily throughout the day. By comparison, performance standards along Cambie Street indicate that the train frequency will likely range from one rapid transit train every 2.5 minutes during peak periods (or one every five minutes each way), to one every five minutes in the quiet hours of the early morning or late night (i.e., one every 10 minutes each way). Peak periods are expected to be from 7 AM to 9 AM, and from 3 PM and 6 PM, Monday to Friday.


9-61 December 2004

There should be no noise impacts associated with the underground portion of the RAV line. If portions of the line are in a trench or above grade, however, the choice of transit system technologies will influence the associated noise level. A conventional LRT system would likely be the noisiest option, with noise levels ranging from 72 dBA to 80 dBA, or approximately the same as a large truck. A system using a technology similar to SkyTrain would likely be less noisy than a truck at between 65 dBA and 73.5 dBA, or about the same as a trolley bus. In general, a system on an elevated guideway or in a trench would likely have fewer noise impacts than an at-grade system. Observers that are at levels above the elevated guideway, however, may be exposed to noise levels that are 2 to 3 dBA higher because noise levels increase with elevation up to the level of the guideway. As previously described (see SECTION 9.4.5) Cambie Street is a main north/south transportation route in Vancouver and traffic levels are already very significant, particularly between 41st Avenue and SW Marine Drive. Adding a rapid transit line will only minimally increase the level of noise, particularly if the chosen technology offers noise levels that are comparable to the existing SkyTrain system. Any increase in noise created by the RAV line may be offset by localized reductions in diesel bus traffic. Since the number of express and regional diesel buses is forecast to decrease by 39% as a result of the project, noise levels experienced by residents along routes parallel to the RAV line may actually be reduced. Noise impacts associated with the system may be more noticeable on Cambie Street south of SW Marine Drive where the street narrows and existing traffic volumes are lower. Since No. 3 Road in Richmond is primarily a commercial and retail area, even the noise of an at-grade rapid transit system would not likely have a significant negative impact on existing property users. Exceptions may occur between Westminster Highway and Richmond Centre, and north of Bridgeport Road, where No. 3 Road is narrower and some of the properties have little or no setback from the street.


December 2004 9-62

9.6.5 Property Value Impacts

Extensive information is available regarding the impacts of rapid transit lines on property uses and values (see references in Harris Hudema 1998). Much of the research has focused on examples from other North American cities that may or may not have characteristics that are sufficiently similar to Greater Vancouver to warrant comparison. Local research and experience that may be applicable to the RAV Project has expanded with the development of the Expo Line in 1986, and the Millennium Line, completed in 2002. Some general observations from this research include: • rapid transit lines tend to have major influences on development patterns

over long periods of time, but not necessarily in the short term; • rapid transit lines tend to reinforce existing market influences in the short

term, rather than creating demand for property uses where none previously existed;

• the benefits conferred and costs imposed on property owners through proximity to rapid transit lines and stations vary substantially across property uses (residential, office, retail, industrial) and according to the overall context of any given property; and

• maximizing the potential benefits and limiting the potential costs to property users of proximity to rapid transit lines and stations requires the coordinated effort of transit system developers, municipal governments and property owners/developers.

Throughout this analysis, the term ‘property value’ refers to market value, which is driven by the ‘highest and best use’ of a property. This may be different than the use and enjoyment value of a property to its owner. 9.6.5.1 Residential Properties

A rapid transit line can be expected to reinforce any residential development pressure that currently exists or can be foreseen. This can be expressed through changes in property use from industrial, commercial, or institutional to residential, or changes in housing forms, usually involving increased density.


9-63 December 2004

Positive influences (Colliers International 1998; Interwest 2002): • Residential properties benefit most from rapid transit lines when they are

close (i.e., within 10 to15 minute walking distance or a three to five block radius), but not too close (i.e., immediately adjacent or incorporated into), transit stations.

• The benefits of proximity to a rapid transit station may support development cost charges of up to $10,000 per unit for multi-family developments within 1 km of a station.

• Residential property values near stations increase by about 10%, and residential rents for station-oriented apartments increase by 15% to 40%.

Negative influences: • Traffic and pedestrian congestion at station sites • Loss of privacy • Neighbourhood parking congestion due to the use of the area by park-

and-ride commuters • Security risks of transient pedestrians • Potential noise, vibration and visual impacts of the line and stations Residential properties near an at-grade or elevated rapid transit line, but not near a station, will likely experience net negative impacts from the rapid transit line. Residential properties located close, but not too close, (i.e., within 1 km) of a rapid transit station will likely experience net positive impacts from the rapid transit line. Residential properties located immediately adjacent to rapid transit stations may experience neutral net impacts through a balance of positive and negative influences. Some of these properties may be able to capture more benefits from the rapid transit line by changing use to office or retail. RAV Influences on Residential Properties Positive Influences: • There are approximately 28,500 people residing in downtown Vancouver

who will likely benefit positively from RAV line, excluding those who will be able to access the line via the Burrard Street and Main Street stations along the existing SkyTrain line.

• There are over 51,000 people residing within a 1 km radius of the five stations along the Cambie Street corridor. Of these, 14,352 reside within


December 2004 9-64

a 0.5 km radius. • There are 27,265 people residing within a 1 km radius of the stations in

Richmond and of these, 10,408 people reside within a 0.5 km radius. Negative Influences: • Residential properties along the corridor outside 1 km of station: there are

no properties adjacent to the corridor that will experience the negative impacts of the transit system but that are outside of the lowest positive impact radius (i.e., more than 1 km from a station).

• Residential properties along the corridor outside 0.5 km of station: The city blocks along the Cambie Street corridor which are outside 0.5 km of a station include the blocks between 14th Avenue and 20th Avenue, and between 30th Avenue and 36th Avenue, but for those sections, the line is underground and there will likely not be any negative noise or visual impacts.

• The only blocks that are located further than 0.5 km from a station along the segments of the rapid transit corridor that may not be underground are those between 54th Avenue and 62nd Avenue. These blocks include 39 single family/duplex units, most of which are side-by-side duplexes and so counted as two units. These six blocks also include a golf course, two clusters of townhouse units with eight units adjacent to Cambie Street, two high-rise apartment towers and the George Pearson health care centre.

9.6.5.2 Office Properties

Easy access, usually by automobile, is a key consideration in the location of office premises, whether for business, government, institutions or non-profit agencies. Other key considerations include travel time, and proximity to clients, labour, business services, shopping, restaurants and other amenities. The impacts of rapid transit on properties used, or potentially used, for office space depend to some degree on the relative efficiency of automobile travel in the area or region. Office space users are attracted to locations offering ‘rapid transit’ to various interaction points, either in the form of an efficient road or highway network that is not congested to the point that it is no longer ‘rapid’, or in the form of an efficient mass rapid transit system. To the extent that a public mass rapid


9-65 December 2004

transit system duplicates a private automobile ‘rapid transit’ alternative, it will be less appealing to office space users. To the extent that a city’s roadways and highways are congested and no longer ‘rapid’, a mass rapid transit system is likely to have a greater impact and appeal to office space users. In Greater Vancouver, where the central business district is not serviced by quick access to high-speed highways, there is a greater chance that a rapid transit line may be an important location consideration for office space users. Land values for suburban office developments have shown increases up to 40% near stations, and office rents increase about 10% around stations (Interwest 2002). RAV Influences on Office Properties Positive Influences: • Office space users located within five blocks of a rapid transit line station

will likely experience positive impacts, and the closer they are the more positive will be the impacts.

Negative Influences: • Possible park-and-ride congestion and competition for parking • Potential visual impacts • Potential noise, vibration and security issues Positive property value impacts on office buildings are likely to be greatest along the corridor where the improvement in accessibility and the quantity of office space are greatest. In downtown Vancouver there is a large concentration of office space but these properties already enjoy a substantial value premium due to their accessibility to each other and to outlying areas. While a large number of properties are likely to be positively affected by RAV line operations, the magnitude of the impact will be small for any individual property. The largest proportional improvement in accessibility is likely to be experienced by office properties in Richmond. The number of existing buildings and potential office development sites along the No. 3 Road corridor combine with the likely significant RAV line impact on property value for each property, to make Segments 6 and 7 the most positively affected segments


December 2004 9-66

with respect to office property values. Office concentrations at Broadway and 41st Avenue along the Cambie Street corridor in Vancouver will also benefit from the RAV line, but the impacts on individual properties (i.e., proportional increase in accessibility) are likely to be less significant than in Richmond. Negative impacts on office property values due to RAV line operations are likely to be minimal in most cases, with the greatest impacts occurring where an elevated guideway runs close to office buildings. The most negatively affected segments (Segments 6 and 7 in Richmond) are also assumed to be the most positively affected with respect to office property values. 9.6.5.3 Retail Properties

Location decisions by retailers are probably the most complex of the four major property use types discussed here. Site-specific influences are as important as strategic regional location factors in location selection. Access and exposure to vehicle and/or pedestrian traffic are crucial for successful retail venues and anything that detracts from access or exposure is likely to adversely affect the strength of any particular location. Generally, retailers and retail property owners have shown interest in connecting transit stations to shopping malls and locating certain types of retail shops in transit stations. Commercial property values increase in anticipation of transit stations, and overall increases are significant. Some evidence suggests that shopping centres increase in value by about 10% (Interwest 2002). RAV Influences on Retail Properties Positive Influences: • Enhanced access to the regional population • Enhanced exposure to rapid transit users Negative Influences: • Reduced access due to park-and-ride competition for parking • Reduced access due to station area congestion


9-67 December 2004

• Reduced exposure due to shadowing from transit guideway and station structures

• Potential noise, vibration and security issues The largest positive retail property value impacts are most likely to be experienced by regionally-oriented retailers, or regionally-oriented conglomerations of retailers, who experience the largest proportional gains in accessibility. Large shopping centres along the No. 3 Road corridor in Richmond (Segments 6 and 7) best fit this description. The shopping area at 41st Avenue and Cambie Street should also experience some positive property value influences. Any negative impacts on retail property values are likely to be most strongly felt where the RAV line is most intrusive and retail properties are most plentiful. An elevated guideway system along No. 3 Road in Richmond (i.e., Segment 7, and to a slightly lesser extent, Segment 6) would likely experience the largest negative impact on retail property values. The magnitude of this impact on any given property, however, is not likely to be large.

9.6.5.4 Industrial Properties

Industrial property owners and users are likely to be the least sensitive to the direct positive and negative influences of rapid transit systems, except where property value is enhanced through a change in use and/or zoning, triggered by the presence of a rapid transit station. With the exception of industrial/business park developments with a high proportion of office space, industrial uses tend to require fewer person trips to and from the site per unit of building or land area. They may also be less influenced by noise, vibration and visual aesthetic issues than other uses. RAV Influences on Industrial Properties Positive Influences: • Increased access for patrons and employees • Increased regional access for trucks and other vehicles due to diminished

traffic congestion


December 2004 9-68

Negative Influences • Reduced access due to park-and-ride competition for parking • Reduced access due to station area congestion • Reduced exposure due to shadowing from transit guideway and station

structures The largest positive impacts on industrial properties associated with the RAV line are likely to occur near the SW Marine Drive and Bridgeport stations (Segments 5 and 6) and around the Sea Island stations (Segments 8 and 9). These impacts are not expected to be large for any given property, except where a change in use is triggered by the presence of the transit line. The largest negative impacts may be experienced between the SW Marine Drive Station and the Bridgeport Station, and slightly beyond, where easements or property acquisitions may be required to facilitate the RAV line. There are also properties in this segment where the RAV line is likely to pass very near property boundaries or buildings. 9.6.5.5 Institutional Properties

There are a number of major institutions along the RAV corridor that represent regional destination points for both patrons and employees. These institutions include education facilities, health care facilities, municipal government offices, federal and provincial government offices, and the airport terminals. The RAV line can enhance the efficiency of institution locations by improving access for patrons and employees, thereby increasing the value of properties for institutional use. The transit line can also enhance underlying property values at specific institutional sites by accelerating the demand for other uses of the sites. The largest positive property value impacts for institutions are expected to occur between Broadway and 37th Avenue in Vancouver (Segments 3a and 3b) and at Vancouver International Airport (Segments 8 and 9).


9-69 December 2004

9.6.5.6 RAV Line-Induced Development

The RAV line has the potential to increase the demand for residential, office, retail or institutional space near transit stations. This increased demand may be expressed through acceleration of already planned development, emergence of new development plans using existing land use zoning, or applications for changes in zoning and property use. In addition, there may be potential at some stations to undertake integrated development of adjoining properties with the stations. The degree of increase in the demand for property development near transit stations in any given neighbourhood depends largely on the perceived proportional increase in accessibility provided by the transit system. The extent to which neighbourhoods are able to accommodate RAV line-induced development depends on current municipal land use plans, sites being available for redevelopment, zoned development capacity, and the receptiveness of neighbourhoods and city planners to zoning or land use changes. Using these criteria, the greatest amount of RAV line-induced development is likely to occur between Bridgeport Station and Westminster Station (Segment 6). 9.6.5.7 Railway Right-of-Ways

The RAV line will cross over the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) tracks on both sides of the North Arm of the Fraser River. ND Lea Consultants Ltd. (2002) has provided reference designs for the pier locations for the approach spans for the bridge structure across the North Arm to maintain the required horizontal clearance of 5.5 m from the centreline of the tracks. The reference designs of the approach spans also take into account the minimum vertical clearance of 7.01 m from the top of rail, and 5.5 m for the minimal clearance over streets.

The RAV line may also cross a former Canadian National (CN) right-of-way now owned by the City of Richmond near Bridgeport (IBI Group et al. 2002).


December 2004 9-70

9.6.5.8 Other Land Acquisition and Disposal Issues

Properties and/or easements will likely need to be acquired to facilitate construction of the guideway, stations, and operations and maintenance yard, as well as to provide temporary work sites during the construction phase. On completion of construction, some of these properties may have useful residual portions or interests that are not needed by the RAV line operations and can be sold. The specific alignment within the RAV corridor is not yet sufficiently certain to allow an inventory of the property interests that may need to be acquired or disposed of. Based on existing information regarding the alignment and station locations, as well as likely construction techniques: • Acquisition of properties and easements will likely be required between

the SW Marine Drive Station and the North Arm of the Fraser River in Vancouver, and between the North Arm and the Bridgeport Station area in Richmond for RAV line operations (Segment 5). Property will also be required for an operations and maintenance centre.

• During the construction phase, work sites will be required at 2nd Avenue and Cambie Street near the south end of the Cambie Street Bridge, and on the shore of the North Arm near the proposed transit bridge crossing.

The areas where significant property acquisitions may be required are primarily zoned for industrial uses, and appear to be typically improved with older, lower valued buildings. 9.6.6 Station Impacts Not Considered Elsewhere

9.6.6.1 On-Street Resident Parking

On-street resident parking within a few blocks of a station is sometimes used by non-residents for the purpose of park-and-ride. This is expected to cause the most problems in areas that are dominated by single family housing, such as parts of Cambie Street. In some residential areas near Cambie Street that are located in proximity to major employment centres such as the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of BC, the City of Vancouver already restricts non-resident on-street parking.


