transportation advisory committee monday, january 7, … · transportation advisory committee ....
TRANSCRIPT
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, January 7, 2013
SCRD Cedar Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER 10:30 A.M.
AGENDA
1. Adoption of Agenda
MINUTES 2. Draft Transportation Advisory Committee minutes of October 29, 2012
ANNEX A Pages 1 – 6
UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
3. Report on Bike Lane Maintenance Priorities (TraC) – Deferred from October 29, 2012 meeting
Verbal Report
4. Speed Limit on Highway 101 (Board Resolution 435/12 of November 8, 2012) – For information
ANNEX B page 7
COMMUNICATIONS
5. Jef Keighley, Chair, Sunshine Coast Senior Citizens (COSCO-BC), regarding “Our Ferries, Our Future”
ANNEX C pp 8-19
6. Jakob Knaus regarding BC Ferries’ October Traffic Statistics
ANNEX D pp 20-24
7. Roger Richmond, Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee,
regarding “S” bends, 3200 and 3300 Block, Beach Avenue, Roberts Creek
ANNEX E page 25
8. Donna McMahon, Gibsons & District Chamber of Commerce, regarding GDCC Position on BC Ferries
ANNEX F pp 26-28
REPORTS
9. Sunshine Coast Speed Watch Survey, Beach Avenue Roberts Creek – For Information
ANNEX G pp 29-31
N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\ISC - TAC\2013-JAN-07 TAC Agenda draft.doc
10. Speed Watch Monthly Report for October and November, 2012 – For information
ANNEX H pp 32-33
11. Speed Watch Report, Port Mellon Highway, October 31, 2012 – for information
ANNEX I page 34
NEW BUSINESS
12. Transportation Advisory Committee 2013 Meeting Dates – For information
ANNEX J page 35
ROUND TABLE
NEXT MEETING – February 25, 2013 ADJOURNMENT
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
October 29, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD IN THE CEDAR ROOM OF THE SUNSHINE
COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT OFFICES, 1975 FIELD ROAD, SECHELT, BC.
PRESENT: Director, Electoral Area E, Chair Lorne Lewis
Director, Town of Gibsons Gerry Tretick
Director, District of Sechelt Alice Lutes
Director, Electoral Area A Frank Mauro
Director, Electoral Area B Garry Nohr
Director, Electoral Area D Donna Shugar
Director, Electoral Area F Lee Turnbull
ALSO PRESENT: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Don Legault
Alt. Director, Area F & Rte13 Ferry Adv.Com. Joyce Clegg
Manager, Transportation and Facilities Brian Sagman
Insurance Corporation of BC Tom Webster
RCMP Todd Bozak
RCMP Hwisong Kahng
BC Ferries, Langdale Terminal Operations Mgr. Maureen Darragh
Capilano Highways Eric Paris
S. Sunshine Coast Ferry Advisory Committee Barry Cavens
Sunshine Coast Speed Watch Jon Hird
Citizens On Patrol, Sechelt Ruth McLarty
Constituency Assistant to MLA Simons Kim Tournat
Trustee, School District No. 46 Silas White
Cycling Advocate Martin Prestage
Parks Planning Coordinator Sam Adams (partial)
Recording Secretary Diane Corbett
Media 1
Member of the Public 1
CALL TO ORDER 10:30 a.m.
AGENDA The Agenda was adopted as amended, with addition of the following
items under New Business:
Use of Chip Seal
Meeting with Minister at UBCM regarding passenger ferry
Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs meeting on ferry consultation
1
ANNEX A
Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting of October 29, 2012 Page 2 of 6
MINUTES
Recommendation No. 1 Minutes
The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the minutes of September 10, 2012
be adopted as circulated.
Recommendation No. 2 Community Bus Workshop Notes
The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the notes of the Community Bus
Workshop of September 19, 2012 be received.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
Speed Zone on Roberts Creek Road
Chair Lewis explained that the School District had written to the Regional District in 2011
regarding the speed zone on Roberts Creek Road, and at that time there had been no further
follow up to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Recently SCRD Chair Nohr had
sent a letter to the Ministry requesting the change to playground zone signage.
Mr. Legault reported that a request had been submitted for replacement signs.
Report on Bike Lane Maintenance Priorities
Mr. Prestage reported that a survey was underway and that information was being gathered on
areas of concern between the Langdale and Sechelt. He noted it was taking longer than
expected, and that TraC (Transportation Choices Sunshine Coast) members hope to have this
completed for the next meeting.
Recommendation No. 3 Unfinished Business Items
The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the following items be received:
Speed Zone on Roberts Creek Road
ICBC Crash Map and Crash Statistics for Route 101, Roberts Creek
Report on Bike Lane Maintenance Priorities
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Darragh, BC Ferries’ Langdale Terminal Operations Manager, described the work and
collaborative efforts with the RCMP and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure that had
been undertaken to address bypass congestion at the Langdale terminal.
Directors Lewis and Turnbull extended thanks for BC Ferries’ efforts to manage the traffic.
2
Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting of October 29, 2012 Page 3 of 6
Recommendation No. 4 Correspondence
The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the correspondence from Mike
Corrigan, President and CEO of BC Ferries, to Chair Nohr, dated, July 30, 2012 be received.
REPORTS
VeloCity International Bike Conference
Parks Planning Coordinator Sam Adams acknowledged the Ministry of Transportation and
Infrastructure (MOTI) grants to communities throughout BC that allowed staff to attend the
international bike conference in Vancouver. Staff described five ways to encourage people to
ride a bike: reduce speed limit; build and upgrade bikeways; provide education and supportive
policies; encourage use of electric bikes; and through bicycle tourism. Staff noted that a regional
biking paths workshop would be held the following day with MOTI, local government staff and
cycling advocates invited to attend.
The growing trend in the use of scooters and the regulations applicable to scooters were
discussed. The Motor Vehicle Act requires that an electric vehicle without pedals must be able
to travel 60 kilometers per hour, and travel in the driving lane. However, in the Town of
Gibsons, Council had decided that scooters were in the same category as electric wheelchairs
and mobility aids, and must be on the sidewalk, with the same rules as apply to pedestrians.
Concerns were raised about the need for both driver and cyclist education regarding the rules of
the road.
Recommendation No. 5 Report on VeloCity International Bike Conference
The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the staff report to the Community
Services Committee meeting of September 13, 2012, titled “VeloCity International Bike
Conference”, be received.
Recommendation No. 6 Speed Watch Monthly Report
The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the Speed Watch report for the
month of September 2012 be received.
NEW BUSINESS
Roberts Creek Elementary Bus Pull-Out/ Timberland Road Widening
Mr. Legault discussed with Mr. White the background and geometrics pertaining to options to
widen Timberland Road adjacent to the Roberts Creek Elementary School, noting that there was
no room for a pull-out for school buses and that the cost of building on top of the adjacent ditch
would be expensive.
