Vancouver City Council

Appendix 1
Terms of Reference

Independent Review of the Richmond/Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit Project

1. General

At its meeting on December 10, 2002, Vancouver City Council passed the following motion:

THAT Council urge TransLink and the GVRD to work in partnership with the City to undertake an independent cost/benefit analysis in accordance with the April 2002 Vancouver Transit Strategy, which expresses support for a subway connecting Richmond, the Airport, and Vancouver, subject to: a business case, based on a complete analysis of all major alternative transportation technologies (Light Rail, SkyTrain, Rapid Bus), demonstrates that:

a. the subway system is more effective in terms of costs and benefits than a surface transit system that includes dedicated lanes, synchronized traffic lights, and mass boarding;

b. the business case is based on provision of services that includes quality control through modern service standards and monitoring service supply and ridership;

c. comprehensive transportation demand management is part of the plan.

In addition, the cost/benefit analysis should

d. compare alternate routes to Richmond;

e. identify full funding prior to commencement of the plan;

f. reference the operational and capital funding of the entire Vancouver Transit system.

City staff should report back as soon as possible with the cost, terms of reference, timeliness and cost-sharing arrangements for completing this analysis."

According to this motion, the purpose of this study is to have Independent Review Consultants review planning studies and documents related to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver (RAV) Rapid Transit Project to determine the sufficiency of technical information, identify information gaps and recommend areas for further study, so that a cost-benefit analysis can be made to determine the most cost-effective option for rapid transit in the RAV corridor.

1.1. Schedule
The study will be conducted in two phases.

Phase 1 will commence immediately and will determine the sufficiency of existing technical information to determine the most cost-effective option, to identify information gaps, to recommend areas for further study, and to formulate the framework and specific components they will use for conducting Phase II. Conclusions of Phase I will be reported by the Independent Review Consultants to the City Services and Budget Committee on January 30, 2003. City staff will provide the Consultants with documents listed under "Documents" in the Appendix by January 16, 2003.

Phase 2 will evaluate any surface rapid transit options not previously studied that are recommended from Phase 1, and conduct a comparative evaluation of relative costs and benefits to determine whether a regional subway for the RAV line is more cost-effective. The reviewers will provide opportunity for public input into the process. Subject to Council approval, Phase 2 will commence as soon as possible after January 30, 2003 to be completed by approximately the end of March 2003.

1.2 Consultant

The Underhill Company (Seattle, Washington) and Marvin Shaffer & Associates Ltd will conduct Phase 1 of the study. Both consultants have considerable expertise in the field of rapid transit planning and engineering, cost-benefit analysis and multiple account evaluation. Both consultants have had minimal involvement in past RAV studies and are therefore considered to be objective and independent.

Phase 2 will be conducted under the project management of the Underhill Company, with additional consulting expertise of Clark Rees and possibly other independent consultants and City staff resources as identified from Phase 1. Funding to be determined by future council vote.

1.3 Budget

The budget for Phase 1 is $20,000.

1.4 Scope

The objectives for the independent review of rapid transit options for the RAV corridor are to:

· Evaluate the costs and benefits of
· a regional subway in the Cambie corridor (from downtown Vancouver to Marine Drive as recommended in the April 2002 Vancouver Transit Strategy)
· predominately surface bus and rail rapid transit systems (performance optimized with dedicated lanes, traffic signal priority and selective intersection grade separation), particularly with respect to LRT on Arbutus and Cambie
· incremental levels of wider-scale grade separation (tunneling, trenching or elevating)
· Conduct a comparative analysis of the options to determine
· the most cost-effective option for rapid transit in the corridor capable of supporting regional and city objectives
· incremental cost-benefit of various options
· general social, economic and environmental cost, benefits and impacts

As a secondary part of the analysis, the study will:

· Reference City of Vancouver and regional objectives for RAV line
· Reference City and regional priorities for transit investment
· Identify funding secured for the project, the related "funding gap" for each alternative, potential sources to fill the funding gap and potential implications
· Identify regional and local financial implications, including financial capacity to meet identified regional transit priorities.

