CITY OF VANCOUVER
M E M O R A N D U M
From: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date: Jan. 24/96
Refer File: 5751-3
To: Vancouver City Council
Subject: Lions Gate Crossing - Status
The attached Administrative Report dated January 16, 1996,
entitled Lions Gate Crossing - Status, refers.
Mr. Dave Rudberg, General Manager, Engineering Services, Mr. Joe
Jensen, Ministry of Transportation and Highways and Mr. Peter
Hyslop, N.D. Lea Consultants, will make brief presentations.
CITY CLERK
DS:sr ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: January 16, 1996
Dept. File No. 600 090
(5002)
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: General Manager of Engineering Services
SUBJECT: Lions Gate Crossing - Status
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT public input be sought by the Ministry after the
release of the short list of Lions Gate Crossing
Options.
B. THAT to support this, the Ministry of Transportation
and Highways (MOTH) be requested to prepare a
discussion paper on transit options including queue
jumpers, bus or HOV lanes, rail systems to 2021 and
beyond.
COUNCIL POLICY
- On September 4, 1992, Council supported the following:
"THAT there be no further significant investment to
expand motor vehicle capacity into Vancouver in terms
of adding additional capacity."
- On February 15, 1993, the Park Board approved the
following motion:
"THAT the Vancouver Park Board be on record as being
opposed to any expansion of the right-of-way through
Stanley Park related to the proposed new Lions Gate
Bridge."
- On March 2, 1993, Council affirmed the Park Board's
position and deferred a decision on the bridge until:
- the completion of the Transport 2021 project;
- Council has considered all possible options at a
meeting convened specifically for this purpose.
- On April 11, 1994, the Park Board approved motions to
advise the Provincial Government of the following:
- "THAT the Board is absolutely opposed to any Lions
Gate crossing option that would require or result
in either the expansion of the right-of-way
through Stanley Park or any compromise of Lost
Lagoon.
- THAT the Board would favour any crossing option
that would result in the elimination of vehicular
traffic through Stanley Park and a return of the
current right-of-way to Stanley Park to
traditional park use.
- THAT the Board supports the use of the causeway
for bicycle/pedestrian use.
- THAT the Board supports options that consider the
long term planning of transportation that would
include light rail transit."
- On April 12, 1994, Council approved Transport 2021,
which provided that:
- land use controls be used to foster less reliance
on automobile use and promote non-powered modes
and transit.
- transportation demand management be used to change
the behaviour of travellers to make better use of
the existing transportation system.
- transportation service levels be allowed to
change, i.e., travel times could become longer.
-3-
- more transport capacity be provided.
BACKGROUND
Council on March 29, 1994, considered a report on the status of
the Lions Gate Bridge and approved the following motions:
A. THAT the Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MOTH)
be advised of existing Council policies included in
this report.
B. THAT the Ministry be requested to formalize a public
process to review and discuss, with City Council, the
Park Board and Vancouver residents, the Lions Gate
crossing options, including public transit, ferry and
rail options, prior to a final decision and to
incorporate this feedback in their evaluation process.
C. THAT the MOTH be requested to remove the following
options from further consideration:
1) any cross harbour corridor connecting to Main
Street or east of that location;
2) any options involving extensive filling in Burrard
Inlet;
3) any options that increase peak capacity for single
occupant automobiles into downtown;
4) any options that increase the impact on Stanley
Park and the west downtown neighbourhoods and
further that measures should be developed to
reduce the impact;
5) any options that create tunnel portals and traffic
conditions which significantly impact key
residential areas, the central business district,
or the waterfront/open space system of the
downtown, and in particular the Bute/Nelson
tunnel.
D. THAT the option eventually adopted must include
significant improvements to pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit access, including a queue jumper for buses.
E. THAT, following the public process, further technical
analysis, and adoption of a position on Transport 2021,
staff report back to Council and the Park Board with
recommendations for a decision.