9-71 December 2004

Although the RAV line may have a negative impact on resident parking if more transit riders destined for downtown Vancouver choose to park in those areas, this can be mitigated by instituting a “residents only” parking permit system. Conversely, the RAV line may have some positive effect on resident parking as more people who work in those areas begin to use transit rather than driving. 9.6.6.2 Safety and Security

Residents often perceive that the introduction of a transit system in a community increases the incidence of the following types of crime: • offences that do not affect personal safety but may affect personal

enjoyment (e.g., vandalism, panhandling, drunkenness, loud noise and music); and

• offences that constitute more serious crimes (e.g., robberies, assault, property crimes, drug-related offences, terrorism).

In 1999, the Security Resource Group Inc. conducted a detailed study of safety and security issues in neighbourhoods surrounding the SkyTrain (Security Resource Group Inc. 1999). Their findings are summarized below: • Criminal activities tend to occur near downtown cores and along major

road networks, making it difficult to separate the influence of rapid transit from other contributing factors.

• Along the SkyTrain Expo Line, the four downtown areas within 250 m of the stations accounted for 82% of all property crime near the SkyTrain stations. However, the proximity of other attractions such as General Motors Place, BC Place, Robson Street, Pacific Centre Mall, and Gastown, all of which are also within 250 m of the stations, make it difficult to attribute crime to the rapid transit line.

• When reviewing crime surrounding stations outside the downtown core (e.g., at the Broadway Station), property incidents seem to be dispersed evenly throughout the area and cannot be attributed to presence of the SkyTrain station.

• In general, the incidence of crime on and around the SkyTrain is minimal when compared to crime levels in other public spaces.

• The report notes that the type of station may have an impact on the type


December 2004 9-72

of crime in the area. For example, in 1997, the highest number of incidents (i.e., 278) occurred at the Scott Road Station. This station also experienced the highest number of property offences, probably as a result of car thefts at the Scott Road Park-and-Ride facility, which, with over 2,400 parking spaces, is one of the largest parking lots in the GVRD. Since that time, bike patrols have proven to be an effective tool in reducing car theft at the Scott Road Park-and Ride facility. The two stations with the next highest incidences of crime were the Granville Street and Main Street stations, with approximately 200 incidents each per year. The Main Street Station had the highest incidence of “Intoxicated Persons” offences, partly due to its proximity to downtown. Stations in residential areas had comparatively low levels of crimes at approximately 50 incidents per year.

• Crimes at commuter parking lots are of particular concern to transit authorities. Also, the transit stations in close proximity to high schools can pose additional problems related to loitering, graffiti and drug trafficking. Stations in such locations often require additional security measures.

In its 2002 Transportation Plan, TransLink noted that the public perception of security on the SkyTrain Expo Line has been poor and that this acts as a barrier to use for some people (TransLink 2002b). The public perception of security was taken into account during the design of the Millennium Line stations. In March 2003, TransLink commissioned a survey of Millennium Line users; 59% of those surveyed thought that the new stations are “better than the old Expo Line stations on generating a feeling of personal security” (TransLink 2003). A key feature in promoting safety is the provision of better lighting. A 1999 study by the City of Seattle Strategic Planning Office reviewed public safety and security issues on light rail systems. The City of Seattle study notes that various European cities have chosen surface systems rather than underground transit as surface systems are viewed as being more attractive and safer for passengers. For example, in Charleroi in Belgium, a smaller underground tram system has failed to attract as many passengers as the former surface system (City of Seattle 1999). The report notes, however, that the over-automation of the transit systems in Europe may have led to increased crime and programs such as camera surveillance and patrol


9-73 December 2004

personnel, such as those in place on the SkyTrain, have typically succeeded at reducing crime. Safety and security issues may require the adoption of station designs that follow basic CPTED principles. The recently built SkyTrain Millennium Line stations provide good examples of how CPTED principles may be applied to help address safety and security issues associated with rapid transit lines. This includes better lighting, wide open spaces, the use of transparent materials, and good sightlines (Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. 2001). RAVCo expects that CPTED principles will be considered during station design for the RAV line.

Summary of Impacts on Safety and Security Levels Transit systems are public places and as such they may be the subject of safety and security concerns. The proposed RAV Project will be no exception. Safety and security concerns are important to TransLink and other transit system operators as safety perception affects ridership. Therefore, it is in the interest of the operator of the RAV Project to ensure that public perception of safety is high. Based on the general history and knowledge of safety and security issues near the existing SkyTrain, the proposed RAV rapid transit line may have the greatest impact on safety and security near the park-and-ride facilities at the proposed Bridgeport Station in Richmond. In order to prevent automobile-related theft, security patrols similar to those implemented at the Scott Road Station in Surrey may be required. Also, the Scott Road park-and-ride facility is at-grade whereas the proposed Bridgeport facility will likely be an engineered structure that can be designed to incorporate security systems. The RAV transit line is unlikely to cause a noticeable increase in crime in any of the other neighbourhoods along the proposed route. With the SkyTrain Expo Line, most of the crime surrounding rapid transit stations takes place downtown, although this is more likely the result of factors other than just the existence of the transit line.


December 2004 9-74

Outside the downtown core, one would not expect crime to increase as a result of the RAV transit line since crime incidence near the stations along the SkyTrain Expo Line seems to be dispersed evenly along the corridor and cannot be attributed to the presence of SkyTrain stations. RAVCo expects that CPTED principles will be applied, where appropriate, during the design of the RAV stations and that this should help alleviate potential safety and security concerns.

9.7 First Nations

9.7.1 Introduction to First Nations Assessment

Five First Nations have identified Statement of Intent Boundaries that coincide with at least a portion of the proposed corridor of the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project (see SECTION 4.2.2): • Tsawwassen First Nation • Musqueam Indian Band • Tsleil-Waututh Nation • Sto:Lo Nation • Squamish Nation The Katzie Indian Band’s traditional territory extends to just south of the southern terminus of the RAV line. This section provides an overview of the types of impacts that the RAV Project could have on First Nations, describes the approach used to gather First Nations information, and summarizes potential impacts of specific relevance to each First Nation. Discussions with these First Nations are ongoing and RAVCo’s approach to First Nations consultation and communications is described in detail in SECTION 4.2: FIRST NATIONS

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION.


9-75 December 2004

9.7.2 Description of Potential Impacts on First Nations Due to the RAV Project

Impacts from the RAV Project may be generated during the design, construction and/or operation phases of the project. These impacts may be positive (e.g., employment opportunities) or negative (e.g., noise impacts, site disturbances). Potential impacts to First Nations include site impacts (i.e., traditional sites, current sites) and activity impacts (i.e., traditional use, current use). 9.7.2.1 Site Impacts

Traditional sites include archaeological sites, traditional use sites, and other culturally significant sites (e.g., spiritual sites). These sites may be recorded and registered under the Heritage Conservation Act as Archaeological Sites, they may be sites that are known to be of significance through traditional knowledge, or they may be sites that are considered to have high archaeological or heritage potential due to the presence of site features such as location or presence of characteristics similar to other sites of known high archaeological or heritage values (e.g., middens, culturally modified trees, etc.). Current sites are those that are presently used, or are likely to be used in the future, by First Nations to support economic, social or cultural activities. These sites may include Indian Reserves and community use sites such as fishing sites, food and plant gathering areas, etc. In some cases, current use sites may be the same as traditional use sites. 9.7.2.2 Activity Impacts

Traditional use activities include sustenance activities like fishing, hunting, trapping, gathering, and food preparation and cultural activities such as ceremonial events. The occurrence of these activities is often associated with particular sites (e.g., fishing sites) and may be affected by site disturbance or by other disturbances that affect the surrounding environment, such as noise, dust, pollution, decline in plant and animal populations, etc.


December 2004 9-76

Current use activities include all forms of current social, cultural and economic activities that may be affected by the RAV Project. Examples include impacts on employment (i.e., increases or declines), business opportunities and capacity building (e.g., training, education) as well as noise and visual impacts on communities located adjacent to, or in close proximity to, the RAV Project. 9.7.2.3 Methodology

The methodology for gathering information on First Nation impacts included a literature review and interviews with representatives of individual First Nations, where possible. The literature review consisted of a review of the following studies and sources: • existing RAV studies and reports; • Cornerstone Planning media monitor to identify media issues for each

First Nation that may relate to the RAV Project; • BC Treaty Negotiation Office Statement of Intent Boundaries; • First Nation Profiles prepared by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada; and • BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Archaeology and

Registry Services Branch, map of known heritage sites. Interviews with representatives of potentially affected First Nations were arranged, where possible. The process for conducting interviews involved preparing a set of standard interview questions, forwarding the questions to First Nations in advance of the interview, conducting the interview based on the interview questions, preparing a write-up summarizing key comments during the interview, and sending the interview summary to the interviewee for review. 9.7.3 Impacts on First Nations

Based on the literature review and an interview with the Tsawwassen First Nation, a number of broad impacts from the RAV Project may affect First Nation interests.


9-77 December 2004

The Archaeological Branch map of known heritage sites does not show any heritage sites located directly within the RAV corridor. It does, however, reveal the presence of heritage sites in close proximity to the proposed crossing of the Middle Arm of the Fraser River and the terminus of the line at the Vancouver International Airport on Sea Island. In addition, there are three heritage sites on Lulu Island in proximity to the corridor - two to the west along the Middle Arm and one south of the Richmond terminus. Although there are no designated archaeological sites directly within the RAV corridor, this does not mean that there is no archaeological value associated with the route. In general, there is evidence of archaeological potential throughout the RAV area, particularly in proximity to the Fraser River and coastal foreshore areas. Millennia Research Limited has completed an Archaeological Impact Assessment on behalf of RAVCo (see SECTION 13). Wherever there is significant ground disturbance due to excavation or construction activities, there is a risk of disturbing archaeological artifacts. Construction options such as cut-and-cover and trenching are likely to pose greater archaeological risks than tunnelling or ground level and elevated construction. Station construction, particularly where there is a connection with an underground alignment, is also likely to pose archaeological risk. Construction in proximity to the Fraser River (i.e., North and Middle Arm crossings) is likely to pose more significant archaeological risks. (see SECTION 13). Concerns may be identified regarding potential impacts on fish and fish habitat associated with the construction of the two Fraser River crossings by those First Nations who fish in the area. Additionally, First Nations who fish upstream of the crossings may have concerns about potential impacts on fish populations due to mortality or habitat loss. These issues have been addressed in the Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Assessment (see SECTION 6). There are no First Nations communities that are located adjacent to, or in close proximity to, the proposed route for the RAV line. The First Nations community that is closest to the proposed route is located on the Musqueam Reserve, several kilometres away.


December 2004 9-78

A review of the impacts relevant to each First Nation is included as Appendix 9-D.

9.8 Other Community Impacts

9.8.1 Vehicle Traffic/Pedestrian Mobility

An at-grade system may affect vehicle/pedestrian mobility by disrupting these transportation modes. Closing pedestrian crossings will affect pedestrian traffic and there may also be reduced access for vehicles and bicycles. One of the main advantages of an elevated system is its limited impact on vehicle/pedestrian mobility. 9.8.1.1 Cambie Street

Existing vehicle crossings along Cambie Street, south of 49th Avenue that have east/west connector roads are limited to 49th, 59th, 63rd Avenues and SW Marine Drive. Pedestrians can cross anywhere along Cambie Street but traffic is very heavy and pedestrians tend to cross at key controlled intersections. At 50th, 54th, 57th, 61st and 65th avenues, vehicles moving eastward toward Cambie Street are permitted to turn left and proceed north on Cambie, but private properties block southbound access from 50th, 61st and 65th avenues, and the Langara Golf Course blocks access from 54th and 57th avenues on the east side of Cambie Street. The median at 64th Avenue prevents vehicle traffic from crossing Cambie Street. The City of Vancouver has requested that the RAV Project maintain at-grade pedestrian/vehicle crossings at 49th, 57th and 59th avenues, with additional pedestrian crossings in the vicinities of 54th and 62nd Avenues (City of Vancouver 2003b). The City of Vancouver also recommends pedestrian crossings every 400 m, set to correspond to schools, bus stops and commercial areas.


9-79 December 2004

9.8.1.2 Richmond

The 98 B-Line currently has dedicated lanes along No. 3 Road north of Westminster Highway but signal override features are not all being used due to the impacts this would have on vehicle traffic. An at-grade rail system that restricts vehicle crossings would therefore be potentially more disruptive to vehicle traffic than the existing B-Line. A fully elevated system would not restrict vehicle crossings or pedestrian crossings in Richmond. Summary of Impacts on Vehicle Traffic/ Pedestrian Mobility With the possible exception of excavation during station construction, there will be no impact on vehicle crossings along the underground portion of the line, which will likely extend from downtown Vancouver to 49th Avenue, and possibly as far south as SW Marine Drive. An elevated system would have no or limited impact on vehicle crossings and pedestrian crossings in South Vancouver and in Richmond. An at-grade system that adopts the City of Vancouver recommendations would pose very little disruption to vehicle traffic as some of the intersections that would potentially be affected are already closed to east/west traffic. Vehicle traffic across Cambie Street is already limited to very few intersections, and the main impact of the RAV line would be to eliminate the ability of eastbound traffic to turn left onto Cambie Street at 50th, 54th, 61st, and 65th avenues. The main impacts on mobility would be to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Heavy vehicle traffic along Cambie Street, however, already results in pedestrians choosing to cross at major controlled intersections. Moreover, the City of Vancouver’s request to maintain at-grade pedestrian/vehicle crossings at some of the major intersections would mitigate the negative impacts on vehicle traffic/pedestrian mobility of a trench or at-grade system. An at-grade system in Richmond would further restrict commuter mobility on No. 3 Road, particularly where the existing 98 B-Line does not have a dedicated lane.


December 2004 9-80

9.8.1.3 Resident On-Street Parking Along Corridor

A trench or an at-grade system will require a corridor that equals the width of approximately two lanes of traffic. The median along Cambie Street in Vancouver and the dedicated lanes for the 98 B-Line in Richmond could be used for the transit system. The potential requirement to maintain green space along Cambie Street, as well as two lanes of traffic each way, however, may result in the elimination of resident parking on the street adjacent to the line between 49th Avenue and 63rd Avenue. The addition of an elevated guideway along Cambie Street would not affect on-street parking to the same degree as an at-grade system. An underground system would have no impact to on-street parking. In Richmond, there is currently no on-street parking on No. 3 Road along the proposed RAV corridor. 9.8.1.4 Heritage Features

The City of Vancouver reports that the Cambie Heritage Boulevard features approximately 1,000 shade, ornamental and coniferous trees along the central median between King Edward Avenue and SW Marine Drive, and the west and east edges of the boulevard. Arbortech has completed an inventory of the trees along the Cambie Heritage Boulevard (see SECTION 8). An Historical and Heritage Assessment, prepared by Millennia Research Limited, is presented in SECTION 14. Construction of underground tunnels between False Creek and 37th Avenue will not result in tree removal or damage. The excavation of the King Edward Station is expected to be north of King Edward Avenue, which should also avoid the removal of any significant trees in that area. Cut-and-cover tunnels along Cambie Street may be built using existing traffic lanes thereby limiting tree removal or damage. A trench system or an elevated system between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive may require the removal of trees along the Cambie Heritage Boulevard if the central median is used for the RAV line.