3
Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting of October 29, 2012 Page 4 of 6
The issue of ‘no parking’ signs in rural areas was raised. The difficulties and costs related to
enforcement were mentioned. Director Shugar noted her concerns about the parking congestion
at the Roberts Creek Pier in the summer, when people ignore or do not see ‘no parking’ signs,
and remarked that it was a problem that needs to be addressed from a safety perspective,
especially in terms of access for emergency vehicles. The director was urged to send a letter with
the history of the issue to the Sechelt RCMP Detachment Sergeant McCarthy, Operational
Manager. It was mentioned this was also an issue on Hopkins Road and in other areas.
Recommendation No. 7 Parking Congestion in Rural Areas
The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the issue of illegal parking in the
rural areas and the impacts on safety be referred to the Community Services Committee for
further discussion.
Use of Chip Seal
Director Nohr raised an issue of concerns with the application of a chip seal coating on
Rutherford Road in Halfmoon Bay. A Halfmoon Bay resident present at the meeting described
local citizens’ experiences with this surfacing material: difficulty riding bikes and tricycles,
loose gravel at intersections, impacts on drainage, pedestrians hit by flying gravel, concern that
the road was not as smooth as previously and that this surface material was substandard.
Director Mauro also noted potholes that had developed on roads in Pender Harbour Area that
had been chip sealed. Director Shugar commented that her road had been chip sealed twenty
years previously and did not have the issues described.
Mr. Legault explained that the durability of the chip seal depended on the volume of traffic and
characteristics of winter freezing. The price to do a single seal was $2.50 to $3 per square metre
compared to asphalt at $40-$45 per square metre.
Mr. Paris indicated he would check out the roads mentioned by Director Mauro, and would
engage in further discussion with the member of the public from Halfmoon Bay to seek a
resolution to the issues on Rutherford Road.
Meeting with Minister at UBCM regarding Passenger Ferry
Director Nohr described his interaction with the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure at
the recent UBCM conference. The Director mentioned that the SCRD wrote a letter to the
Minister as recommended at the last Transportation Advisory Committee meeting regarding
concerns with increased fares and any plans to reduce service.
Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs Meeting on Ferry Consultation
Mr. Cavens commented that the Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs had provided feedback to the
Province regarding the ferry consultation process. He noted it would be an opportunity to talk to
4
Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting of October 29, 2012 Page 5 of 6
the Province on its long term strategy and potential service reductions. Information on the
ferries consultation process now underway is available at www.coastalferriesengagement.ca.
Alternate Director Clegg remarked that the community engagement meetings should be done
before year end, and that a report on the results of the public consultation would be forwarded to
the Province by the end of February. Locally, there would be a stakeholders meeting from
10:00am to 12:00pm and an open house from 1:00pm to 4:00pm on December 1, 2012 at the
Cedars Inn in Gibsons.
ROUNDTABLE
Director Lutes advised that she had been contacted by constituents regarding a request for a bus
shelter for the stop beside St. Mary’s Hospital, and hoped that this could come forward in the
future.
Director Turnbull commented on traffic issues and speeding at intersections on Marine Drive, at
YMCA Road, Central Avenue, and Harvey Road.
Alternate Director Clegg remarked that the new parking lot in New Brighton was getting lots of
use. The Gambier Community Association was working on signage.
Director Shugar expressed thanks on behalf of local residents to the Ministry of Transportation
and Infrastructure for deciding not to extend Lysander Road. The Director commented on recent
ditching work on Crowe Road. Mr. Legault responded that there was a need to re-install culverts
in that location.
Constable Kahng explained he was involved with an RCMP program in which he was required
to find a problem in the community and tackle ways to address it. He suggested that highway
safety awareness would be a good topic; he would do research on high crash locations on the
coast to see which spots could use signage and report back at the next meeting.
Recommendation No. 8 High Crash Locations on Highway 101
The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that a discussion on the topic of high
crash locations on Highway 101 be placed on the agenda of the next meeting.
Director Mauro commented that roads require central line painting, and said he would give a
list to Mr. Legault.
Constable Bozak noted that a lot of truckers were complaining about the foliage blocking views
at Payne Road where it meets Reed Road. He noted he would forward this information to the
Town of Gibsons.
Mr. Paris made note of Capilano Highways contact number; a staffed phone line would be
available 24/7 at: 1-800-665-3135.
5
Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting of October 29, 2012 Page 6 of 6
Mr. Sagman announced that BC Transit was doing a Transit Future Plan and would consult with
the public at the end of November into December. Data will be collected on buses to see what the
ridership looks like. There was quite an impact on transit with the recent paving in Sechelt; Mr.
Sagman wondered if there was a good way that SCRD Transit could be advised in advance.
Subscribing to DriveBC was suggested; Mr. Sagman was urged to discuss this at an upcoming
stakeholder meeting.
Director Nohr expressed thanks to MOTI for the bike paths along Redrooffs Road through
Coopers Green.
Mr. White reported on the pick-up and drop-off policy at Gibsons Elementary, and said that the
principal would look into the history of how the ‘no drop-offs’ sign got there originally as it is
not being enforced.
Constable Bozak commented that parents were picking up kids near Gibsons Elementary on
O’Shea Road, causing congestion and creating a hazard for pedestrians. Mr. Hird’s concern
was that people were parking on crosswalks and sometimes on sidewalks at that location.
Mr. Prestage announced that the directors of TraC voted to make a bid for the 2013 Bike-To-
Work-Week, as the SCRD would not have a Community Energy Manager in place. He indicated
TraC would go to the SCRD Infrastructure Services Committee in December and to Bike-To-
Work-Week Victoria with requests for funding.
Director Lewis extended thanks to ICBC’s Tom Webster for dropping off the state-of-the-art
pedestrian reflectors. These would be given out by Transit drivers to people travelling on buses
at night.
Director Lewis inquired about work being done on Japanese Knotweed by the Ministry. Mr.
Legault noted the Ministry provides funding to the Coastal Invasive Plants Council as well as
other agencies, who identify locations requiring some attention. There is a certain period of time
during the summer when the plants can be treated.
Mr. Hird noted the item from the staff report on biking, the relationship of vehicle speed to
pedestrian fatality: 5% fatalities at 30 km/hour compared to 45% fatalities at 50 km/hour.
Ms. Tournat commented on cycling at Burton Road, where there was a report of a lot of gravel
by the postal boxes. Mr. Legault noted that Capilano Highways had recently done some work
there to address the issue that seemed to be working.
Regarding Ms. Tournat’s inquiry about who monitors backcountry roads for speeding, she was
advised that this was unregulated.
Ms. Darragh announced that she would not be attending the meeting for BC Ferries on a regular
basis but would be happy to attend upon request.