F. THAT MOTH be requested to ensure the public process to
review and discuss the options regarding the Lions Gate
Crossing recognizes and addresses the multilingual
needs of our communities.
-4-
G. THAT if toll revenues are to be considered as an option
in the funding formula, that MOTH be requested to
direct/designate a portion of the toll revenue to the
restoration and/or maintenance of Stanley Park.
DISCUSSION
The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has completed several
studies on the issues regarding this project. A list is found in
Appendix A.
The Ministry has in the Project Update (Lions Gate Crossing
November 1995) encapsulated the significant findings about the
majority of issues affecting a decision on the Lions Gate
Crossing as follows:
"1. A tunnel or new bridge approach on the North Shore should be
located as close to the existing bridge as possible. Major
social impacts would be associated with a bridge or tunnel
approach which results in the diversion of traffic onto
streets presently unaffected by the bridge operation.
2. Overall, the least amount of environmental concern is
associated with the base case option, a rehabilitated three
lane Lions Gate Bridge and an improved/widened 3 lane
causeway through Stanley Park. The environmental concerns
associated with modifying the existing bridge to four lanes
with a four lane surface road on the existing centreline of
the causeway are only slightly greater.
3. The Brockton options pose significant noise, socio-economic
and aquatic concerns and from an environmental perspective
these options should not be studied further.
4. If a bored tunnel crossing of Stanley Park is utilised and
part or all of the existing causeway is reclaimed, some
impacts to Lost Lagoon to create a portal entrance to a
bored tunnel may be acceptable.
5. The First Narrows immersed tube/cut and cover tunnel options
pose significant archaeological, noise, socio-economic,
aquatic and wildlife concerns and from an environmental
perspective these options should not be studied further.
6. The depressed road and cut and cover crossings of the Park
pose far greater environmental problems than a surface route
along the existing causeway or a bored (mined) tunnel. The
environmentally preferred crossings of the Park are via a
bored (mined) tunnel, if a new route through the Park is
required, or a surface causeway or bored (mined) tunnel
along the existing causeway right-of-way.
7. Noting that federal government lands (Stanley Park), First
Nations interests, federally managed resources (e.g.,
fisheries, waterfowl) and Vancouver Port Corporation
operations would be affected by this project, at some stage
a federal review of this project would be undertaken leading
-5-
most likely to a joint federal-provincial environmental
assessment of the project options still under consideration
at this time."
The third point supports discontinuing further studies of
Brockton Point options, which is consistent with the previous
Council motion on the island option.
The fourth and seventh points address concerns of protection or
re-establishment of Stanley Park - a previously stated Council
concern. A bored tunnel would return the land to the Park,
although that would deny travellers the opportunity to view the
Park. The use of a cut and cover method of tunnel construction
is not supported due to extreme disruption and environmental
problems.
South Shore Traffic Impact Study
The South Shore Transportation Impact Study was conducted to
determine the traffic impacts on the West End Neighbourhood and
the downtown area. The study included analysis of traffic
volumes and license plate matching. This analysis resulted in
the following conclusions based on 1994 data:
"- Local West End streets are not used significantly by
bridge traffic. Bridge traffic not originating in or
destined for the West End generally uses the designated
traffic carrier streets. Most traffic on local streets
in the West End has origins or destinations in the West
End.
- The majority of the bridge traffic uses the Georgia-
Pender corridor (65% to 85% depending on the time of
day and the day of the week).
- A significant volume of bridge traffic has an origin or
a destination in the West End. This volume varies by
time of day, and by the day of the week.
- Bicycles and pedestrians make up a very small
percentage of bridge traffic (less than 3% of all
trips). Except during weekday peak hours, the majority
of such trips appear to be for recreational purposes."
The analysis included a projection of conditions to 2001 and the
following conclusions result:
"- Increases in crossing bound traffic related to the
proposed new crossing will be relatively small in
relation to total traffic. The most significant
increases will occur on Alberni.