9-81 December 2004

Any alteration of the Cambie Heritage Boulevard would be managed through a Heritage Alteration Permit that would include development of re-landscaping options and review by the City of Vancouver and the public. 9.8.1.5 Impacts on Neighbourhood Centres and Shopping

Areas

The proposed RAV Project will have general beneficial impacts on neighbourhood centres resulting from increased connectivity between downtown Richmond, the Airport and downtown Vancouver. These benefits are captured as part of the time savings that will accrue to transit riders and road users through reduced congestion, and associated positive real estate value influences. The expected increased frequency of east/west bus routes along the Cambie Street corridor, providing connections to the RAV line, may enhance the viability of adjacent shopping areas. Potential negative influences of the rapid transit line on neighbourhood centres and shopping areas are closely associated with vertical alignment choices. The shopping areas along Cambie Street between Broadway and King Edward Avenue, and at 41st Avenue, are not likely to be negatively affected by the presence of the underground rapid transit line or stations. There are no significant shopping areas along Cambie Street south of Oakridge and an at-grade or trench system is not likely to affect this neighbourhood significantly. An elevated system would likely be more intrusive. Along with the regional accessibility benefits, the RAV line may negatively affect the shopping areas along No. 3 Road near Richmond Centre, as it may impinge on that area’s potential to develop the pedestrian-oriented ambiance envisioned in the Richmond OCP. An elevated system facilitates pedestrian mobility but may have visual impacts, whereas an at-grade system would be less visually intrusive than an elevated guideway but would likely reduce some pedestrian mobility.


December 2004 9-82

9.9 Impacts by Major Segment

9.9.1 Downtown Vancouver – Segment 1

Segment 1 is approximately 0.8 km in length, located along Granville Street in downtown Vancouver, and links the Waterfront Station to the Robson Station. The area includes a mix of office buildings, hotels, multi-level shopping centres and street level retail space. Approximately 132,000 people work in downtown Vancouver. The RAV line will increase the linkage between Richmond, South Vancouver and this major employment centre. Also, approximately 28,500 people currently living in downtown Vancouver will gain walking access to the transit line, and the destination employment and service centres along the Cambie Street corridor, in Richmond and on Sea Island. There will be some positive impacts on property values associated with the establishment of the transit line in this segment, particularly for the hotels, as the RAV line will provide direct transit access to Vancouver International Airport. Retail businesses will also benefit from improved transit access. Office buildings, as well as institutional buildings (e.g., downtown university campuses, colleges and government buildings), will benefit from improved transit access. In general, however, downtown properties already enjoy a substantial value premium due to their accessibility to each other and to the region in general. As a result, the magnitude of the positive impacts for individual office buildings and institutional properties will be small. During construction, main impacts will likely be on hotels near the Waterfront Station and on temporary traffic congestion, resulting from the excavation of two underground stations, one near Cordova Street and one near Robson Street. Retail businesses located near the stations may be negatively affected during construction through increased noise and reduced commercial exposure.


9-83 December 2004

9.9.2 Downtown Vancouver – Segment 2a

Segment 2a is approximately 1.1 km in length and runs between the Robson Station and False Creek. The area has a mix of office, retail and hotel space along with rapidly emerging residential high-rise and mid-rise neighbourhoods. As with Segment 1, once in operation, the rapid transit line will benefit businesses and residents by providing a direct link to employment and service centres along the Cambie Street corridor, in Richmond and on Sea Island. There are approximately 10,500 people residing in the Downtown South, Yaletown South and Granville Slopes, and the City of Vancouver expects the population in these areas to grow by almost 70% to 17,675 people by the year 2021. This rapid growth is expected to continue with or without rapid transit. Increased access to the rapid transit system will be another positive influence on property values in those areas. During construction, the main negative impacts will be on residents and businesses near the Davie Street Station, due to increased noise, reduced commercial exposure, and traffic pattern disruptions. 9.9.3 False Creek – Segment 2b

Segment 2b is approximately 0.9 km in length and extends from False Creek to Cambie Street and 6th Avenue. The area around False Creek is comprised of mid-rise and townhouse residential buildings to the west and industrial/commercial buildings and yards to the east. The Cambie commercial corridor commences near Cambie Street and 6th Avenue. The concept plan for the RAV Project is to have a main work site for launching the tunnel boring machines near the Cambie Bridge at Cambie Street and 2nd Avenue. The site may also host a slurry separation plant. If the Concessionaire elects to dispose of tunnel spoils by barge for ocean disposal or for transport to a land site, truck traffic to remove the spoils from the tunnels would travel a very short distance from that site to a barge ramp on False Creek, making the choice of this work site ideal for minimizing truck


December 2004 9-84

traffic through the area. While there are no residences immediately adjacent to the site, the False Creek residential area on the west side of the Cambie Street Bridge may suffer some noise impacts during construction. Depending on the level of noise associated with the slurry separation plant and the exact location of the plant on the site, there may be a need to mitigate noise impacts for residents in the vicinity of Cambie Street and 2nd Avenue. The results of a Noise Assessment, completed by BKL Consultants Ltd. are presented in SECTION 12. Once the RAV line is in operation, there may be significant positive impacts on industrial and commercial property values in the area between the foot of the Cambie Street Bridge and 6th Avenue. The industrial area east of Cambie Street on False Creek is the subject of a major urban redevelopment initiative that is expected to include an Athletes’ Village for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, and ultimately, a sustainable mixed-use community that is predominantly residential. 9.9.4 Cambie Street – Segment 3a

Segment 3a is approximately 1.9 km in length and runs between 6th Avenue and King Edward Avenue along Cambie Street. The area will include an underground station just south of Broadway, and another just north of King Edward Avenue. The segment consists mainly of commercial and retail properties between 6th Avenue and 19th Avenue, apartment buildings between 18th Avenue and 23rd Avenue and some retail and office properties between 23rd Avenue and King Edward Avenue. The segment also includes Vancouver City Hall, a major hotel and a shopping centre at 12th Avenue and Cambie Street. Major employment and public service centres within walking distance of the proposed Broadway Station include Vancouver General Hospital, the Central Broadway Business Centre, the BC Cancer Agency, City Square and Vancouver City Hall. The King Edward Station will service the BC Children’s and Women’s Hospital, and to some extent the Saint Vincent’s Hospital site. The RAV line will also service local residents as some 20,675 people reside within walking distance of these two proposed stations.


9-85 December 2004

As with other segments, this portion of the RAV line is expected to have a positive influence on property values, including the above-mentioned institutional properties, hotel and retail properties near the Broadway Station and the King Edward Station, and the apartment buildings between 18th Avenue and 23rd Avenue. In Segment 3a, the RAV line is expected to have a positive impact on resident parking if more people who work in the major employment centres in that segment use transit, but it may also encourage transit riders destined for downtown Vancouver to park on nearby residential streets. As noted earlier, this concern could be mitigated by instituting resident-only parking on residential streets in the vicinity of the RAV stations. During construction, residents and businesses near the Broadway and King Edward stations may be affected by the noise and traffic generated during station excavation. Mitigation of traffic disruptions at Broadway and Cambie Street during station excavation is likely to pose a significant challenge. The possible use of cut-and-cover techniques for constructing the underground tunnels for that segment of the line would cause greater temporary noise and disruption to local residents and businesses than bored tunnel construction. 9.9.5 Cambie Street – Segment 3b

Segment 3b is approximately 1.4 km in length and located along Cambie Street between King Edward Avenue and 37th Avenue. Adjacent properties are primarily residential, and include approximately 90 single-family dwellings. Along its median, Segment 3b features shade, ornamental and coniferous trees on the Cambie Heritage Boulevard. The RAV line may be constructed using tunnel boring machines as far south as 37th Avenue, which would likely avoid the removal of, or damage to, trees along the boulevard for this segment of the line. Cut-and-cover tunnel construction under the northbound lanes of Cambie Street, may also limit tree damage or removal. Segment 3b also borders Queen Elizabeth Park, a 52-hectare landscaped park that is a major destination for tourists and residents. Based on the RAV Project’s conceptual plan, there will likely need to be a work site in the vicinity


December 2004 9-86

of 37th Avenue. There may be some negative noise and traffic impacts associated with this work site. As in Segment 3a, there may be transit riders who do not reside in the area but use on-street parking in the nearby residential neighbourhoods. This can be controlled by initiating a resident-only parking system in the vicinity of RAV stations. 9.9.6 Cambie Street – Segment 4a

Segment 4a is approximately 1.2 km in length and runs along Cambie Street between 37th Avenue and 49th Avenue. Adjacent properties include a mix of residential, commercial, retail and institutional uses. The segment includes 48 single family dwellings, mainly between 37th Avenue and 39th Avenue and south of 43rd Avenue. The major commercial and retail district is between 39th Avenue and 43rd Avenue and includes the Oakridge Centre mall, office and residential complex. There are some substantial medical/professional office buildings near the 41st Avenue and Cambie Street intersection, and the RCMP complex west of Cambie Street between 33rd Avenue and 36th Avenue, which will be served to some extent by the proposed Oakridge Station. As with other segments of the line, the RAV line is expected to have a positive influence on property values. In particular, properties near the 41st Avenue and Cambie Street Station will benefit, which includes the residential areas along Cambie Street and surrounding neighbourhoods, as well as the retail and commercial properties between 39th Avenue and 43rd Avenue. During construction, residents and businesses will likely be negatively affected by the noise associated with excavation of the tunnels and the station at 41st Avenue and Cambie Street, and the resultant traffic disruptions. Residents will also likely be negatively affected near the station just north of 49th Avenue along Cambie Street. As in other segments along Cambie Street, some transit riders may choose to drive to the nearby residential areas, utilize on street neighbourhood parking and board the transit system, although a resident-only street parking system would mitigate this concern.


9-87 December 2004

9.9.7 Cambie Street – Segment 4b

Segment 4b consists of 1.9 km between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive, and includes a mix of various types of properties: • Mainly residential between 49th Avenue and 54th Avenue and between

58th Avenue and 64th Avenue, with an estimated 107 residences (most are side-by-side duplexes that are counted as two residences).

• Between 54th Avenue and 57th Avenue and between Cambie Street and Neal Street, Langara Gardens provides 604 rental units in townhouses, garden apartments and four high-rise apartment towers. Two of the four high-rise apartment towers and eight of the townhouse units are adjacent to Cambie Street.

• Also between 54th Avenue and 58th Avenue there are several townhouse units, a garden apartment building oriented to 49th Avenue and the Langara Golf Course; 17 of the townhouses and four apartments are adjacent to Cambie Street, although their viewscapes onto the street are screened by fences, hedges and trees.

• Other properties include the George Pearson Centre (health care) between 57th Avenue and 59th Avenue and some commercial and retail properties between 59th and 60th and near SW Marine Drive.

The RAV line will serve Langara College, east of Cambie Street on 49th Avenue. In 2001, there were 2,169 people within a 500 m radius of the proposed station site at 49th Avenue, and another 4,653 residents within the next 500 m. In this segment, the RAV line may be a fully separated system located in a trench, on an elevated guideway or underground, or it may be an at-grade partially separated system. In all cases the system will cross SW Marine Drive on an elevated guideway, and will be at least partially elevated south of 64th Avenue or 65th Avenue to SW Marine Drive. Some considerations associated with this segment are as follows: • An elevated system would have the most visual impacts on local

residents, but would retain pedestrian and traffic mobility (pedestrian and vehicle crossings) and resident on-street parking. Also, noise impacts would likely be less significant than for an at-grade system.


December 2004 9-88

• A trench would have fewer visual impacts than an elevated system. A trench would limit pedestrian and vehicle crossings to a few fixed crossing structures, although that segment of Cambie Street already has several intersections where east/west avenues terminate at Cambie Street for both vehicles and pedestrians.

• A partially separated at-grade rail transit system would be noisier than a system in a trench or an elevated guideway and would restrict pedestrian and vehicle crossings. There would also be some visual impacts, although these would be less significant than those associated with an elevated guideway.

• An underground system built using cut-and-cover techniques may be the most disruptive during construction, but would then have no visual or noise impacts on local residents and businesses while in operation.

All of the options being considered could involve the removal of the trees on the median if the RAV line is constructed down the centre of the Cambie Heritage Boulevard instead of along either side of the median. Cut-and-cover tunnels under the northbound lanes of Cambie Street would likely minimize the removal of trees on the median. The RAV line will likely have a positive property value influence for properties within walking distance of the 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive stations, as residents gain better access to employment and service centres along the RAV line. If the RAV line is not underground, residences may also experience negative property value influences, which may offset part or all of the positive influences on property values noted above. All residences are within 1 km of a station, but those that are outside 0.5 km of a station may be most likely to have negative influences that more than offset the positive influences expected from the transit line. There are 39 single family/ duplex residences and eight townhouse units that are adjacent to the line between 54th Avenue and 62nd Avenue, but further than 0.5 km from a station. These blocks also include two high-rise towers that are adjacent to Cambie Street. 9.9.8 Fraser River Crossing – Segment 5

Segment 5 spans approximately 2 km between SW Marine Drive and Bridgeport Station. Adjacent properties are predominantly industrial but include some commercial/retail properties and some institutional buildings


9-89 December 2004

such as the ICBC Claims Centre and the Soka Gakkai International Centre, just south of SW Marine Drive. There are also 17 ground-oriented multi-family units and one side-by-side duplex sited adjacent to the west side of Cambie Street just south of SW Marine Drive. Based on 2001 Census data, an estimated 2,785 people live within a 500 m radius of the SW Marine Drive Station, and another 6,783 people reside within the next 500 m. The RAV line will have a positive influence on property values near proposed stations, which in this segment includes some hotels near the Bridgeport Station. The line will be on an elevated guideway and there are some properties where the line is likely to pass very near property boundaries or buildings. In some instances, negotiated easements and/or property purchases may be required. The crossing of the North Arm of the Fraser River will involve building a bridge of approximately 445 m in length. The height clearance will be the same as the Oak Street Bridge and will allow passage of all forms of commercial shipping that currently use the North Arm. There may be some impacts on marine users and the requirement for tug assists as the proposed crossing may change the float path of regular river users. [See SECTION

6.3.1.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS: OPERATIONAL IMPACTS for a more detailed description of potential impacts of pier presence on hydraulic conditions]. The RAV line will cross railway tracks on either side of the North Arm. Both the proposed crossing and associated approach spans will be designed to meet the clearance requirements of the railway right-of-ways. First Nations may have some concerns regarding construction near the Fraser River, mainly due to the risk of excavating archaeological artifacts and the potential risk to fish and fish habitat. These issues are addressed in the Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Assessment (SECTION 6) and Archaeological Impact Assessment (SECTION 13), and by permitting and design considerations. There may be some concern related to crime associated with the Bridgeport Station and in particular the park-and-ride facility. There is potential to mitigate those risks through security measures such as security patrols and application of CPTED principles.