NEXT MEETING January 7, 2013
ADJOURNMENT 12:32 pm
6
Sunshine Coast Regional District 1975 Field Road, Sechelt BC V0N 3A1
Phone: 604-885-6800 / Fax: 604-885-7909 www.scrd.ca
File No.:
Memo
To: Transportation Advisory Committee
From: Transit Administration
Date: 06/12/2012
Re: Highway 101 Speed Limit
Board Resolution of November 8, 2012
435/12 Recommendation No. 2 Highway 101 Speed Limit
THAT in response to the concerns raised at the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting, staff send a letter to the Lower Mainland District Traffic Services Division of the RCMP with copies to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and Insurance Corporation of BC, inviting them to conduct the necessary research to determine if and where a speed limit reduction is appropriate on Highway 101.
7
ANNEX B
8
ANNEX C
1
OUR FERRIES
OUR FUTURE
“Infrastructure: the basic structural foundations of a society , ie. roads, bridges, sewers, etc. regarded as a country’s economic foundation.” Canadian Oxford Dictionary
British Columbia is blessed with a vast and varied landscape. Our people live in remote villages tucked into mountain valleys, in vibrant coastal communities and in bustling urban centers. We live and prosper in this place we proudly call Beautiful British Columbia because we cooperate to ensure that our citizens have access to the infrastructure and services we all need without regard to where they live in the province. We don’t always succeed, but we always try. Building the infrastructure necessary to connect our people across our rugged province; transportation networks, electrical power, water, hospitals, schools, community centers, policing and communications has never been easy and has never been inexpensive, but that has never stopped British Columbians. Our road transportation network, roads, bridges, tunnels, inland and coastal ferries, is one of our most basic infrastructure needs. It significantly impacts the quality of life we enjoy within our respective communities. The ability to come and go as our lives demand or as the spirit moves us; to deliver goods and services where they are needed, when they are needed is critical to our collective well being.
“The only long term, sustainable resolution to managing the costs of providing coastal ferry service is to take BC Ferries back under direct government control as a crown corporation and treat our coastal ferries as we do our highways. The entire capital and maintenance costs of the shore facilities and the fleet should be borne by general revenues with ferry fares covering labour and fuel costs. This would result in a dramatic reduction in fares and would go some distance to re-vitalizing coastal communities and restoring fairness for coastal residents. The only way to achieve this outcome is to change the mandate and eliminate the fiction that our coastal ferries can or should attempt to operate on a user pay model. It hasn’t worked and it can’t work and the sooner it is eliminated, the better.”
Sunshine Coast Senior Citizens (COSCO-BC)
A New Mandate to Re-Vitalize
British Columbia’s Ferry
Dependent Communities
9
2
Seniors Reject The Province’s so-called ‘Long Term Vision’ for BC Ferries The current mandate of BC Ferries is not working for our coastal communities. That was clearly evident in the town hall meetings convened by Ferry Commissioner Gordon Macatee in 2011 and was referenced in his January 2012 report. It is the reason for this current round of BC Coastal Ferries Consultation and Engagement process. The Sunshine Coast Senior Citizens (COSCO-BC) rejects the so-called ‘long term vision’ set out by the provincial government. That ‘long term vision’ has dictated three more years of greater than inflation fare increases to 2016 and an additional saving of $30 million more through fares, service cuts and options for property or gas tax increases in ferry dependent communities. Coastal citizens deserve to be treated fairly with all other British Columbians and in our view that is not happening. We strongly support returning BC Ferries to a crown corporation delivering a public transportation service as an integral component of our provincial transportation infrastructure that is affordable, efficient and sustainable over generations. Someone from Victoria has every right and expectation of being able to drive to Dawson Creek just as someone from Prince George has every right and expectation to drive to Nanaimo, all via publicly owned and operated transportation infrastructure, whose quality and safety the travelling public can count on. Throughout the province the Department of Highways operates 14 inland ferries as part of our integrated provincial highway system. All inland ferries are free of charge to the users and the full costs of their operations are covered by the BC Highways budget, which is financed by the taxes of all British Columbians, including British Columbians living in coastal ferry dependent communities. Our coastal ferries are operated by BC Ferries, a hybrid semi-autonomous corporation. All of BC Ferries’ assets, the shore facilities and the physical ferry fleet, are ultimately owned by the Province, that is, by the people of British Columbia. We own BC Ferries. The BC Ferries Corporation is simply the operator of the coastal ferry system on our behalf, not dissimilar to BC Transit or Coast Mountain Bus’s roles in operating our public transit system. It is important to note that the corporation is not called the ‘Coastal Ferry Corporation’; it is the ‘BC Ferry Corporation’. It serves the interests of BC as a whole, just as the Department of Highways serves the interests of BC as a whole. BC Ferries operates 36 vessels on 25 routes servicing 47 destinations. All BC Ferries routes are subject to substantial fares for both vehicles and passengers, fares that of late have been increasing at well beyond the rate of inflation.