- Given the traffic calming system in the West End, the
relatively low increase in total traffic, there will
not be any noticeable increase in the use of local West
End streets by crossing-bound traffic.
-6-
- The potential travel time savings from HOV lanes on the
crossing are not sufficient to warrant the investment
in extra infrastructure. Better value is likely via
improvement approaches to the crossing to facilitate
transit and HOV access onto the crossing.
- Improved conditions for pedestrians and cyclists on the
Lions Gate Crossing could result in an increase in
cycling trips, both commuter trips and recreational
trips. The effect of such increases on vehicular
traffic demand and on transit usage across the Burrard
Inlet will be negligible."
In conclusion, from a City perspective the report indicates
little impact on the West End Neighbourhood local streets from
existing traffic, and a new facility would have little increase
on local streets. Most traffic on local streets in the West End
has origins-destinations in the West End. Cycling and walking
trips are considered and with improvements should increase in
number. With regard to buses and potential HOV lanes for them,
the report concludes that queue jumpers would be satisfactory.
However, staff note that, although they may be satisfactory at
present, the new crossing would likely serve for 50 to 100 years,
and a longer-range approach should also be pursued in order to
encourage greater transit use as needs in the corridor grow.
Transit Issues
The review of the transit issues, as part of this project,
involves the plans to deal with growth in transit trips as
projected in Transport 2021 by conventional transit (with or
without HOV lanes), rail systems or marine systems. Projections
and reviews of all forms of transit looked at a 30 year time-
frame. Any crossing facility will have a longer life than 40
years; therefore, long-term projections should also be considered
for a planning period of 50 to 100 years.
Conventional Bus Transit
The Transport 2021 projections indicate a 31% growth in North
Shore population, a 44% increase in the number of households, a
47% increase in jobs in the City (a major attractor of trips on
the Lions Gate Bridge) to produce an anticipated increase in
trips of 53%. An increase of this magnitude, assuming no
increase in auto trips, will probably require an additional Sea
Bus and 70 fifty-passenger buses per hour. Projections beyond
that time have not been made; however, if similar increases were
to occur in a subsequent 30 year period, which would be a lower
growth rate, there would be one more Sea Bus and an additional 40
buses for a total of 110 buses. Before the level approaches 100
buses per hour, HOV lanes would be required.
Marine Connections
As a means of satisfying an increased transit demand in this
corridor, marine connections were considered. Additional
Seabuses will clearly be required over the planning horizon.
However, other marine connections (i.e. Waterfront to Ambleside,
Capilano and Seymour River) do not appear to be viable.
-7-
Transit travel times for these routes would not be competitive
with existing services, they would require increased subsidy, and
would involve two transfers to the bus system. Therefore, an
expanded system of marine connections is not supported by the
study.
Rail Connections
The supporting report "North Shore Transit Options" does not
identify the need to provide for rail based transportation in the
short or long term. The position on rail is not consistent with
the City position which includes protecting a corridor in
Vancouver to connect to a rail service from the First Narrows
crossing to the Downtown Area.
PROJECT RESPONSE TO COUNCIL'S CONCERNS
Council requested removal of options from further consideration
as follows:
1. Any cross harbour corridor connecting to Main Street or east
of that location.
These options have not been included in material presented by the
Ministry, and do not appear to be candidates for further study.
2. Any options involving extensive filling in Burrard Inlet.
Options involving Brockton Point have not been supported for
further study, for environmental reasons.
3. Any options that increase peak hour capacity for single
occupant automobiles into downtown.
Options that are suggested for continued study do not increase
peak capacity. Still under consideration is the need for bus/HOV
lanes, which would permit slightly higher volumes attributable to
the high-occupancy vehicles.
4. Any options that increase the impact on Stanley Park and
west downtown neighbourhoods.