December 2004 9-90

9.9.9 Richmond – Segment 6

Segment 6 covers approximately 3.3 km and runs from the Bridgeport Station to Firbridge Way along No. 3 Road in Richmond. This segment includes two stations, one at Cambie Road and one at Alderbridge Way. Properties adjacent to the line in this segment are a mix of industrial, automotive retail, shopping centres, small offices, unimproved land and a hotel. The OCP general designation for the lands north of Cambie Road is “mixed use”, although residential development in this area has been discouraged in the past. South of Cambie Road to Alderbridge Way the overall OCP zoning is “commercial”, and then “high-density mixed use” through to Westminster Highway. Most of the existing development adjacent to the proposed RAV line in this segment includes surface parking lots on the majority of No. 3 Road frontages. Buildings tend to be set well back from their No. 3 Road property boundaries. This form of development is now discouraged, and newer developments are required to site buildings closer to the street. The RAV line will have a positive influence on property values in the area with a significant proportional increase in accessibility. This segment moves from a primarily commercial/industrial area around the Bridgeport Station, through increasing retail and office development around Cambie Road and Alderbridge Way, to a higher density mix of office, retail and residential developments approaching Westminster Highway. There are several major regionally focused shopping malls serviced by this segment. The areas near the Bridgeport, Cambie and Alderbridge stations have very few residents, with approximately 400 people residing in 188 residences within a 500 m radius of those three stations, and some 3,300 people in 1,148 residences within the next 500 m. The number of jobs within 500 m of the stations builds from 1,600 near the Bridgeport Station, to 4,700 near the Cambie Station and 6,500 near the Alderbridge Station3.

3 Source: City of Richmond, Urban Development Division (2003), impact areas are truncated where they overlap to avoid double-counting.


9-91 December 2004

RAV line-induced development pressure is likely to be significant in the area between Bridgeport Station and Westminster Highway Station, as this area will experience substantial proportional gains in accessibility and has several major sites that could be redeveloped. The vertical alignment for Segment 6 may be a fully separated, elevated guideway or a partially separated, at-grade system. An elevated guideway will be visually more intrusive but will be less restrictive to pedestrian and vehicle mobility than an at-grade system. In Segment 6, the 98B-Line has dedicated lanes on No. 3 Road, which would be made available for construction of the RAV line. The construction phase of the RAV line would likely result in traffic pattern disruptions and increased congestion along No. 3 Road, which may affect retail businesses. 9.9.10 Richmond – Segment 7

Segment 7 is approximately 0.7 km in length and runs from Westminster Highway along No. 3 Road to Richmond Centre. This segment includes two stations, one just north of Westminster Highway and one at Richmond Centre at the end of the line. The Westminster Highway and Richmond Centre stations have a total of some 10,000 people residing within 500 m of the stations and another 13,600 within the next 500 m. Properties adjacent to this segment are primarily office and retail properties with some complexes also including residential apartments. Major employment centres serviced by stations in this segment include the Workers’ Compensation Board offices and Richmond Hospital, both on Westminster Highway, as well as Richmond Centre and Richmond City Hall. There are 6,600 jobs located within 500 m of the Westminster Station and 6,000 jobs within 500 m of the Richmond Centre Station. The vertical alignment for Segment 7 may be a fully separated, elevated guideway or a partially separated, at-grade system. An elevated guideway along Segment 7 would likely result in some visual and noise impacts on the office buildings, retail and apartment complexes that are adjacent to No. 3 Road. A partially separated at-grade system would likely negatively affect vehicle and pedestrian mobility.


December 2004 9-92

In Segment 7, No. 3 Road is much narrower than it is in most of Segment 6. This is also a very congested area of No. 3 Road and the construction of any rail transit system, whether fully separated and elevated, or partially separated at-grade will likely disrupt traffic flows during both the construction phase and the operations phase. In general, any negative property value influences from an elevated or at-grade system on the properties adjacent to No. 3 Road will likely be more than offset by the positive influence the RAV line will have on these same property values as the RAV line increases accessibility to downtown Vancouver, Sea Island, and the businesses and employment centres in downtown Richmond. An elevated system in Segment 7 may infringe on that area’s potential to develop the pedestrian friendly, street level ambiance envisioned by the City of Richmond City Centre Area Plan. 9.9.11 Vancouver International Airport – Segments 8 and 9

Segments 8 and 9 have a combined length of about 4.3 km and span from Bridgeport Station to the airport terminal along the north side of Grant McConachie Way. This segment will be an elevated guideway and will include three stations, at Templeton Street, Jericho Street and the airport terminal. This portion of the RAV line will serve the approximately 26,000 people who work on Sea Island and the approximately15 million passengers who use the airport annually. The bridge over the Middle Arm of the Fraser River will have sufficient clearance to allow all existing marine uses, but there may some impacts to existing users during construction. There are approximately 1,050 pleasure boat berths at marinas along the Middle Arm. The RAV line may exert a positive influence on property values for the airport-related industrial and commercial properties near the stations, as well as for the main terminal complex.


9-93 December 2004

9.10 Analysis of Relative Social Impacts

9.10.1 Introduction to Trade-Off Analysis

In this section, we introduce an analytical approach to illustrate the social impacts of various discrete RAV alternatives on communities along the proposed route. This analysis is intended to serve several purposes: • to clearly distill the social impacts associated with the proposed RAV line

into a series of accessible and intuitive charts; • to highlight those impacts that are inherent to the RAV Project itself, and

those that may vary by technological alternative; and • to clarify the extent of the social trade-offs that may exist between

“RAV”/”No RAV” or between the technological alternatives. To accomplish this we have: • defined four alternative technological configurations for the RAV line; • defined ten social impact categories, each containing between one and

eight indicators pertaining to that category; • defined a unique impact scale ranging from –5 to zero (in the case of

negative changes relative to “No RAV”), or zero to +5 (for positive changes relative to “No RAV”) for each indicator. For each scale, zero is defined as “No RAV” and the most extreme score (either –5 or +5) has been assigned based on the most negative or most positive change to be expected in any segment of any of the three alternatives. All alternatives and segments have then been scored relative to the scale developed for each indicator;

• considered impacts on indicators during the implementation of construction and operation phases;

• assigned weights to the different indicators, categories and implementation phases. Weights have been assigned based on the relative magnitude of impacts, as well as our understanding of the relative importance of these impacts to GVRD residents as assessed through the public consultation process and our review of various studies. Recognizing the subjective nature of this process, we have conducted a preliminary sensitivity analysis to illustrate the significance of the weights we have assigned to the overall findings; and


December 2004 9-94

• summarized the findings by major line segment for each of three alternatives.

Appendix 9-E provides detail on the indicator scales, weights and ratings used in the analysis. The alternatives included in the trade-off analysis are shown as follows and in Table 9.8:

Alternative A Underground to 49th Avenue, then Fully Separated

Trench to SW Marine Drive and Elevated in Richmond. A fully separated system is assumed to resemble the existing SkyTrain with underground sections (e.g., downtown), trench (e.g., along the Expo Line near Joyce and 29th Avenue), or an elevated guideway.

Alternative B Underground to SW Marine Drive (using tunnel boring machines downtown and across False Creek and cut-and-cover techniques along Cambie Street), then Elevated in Richmond.

Alternative C Underground to 49th Avenue, then Partially Separated At-Grade in Vancouver & Richmond to Richmond Centre (except for Segment 5 and Segments 8 and 9 where the line will be elevated). An at-grade partially separated system is assumed to be driver-operated.

Alternative D Underground to 49th Avenue, then Fully Separated Elevated to SW Marine Drive and in Richmond.


9-95 December 2004

Table 9.8 Description of Design Alternatives by RAV Line Segment A B C D 1 Waterfront to

Robson Station Underground Underground Underground Underground

2 a) Robson Station to False Creek

Underground Underground Underground Underground

b) False Creek to Cambie Street & 6th Avenue

Underground Underground Underground Underground

3 a) Cambie Street between 6th Avenue and King Edward

Underground Underground Cut & Cover

Underground Underground

b) Cambie Street between King Edward and 37th Avenue

Underground Underground Cut & Cover

Underground Underground

4 a) Cambie Street between 37th and 49th Avenue

Underground Cut & Cover




b) Cambie Street between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive

Full-Separated

Trench


Part-Separated At Grade

Full-Separated Elevated

5 SW Marine Drive to Bridgeport Station (Richmond)





6 Bridgeport Station to Westminster Highway





7 No. 3 Road between Westminster Highway and Richmond Centre





8 & 9

Bridgeport Station to Airport Station 3 Terminal






December 2004 9-96

The impacts of these alternatives are compared with a fifth implicit alternative, referred to as “No RAV”. These alternatives represent possible options for the proposed RAV line and they have been chosen to demonstrate the various social impact trade-offs. They do not represent the only possible alternatives that are being considered for the RAV line. 9.10.2 Social Impact Categories, Indicators and Weights

9.10.2.1 Social Impact Categories and Indicators

Table 9.9 summarizes the social impact indicators taken into account in the trade-off analysis.

Table 9.9 Social Impact Categories and Indicators Social Impact Category Indicators

Economic Development Person Years of Employment Impact on navigation / river based activities – North Arm Impact on navigation / river based activities – Middle

Arm (Moray Channel) Time Savings to Transit Users Time Savings & User

Comfort Time Savings to Non-Transit Users Transit User Comfort Traffic & Safety Truck traffic along route Truck traffic along parallel routes Car traffic along route Car traffic along parallel routes Bus traffic along route Bus traffic along parallel routes Safety/accidents Visual, Noise & Vibration Negatively affected residences along corridor Negatively affected retail businesses along corridor Negatively affected office buildings along corridor Negatively affected industrial sites along corridor Negatively affected hotel sites along corridor Negatively affected institutional sites along corridor Negatively affected parks and public spaces along

corridor


9-97 December 2004

Social Impact Category Indicators Residential properties adjacent to line within 100 m of station

Negative Property Value Impacts

Residential properties adjacent to line outside 100m of station

Impacts on industrial properties Impacts on retail properties Impacts on office buildings Railway right-of-way Other land acquisition and disposal issues Positive Property Value Impacts

Residential properties between 0.5 km and 1 km of station

Residential properties within 0.5 km of station Impacts on industrial properties Impacts on retail properties Impacts on office buildings Impacts on institutional properties Impacts on hotels Project induced development potential

Resident parking used for park and ride Other Station Impacts (parking & crime) Incidence of crime First Nations Impacts Musqueam Indian Band Tsawwassen First Nation Tsleil-Waututh Nation Sto:Lo Nation Squamish Nation

Vehicle and pedestrian crossings Heritage & Other Community Impacts Resident on-street parking adjacent to line Heritage features Changes to neighbourhoods Mitigation Potential Ability to mitigate negative impacts

Where applicable, ratings for each category and indicator have been developed for the operation and construction phases (for example, employment impacts during construction are different than during the operations phase). Some categories and indicators listed here are correlated, potentially introducing a double counting bias. Where we believe this is occurring (for example, between visual impacts and negative property


December 2004 9-98

values or between time savings, traffic benefits and positive property values), we have attempted to accordingly adjust the overall weightings. 9.10.2.2 Weighting

When comparing dissimilar scales, it is necessary to assign weights to represent the importance of one indicator relative to another. In this analysis, weightings are assigned at three levels: impact category level, sub-category/indicator level and implementation phase level. Table 9.10 assigns weights to each major social impact category. The weights are based on our understanding of relative magnitude of impact and the importance of each set of indicators to GVRD residents. While any one indicator may be the most important to any particular stakeholder, we have attempted to take an overall social viewpoint to provide a reasonable balance to the analysis from all perspectives. Some types of impacts are less severe and/or are deemed to affect fewer people and are assigned lower weights. For example, Time Savings, Traffic and Safety considerations represent the main social justification for building the proposed RAV line and affect very large numbers of people. As a result, they are assigned the greatest weights. Similarly, positive property value impacts are expected to be more widespread, and in most cases more significant, than negative property value impacts. These are, therefore, assigned a greater weight. Also, in choosing weights for individual indicators, the analysts considered whether or not indicators are correlated with each other.


9-99 December 2004

Table 9.10 Social Impact Category Weights

Category Assigned Weights Time Savings & User Comfort 20% Traffic & Safety 15% Heritage & Other Community Impacts 13% Economic Development 10% Visual, Noise & Vibration 10% Negative Property Value Impacts 5% Positive Property Value Impacts 15% First Nations Impacts 5% Other Station Impacts (parking & crime) 3% Mitigation Potential 4% Total 100%

The 10 social impact categories include up to eight indicators per category. The indicators within each social impact category are weighted relative to each other. So, for example, within the “Economic Development” category, weights are assigned for each of the scales for each of “Person Years of Employment”, “Impact on navigation/river-based activities in the North Arm” and “Impact on navigation/river-based activities – Middle Arm (Moray Channel)”. Appendix 9-E shows the distribution of the weight applied to each impact category across its component indicators. The analysis also allows the weighting of each indicator during construction and during the operations phase. For most indicators, we have assigned a 90% weighting to the operations phase of the project and 10% for the construction phase, as most GVRD residents are likely to be far more concerned about the long-term impacts of the RAV line than the temporary construction impacts. The exceptions to this weighting are “Person Years of Employment” which is overwhelmingly important during construction, and a small number of indicators for which there are no impacts during construction. In this analysis, we have assumed that impacts in each segment are equally significant. While it may be desirable to differentially weight the significance of impacts in each segment in some way, we have chosen not to do this in the interests of simplicity and transparency. Identifying a valid criterion for assigning greater weights to certain segments would be difficult. For


December 2004 9-100

example, using population as a criterion would result in highly populated segments like Segments 2a, 2b, 3a and 7 being weighted more heavily. Also, for each indicator we have simply summed the weighted scores for all segments rather than averaging them or performing some other function. Any impact that applies across all segments (e.g., time savings) therefore carries 11 times more weight than an impact that only applies to one segment (since there are 11 segments). Again, while it may be desirable to alter this weighting, we have chosen not to do this, but this can be reviewed at a future time. 9.10.2.3 Overall Impact Results

Figure 9.21 illustrates the overall weighted sum (Social Impact Index) for each of three alternative RAV configurations (Alternatives A, B and C described above) using the assigned weightings. The figure shows that Alternatives A, B and C each has net positive impacts, and that from a social perspective, Alternative C (partially separated at- grade system) is significantly less positive than the other two. Alternative D is the same as Alternative A except that an elevated system replaces the trench for segment 4b. The results for Alternative D are not presented in detail in this report as they are virtually identical to those for Alternative A.


9-101 December 2004

Figure 9.21 Social Impact Index by Category for Each RAV Project Alternative

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Notes: • Alternative A: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, trench from 49th Avenue to SW Marine and

elevated in Richmond • Alternative B: Bored tunnels to 6th Avenue, cut-and-cover tunnels from 6th Avenue to

SW Marine Drive; and elevated system in Richmond • Alternative C: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, partially separated at-grade system

between 49th Avenue and SW Marine and from Bridgeport Station to downtown Richmond.

Our weightings show a net positive social impact primarily because several of the positive impacts (e.g., economic development, time savings and user comfort, positive property values, etc.) apply across all segments and are therefore treated cumulatively, whereas typical negative impacts (e.g., negative property values) are much more pronounced in some segments than in others, and so carry less weight. Many of the Impact Indicators are not dependent on the technological alternative employed (e.g., positive impacts on property values). Others vary

All Segments

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e S

avin

gs &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e P

rope

rty

Valu

eIm

pact

s

Pos

itive

Pro

pert

y V

alue

Impa

cts

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n P

oten

tial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

xABC


December 2004 9-102

only slightly between alternatives (e.g., First Nations values, traffic and safety). The major differences between the technological alternatives in terms of their social impact include: • Economic development – The construction of Alternative C is the least

costly and it is therefore assumed that there will be less spin-off economic benefits from this alternative than for the other two.

• Time savings and user comfort – A partially at-grade system

(Alternative C) for South Cambie and in downtown Richmond will not result in the same time savings as a fully separated system.