10
3
BC Ferries came into being under the premiership of WAC Bennett. He realized that the then private operator, Black Ball Ferries, was not prepared to make the level of investments in shore facilities and fleet expansion that a developing British Columbia needed. Just as Bennett bought out the BC Electric Company to create BC Hydro, he bought out Black Ball to create the base of BC Ferries, which commenced operation in on June 15, 1962, 50 years ago this year. For forty years, BC Ferries functioned under direct government control and ownership and the service expanded and modernized as service demands increased. BC Ferries is a vital link for the over 800,000 British Columbians who live in ferry dependent communities, some 20% of our total population of 4.6 million people. It is also a vital link for hundreds of thousands of British Columbian and visitors who use and enjoy our coastal ferries. Fast forward to April 2, 2003, when under the premiership of Gordon Campbell BC Ferries was set up as nominally independent company. The BC Ferry Authority is a corporation set up by the Province without any share capital and owns the single issued voting share of BC Ferry Services (BC Ferries). The Province of BC in turn owns 100% of the preferred shares of the BC Ferry Authority but has no voting interest in either the Authority or BC Ferry Services (BC Ferries). Notwithstanding this seemingly arm’s length relationship between the Province and BC Ferries, ultimately, all of the assets of BC Ferries are assets of the provincial government and BC Ferries operates under a contract or mandate to provide ferry services as dictated solely by the government. The Province can re-write the mandate any time is chooses and those of us who live in ferry dependent communities believe it’s past time to do so. The Province turned over direct control over BC Ferries, through the arm’s length relationship with BC Ferries noted above, so as to off-load costs to ferry dependent communities and put some political distance between the inevitability of disgruntled ferry community residents and the government. Less direct control was seen as a trade off against reduced contributions from general revenues. It hasn’t worked. Since we believe the only long-term resolution is to significantly re-write BC Ferries’ mandate such that provincial general revenues cover the capital and maintenance costs of the fleet and shore facilities, just as occurs with our highways, with fares covering the ongoing operations costs, such as fuel and labour, that the Province will necessarily and prudently require more direct control over BC Ferries operations in keeping with greater general revenue financing. It should be noted that those of us who have had close contact with BC Ferries management and staff are impressed by their professionalism and commitment to serving the needs of the travelling public, notwithstanding some notable excesses in executive compensation. We do not find substantial fault with BC Ferries management and staff. We believe they do a good job providing a critical public service and are deserving of decent pay and working conditions. The primary points of contention with the fares and schedules of BC Ferries emanate from the
11
4
mandate BC Ferries management is directed to work under and it is the provincial government that dictates the mandate. When the Campbell Government dictated BC Ferries’ then new mandate it created an impossibility, that is, it created a so-called independent company whose mandate was to deliver a public service, the coastal ferry portion of our public transportation infrastructure, all the while striving to have ferry dependent users/taxpayers finance an increasingly larger share of the operating costs through the fares collected. The purpose was and is to limit the contribution to BC Ferries out of general revenues while demanding those same users/taxpayers finance the provincial highways in addition to financing the ferry portion of our highway. This has the effect of asking ferry dependent community user/taxpayers to shoulder a disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining our overall integrated transportation infrastructure. If our health care system was set up to be financed only by those who were ill and in need of care, rather than by the whole of our population, it would collapse. If our school system was set up to be financed only by those parents whose children are currently enrolled in school, rather than by the whole of our population, it would collapse. If our highway system had to be paid for only by those who drove the particular section of highway, like the other examples above, it too would collapse. We are able to manage our complex infrastructure system because the risks and benefits of the system as a whole are borne and shared by our whole population. Maximizing the size of the amortization pool minimizes the costs and the risks and maximizes the benefits in a fair and equitable manner. Our coastal ferries, like our inland ferries are part and parcel of our highway system and should be treated as such and paid for by the British Columbia population as a whole. By and large, they remain a reasonably cost effective way to connect people, goods and places. There are some who advocate building bridges and highways as a substitute for continuation of ferry services. It may well be that some of our coastal ferries might well be replaced by bridges connected to highways, at which point there would be no reasonable argument that the said bridge/s and highway ought not be part of our highway system and budget. But in the present circumstances the hard economic arguments tend to support the proposition that for virtually all of our coastal ferry routes, if bridges and highways were cheaper to build and maintain than continue to operate the ferry service, they would already have been built. Past ‘The Tipping Point’ The current BC Coastal Ferries Consultation and Review follows up on the January 2012 Report by Ferry Commissioner Gordon Macatee’s report. He found that that ferry fares had reached ‘the tipping point’, that is, the point at which the escalating fares had were producing a decline in usage. The recent round of fare increases and the ferry utilization statistics show that our downward slide in utilization is steepening. Long before the Macatee report it was clear to those of us living in ferry
12
5
dependent communities that the fares and changing schedules had combined to depress local economies, reduce visits to and by family and friends and had made commuting much less viable for coastal residents. They are strangling our respective communities. Notwithstanding the fact that Commissioner Macatee pointed to the fact that fares in 2011 had already reached ‘the tipping point’ and that ferry usage was on a downward slide, the Liberals dictated further fare cap increases of 4.1% for 2013/14, 4.0% for 2015/16 and 3.9% for 2015/15, all well above estimates of projected inflation for those years. This can only exacerbate our decline. Relying on the statistics provided in the ’25 Years of Change’ chart on page 3 of Consultation and Review Discussion Guide it is not difficult to see why ‘the tipping point’ was reached. Over those ‘25 years of change’, and its not small change, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for British Columbia increased by 70%. During that time, depending on the route considered, ferry fares increased from a low of 168% to a high of 437%. On our Horseshoe Bay – Langdale route the fare increase was 204%, almost 3 times the rate of inflation. There are other comparisons than can be made. During the 10 years of the NDP from 1991-01 the CPI increased 18.2% while fares increased 40%. During the 11 years of the Liberals from 2001-12 the CPI increased 21.1% while fares increased 74%. When you look to the time frame since the Liberals set up BC Ferries as a nominally independent company and dictated the user pay mandate 2003 – 2012, the CPI increased 16% while fares increased 74%, or 4 ½ times the rate of inflation! Stated another way, for the years prior to the creation of BC Ferries as a nominally independent company, fares increased on average by 4.6% per year during 1987-02 whereas for the years since, 2002 – 2012 fares increased 6.7% per year. The above figures are approximations, as the ’25 Years of Change’ chart does not provide exact year-to-year statistics. However, what is clear is that the user pay mandate dictated to BC Ferries management by the provincial government has created unfairness for coastal communities when it comes to the cost of transportation infrastructure and cannot be made fair under the user pay mandate. As has already been stated, the management and staff of BC Ferries do a reasonably good job of running our coastal ferries within the restrictive mandate they have been given. In our view the problems faced by coastal communities lies not so much with BC Ferries but rather the problem is that it is the wrong mandate! BC Ferries have since it creation, always been and will always be simply another component of our integrated provincial transportation infrastructure, no different than roads, bridges and tunnels, a means to travel from point A to point B, and should be treated and funded as such, as a public service financed through general revenues.