Phase 1 - Details
The Consultants will review key planning documents relating to the RAV project and seek comments and input from City, GVRD and TransLink planning staff to determine the sufficiency of existing information and identify information gaps required to conduct a complete cost-benefit analysis of RAV rapid transit options in Phase 2.

While the Consultants may comment on a broad range of issues, they are asked to answer, comment on and/or make recommendations regarding the following:
1. Which rapid transit alternatives require further development and evaluation (in terms of corridor, technology, levels of grades separation and optimization) in order to complete an analysis of costs and benefits.

· What recommendations were made in key RAV studies regarding the development of optimized surface rapid transit systems?
· Whether an appropriate level of effort has been expended in the development of surface rapid transit options with performance optimized by dedicated lanes, significant traffic signal priority and selective intersection grade separation, etc.
· What options require further development to conduct the cost-benefit analysis and in what ways?
· What comment, if any, can be provided on the relative cost-benefit of options identified to date?

2. The validity of core assumptions (performance, cost, ridership and revenue) in analysis to date.

· Are the alternatives developed sufficient as the basis for selecting corridor, technology or extent of grade separation?

3. What is the total cost of a RAV line based on a Cambie subway (from Downtown Vancouver to Marine Drive in Vancouver)?

· To what extent has funding been identified to pay for such a line, what is the funding gap, what options (public private partnership, fares, taxes, etc.) are being considered for closing such a gap and their potential implications?
· To what extent have higher fares been considered to pay for the subway? What are the implications for ridership?
· What general recommendations can be made for closing any funding gap?

4. To what extent have the regional and local implications of TransLink funding for the RAV line (through capital contributions, higher fares, taxes etc.) on funding other transit priorities been addressed?
5. What comment can be made on the minimum level of tunneling required and the incremental cost and benefit of additional tunneling or other grade separation?
6. How would implementing various transportation demand management (TDM) measures change the choice for a preferred option?

Phase 2 - Details

The general scope of work for phase 2 will be identified as part of Phase 1.

1.5 Documents
The Consultants will review relevant documents including:

· 2001 Multiple Account Evaluation Report on RAV
· 2001 Macquarie Report on RAV
· 2002 IBI RAV System Optimization Study
· 2002 RAV Peer Review - Value Analysis
· 1995 BC Transit's Multiple Account Evaluation of Rapid Transit Options in Greater Vancouver
· 1995 BC Transit's Summary of Intermediate Capacity Transit Studies in Greater Vancouver
· 1994 BC Transit's Review of intermediate Capacity Transit Systems - Vancouver Richmond
· 1992 Vancouver-Richmond Rapid Transit Project: N.D. Lea Report
· 2002 TransLink's Regionally Significant Capital Projects and Funding Opportunities
· 1993 Transport 2021 Medium and Long Range Plans
· Additional relevant reports undertaken by the RAV Project on ridership, costs, alignment/stations, revenue, etc.
· Additional GVRD and TransLink Board reports and documents related to the RAV project and regional context.

The Reviewers will comment, draw conclusions and make recommendations to Council regarding the process of developing RAV rapid transit alternatives to date, the validity of key assumptions, directions to pursue to ensure a cost-effectiveness and affordable RAV rapid transit system, and requirements for further information or study (including further development of rapid transit options) in order to conduct the cost-benefit analysis for the RAV. The Reviewers may make general comment and recommendations that in their judgement will benefit the undertaking of the cost-benefit analysis or provide relevant information to council.

1.6 Deliverables

Phase 1
1. Presentation of findings to City Services and Budgets Committee on January 30, 2003.
2. Draft Report table at City Services and Budgets Committee on January 30, 2003.

Phase 2
To be determined subject to the findings of Phase 1.

1.7 Reporting
The consultants will report to the chair of the Transportation and Traffic Committee of Vancouver City Council.