• Noise, visual and vibration impacts - Alternative B, the option with the

longest portion of the line underground, has the least negative social impacts in this regard, particularly in Segment 4b (South Cambie).

Figure 9.22 shows the Social Impact Index for each of the line segments for Alternatives A, B and C.


9-103 December 2004

Figure 9.22 Social Impact Index by RAV Line Segment

Total

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8&9

Segment

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC

Notes: For time savings and some of the other indicators, system-wide impact ratings are applied equally to each segment; this explains why index values differ across the vertical alignment alternatives even for segments where the vertical alignment does not change across the three alternatives. • Alternative A: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, trench from 49th Avenue to SW Marine

and elevated in Richmond • Alternative B: Bored tunnels to 6th Avenue, cut-and-cover tunnels from 6th Avenue to

SW Marine Drive; and elevated system in Richmond • Alternative C: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, and partially separated at-grade system


As shown in Figure 9.22, under our assigned weightings, the net social impacts for all line segments are positive, though Segments 4b (Cambie Street between 49th and SW Marine Drive) and 5 (63rd Avenue to Bridgeport) are less positive than the others. Figure 9.22 also shows that for all line segments the net social impacts are less positive under Alternative C, partly due to the lesser positive social impacts associated with a partially separated system (i.e., lesser time savings and less positive impacts on traffic and safety). Segment 4b (Figure 9.23) suffers the most from noise, visual and vibration


December 2004 9-104

impacts, and from negative impacts associated with a loss of heritage values for both Alternatives A (trench) and C (at-grade system). Figure 9.23 Social Impact Index for RAV Line Segment 4b (49th

Avenue to SW Marine Drive)

Positive Effects

↑

↓ Negative Effects


elevated in Richmond • Alternative B: Bored tunnels to 6th Avenue, cut-and-cover tunnels from 6th Avenue to SW

Marine Drive; and elevated system in Richmond • Alternative C: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, and partially separated at-grade system between

49th Avenue and SW Marine and from Bridgeport Station to downtown Richmond.

Segment 5 (SW Marine Drive to Bridgeport Station) (Figure 9.24) is also negatively affected by a variety of factors. The elevated guideway for that segment will negatively affect some of the adjacent industrial properties, which may result in some negative property value impacts. These are less likely to be offset by positive property value impacts than in other segments that are near high density residential and employment areas that will benefit from proximity to the rapid transit stations. “Other station impacts” are also

Segment 4b

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC


9-105 December 2004

negative for Segment 5 as a result of the potential for a higher incidence of crime associated with stations with large park-and-ride facilities, although there is also “mitigation potential” through safety measures such as security patrols and the adoption of CPTED principles. Figure 9.24 Social Impact Index for RAV Line Segment 5 (SW Marine

Drive to Bridgeport Station)

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Notes: • Alternative A: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, trench from 49th Avenue to SW Marine

and elevated in Richmond • Alternative B: Bored tunnels to 6th Avenue, cut-and-cover from 6th Avenue to SW

Marine Drive; and elevated system in Richmond • Alternative C: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, and partially separated at-grade system

between 49th Avenue and SW Marine and from Bridgeport Station to downtown Richmond. Figure 9.25 shows the social impact index for Segment 7 (Westminster Highway to Richmond Centre). The figure graphically shows that although there are negative influences from visual, noise and neighbourhood effects in that relatively narrow section of No. 3 Road, these are more than offset by the significant positive influences associated with the high density residential and

Segment 5

-0.4-0.20.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e S

avin

gs &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e P

rope

rty V

alue

Impa

cts

Pos

itive

Pro

perty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC


December 2004 9-106

employment areas that are near stations in that segment. Figure 9.25 Social Impact Index for RAV Line Segment 7 (Westminster

Highway to Richmond Centre)

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Notes: • Alternative A: Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, trench from 49th Avenue to SW Marine

and elevated in Richmond • Alternative B: Bored tunnels to 6th Avenue, cut-and-cover tunnels from 6th Avenue to


between 49th Avenue and SW Marine and from Bridgeport Station to downtown Richmond. Appendix 9-E charts the results for each of the line segments and provides detail on the indicator scales, weights and ratings used in the multi-attribute trade-off analysis.

Segment 7

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5Ec

onom

ic D

evel

opm

ent

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC


9-107 December 2004

9.10.2.4 Sensitivity Analysis of Social Impact Weights

As shown in Figure 9.26, the implementation phase weighting is a primary determinant of the overall social impact rating. Shifting the weighting of construction impacts from 90% through 10% swings the overall Social Impact Index from a strong negative to a strong positive. This result is intuitive, since the construction impacts are overwhelmingly negative, with the exception of Person Years of Employment. Figure 9.26 Sensitivity of Social Impact Index to Construction/

Operations Weights

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects


elevated in Richmond • Alternative B: Bored tunnels to 6th Avenue, cut-and-cover tunnels from 6th Avenue to



The analysis is also sensitive to the weight applied to each major social impact category. To demonstrate this, weightings were varied according to a number of scenarios that shifted the majority of the weighting from one category to the next systematically. Table 9.11 shows how for each of the impact categories, a scenario was run in which 55% of the weight was given to that category, with the remaining 45% being allocated equally among the

Sensitivity of Overal Impact Score to Construction / Operations Weighting

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

90% 75% 50% 25% 10%

Weighting of Construction Impacts relative to Operations Impacts

ABC


December 2004 9-108

remaining nine categories.

Table 9.11 Weighting Scenarios Considered for Sensitivity Analysis

Scen

ario

Econ

omic

Dev

’t.

Tim

e sa

ving

s

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al &

Noi

se

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Oth

er S

tatio

n

Firs

t Nat

ions

Her

itage

& O

ther

Miti

gatio

n

1 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 This analysis was undertaken for Alternative B only, but we anticipate that the results for Alternative A would be comparable. For each weighting scenario, we calculated and noted the overall Social Impact Index value for each segment. The higher the Index, the more positively a segment is affected by the RAV Project. Table 9.12 summarizes the values of the Index for each segment under each weighting scenario.


9-109 December 2004

Table 9.12 Social Impact Index under Different Category Weighting Scenarios by RAV Line Segment

Category Given 55% Weighting

Scenario 1 Scenario

2 Scenario

3 Scenario

4 Scenario

5 Scenario

6 Scenario

7 Scenario

8 Scenario

9 Scenario

10 Segment

Economic Development

Time Savings & Other Benefits

Traffic & Safety

Visual & Noise

Negative Property

Positive Property

Other Station

First Nations

Heritage & Other

Community Mitigation

1 1.74 2.54 2.72 0.32 0.54 1.42 0.17 0.37 0.50 0.54 2a 1.72 2.52 2.70 0.31 0.24 1.39 0.14 0.35 0.49 0.52 2b 1.75 2.55 2.73 0.36 0.52 1.42 0.17 0.37 0.52 0.55 3a 1.91 2.71 2.81 0.31 0.48 2.09 -0.29 0.42 0.61 3.21 3b 1.91 2.71 2.81 0.63 0.53 1.26 0.09 0.47 0.63 3.21 4a 1.89 2.69 2.79 0.52 0.50 2.14 0.06 0.44 0.51 2.19 4b 1.72 2.52 2.62 0.15 0.40 1.47 -0.10 0.28 0.38 1.02 5 1.12 2.22 2.35 -0.51 -0.91 0.97 -1.96 -1.97 -0.15 2.17 6 1.88 2.73 2.86 -0.13 -0.55 2.83 0.68 0.68 0.40 2.18 7 1.75 2.60 2.73 -0.42 -0.53 2.60 0.17 0.55 -0.03 1.55

8 & 9 1.51 2.61 2.82 0.46 0.36 1.36 0.56 -1.57 0.55 2.56 Overall 18.90 28.40 29.94 2.01 1.58 18.95 -0.30 0.38 4.41 19.70


December 2004 9-110

Table 9.12 shows the Social Impact Index under a variety of extreme category weightings (for Alternative B). The Index remains positive for all weighting scenarios except for the case in which “Other Station Impacts” is weighted at 55%. The Index is close to zero for the scenarios that place a 55% weighting on Visual Impacts, Negative Property Values, First Nations and Heritage Impacts. The sensitivity analysis also shows that the RAV Project is always positive for Segments 1, 2a, 2b, 3b and 4a under all circumstances, and that the social impact index is almost always positive for the other line segments, even when extreme category weightings are applied. 9.10.2.5 Summary of Findings from Trade-Off Analysis

This trade-off analysis has helped illustrate the following findings about the proposed RAV Project and its socio-economic/socio-community impacts: • The social benefits are largely spread among a large number of people

over the operational phase of the project. The social costs, however, are often concentrated in a few segments along the line and/or occur during the construction period. Therefore, the RAV line shows significant overall positive socio-economic/socio-community impacts, unless construction impacts or negative impacts on a specific population group are given significantly larger weighting than more general operational impacts.

• Alternative C (partially separated at-grade system) has a lower total Social Impact Index mainly due to the lesser time savings and lower positive impacts on traffic and safety, but with similar negative influences on visual, heritage and other community impacts as the fully separated alternative.

• Alternative B (underground to SW Marine Drive) has the highest total Social Impact Index, slightly higher than Alternative A. This alternative entails greater temporary construction related disturbances along Cambie Street, but these are more than offset by greater operational net benefits in Segment 4b (south of 49th Avenue on Cambie Street).

• The only difference between Alternative A and Alternative D is a fully separated trench versus an elevated guideway between 49th Avenue and SW Marine Drive. The social impact index for Segment 4b is virtually the same for both Alternatives A and D as the greater visual impacts and


9-111 December 2004

slightly greater negative property value influences associated with an elevated guideway are offset by slightly greater user comfort, greater pedestrian/vehicle mobility, less disruption to resident on-street parking and lower risk of excavating archaeological artifacts.

• The extent of social impact of the project is highly sensitive to the relative importance assigned to construction versus operational impacts.

• With our weightings, all segments of the route stand to gain from the project on balance. Segments 4b (49th to SW Marine Drive) and 5 (SW Marine Drive to Bridgeport Station) are, on the whole, less positively affected than the others.

• Under a wide variety of weighting scenarios, the project has a net positive social impact.

9.11 Summary and Conclusions

The RAV Project will offer significant net positive socio-economic and community benefits to the regional economy and the neighbourhoods through which it travels. Construction costs will range between $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion and generate between 12,800 and 14,800 direct Person Years of employment over the five years required to construct the line. The project will generate significant productivity gains and economic growth, mainly through the time savings associated with less traffic congestion and a better transit system. The project will also generate other significant benefits associated with reduced traffic, increased public safety and positive influences on property values. There are some socio-economic concerns related to the impacts of the proposed RAV Project. These are primarily impacts on properties and community features adjacent to the line. Some of the main concerns pertain to the potential noise and traffic congestion associated with construction, the potential removal of trees along the median of Cambie Street between 37th Avenue and SW Marine Drive, the visual and noise impacts associated with the RAV line south of 49th Avenue along Cambie Street and in Richmond, and the potential temporary impacts that may affect First Nations and other parties due to the construction of the Fraser River crossings.


December 2004 9-112

The RAV rapid transit line will be a large-scale construction project occurring in a highly developed and disturbed urban environment. To balance against the potential regional transportation benefits and planning objective achievements to be derived from the project, it may be expected that such a project would have some very significant negative community, social and economic impacts. The system routing and vertical alignment choices made to date for the RAV rapid transit line appear to have considered and mitigated many of these potential negative impacts, leaving a substantially positive net balance of socio-economic and socio-community impacts. There may be further opportunity to mitigate some of the negative impacts associated with the project once the vertical alignment and system technology is completely finalized. The RAV line may impose several types of socio-economic costs on adjacent communities, residents, businesses and property owners, but these costs appear to be very modest in most cases, and often result from temporary negative influences associated with the construction of the line. Moreover, many of those experiencing negative impacts from the RAV line will also experience counterbalancing benefits. This socio-community and socio-economic assessment indicates that the proposed RAV rapid transit line has significant overall net positive socio-economic/socio-community impacts, under any reasonable set of impact weighting assumptions. 9.12 References

Arthur Andersen Transurban.1999. Technical Study, Socio-Economic Impacts Working Paper, SkyTrain Northeast Sector, Lougheed-Port Moody, Coquitlam, prepared for Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. 22 pp. + Appendix.

BKL Consultants Ltd. 1998. Rapid Transit Project: Phase 1 Noise Issues Report.

Prepared for Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. File:2206-98a. City of Richmond. 2003. Personal Communication with Stuart Jones, Urban

Development Division. June 25 – July 8, 2003.


9-113 December 2004

City of Richmond. 2002. Bridgeport Area Plan, Bylaw 7100 Schedule 2.12, Amended October 21, 2002, 28 pp.

City of Richmond. 2002. Traffic Counts, Based on Selected Days. Provided by

Bill Johal, City of Richmond. July 30, 2003. City of Richmond. 1999. City Centre Area Plan, Bylaw 7100 Schedule 2.10,

Original Adoption: March 15, 1999. City of Richmond 1999. Official Community Plan. Adopted by City Council on

March 15, 1999. City of Seattle Strategic Planning Office. 1999. Staying on Track: Review of

Public Safety and Security on Light Rail Systems. 27 pp. City of Vancouver 2003a. 2001/2002 Truck Traffic Study, Draft Report, 2003.

Provided by Wayne Pledger, City of Vancouver. June 18, 2003. City of Vancouver (Ian Fisher and Lon LaClaire). 2003b. Richmond/Airport-

Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Policy Report Urban Structure. April 2003. 31 pp. + Appendices.

City of Vancouver. 2002a. Downtown Transportation Plan. Approved by

Vancouver City Council July 9, 2002. 188 pp. Available online at: www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/dtp/final.htm [Accessed June 12, 2003]

City of Vancouver. 2002b. Traffic Counts, VanMap. Available online at:

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/vanmap/vanmappub.html City of Vancouver. 2001. Oakridge Langara Policy Statement. Chapter 11.

Public Transit. City of Vancouver. 1997. Vancouver Transportation Plan. Available online at:

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/plan/1997report/index.htm [Accessed May 13, 2003]

City of Vancouver. 1995. Oakridge Langara Policy Statement. Approved by City

Council July 25, 1995. Amended March 10, 1998. 49 pp.


December 2004 9-114

City of Vancouver. 1995. City of Vancouver CityPlan. Available online at: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/planning/cityplan/cityplanreport.html [Accessed June 12, 2003]

City of Vancouver. 1991. Central Area Plan. Adopted by City Council December

3, 1991. 5 pp. Colliers International. 1998. Rapid Transit Residential Market Study. 75 pp. Eric Vance & Associates. 2001 Economic Development Account. IN: IBI Group

and PriceWaterhouseCoopers Multiple Account Evaluation. Submitted to Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. April 2001.

Greater Vancouver Regional District. 2002. 2001 Census Bulletin #1, Population

& Dwelling Counts. Policy and Planning Department. Available online at: http://www.gvrd.bc.ca. [Accessed June 12, 2003]

Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1999. Livable Region Strategic Plan. 33 pp. Available online at: http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/lrsp/lrsp99.pdf. [Accessed November 1st, 2004]

Halcrow Group Limited and TSi Consultants. 2003. Final Report on Ridership &

Revenues - Richmond Airport Vancouver Project. Prepared for RAV Project Management Ltd. 147 pp. + Appendix. January 2003.