13
6
During Commissioner Macatee’s public town hall meetings during the fall and winter of 2011 the message rang out loud and clear: our ferries are our highways. We don’t mind paying our fair share of the overall provincial highway budget. We don’t even mind paying reasonable ferry fares to help finance the ongoing operation of BC Ferries, but we do take issue with being expected to pay our fair share of the highways budget and having to pay the lion’s share of our coastal ferries. That message was stated loud and clear and it was reflected in the MacAfee Report to the provincial government, but is appears to have fallen on deaf ears! With this latest Consultation and Engagement process, the provincial government has, without regard to the interests of coastal communities, set down it’s own ‘long term vision’, even as future fare caps have been set well in excess of anticipated inflation, further tipping the balance against our coastal communities. This ‘long-term vision’, apparently fogged by ‘free market’ ideology, now seeks input from coastal communities on how to effect a further $30 million in cuts by 2016, through service cuts, fare increases and/or coastal property or fuel tax increases. The current BC Government thinking is that new bridges and highways ought to be paid for, at least in part, via the collection of tolls. However, that position is modified by the caveat that tolls will only be charged for new infrastructure where a non-tolled transportation route is available to the travelling public. For coastal ferry dependent communities, there are no non-tolled options, and yet fares are charged to all users, and those fares are escalating rapidly. An intelligent argument could be made that in the interest of fairness that there should be no fares whatsoever charged to ferry users and the whole of the capital and operating expense should be covered as part of the provincial highways budget. However, as stated, those of us who live in coastal ferry dependent communities, in general don’t take particular exception to having to pay something by way of ferry fares, but we do take great exception to being uniquely treated as cash cows by the provincial government who has set out on a path which is bleeding our communities dry. Coastal ferry dependent communities are socially and economically reeling from rapidly escalating ferry fares and the already implemented and now considered cuts to ferry services will make it worse. There is growing angst and anger at the provincial government over their mis-management of the BC Ferries file and there is an election coming. It is with some measure of tongue-in-cheek black humor that coastal communities wonder what the public reaction around the province would be if the provincial government were to say to British Columbians, ‘Sorry folks, from here on in, were going to close your highways from 9 pm until 6 am, and during operating hours, you can only drive the highways in hourly or two hour intervals, after which you have to stop and wait for an hour before you pay again to drive any further. We will also be restricting how many of you will be allowed to use the highway during each of those
14
7
intervals. If you are towing a travel or boat trailer, we will charge you more because you are taking up a greater length of highway as you drive. Further, we intend to raise the tolls for driving your highway each and every year well in excess of the rate of inflation and we reserve the right to change the driving schedules, as we deem necessary. Finally, if you don’t like it, don’t complain to us, it’s your own fault for choosing to live in Kelowna, or Prince George, or Nelson, or Smithers, or…..”. The current round of coastal ferry consultations being convened by the Province are viewed with extreme skepticism across coastal ferry dependent communities. Rather than go out with a mandate to find out what coastal communities want and need by the way of dependable and cost effective ferry service, the province has already implemented cuts to ferry services, they have dictated additional fare increases for the next several years, once again well in excess of inflation and now they now say to our communities, we are ‘consulting’ you as to how we save $30 million dollars. They say they want to hear from us as to what combination of additional fare increases and service reductions would we recommend to make our lives more difficult and the lives of our communities more precarious. It’s a little like being told that you will be executed at dawn, as the executioners feign interest in your preference in the manner of your death! Rethinking the Coastal Ferry System The Consultation and Engagement Discussion Guide posits ‘two broad questions’ and lists a number of ‘considerations’ under the disingenuous sub-heading ‘Rethinking the Coastal Ferry System’. We want to give brief responses to each of those considerations. 1. What is the best way to connect coastal communities? (a) Is there an opportunity to connect coastal communities using alternative ferry technologies, such as cable ferries or passenger-only vessels? With respect to the issue of cable ferries, the short answer is yes. There is one route only that could employ a cable ferry and if it is cheaper and still provides those residents with reliable service, they probably don’t care what the motive force of the ferry is so long as it works. This is not a question for suitable for province-wide public consultation, it is more properly a provincial government decision taken in conjunction with BC Ferries management and the Department of Highways in consultation with the residents of that community. Is there a case for passenger only ferries? Yes, on some routes commuters would welcome such a service but those who need vehicle service should not be short-shrifted to pay for the passenger only vessels.
15
8
(b) Are there some routes that could be served using a combination of passenger-only ferries and a barge that carries vehicles? Possibly. The intent behind the question is somewhat unclear. Barges can be self-propelled or can require an independent motive force such as a tugboat. Does the question suggest that vehicles would be moved by barges that carry vehicles only with passengers having to make the crossing via passenger-only ferries, travelling at different times, thereby forcing passengers to commit more overall time having to recover their vehicles on the other side? If so, this is wholly unworkable. Does the question suggest that passengers and vehicles travel together on the same barge, self-propelled or moved by tug, in which case, is this really very different from a basic ferry. Whatever is intended by asking the question, what can be safely said is that in general travelers are less concerned with the specifics of the vessel that provides the transportation service than they are with the frequency, reliability and convenience of the service. This is also not a question suitable for province-wide consultation, rather it is a decision that should be taken by the provincial government in conjunction with BC Ferries management and in consultation with the potentially affected ferry communities. (c) Are there routes where the proximity and service needs are such that two or more routes could share a car ferry and a passenger-only ferry on alternate days or parts of days? The terse answer is ‘Are there BC communities that would tolerate only having access to their highway every second day or for only part of the day?’ The answer to that is NO! Condemning people to vehicle access only every second day would mean a forced two night stay away from home every time they needed to travel with their vehicle, which for most low volume routes, where transit service is non-existent, would be for most of their trips. For people with mobility difficulties, this would be a particular hardship as their ability to make use of passenger-only services is often problematic. One could envision a resultant legal action against BC Ferries and the Province for discrimination in service delivery on behalf of handicapped people. (d) While a bridge between Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland is not possible in the foreseeable future, should the feasibility of a bridge be explored on other smaller routes? The answer is yes. Most ferry dependent communities would trade reduced ferry service for 24-7 road access, especially if the resultant road and bridge costs were properly covered by the Department of Highways budgets, thereby eliminating ferry fares. This is a discussion best suited to provincial government consultation with those particular communities.
16
9
(e) Is there an opportunity to improve linkages between ferry terminals and communities with better cycling connections or better public transit service?
This could work well with a plan to improve service for people while reducing the necessity for larger automobile ferries on the routes in question.
Similarly, the promotion of cycling infrastructure could encourage passengers to shift from the heavy, more expensive vessels that carry vehicles.
Yes, more cycling and transit connections should be encouraged. On the Sunshine Coast it could result in a boost in tourism and would certainly be welcomed by commuters. However, for the vast majority of ferry users, vehicle transportation services will still be the core required service, given the travel distances from home to the ferry and to their final destination/s on the other side and the items that must be carried in both directions. Families, friends and businesses are not necessarily neatly positioned along major transit routes. Most of us in ferry dependent communities have our ‘city lists’ of things that are either not available or are in such limited availability in our home communities that we turn to the city to supply those needs and we run around throughout our respective urban centers ticking off our ‘city lists’ at numerous locations, few of which are easily accommodated using public transit. Urban retailers would not likely appreciate the loss of business that restricted vehicle service and therefore restricted purchasing would produce, nor would our provincial and federal tax roles benefit from the loss of those sales. Better public transit would see higher passenger only use of our ferries, but if the cost were reduced vehicle service, most ferry dependent communities would not see that as a fair trade off. Cycling should be encouraged but is not a realistic alternative mode of transport for the vast majority of ferry dependent community populations, and never will be, especially in the fall, winter and spring when the rains that make our coastline so green deliver their liquid load or for those with mobility challenges. (f) Would you support the use of alternative fuels, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG), to power ferries where it is economically feasible?
LNG is currently cheaper, is plentiful and produces less particulate pollution and carbon dioxide that the diesel fuel currently used by the BC Ferries fleet.
This is an issue for BC Ferries management and is not appropriate for public consultation. If an alternative fuel is economically feasible and produced less pollution, then just do it! If the current price advantage cannot be relied upon in the long run, then the lower pollution aspect might be reason sufficient regardless of price, but this is properly a BC Ferries management decision, not a public consultation issue. This question has been clearly added to create the illusion of consultation more than the substance.