The studies have considered the impact on Stanley Park, the West
End and other downtown neighbourhoods. Some options return land
to the Park. The options with overwhelming negative impacts have
not been recommended for further study. The transportation
impact study noted that the great majority of traffic uses the
arterial system not the local system, and this volume would not
be materially increased.
5. Any options that create tunnel portals and traffic
conditions which significantly impact key residential areas,
-8-
the central business district and the waterfront open space
of the downtown.
A number of tunnel portal locations which would have resulted in
severe negative impacts on the existing West End residential area
and the proposed Coal Harbour development have not been
recommended for further consideration. Staff would like to
reinforce this decision as these locations would fundamentally
degrade these environments.
Two proposed portal locations have been retained, one at the
entrance to Stanley Park and another on Georgia Street, just east
of Denman. Both of these locations cause serious urban design
concerns. The first proposes significant fill to the east end of
Lost Lagoon with a 50m wide tunnel portal near the entrance of
Stanley Park. This would significantly alter the park entrance,
Lost Lagoon, the pedestrian circulation arrangements and the
fountain. The second location, on Georgia Street, is immediately
adjacent to new development in the West End and the proposed
residential development of the Bayshore site. This could impact
residential development and potentially disrupt pedestrian
circulation on both Georgia and Denman Streets.
If the tunnel is to be developed through the Park, finding an
acceptable location for the portal, away from residential
development, high visibility locations and public open space is
essential. In examining alternatives, it is recommended that
discussions occur between the Province and the City and Parks
staff.
Council also requested the option to have significant
improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and transit access.
The options have considered all travel modes and can provide for
anticipated initial needs. Since a bridge of this type could be
in service for 50 - 100 years, a longer term role for transit
must be addressed now including the potential for rail service.
Staff suggest that there should be provision in the crossing
facility for a dedicated bus or HOV lane today, which could be
upgraded to a future rail system.
Project Direction
From a technical perspective, the material released to date is
not fully definitive, but it does provide some clear guidance for
future decisions. Possible candidate options meet the following
conditions.
- no increase in peak capacity with continuing provisions for
queue jumpers on the north and south approaches;
- deletion of any options east of Brockton Point;
- deletion of cut and cover options through Stanley Park;
- retention of one rehabilitation option, one parallel bridge
option and one tunnel option;
- retention of the existing bridge, in the event of tunnel
options, for cycling, walking and possibly transit.
Recent Activity
-9-
November/Early December:
- Public Information Displays were held in November 1995.
- Community Focus Group prepares Community Short List report
for the Minister.
- Ministry prepares Technical Short List report for the
Minister.
- Ministry prepares Executive Summary report for the Minister.
Mid-December:
- Ministry receives Community Focus Group, Technical Short
List and Executive Summary reports.
Early 1996:
- The Minister is expected to announce the Short List of
options.
SPECIAL OFFICE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT COMMENTS
"At Council's request the Special Office for the Environment has
been actively involved on the steering committee for MOTH's
Comparative Environmental Assessment. During this phase of the
project two main points have become apparent.
The first is that the analysis done to date is solely for
comparison between the various options. While the 8 individual
studies (Air quality, Noise quality etc.) have been wide ranging
they lack fine detail. Having said this it should be noted that
they have been more than adequate for their purpose. When the
short list of options has been made, a full and complete
environmental impact study is intended. This should also include
all steps required to minimize or mitigate negative impacts.
The second point is that environmental concerns arise from both
the construction phase and long term operations phase of the
project. Construction phase impacts could be considerable but
should be short term and mitigable. Because of negative
construction phase impacts some options such as the bored tunnel
options receive poorer ratings than they deserve. While MOTH
states that the rehabilitation options create the least amount of
environmental concern, the bored tunnel options provide for a
chance to reclaim the causeway for pedestrian and cyclists.
Points 2 and 4 on page 4 understate the long term importance of
this feature.
As stated elsewhere in this report the remainder of MOTH's
analysis gives the project a direction which meets Council's
previously stated concerns and conditions."
* * * * *