Harris and Hudema Consulting Group Limited. 1998. Greater Vancouver Rapid

Transit Retail and Commercial Baseline Study. Prepared for the: Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd.

Horne, G. and T. Q. Zhuang. 2001. British Columbia Provincial Economic

Multipliers and How to Use Them. B.C. Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

Hudema Consulting Group Limited and TyPlan Consulting Ltd. 2003. New Fraser

River Crossing Project, Socio-Community and Socio-Economic Comparative Assessment Report. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority.


9-115 December 2004

IBI Group with Delcan and TSi Consultants. 2002. Richmond/Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. Richmond T2 Segment, Project Definition Phase Final Report.

IBI Group. 2001. Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project - Multiple

Account Evaluation Technical Appendix. 66 pp. Interwest Properties Ltd. 2002. Confidential Report on Property Values. RAV

Rapid Transit Project Office. Kirk and Co. Consulting Ltd. 2003a. Consultation Summary Report, RAV Project

Community Consultation 2003, Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. 138 pp. + Appendices.

Kirk and Co. Consulting Ltd. 2003b. Consultation Summary Report

(Supplementary), RAV Project Community Consultation, Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. April 2003. 50 pp. Available online at: http://www.ravrapidtransit.com [Accessed June 17, 2003]

ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003a. Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit

Project, Cambie Corridor King Edward to Marine Drive – Non Subway Options, Draft dated February 2003.

ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003b. Alignment Review - Marine Drive to No.3 Road.

February 2003. ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002. Fraser River Crossing Study. Prepared for

Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. August 2002. North Fraser Port Authority. 2003. Business on the Fraser. Available online at:

http://www.nfpa.ca. [Accessed April 15, 2003] Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. 2001. Station Design Initiatives. 2pp. Available

online at: http://www.rapidtransit.bc.ca/media/pdf/design.pdf [Accessed May 13, 2003]

Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. 1999. Section 3: Socio-Economic Setting

in Environmental Assessment Report. Section 3: 20 pp.


December 2004 9-116

Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. 1998. Neighbourhood Consultation/ Fraserview Visual Analysis / New Westminster/ Rapid Transit Open House # 2, 1998.

Richmond•Airport•Vancouver (RAV) Rapid Transit Project Team. 2003. Personal

Communication with Raymond Louie, Technical Manager. April 23, 2003. Richmond•Airport•Vancouver (RAV) Rapid Transit. 2003. Project Definition

Report, Final Draft, February 2003. Sandwell Engineering Inc. and Hatch Mott MacDonald. 2002. Technical Study -

Vancouver Segment (Volumes 1 and 2). Prepared for Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. July 2002.

Security Resource Group Inc. 1999. Security, Safety, and Rapid Transit.

Prepared for Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2002. Technical Study – Airport Segment. Final Update.

February 2002. Stuart Gale. 2003. Personal Communications re population estimates received

from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. July 10, 2003. Synovate. 2003. RAV Project Consultation Summary Data. Prepared for

Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. 31 pp. March 20, 2003.

The Underhill Company, LLC. 2003. Report to Vancouver City Council on the

Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Independent Review: Phase I. Report to Vancouver City Council February 2003.

TransLink Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. 2003a. Regional

Transportation Network. Presentation by RAV Rapid Transit Project. 13 pp.

TransLink Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. 2003b. NOW: A

Community Consultation Discussion Guide


9-117 December 2004

TransLink. 2003. Board-in-Brief, March 5, 2003. Available online at: http://www.TransLink.bc.ca [Accessed June 17, 2003]

TransLink. 2002a. Transportation Plans. Available on line at:

http://www.TransLink.bc.ca/file/plan2002 [Accessed June 17, 2003] TransLink. 2002b. SkyTrain Ridership Greater Vancouver, December 2002.

Available on line at: http://www.obie.com/ratefinder/pdf/MarketProfiles2003/SkyTrainBusRidership.pdf [Accessed June17. 2003]

TransLink. 2002c. RAV Rapid Transit Project Regional Transportation Network,

Presentation Overheads. TSi Consultants. 2001. RAV Rapid Transit Project, Ridership Forecasts, User

Benefits & Emission Estimates. Technical Appendix prepared for Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project 2000. Available online at: http://www.TransLink.bc.ca/files/mae_report/appendix_riderfore_userbenefits.pdf [Accessed June 17, 2003]

U.S. Bureau of Transportation, Transit Safety Data by Mode for All

Reported Accidents. 2002. 1990 to 2000. Available online at: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2000/ [Accessed June 12, 2003]

Vancouver International Airport Authority. 1996. The Future: Master Plan.

Available online at: http://www.yvr.ca/authority/whoweare/future.asp [Accessed June 10, 2003]

Population Along Proposed RAV Project CorridorAPPENDIX 9-A


1 December 2004

APPENDIX 9-A POPULATION ALONG PROPOSED RAV PROJECT CORRIDOR Appendix 9-A1 Downtown Population in Close Proximity to Proposed RAV Line Stations

Population

2001 Population

2021 Very Close Proximity to Proposed Downtown Stations Central Business District 1,909 3,467 Downtown South 8,548 13,641 Yaletown South 392 1,774 Granville Slopes 1,582 2,258 Sub-Total 12,431 21,140 Within Easy Access of Downtown Stations Central Waterfront 0 1,020 Coal Harbour 837 4,437 Triangle West 3,972 5,191 Victory Square, Downtown Eastside 4,993 6,548 False Creek North 5,843 14,946 Bridgehead 415 437 Sub-Total 16,060 32,579 Total Downtown Population Potentially Affected 28,491 53,719 Other Downtown West End 40,072 43,771 City Gate 1,527 2,440 Total Downtown Population 70,090 99,930 Notes: The City Gate population will gain access to the RAV line through the nearby Main Street Station. Similarly, some of the West End population will gain access to the RAV line through the Burrard Station. Total did not add to breakdown and the difference of 60 people was added to the West End population. Source: City of Vancouver 2002a.


December 2004 2

Appendix 9-A2 Cambie Population, Commercial Space and Employment in Close Proximity to Proposed RAV Stations

Population

2001

Commerce & Industry sq.ft 2001

Jobs 1996

Zoned Population

capacity

Population Capacity

(re-zoning)

Jobs Capacity

Broadway 500 m Core 3,836 4,797,638 13,959 701 7,539 Next 500 m 11,999 8,141,957 20,861 1,206 12,850 5,804 King Edward 500 m Core 3,323 73,556 373 534 69 Next 500 m 8,676 637,351 5,087 1,979 1,568 Oakridge 500 m Core 2,239 896,671 3,385 - 2,515 123 Next 500 m 4,607 728,996 2,136 166 69 49th Avenue Station 500 m Core 2,169 81,033 197 2 - Next 500 m 4,653 669,941 1,787 64 1,400 74 SW Marine Drive - 500 m Core 2,785 1,065,343 2,472 99 5,037 Next 500 m 6,783 2,259,859 4,317 177 9,339 Current 5 Stations 500 m Core 14,352 6,914,241 20,386 1,336 2,515 12,769 Next 500 m 36,718 12,438,104 34,188 3,592 14,250 16,854 Total 51,070 19,352,345 54,574 4,928 16,765 29,622 Source: City of Vancouver. 2003b.


3 December 2004

Appendix 9-A3 Richmond Population, Commercial Space and Employment in Close Proximity to Proposed RAV Rapid Transit Stations

Population 2001

Commerce & Industry

sq.ft (2001)

Jobs (1996)

No. 3/Bridgeport 500 m Core 134 1,245,869 1,608 Next 500 m 1,653 514,893 1,199 No. 3/Cambie 500 m Core 204 1,350,038 4,742 Next 500 m 543 633,891 2,340 No. 3/ Alderbridge 500 m Core 60 3,102,721 6,489 Next 500 m 1,058 271,518 964 No. 3/ Westminster 500 m Core 3,918 1,887,887 6,592 Next 500 m 3,914 414,590 5,934 No. 3/ Richmond Centre 500 m Core 6,092 1,159,416 6,017 Next 500 m 9,689 563 307 No 3/All 5 - 500m core 10,408 8,745,931 25,448 No 3/All 5 - next 500m 16,857 1,835,455 10,744

Total 27,265 10,581,386 36,192 % of Total

No 3/All 5 - 500m core 38% 83% 70%

No 3/All 5 - next 500m 62% 17% 30% Total 100% 100% 100%

Note: Impact areas are truncated where they overlap to avoid double counting. Source: City of Richmond, Urban Development Division. 2003.

Types of Properties by Major Line SegmentAPPENDIX 9-B


1 December 2004

APPENDIX 9-B TYPES OF PROPERTIES BY MAJOR LINE SEGMENT

Single Family & Duplex Residences

Types of Properties by Major Line Segment

Description – East Side Description – West Side East West 1 Waterfront to Robson Commercial/retail Commercial/retail

2 a) Robson Station to False Creek

Commercial/ retail/ residential; no single family dwellings


b) False Creek to Cambie & 6th Avenue



3 a) 6th Avenue to King Edward Commercial/ retail from 6th avenue to 19th Avenue; City Hall between 10th and 12th; apartment buildings between 18th and 23rd Avenue; retail at corner of 25th Avenue

Commercial/ retail from 6th Avenue to 19th Avenue; apartment buildings between 18th and 23rd Avenue; retail at corner of 25th Avenue

b) King Edward to 37th Avenue

Residential single family Residential single family/ duplex residences within 500 m of station Residential residences outside 500 m of station (30th to 36th)

20

15

27

28

4 a) 37th to 49th Residential single family between 37th and 39th, 43rd and 45th and 46th and 49th; commercial/retail and

Residential single family between 37th and 39th and 48th to 49th; commercial/ retail between 39th and

31

17


December 2004 2



Description – East Side Description – West Side East West apartments between 39th and 42nd, townhouses between 45th and 46th

48th including the Oakridge Centre mall; churches and language schools between 45th and 46th; apartments and offices above Oakridge Centre mall and some of the commercial/ retail space

b) 49th to SW Marine Drive Apartments and townhouses between 49th and just south of 54th Avenue: 4 apartment units and 17 townhouse units are adjacent to Cambie Street (apartment building faces 49th Avenue) Golf course south of 54th Avenue townhouses; Residential single-family dwellings between 58th and 59th; Side-by-side duplexes between 59th and 65th Avenue; Restaurant at corner of 60th Avenue

Residential single family between 49th and 54th; Between 54th and 57th Avenue and between Cambie and Neal Street (just east of Heather Street), Langara Gardens provides 604 rental units on a 21-acre site in a mix of high-rise apartments, garden apartments and townhouses; 2 of the 4 high-rise towers are adjacent to Cambie Street, each with 84 apartments or approx. 5 on each floor; there are 2 clusters of ground-oriented multi-family units with a total of 8 units adjacent to Cambie Street; George Pearson Centre (health care)


3 December 2004



Description – East Side Description – West Side East West between 57th and 59th; Commercial / retail between 59th and 60th; church at 60th and side-by-side duplexes between 60th and 65th Avenues Townhouses and gas station between 65th Avenue and SW Marine Drive (14 townhouse units including one at the corner of 65th Avenue).

Residential single family/duplex residences within 500 m of station Residential residences outside 500 m of station (54th to 62nd)

22

27

46

12

5 SW Marine Drive to Bridgeport Station

Commercial/ retail and industrial south of SW Marine Drive; ICBC Claims Centre

SGI Temple south of SW Marine Also, 17 ground-oriented multi-family units adjacent to Cambie Street that are all part of larger developments; in addition, one older style duplex remains. Residential single-family/duplex residences

2


December 2004 4



Description – East Side Description – West Side East West 6 Bridgeport Station to

Westminster Highway on No. 3 Road

Commercial / retail with major shopping malls including the Yohan Centre, Landsdowne Centre and various strip malls along the way

Commercial / retail with various retail stores and strip malls including the Richview Plaza; also includes the Progressive Construction Office building and the London Plaza Apartments between Ackroyd Road and Westminster Highway.

7 No. 3 Road from Westminster Highway to Richmond Centre

One and two storey commercial / retail; Perla apartment towers on Saba Road just east of No. 3 Road

Commercial / retail including The Bay retail store, the Three West Centre (a large mixed use retail, office and residential development) and the Richmond Centre Mall

8 & 9

Bridgeport Station to Airport/Sea Island

Industrial /commercial Industrial/ commercial

TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY/ DUPLEX RESIDENCES (A side-by-side duplex is counted as two residences)

115 132

Person Years of Construction EmploymentAPPENDIX 9-C


1 December 2004

APPENDIX 9-C PERSON YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT

Fully Separated Alternative ($ million)

Estimated Person Years of Construction Employment

Average Person Years per Year of

Construction

After Allocating Contingencies

Direct PYs

Indirect and

Induced Total PYs

Direct PYs

Indirect and

Induced Civil Works $531 $625 6,419 3,806 10,225 1,284 2,045 Electrical & Mechanical, Commissioning $213 $251 1,617 842 2,460 323 492 Maintenance Facility and Storage $21 $25 238 147 385 48 77 Stations $203 $239 2,301 1,417 3,718 460 744 Vehicles $108 $127 1,217 549 1,766 243 353 Management, Design and Engineering $210 $247 2,976 1,369 4,346 595 869 Property $75 $88 Contingencies $241 Total (2003) No Inflation $1,602 $1,602 14,768 8,131 22,899 2,954 4,580 Total With Inflation $1,723

Notes: 1. Assumes that construction will take five years. 2. Based on indirect and induced multipliers assuming that people formerly receiving assistance fill in all new jobs (i.e., with safety net

scenario). 3. Indirect and induced multipliers that assume no safety nets (i.e., people without jobs have zero incomes) would be higher. Source: The capital cost breakdown is estimated in: TransLink Richmond/Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. 2003a. Source of Multipliers: Horne and Zhuang. 2001.


December 2004 2

Partially Separated Alternative ($ million)

Estimated Person Years of Construction Employment

Average Person Years per Year of

Construction

After Allocating

Contingencies Direct PYs

Indirect and

Induced

Total PYs

Direct PYs

Indirect and

Induced Civil Works $406 $467 4,796 2,844 7,639 959 1,528 Electrical & Mechanical, Commissioning $162 $186 1,202 626 1,828 240 366 Maintenance Facility and Storage $22 $25 244 150 394 49 79 Stations $188 $216 2,082 1,282 3,364 416 673 Vehicles $187 $215 2,058 929 2,987 412 597 Management, Design and Engineering $175 $201 2,423 1,115 3,538 485 708 Property $79 $91 Contingencies $183 Total (2003) No Inflation $1,402 $1,402 12,805 6,946 19,751 2,561 3,950 Total With Inflation $1,508 Contingency % - Fully Separated Alt. 17.71% Contingency % - Partially Sep. Alt. 15.01%

Notes: 1. Assumes that construction will take five years. 2. Based on indirect and induced multipliers assuming that people formerly receiving assistance fill in all new jobs (i.e., with safety net

scenario). 3. Indirect and induced multipliers that assume no safety nets (i.e., people without jobs have zero incomes) would be higher. Source: The capital cost breakdown is estimated in: TransLink Richmond/Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. 2003a. Source of Multipliers: Horne and Zhuang. 2001.