17
10
(g) Should BC Ferries look at standardizing vessels and docks to allow the flexibility to switch ferries and crews between routes?
The BC Ferry Commissioner has recommended that the ferry service move to three sizes of ferries (small, medium and large), which would provide flexibility to switch ferries and crews between routes, thereby saving training costs.
This is another question that should be directed towards BC Ferries management and is not appropriate for public consultation and in our view has been added to create the illusion of consultation more than the substance. Decisions on vessel design and acquisition are beyond the expertise of the general public. The need for and the acquisition of a renewed fleet to meet any criteria will and should take decades to accomplish. As marine design improves over time, it is doubtful that any given vessel design would or should remain static and therefore it is to be expected that there will be necessary and specific training required for the safe operation of each and every vessel. Acquiring marine vessels is not like buying a fleet of identical minivans, in small, medium and large sizes. As to the stated rationale behind the question, the capital cost of fleet acquisition compared to and potential ‘savings on training costs’ is so disproportionate as be laughable that training costs could ever be a significant driving force behind vessel acquisition. 2. What is the best way to provide community funding to support the ferry service in the long term? (a) Should property tax be increased in coastal communities to help fund ferry service? The short and definitive answer is NO! Shifting to coastal community property tax in addition to fare increases or as a substitute for some amount of fare increases still punishes coastal communities disproportionately compared to the province as a whole. Further it punishes residents to help subsidize vacation travel and those businesses that cater to vacation travel. And while vacation travel can certainly boost coastal community revenues, the benefits of the same are not equally distributed among citizens as a whole. Further, burying ferry costs in property taxation simply serves to obfuscate and reduce transparency and public accountability vis a vis the true costs of operating the ferries, which perhaps is the rationale behind the question in the first place! (b) Should fuel taxes be increased in coastal communities to help fund ferry service? Again, the short and definitive answer is NO! British Columbians, including coastal residents, are already pay fuel taxes, which go to finance for our highway infrastructure. Raising fuel taxes in coastal communities only would simply
18
11
continue the unfairness of singling out our communities to fund what is a component of provincial infrastructure. However, the Province could easily adjust fuel taxes, across the province, and allocate some portion of those revenues to help fund BC Ferries operations. That would help strike some balance of fairness about how we collectively finance our transportation infrastructure. Conclusion – Change the Mandate The only long term, sustainable resolution to managing the costs of providing coastal ferry service is to take BC Ferries back under direct government control as a crown corporation and treat our coastal ferries as we do our highways. The entire capital and maintenance costs of the shore facilities and the fleet should be borne by general revenues with ferry fares covering labour and fuel costs. This would result in a dramatic reduction in fares and would go some distance to re-vitalizing coastal communities and restoring fairness for coastal residents. The only way to achieve this outcome is to change the mandate and eliminate the fiction that our coastal ferries can or should attempt to operate on a user pay model. It hasn’t worked and it can’t work and the sooner it is eliminated, the better. If the current provincial government cannot be persuaded to change the mandate for BC Ferries, then perhaps its time to change the government! Sincerely, Jef Keighley, Chair – Sunshine Coast Senior Citizens (COSCO-BC) 8580 Redrooffs Road, Halfmoon Bay, B.C., V0N 1Y1 604 885-2290
19
Susan Hunt
Subject: FW: BCFerries, October traffic statisticsAttachments: Trafficallroutes 121 3.xls; trafficrte3 private 121 3.xls; trafficrte3 corn mercial 121 3.xis;trafficR3l2l3.xlsSCAD
RE CE I \‘ ED
NOV 1 3 2812From Jakob Knaus [madto falconiktelus net] C H A I RSent: November-15-12 10:14AMTo: Jakob Knaus; Mike Shanks; chris moore; Jordan Louie; Lee Ann Johnson; Jef Keighley; David Dick; Barry Cavens;Carolyn ArchibaldCc: Silas White; sechelt visitorcenter; gibsons visitorcenter; downtownbusiness sechelt; SCRD General Inquiries;Touristpartnership S.C.; w rowe; bedbreakfast president; gibsons municipality; Local; Brian Hollingshead; JohnHenderson; Garry Nohr; Sunshine Coast Community Foundation; Catharine Esson; Reporter Editor; Sechelt district; radiockay.ca; sechelt chamber; pender chamber; gibsons chamber; Ingrid AbbottSubject: BCFerries, October traffic statistics
Dear friends,
The declines in traffic compared with last year continue, both for our Route. 3 and “All Routes”. We do not see a halt orreversal in this trend until such time that above CPI percentage fare increases are arrested or reversed.At our FAC’s conference call on Nov. 2nd, we again brought up the problem of freeloading of trucks from Langdale toHorseshoe Bay. We were anticipating a proposal from BCF for a solution.
The public consultations for our Route 3 are scheduled to take place as follows:
Date/Location - December 1St 2012 at Cedars Inn Hotel and Convention Center in Gibsons.
There will be two meetings:Small Group Meeting from 10 am to noon - participants 40 - 50 people. The meeting is open to the public.(For participants RSVP required by e-mailing “coastalferriesenqaqement(qov.bc.ca or calling 1 855-387-7882)Public Open House from 1 pm to 4 pm. The first part of the session will be a presentation by the Ministry/Consultant,followed by a question and answer session with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure project team.It is recommended that people prepare for the meeting(s) by reviewing the Discussion Guide and Feedback Form and theRoute Specific Information for route 3 Langdale-Horseshoe Bay and route 13 Langdale-Keats Island-Gambier Island.They are available at coastalferriesenqaqement.ca
There was an advertisement in the Coast Reporter last week for these meetings
We hope for a good turnout by the public to demonstrate to Government that rte. 3 and 13 are our lifelines and makingservice adjustments (cuts) to the service might adversely affect our quality of life on our Southern Sunshine Coast.Kind regardsJakob (with the help of Barry)
1
20
ANNEX D
TR
AFF
ICA
LL
RO
UT
ES
2012
113
2011
1121
2012
/13
2011
112
Mon
thV
ehic
les
count
(not
AE
Qs)
Pas
sen
ger
sm
onth
%cu
mcu
m%
month
%cu
mcu
m%
Apr
il60
8580
-3.2
0%62
8603
1522
851
-3.3
0%15
7510
8M
ay67
5106
112
8368
6-1
.166
9191
1297
794
1717
398
0.1
3240
249
-1.6
1716
699
3291
807
June
7111
57-2
.819
9484
3-1
.773
1535
2029
329
1808
846
-3.8
5049
095
-2.4
1880
652
5172
459
July
8581
13-3
.528
5295
6-2
.388
9182
2918
511
2395
221
-4.7
7444
316
-3.2
2513
703
7686
162
Aug
ust
9606
391.
338
1359
5-1
.494
8721
3867
232
2710
944
2.2
1015
5260
-1.8
2653
903
1034
0065
Sep
tem
ber
7102
36-1
.645
2383
1-1
.472
1920
4589
152
1813
898
-1.1
1196
9158
-1.7
1833
783
1217
3848
Oct
ober
6156
71-1
.751
3950
2-1
.462
6054
5215
206
1527
854
-2.6
1349
7012
-1.8
1568
220
1374
2068
Nov
embe
r53
2360
5747
566
1266
588
1500
8656
Dec
embe
r58
8122
6335
688
1495
158
1650
3814
Janu
ary
4552
1367
9090
111
0287
2:1
7606
686
Feb
ruar
y48
0350
7271
251
1153
026
1875
9712
Mar
ch56
6668
7837
919
1410
265
2016
9977
7837
919
2016
9977
2012
/13
fore
cast
“not
muc
hch
ange
inth
efo
rese
eabl
efu
ture
”I
II
II
Min
d!F
ebru
ary
2012
isa
leap
yea
rF
ebru
ary
(1day
traf
fic
=3.
57%
)
8521
915
vehi
cles
8578
710
vehi
cles
8130
356
vehi
cles
rece
ssio
n82
5962
8ve
hicl
es81
3444
4ve
hicl
es78
3791
9ve
hicl
es
2166
4953
pas
senger
s21
7884
61p
asse
ng
ers
2072
7493
pas
sen
ger
sre
cess
ion!
2103
7169
pas
sen
ger
s20
7452
22p
asse
ng
ers
2016
9977
pas
sen
ger
s
Fuel
Sur
char
ge20
.07,
2012
Rte
.3
2%
Tre
nd20
06/0
720
07/0
820
08/0
920
09/1
020
10/
1120
11/1
2
Maj
ors
Min
ors
2% 2%un
ch
Tra
ffic
allr
oute
si21
3
21
Rou
te3
Pri
vate
Tra
vels
Pri
vate
Tra
vel_
Veh
icle
s_
(co
un
t_n
ot
AE
Q)
2012
/13
2011
112
UH
VO
HV
MC
Tota
lm
th%
mth
Cu
m%
cum
Tot
alm
thC
umA
pri
l77
260
3852
793
8190
5-1
.683
260
May
8428
545
0518
6990
659
0.1
1725
64-0
.790
531
1737
91Ju
ne
8469
947
1016
6291
071
-3.5
2636
35-1
.794
391
2681
82Ju
ly10
5088
6688
3376
1151
52-1
.237
8787
-1.6
1165
6938
4751
Aug
ust
1152
5672
2743
9212
6875
0.4
5056
62-1
.112
6424
5111
75S
epte
mbe
8680
251
6927
9794
768
0.1
6004
30-0
.994
644
6058
39O
ctob
er77
305
4124
864
8229
3-1
268
2723
-0.9
8328
568
9104
Nov
embe
r73
773
7628
77D
ecem
ber
8196
484
4841
Janu
ary
6353
990
8380
Feb
ruar
y66
616
9749
96M
arch
7685
910
5185
5T
otal
1051
855
basi
s:ve
hicl
eco
unt
(not
AE
Q5)
-si
ngle
voya
ges
EI
Min
d!F
ebru
ary
2012
was
ale
ap
year
(1day
traff
ic=
3.57
%)
traf
ficr
te3p
riva
tel 2
13jk
22
Route
3C
omm
erci
alT
rave
lO
rdin
ary
60fe
et
________
2012
113
2011
112
2012
1132
2011
l12
mon
thm
onth
%cu
m%
mon
thcu
mm
onth
%cu
m%
mon
thcu
mA
pril
1778
-4.7
1865
1445
13.2
1277
May
1990
-3.1
3768
-3.8
2052
3917
1441
-4.1
2886
3.8
1503
2780
June
-5.5
5695
-4.4
2039
5956
1440
-7.3
4326
-0.2
1553
4333
July
1876
-1.8
7571
-3.8
1910
7866
1430
2.6
5656
0.5
1394
5727
Aug
ust
1836
-9.3
9407
-4.9
2024
9890
1386
-8.4
7142
-1.4
1513
7240
Sep
tem
be
1719
-11.
411
126
-5.9
1941
1183
111
95-1
1.2
8337
-2.9
1345
8585
Oct
ober
1768
-4.1
1289
4-5
.718
4413
675
1384
5.9
9721
-1.7
1306
9891
Nov
embe
r—
1858
1553
3—
1273
1116
4D
ecem
ber
1531
1706
411
1812
282
Janu
ary
1527
1859
111
0313
385
Feb
ruar
y16
1420
205
1171
1455
6M
arch
1844
2204
913
5615
912
2204
915
912
basi
s:ve
hicl
eco
unt
(not
AE
Q5)
-si
ngle
voya
ges
Min
d!F
ebru
ary
2012
was
ale
apy
ear
(1d
aytr
affi
c=
3.57
%)
noft
noft
no.
no.
ft.H
SB
/Lda
le78
524
026
5835
1787
07O
ctob
er70
1A
pI/O
ct47
9231
3939
Lda
le/H
SB98
328
758
7059
2102
3468
349
2931
8977
duff
135
3308
1026
2679
5-1
813
750
38$6
.15
Apl
Oct
$193
,891
$30,
984
Api
lOct
tota
lord
inar
yan
dse
mis
(sho
rtfa
ll)
($22
4,87
5)
jk20
10/1
1A
pI/M
arch
($31
1,12
4)tr
affi
crte
3co
mm
erci
al12
1320
11/1
2A
pI/M
arch
($37
8,55
0)
Not
e!A
tthe
Nov
.2n
dSS
FAC
-BC
FSI
conf
eren
ceca
llB
CF
men
tion
edth
atth
e“f
reel
oadi
ng”
isno
ta
prob
lem
.B
CF
have
rese
arch
edit
and
foun
dno
dist
urbi
ngdi
ffer
ence
s.T
hefi
gure
sap
pear
non-
relia
ble
(alth
ough
we
find
the
BC
Est
atis
tics
very
relia
ble)
.O
bvio
usly
the
prob
lem
of“f
reel
oadi
ng”
isno
ta
prio
rity
for
BC
F.Jk
23
Traf
ficR
oute
320
1211
312
011I
1220
12I1
320
11I1
21m
onth
veh
icle
sco
unt
(not
AE
Qs)
pas
senger
sm
onth
cum
cum
%m
onth
cum
mon
th%
cum
cum
%m
onth
cum
Apr
il85
248
-1.5
0%86
513
1918
84-2
.10%
1957
35M
ay94
225
-0.1
1794
73-0
.794
268
1807
8121
5535
0.3
4074
19-0
.821
4907
4106
42Ju
ne
9464
8-3
.627
4121
-1.7
9821
327
8994
2195
15-3
.162
6934
-1.6
2263
2963
6971
July
1187
39-1
.239
2860
-1.6
1202
1139
9205
2981
11-4
.492
5045
-2.5
3117
2394
8694
Aug
ust
1303
140.