First Nations ImpactsAPPENDIX 9-D


1 December 2004

APPENDIX 9-D FIRST NATIONS IMPACTS There are five First Nations who have identified Statement of Intent boundaries that coincide with at least a portion of the proposed corridor of the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit Project including: • Tsawwassen First Nation • Musqueam Indian Band • Tsleil-Waututh Nation • Sto:Lo Nation • Squamish Nation The Katzie Indian Band’s traditional territory extends to just south of the southern terminus of the RAV line. This section summarizes the findings of this study regarding each of the First Nations. Discussions with these First Nations are ongoing and RAVCo’s approach to First Nations consultation and communications is described in detail in SECTION 4.2: FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION. Tsawwassen First Nation Population (Stuart Gale 2003): 230 (158 on-Reserve) Statement of Intent Boundary: • Extends from the western side of the Gulf Islands in the Georgia Straight to

an area that extends from the south side of Sea Island to White Rock on the mainland, inland up the Fraser River to the Pitt River and up the Pitt River to the head of Pitt Lake.

Potential Impacts from the RAV Rapid Transit Project: • Treaty negotiations are underway with Canada and British Columbia and the

land selection process has not been finalized. At present lands in proximity to the corridor have not been identified.

• There is archaeological potential throughout the Tsawwassen First Nation territory, especially in proximity to the Fraser River. Millennia Research Limited has completed an Archaeological Impact Assessment on behalf of RAVCo (see SECTION 13).


December 2004 2

• Concern about possible impacts on fish, fish habitat and fishing activities in relation to the construction of the North and Middle Arm crossing of the Fraser River. The Tsawwassen First Nation, along with the Musqueam Indian Band, has an arrangement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to fish on the Fraser River. These issues have been addressed in the Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Assessment (see SECTION 6).

• It was suggested that construction activities on the Fraser River crossings be carried out during low impact seasons (e.g., winter) to minimize risks to fish and fish habitat.

• Concern about marine navigation and safety impacts from the placement of piers in the river.

• There is a hope that positive benefits will accrue through employment and business opportunities associated with the design, construction and operation of the project. It is also hoped that training/educational opportunities will be provided to build capacity related to business and employment opportunities.

• There are likely to be requests for project information, analysis and review by the First Nations during the design and construction phases.

Musqueam Indian Band Population: • 1,082 (511 on-Reserve) Statement of Intent Boundary: • Extends from the southern tip of Bowen Island south to slightly below the

South Arm of the Fraser River and inland up the Fraser almost to the Port Mann Bridge and extends north almost as far as the head of Howe Sound.

Potential Impacts from the RAV Rapid Transit Project: • There is archaeological potential throughout the Musqueam Indian Band

territory, especially in proximity to the Fraser River (see SECTION 13). • Likely to be concerns about possible impacts on fish and fish habitat in

relation to the construction of the North and Middle Arm crossing of the Fraser River. The Musqueam Indian Band, along with the Tsawwassen First Nation, has an arrangement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to fish on the Fraser River (see SECTION 6).

• There are two Indian Reserves in the general vicinity of the corridor (IR#2 – 190 hectares on the north side of the North Arm of the Fraser River and IR#3 – 6.5 hectares on Sea Island to the north of the corridor).


3 December 2004

Tsleil-Waututh Nation Population: • 380 (227 on-Reserve) Statement of Intent Boundary: • Extends from Lions Bay in Howe Sound south to the north shore of the North

Arm of the Fraser River, up the Fraser River on the north side to just beyond the Port Mann Bridge and north to the headwaters of the Pitt River in Garibaldi Park.

Potential Impacts from the RAV Rapid Transit Project: • There is archaeological potential throughout the Tsleil-Waututh Nation

territory, especially in proximity to the Fraser River (see SECTION 13). • There may be concerns about potential impacts to fish and fish habitat

associated with the construction of the crossing for the North Arm of the Fraser River (see SECTION 6).

Katzie Indian Band Population: • 464 (283 on-Reserve) Statement of Intent Boundary: • Extends from White Rock in the south to Lulu Island along the South Arm of

the Fraser River and up the river to Langley and taking in Pitt Lake and up to the headwaters of the Pitt River in Garibaldi Park.

Potential Impacts from the RAV Rapid Transit Project: • RAV Project representatives have advised that the Katzie Indian Band has

indicated an interest in reviewing the EAC Application. Sto:Lo Nation Population: • 4,196 (2,112 on-Reserve) Statement of Intent Boundary: • Extends from Whitecliff on the North Shore south to the US border, follows

the border east to Manning Park and extends north to the Coquihalla and west crossing the Fraser River near Yale, taking in Harrison Lake and extending west to the headwaters of the Pitt River in Garibaldi Park.


December 2004 4

Potential Impacts from the RAV Rapid Transit Project: • There is archaeological potential throughout the Sto’lo Nation territory,

especially in proximity to the Fraser River (see SECTION 13). • May be concerns about possible impacts on fish and fish habitat in relation to

the construction of the North and Middle Arm crossing of the Fraser River (see SECTION 6).

Squamish Nation Population: • 3,214 (2,083 on-Reserve) Statement of Intent Boundary: • Extends from Roberts Creek on the Sunshine Coast across Georgia Straight

to Point Grey and east through Vancouver at approximately 25th Avenue to approximately Renfrew Street and north to the Burrard Inlet, extending east to the head of Burrard Inlet and north almost to Pemberton and west to Clendinning Park near the headwaters of the Squamish River.

Potential Impacts from the RAV Rapid Transit Project: • There is archaeological potential throughout the Squamish Nation territory

(see SECTION 13).

Assessment of Relative Social ImpactsAPPENDIX 9-E

Graphs by Major Line SegmentsAPPENDIX 9-E1


1 December 2004

Appendix 9-E1 Graphs by Major Line Segments The following summarizes the Social Impact Index results by line segment. 1 Downtown Vancouver: Cordova to Robson Station 2a Robson Station to False Creek 2b False Creek to Cambie Street and 6th Avenue 3a Cambie Street between 6th Avenue and King Edward 3b Cambie Street between King Edward and 37th Avenue 4a Cambie Street between 37th and 49th 4b Cambie Street between 49th and SW Marine Drive 5 SW Marine Drive to Bridgeport Station 6 Bridgeport Station to Westminster Highway 7 No. 3 Road between Westminster Highway and Richmond Centre 8 & 9 Vancouver International Airport/Sea Island

The analysis considers four alternatives. Alternatives A, C and D assume underground tunnels built using tunnel boring machines from downtown Vancouver to 37th Avenue, cut-and-cover tunnels from 37th Avenue to 49th Avenue and an elevated system from SW Marine Drive to Bridgeport Station and for the airport segment of the line. Alternative B assumes cut-and-cover tunnels along Cambie Street between 6th Avenue and SW Marine Drive. Key assumptions for each alternative are as follows: Alternative A Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, trench from 49th Avenue to SW

Marine and elevated in Richmond Alternative B Bored tunnels to 6th Avenue, cut-and-cover tunnels from Cambie

Street and 6th Avenue to SW Marine, and elevated system in Richmond

Alternative C Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue, and partially separated at-grade

system between 49th Avenue and SW Marine and from Bridgeport Station to downtown Richmond.

Alternative D Bored tunnels to 37th Avenue and elevated system after 49th

Avenue


December 2004 2

Alternative D is the same as Alternative A except that an elevated system replaces the trench for segment 4b. The results for Alternative D are not presented in detail in this report as they are virtually identical to those for Alternative A.

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Segment 1

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0Ec

onom

ic D

evel

opm

ent

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC


3 December 2004

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Segment 2b

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC

Segment 2a

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC


December 2004 4

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Segment 3a

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Eco

nom

ic D

evel

opm

ent

Tim

e S

avin

gs &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Vis

ual,

Noi

se &

Vib

ratio

n

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Pos

itive

Pro

perty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n P

oten

tial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC

Segment 3b

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC


5 December 2004

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Segment 4a

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC

Segment 4b

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC


December 2004 6

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Segment 5

-0.4-0.20.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC

Segment 6

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC


7 December 2004

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Positive Effects

↑ ↓

Negative Effects

Segment 7

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Eco

nom

ic D

evel

opm

ent

Tim

e S

avin

gs &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Vis

ual,

Noi

se &

Vib

ratio

n

Neg

ativ

e P

rope

rty

Val

ueIm

pact

s

Pos

itive

Pro

pert

y V

alue

Impa

cts

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n P

oten

tial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC

Segments 8 & 9

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Tim

e Sa

ving

s &

Use

r Com

fort

Traf

fic &

Saf

ety

Visu

al, N

oise

& V

ibra

tion

Neg

ativ

e Pr

oper

ty V

alue

Impa

cts

Posi

tive

Prop

erty

Val

ue Im

pact

s

Oth

er S

tatio

n Im

pact

s (p

arki

ng&

crim

e)

Firs

t Nat

ions

Impa

cts

Her

itage

& O

ther

Com

mun

ityIm

pact

s

Miti

gatio

n Po

tent

ial

Tota

l

Soci

al Im

pact

Inde

x

ABC

Trade-Off AnalysisIndicator Scales and Weights

APPENDIX 9-E2


9 December 2004

Appendix 9-E2 - Trade-Off Analysis Indicator Scales and Weights This appendix outlines the rationale for the impact scales developed for each indicator. For each indicator, the most extreme score (either -5 or +5) has been assigned based on the most negative or most positive change to be expected in any segment of any of the three alternatives under review. All alternatives have been scored relative to the scale developed for each indicator. This appendix also shows the weights which have been assigned to each category of indicators (for example Economic Development), and to each indicator within its own category (for example, person years of employment and impacts on navigation/river based activities). Weights have also been assigned to the construction phase and to the operations phase. Weights have been assigned based on our research and our understanding of the relative importance of impacts on GVRD residents. Recognizing the subjective nature of this process, we have conducted a sensitivity analysis on the weights.

Zero=No RAV (B-Line) CONSTRUCTION - ASSUMPTIONS OPERATION - ASSUMPTIONS WEIGHTS Impact Category and Indicator Positive/

Negative Comments Positive/ Negative Comments Indicator Category Const.

Economic Development 10 1 Person Years of Employment +5 Construction of fully separated options is assumed to

generate the highest employment impacts. -5 Driverless fully automated system is assumed to

generate fewer jobs, although fewer drivers partly offset by increased security personnel.

80 80%

2 Impact on navigation / river based activities - North Arm

-5 Indicator applies to Segment 5 where industries using North Arm for shipping may be affected.

-5 Indicator applies to Segment 5 where industries using North Arm for shipping may be affected.

10 10%

3 Impact on navigation / river based activities - Middle Arm

-5 Indicator applies to Segments 8 & 9 where industries and marina users may be most affected.

-5 Indicator applies to Segments 8 & 9 where industries and marina users may be most affected.

10 10%

Time Savings & User Comfort 20 1 Time Savings to Transit Users -5 It is assumed that excavating stations and cut & cover

tunnels will be most disruptive to transit & road users during construction.

+5 All fully separated options are assumed to generate same ridership and benefit transit and non-transit users fully; partially separated system is assumed to generate less ridership.

60 10%

2 Time Savings to Non-Transit Users -5 Per above +5 Per above 30 10% 3 Transit User Comfort n/a Not applicable +5 Fully separated elevated and at grade systems are

assumed to be most comfortable. Underground and trench systems are assumed to be slightly less comfortable due to lack of natural light and viewscapes.

10 0%

Traffic & Safety 15 1 Truck, car and bus traffic along route -5 The excavation of stations and cut & cover tunnels is

assumed to be the most disruptive to transit & road users during construction.

+5 Fully separated systems are assumed to generate the most riders and as a result are rated as having the most beneficial impact on traffic; partially separated systems may have some negative impacts on traffic that offset some of the benefits (+4).

40 10%

2 Truck, car and bus traffic along parallel routes

-5 The excavation of stations and cut & cover tunnels is assumed to be the most disruptive to transit & road users during construction.

+5 Fully separated systems are assumed to generate the most riders and as a result they are rated as having the most beneficial impact on traffic.

40 10%

Safety n/a +5 Fully separated systems tend to be safer than vehicle traffic.

20 10%


December 2004 10



Visual, Noise & Vibration 10 1 Negatively affected residences along

corridor -5 During construction, high density residential areas and

those near underground stations and cut-and-cover tunnels may be the most affected (i.e. False Creek and some excavated portions of Cambie Street).

-5 Although width of Cambie Street and setbacks mitigate loss of privacy, visual and noise impacts, residences in South Cambie area may be the most affected.

40 10%

2 Negatively affected retail businesses along corridor

-5 During construction, some retail areas in Richmond and retail areas near excavations may be the most affected (i.e. Downtown Vancouver, Oakridge, and some excavated portions of Cambie Street).

-5 Along corridor, an elevated system near Richmond Centre may have the most significant impacts on retail properties as elevated systems reduce exposure.

25 10%

3 Negatively affected office buildings along corridor

-5 Within RAV line corridor, downtown office buildings may be the most affected by noise impacts from construction.

-5 The impacts on office buildings would be limited regardless of the option; most affected might be the office space above industrial buildings in Segment 5.

5 10%

4 Negatively affected industrial sites along corridor

-5 Industrial sites at the South end of Cambie Street and near Bridgeport may be affected; also, may be some impacts on industrial sites in False Creek South and Richmond.

-5 The elevated system for Segment 5 may impact industrial sites at the South end of Cambie Street and near Bridgeport, some negotiated easements and/or property purchases may be required.

5 10%

5 Negatively affected hotel sites along corridor

-5 During construction, hotels near excavations may be affected (e.g. hotels in Downtown Vancouver and at 12th & Cambie).

n/a No negative impact on hotels 5 100%

6 Negatively affected institutional sites along corridor

-5 During construction, George Pearson Centre may be the most affected of institutional sites (Segment 4b).

n/a Limited to no impact once system is operational. 5 100%

7 Negatively affected parks and public spaces along corridor

-5 During construction, the median along Cambie Street may be most affected; Queen Elizabeth Park may be affected from work site at Cambie Street and 37th Avenue.

-5 A trench between 49th Avenue and SW Marine would likely have the greatest negative impacts on the median along Cambie Street; an elevated system may result in somewhat more usable public space than a trench.

15 10%

Negative Property Value Impacts 5 1 Residential properties adjacent to line

within 100m of station n/a Construction disturbance impacts are assumed to be

temporary and to have no impacts on property values. -5 The most significant impacts are assumed to occur

near station sites which are in primarily residential settings and which do not currently have high levels of transient pedestrian traffic. These properties may be exposed to the combined impacts of station area influences and transit line adjacency. Combines severity of impact with number of dwellings affected

25 0%

2 Residential properties adjacent to line outside 100m of station

n/a Construction disturbance impacts are assumed to be temporary and to have no impacts on property values.

-5 The most significant impacts are assumed to occur from an elevated system in primarily residential settings where visual, noise, privacy and shadowing impacts may be the greatest.

10 0%

3 Impacts on industrial properties n/a Construction disturbance impacts are assumed to be temporary and to have no impacts on property values.

-5 Some industrial properties in Segment 5 (South of SW Marine and near Bridgeport) may be affected, with the line running very near, or through several properties; negotiated easements and/or property purchases may be required.

10 0%

4 Impacts on retail properties n/a Construction disturbance impacts are assumed to be temporary and to have no impacts on property values.

-5 Retail properties require exposure and an elevated or at-grade structure may negatively affect this, particularly in areas where the street is narrow, for example No. 3 Road near Park.