152
3174
-1.2
1302
4552
9450
3344
001.
312
5944
5-1
.533
0203
1278
897
Sep
t97
811
-0.3
6209
85-1
.198
111
6275
6122
3619
-0.2
1483
064
-1.3
2240
3715
0293
4O
ct85
553
-1.2
7065
38-1
.186
564
7141
2519
1125
-2.2
1674
189
-1.4
1954
8416
9841
8N
ov77
005
7911
3016
6183
1864
601
Dec
8472
387
5853
1963
4920
6095
0Ja
n66
272
9421
2514
6555
2207
505
Feb
6949
410
1161
915
1928
2359
433
Mar
ch80
175
1091
794
1799
3025
3936
310
9179
425
3936
3
201
21/1
32fo
reca
st“n
otm
uch
chan
gein
the
fore
seea
ble
futu
re”
basi
s:si
ngle
jour
neys
II
IM
ind!
Feb
ruar
y20
12w
asa
leap
yea
r(1
day
traf
fic
=3.
57%
)
Yea
rT
otal
Veh
icle
sT
otal
Pas
sen
ger
Pri
vate
Veh
icle
spa
ss/p
rve
hA
nnua
lT
rend
2006
/07
1130
558
2626
258
2007
/08
1129
201
2611
402
1086
901
2.40
3re
cess
ion
2008
/09
1099
683
2527
653
1058
533
2.38
820
09/1
011
1929
025
8501
410
7954
02.
395
2010
/11
1107
080
2571
126
1066
832
2.41
120
11/1
210
9179
425
3936
310
5185
52.
414
jk Tra
ffic
R3
12/1
3
24
Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee (RCOCPC)C/O 1738 Lockyer Rd.Roberts Creek, B.C., VON 2W1Phone (604)[email protected]
November 3’, 2012
Mr. Don Legault,Area Manager,Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure,Sechelt, B.C.
Dear Mr. Legault,
/ NOV-920,2
NOV13 2012
CH £—--V
Re: “S” bends, 3200 and 3300 Block, Beach Avenue, Roberts Creek.
We have not received a reply to our letter of June 27th in regards to the above. This matterremains on our agenda and we would appreciate your reply as soon as possible.
Thank you again in advance for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Roger Richmond,Member,Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee
cc: Donna Shugar, SCRDraffic Advisory Committee, SCRD
Nicholas Simons, MLA
co
CC P ‘r
25
ANNEX E
26
ANNEX F
27
28
Sunshine Coast Speed Watch
Sunshine Coast Regional DistrictTransportation Advisory Committee
Re: Speed Watch SurveyBeach Avenue, Roberts Creek
Following a number of comments and requests from residents ofBeach Avenue, as well as from the Director for Area D, SunshineCoast Speed Watch has conducted an informal driving survey of theroadway serving this residential neighbourhood. The survey wasconducted between Roberts Creek Road and Margaret Road onDecember 15, 2012, and was recorded in two directions using adash-mounted video camera - to take the virtual drive, go to YouTubepage: http://www.youtube.com/nhrboy
The drive required approximately 4 to 41/2 minutes to complete ineach direction, and the maximum speed attained was 40 km/h,however speeds of 25 to 35 km/h were typical and considered moreappropriate for most of the journey.
This section of roadway can be characterized as narrow, winding andwell used by all transportation modalities, as can be readily seen inthe video footage.
HazardsNoted hazards, both real and potential, include; a dozen or more blindcurves, concealed driveways, oncoming vehicles failing to keep right,narrow or nonexistent shoulders, pedestrians and cyclists of all agesand skill levels, skateboarders, bus and truck traffic, animals, apicnic/play area, Camp Douglas and Sunhaven School.
Sicinaqe
29
ANNEX G
A significant amount of signage has been installed; 30 km/h advisorysigns and bend chevrons at the two sets of “S” bends, a singlePlayground advisory sign (eastbound only), a single 50 km/hMaximum sign at the Picnic Ground (eastbound only), along with anumber of nonstandard resident-installed signs at the “S” bends (bothdirections).
School ZoneThe School Zone at Margaret Road is marked with standardizedsignage (pictogram and “30 km/h”, both directions) but does notinclude a tab referring to times and “School Days”. A hand-painted“school zone” sandwich board is also displayed at Beach Avenue andMargaret. The length-of-zone, sign to sign, although meeting theminimum standard, is extremely short and may be a significant factorin the poor level of speed limit compliance routinely recorded at thislocation. That is, the requirement to reduce speed from 50 to 30 km/his more likely to go unheeded when it’s for just a few seconds ofdriving time.
Three months of vehicle speed data at this school zone (Sept, Oct andNov, 2012) indicate a measurable decrease in driver noncompliance(defined as more than 10 km/h over), dropping from 29% to 25%, to17% noncompliance in November. This decrease is likely due to anincreased Speed Watch presence in a school zone that has largelygone unmonitored in the past.
ConclusionsBeach Avenue, Roberts Creek, like so many other residentialneighbourhoods on the Sunshine Coast, is a product of evolutionmore than engineering or highway planning processes. It is attractiveand has many attributes as a neighbourhood, but as an urban 50 kmper hour right-of-way it falls far short. Much of its length is lackingbasic elements such as adequate lane width, sidewalks or suitableshoulders for bike and pedestrian traffic, appropriate sight-lines, etc.
It is assumed that the existing posted maximum of 50 km/h, wasimposed sometime in the distant past without regard to the actual
30
features of this residential street, and that at present there is somestatutory impediment preventing the implementation of a moreappropriate speed limit for its full length. May I suggest that now wouldbebfightiimIoLthiscommitteetoioI[owtheexampleof1ocaL_governments worldwide, including Vancouver and Burnaby, and beginthe process of finding the means to permit the application of speedlimits that will actually contribute to an increase in liveability and safetyin our neighbourhoods.
Jon HirdSunshine Coast Speed Watch
31
32
ANNEX H
33
34
ANNEX I
Sunshine Coast Regional District 1975 Field Road, Sechelt BC V0N 3A1
Phone: 604-885-6800 / Fax: 604-885-7909 www.scrd.ca
File No.:
Memo To: Transportation Advisory Committee, January 7, 2013
From: Transit Administration
Date: 19/12/2012
Re: Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Dates 2013 – For Information
Scheduled Transportation Advisory Committee meeting dates for 2013 as adopted on December 13, 2012 by the SCRD Board (Resolution # 570/12) are as follows:
January 7
February 25
April 29
June 24
September 9
November 4
35
ANNEX J