20 0%


11 December 2004



5 Impacts on office buildings n/a Construction disturbance impacts are assumed to be temporary and to have no impacts on property values.

-5 The elevated structure proposed for Segment 5 may affect office space in industrial properties in that segment. An elevated structure may impact office buildings along the corridor where the street is narrowest.

15 0%

6 Railway right of way n/a Construction disturbance impacts are assumed to be temporary and to have no impacts on property values.

-5 The proposed RAV line will cross over railway lines on both sides of the North Arm of the Fraser River and the bridges/elevated structure of the guideway for that segment have been designed to meet the clearance requirements of the railway rights of way.

5 0%

7 Other land acquisition and disposal issues

-5 Acquisition of work sites used during construction at False Creek, South Vancouver, and possibly near the Middle Arm bridge site.

-5 Acquisition of private properties for guideway right-of-way and potential disposition of some portions of those properties.

15 30%

Positive Property Value Impacts 15 1 Residential properties between 0.5 km

and 1km of station n/a Not applicable +5 Largest impact is likely to be where dwelling unit

densities are greatest and proportional accessibility is most enhanced.

5 0%

2 Residential properties within 0.5 km of station

n/a Not applicable +5 Largest impact is likely to be where dwelling unit densities are greatest and proportional accessibility is most enhanced.

25 0%

3 Impacts on industrial properties n/a Not applicable +5 Enhanced access for employees through proximity to a transit station is expected to have a positive influence on property values.

5 0%

4 Impacts on retail properties n/a Not applicable +5 Access for employees and patrons is enhanced by proximity to a transit station. Exposure to transient pedestrian traffic can be beneficial for many types of retailers.

20 0%

5 Impacts on office buildings n/a Not applicable +5 Access for employees and patrons is enhanced by proximity to a transit station.

20 0%

6 Impacts on institutional properties n/a Not applicable +5 Access for employees and patrons is enhanced by proximity to a transit station.

10 0%

7 Impacts on hotels n/a Not applicable +5 Access for employees and patrons is enhanced by proximity to a transit station.

5 0%

8 Project induced development potential n/a Not applicable +5 Large properties near stations for which densification and/or change of use fit municipal planning objectives.

10 0%

Other Station Impacts (parking & crime) 3 1 Resident parking used for park and

ride n/a Not applicable -5 Residential areas along Cambie may be most likely to

be affected (e.g. South Cambie), although resident only parking systems can help mitigate impacts.

25 0%

2 Incidence of crime n/a Not applicable -5 Stations with park and ride facilities are most affected (e.g. Bridgeport); also, areas where crime is already higher such as downtown Vancouver may see increased crime around stations, although adoption of CPTED principles can mitigate impacts.

75 0%

First Nations Impacts 5 1 Musqueam Indian Band -5 Risks of excavating archaeological artifacts may be

greatest with cut-and cover tunnel option; may be -5 Benefits to GVRD community may benefit First

Nations; of all First Nations, Musqueam Indian Band 35 50%


December 2004 12



potential for impacts on fish habitat near crossings of Fraser River, although adherence to DFO regulations will help mitigate impacts.

has reserves that are closest to proposed RAV line; has food fishery in Fraser River which may be affected, although adherence to DFO regulations will help mitigate impacts.

2 Tsawwassen First Nation -5 as above -5 Benefits to GVRD community may also benefit First Nations; has food fishery in Fraser River which may be affected, although adherence to DFO regulations will help mitigate impacts.

25 50%

3 Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Sto:Lo Nation -5 as above -5 Benefits to GVRD community may benefit First Nations; may have environmental concerns relating to Fraser River crossings.

38 50%

4 Squamish Nation -5 There may be some small risks of excavating archaeological artifacts near underground stations; statement of intent boundary includes area north of 25th Avenue (excludes 4a, 4b & Fraser River); therefore less risk than other First Nations of being negatively affected; lower weight applied.

n/a 2 100%

Heritage & Other Community Impacts 13 1 Vehicle and pedestrian crossings -5 Excavations may be disruptive to pedestrian traffic

during construction; greater disruptions expected along Cambie near Broadway and Oakridge, and in Richmond.

-5 Trench and at-grade systems will likely limit pedestrian crossings; this is a greater issue where there are largest numbers of pedestrians.

30 10%

2 Resident on-street parking adjacent to line

-5 Resident on-street parking adjacent to line is permitted on South Cambie; resident on-street parking may be affected during construction.

-5 Trench and at-grade systems that require use of median may result in reduction or elimination of resident on-street parking on streets adjacent to line; likely to be most problematic in South Cambie.

10 10%

4 Heritage features -5 Construction may involve tree removal, relocation or replacement thereby having a negative impact on features associated with Cambie Heritage Boulevard (systems located on or beneath the median are likely to be worst, except in the case of bored tunnels).

-5 An elevated system that involves the permanent removal of trees and changes in viewscapes along the Cambie Heritage Boulevard is assumed to have the worst negative impact (e.g. South Cambie).

40 10%

5 Changes to neighbourhoods n/a -5 An elevated system near Richmond Centre and South Cambie is assumed to have the most detrimental impacts on neighbourhoods, and in case of Richmond, the potential to develop street level pedestrian ambiance in downtown Richmond.

20 10%

Mitigation Potential 4 1 Ability to mitigate +5 It may be possible to mitigate some construction

impacts, for example bridge construction may be conducted in winter to minimize impacts on fish habitat (+5), but others may not be easily mitigated, such as the removal of trees associated with excavations.

+5 Some negative impacts such as crime levels may be mitigated through increased security (+5), but other negative impacts such as the visual impacts of an elevated guideway may be difficult to mitigate.

100 10%

TOTAL 100

Trade-Off AnalysisIndicator Ratings

APPENDIX 9-E3


13 December 2004

Appendix 9-E3 - Trade-Off Analysis Indicator Ratings This analysis shows the indicator values and weights assigned to each indicator for each of the three alternatives. For each indicator, the first line shows the weight and ratings during construction and the second line shows the weight and ratings during operations. Alternative A: Bored Tunnels to 37th, Alt. B: Bored Tunnels Alternative C: Bored Tunnels to 37th, C & C to 49th, Trench to SW Marine & Elevated to 6th, C & C to SW Marine

& Elevated and Partially Sep. At-Grade for 4b, 6 & 7

Weight 1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8&9 3a 3b 4a 4b 1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8&9 Economic Development 1 Person Years of Employment 0.064 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Person Years of Employment 0.016 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 2 Impact on river activities - North Arm 0.001 -5 -5 Impact on river activities - North Arm 0.009 -5 -5 3 Impact on river activities - Middle Arm 0.001 -5 -5 Impact on river activities - Middle Arm 0.009 -5 -5 Economic Development 0.100 Time Savings & User Comfort 1 Time Savings to Transit Users 0.012 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Time Savings to Transit Users 0.108 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 Time Savings to Non-Transit Users 0.006 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Time Savings to Non-Transit Users 0.054 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Transit User Comfort Transit User Comfort 0.020 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 Time Savings & User Comfort 0.200 Traffic & Safety 1 Truck traffic along route 0.002 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -4 -3 -3 -3 -1 -5 -5 -5 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -2 -3 -2 -3 -1 Truck traffic along route 0.014 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 2 Truck traffic along parallel routes 0.002 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -4 -3 -3 -3 -1 -5 -5 -5 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -2 -3 -2 -3 -1 Truck traffic along parallel routes 0.014 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 3 Car traffic along route 0.003 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -4 -3 -3 -3 -1 -5 -5 -5 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -2 -3 -2 -3 -1 Car traffic along route 0.027 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 Car traffic along parallel routes 0.003 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -4 -3 -3 -3 -1 -5 -5 -5 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -2 -3 -2 -3 -1 Car traffic along parallel routes 0.027 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 Bus traffic along route 0.002 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -4 -3 -3 -3 -1 -5 -5 -5 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -2 -3 -2 -3 -1 Bus traffic along route 0.014 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5


December 2004 14

Alternative A: Bored Tunnels to 37th, Alt. B: Bored Tunnels Alternative C: Bored Tunnels to 37th, C & C to 49th, Trench to SW Marine & Elevated to 6th, C & C to SW Marine


Weight 1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8&9 3a 3b 4a 4b 1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8&9 6 Bus traffic along parallel routes 0.002 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -4 -3 -3 -3 -1 -5 -5 -5 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -2 -3 -2 -3 -1 Bus traffic along parallel routes 0.014 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 7 Safety/ accidents Safety/ accidents 0.030 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 Traffic & Safety 0.150 Visual, Noise & Vibration 1 Negatively affected residences along corridor 0.004 -1 -2 -5 -2 -1 -2.5 -4 -2 -0.5 -1 -5 -2.5 -2.5 -5 -1 -2 -5 -2 -1 -2.5 -3 -2 -0.5 -1 Negatively affected residences along corridor 0.036 -3 -2 -0.5 -1 -4 -2 -0.5 -1 2 Negatively affected retail businesses along corridor 0.003 -5 -2 -3 -3.5 -3.5 -2 -3.5 -5 -5 -3.5 -3 -5 -2 -3 -3.5 -3.5 -2 -3.5 -4 Negatively affected retail businesses along corridor 0.023 -1 -0.5 -2 -4 -5 -0.5 -1 -0.5 -2 -1 -3 3 Negatively affected office buildings along corridor 0.001 -5 -1 -1 -4 -2 -2 -1 -2 -5 -2 -2 -5 -1 -1 -4 -2 -2 -1 -2 Negatively affected office buildings along corridor 0.005 -2 -1 -5 -5 -2 -1 -1 -2 4 Negatively affected industrial sites along corridor 0.001 -1 -5 -3 -1 -1 -5 -2 -1 Negatively affected industrial sites along corridor 0.005 -5 -3 -1 -5 -2 -1 5 Negatively affected hotel sites along corridor 0.005 -5 -1 -1 -5 -1 -1 -5 -5 -1 -1 -5 -1 -1 Negatively affected hotel sites along corridor -1 6 Negatively affected institutional sites along corridor 0.005 -2 -1 -5 -2 -2 -1 -5 -2 -1 -5 -2 Negatively affected institutional sites along corridor 7 Negatively affected parks and public spaces along corridor 0.002 -1 -1 -2 -3 -5 -5 -1 -1 -4 -5 -5 -1 -1 -2 -3 -5 -5 -1 -1 Negatively affected parks and public spaces along corridor 0.014 -5 -1 -1 -1 -4 -1 -0.5 Visual, Noise & Vibration 0.100 Negative Property Value Impacts 1 Residential properties adjacent to line within 100m of station Residential properties adjacent to line within 100m of station 0.013 -1 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -3 -2 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1 -1 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -4 -2 -0.5 -1 2 Residential properties adjacent to line outside 100m of station Residential properties adjacent to line outside 100m of station 0.005 -3 -0.5 -0.5 -4 -0.5 -0.5 3 Impacts on industrial properties Impacts on industrial properties 0.005 -5 -3 -0.5 -5 -2 -0.5 4 Impacts on retail properties -1 Impacts on retail properties 0.010 -1 -0.5 -2 -4 -5 -0.5 -1 -0.5 -2 -1 -2 5 Impacts on office buildings -1 Impacts on office buildings 0.008 -2 -1 -5 -5 -2 -1 -1 -2


15 December 2004



Weight 1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8&9 3a 3b 4a 4b 1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8&9 6 Railway right of way Railway right of way 0.003 -5 -5 7 Other land acquisition and disposal issues 0.002 -1 -5 -1 -1 -5 -1 Other land acquisition and disposal issues 0.005 -1 -5 -4 -1 -3 -1 -5 -4 -1 -3 Negative Property Value Impacts 0.050 Positive Property Value Impacts 1 Residential properties between 0.5 km and 1km of station Residential properties between 0.5 km and 1km of station 0.008 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 1 5 5 1 3 2 4 3 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 1 5 5 1 2 Residential properties within 0.5 km of station Residential properties within 0.5 km of station 0.038 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 1 5 5 1 3 2 4 3 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 1 5 5 1 3 Impacts on industrial properties Impacts on industrial properties 0.008 1 4 5 5 5 1 4 5 5 5 4 Impacts on retail properties Impacts on retail properties 0.030 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 5 5 1 2 4 2 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 5 5 1 5 Impacts on office buildings Impacts on office buildings 0.030 2 2 2 3 3 1 0.5 4 5 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 0.5 4 5 6 Impacts on institutional properties Impacts on institutional properties 0.015 3 1 1 5 5 1 2 0.5 1 2 5 5 5 1 2 3 1 1 5 5 1 2 0.5 1 2 5 7 Impacts on hotels Impacts on hotels 0.008 5 2 3 5 3 2 3 3 5 2 3 5 3 2 3 8 Project induced development Potential Project induced development Potential 0.015 1 1 2.5 2 2 2 2.5 5 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2.5 2 2 2 2.5 5 3 2 Positive Property Value Impacts 0.150 Other Station Impacts (parking & crime) 1 On-street parking used for park and ride On-street parking used for park and ride 0.008 -5 -5 -5 -5 -2 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -2 2 Incidence of crime Incidence of crime 0.023 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5 Other Station Impacts (parking & crime) 0.030 First Nations Impacts 1 Musqueam Indian Band 0.009 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -1 -5 -5 -1 -1 -1 -1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -5 -5 Musqueam Indian Band 0.009 -5 -5 -5 -5


December 2004 16



Weight 1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8&9 3a 3b 4a 4b 1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8&9 2 Tsawwassen First Nation 0.006 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -1 -4 -4 -1 -1 -1 -1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -4 -4 Tsawwassen First Nation 0.006 -4 -4 -4 -4 3 Tsleil-Waututh Nation 0.005 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -1 -4 -4 -1 -1 -1 -1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -4 -4 Tsleil-Waututh Nation 0.005 -4 -4 -4 -4 4 Katzie Indian Band Katzie Indian Band 5 Sto:Lo Nation 0.005 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -1 -4 -4 -1 -1 -1 -1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -4 -4 Sto:Lo Nation 0.005 -4 -4 -4 -4 6 Squamish Nation 0.001 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 Squamish Nation First Nations Impacts 0.050 Heritage & Other Community Impacts 1 Vehicle and pedestrian crossings 0.004 -3 -2 -2 -5 -2 -5 -3 -1 -5 -5 -1 -5 -2 -5 -3 -3 -2 -2 -5 -2 -5 -3 -1 -5 -5 -1 Vehicle and pedestrian crossings 0.035 -4 -5 -3 -5 2 On-street parking adjacent to line 0.001 -1 -1 -4 -4 -5 -3 -4 -4 -1 -1 -4 -4 On-street parking adjacent to line 0.012 -5 -5 4 Heritage features 0.005 -4 -5 -1 -2 -4 -4 -4 -5 -1 Heritage features 0.047 -5 -1 -5 -1 5 Changes to neighbourhoods Changes to neighbourhoods 0.026 -2 -1 -2 -5 -2 -1 -1 -3 Heritage & Other Community Impacts 0.130 Mitigation Potential 1 Ability to mitigate 0.004 5 5 3 2 4 3 2 4 5 5 3 2 5 5 3 2 4 4 3 4 Ability to mitigate 0.036 5 5 3 2 4 3 2 4 5 5 3 2 5 5 3 2 4 4 3 4 Mitigation Potential 0.040 TOTAL 1.000

(13) Section 9 - Dec 2004

Documents

Transcript of (13) Section 9 - Dec 2004