Public Works and Transportation Committee
|
Date:
|
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
|
|
Place:
|
Anderson Room
Richmond City Hall
|
|
Present:
|
Councillor Chak Au, Chair
Councillor Harold Steves
Councillor Carol Day
Councillor Alexa Loo
|
|
Absent:
|
Councillor Derek Dang
|
|
Call to Order:
|
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m.
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded
|
|
|
|
That the minutes of the meeting of the Public Works and Transportation Committee held on February 21, 2018, be adopted as circulated.
|
|
|
|
CARRIED
|
|
|
|
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE
|
|
|
|
April 18, 2018, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room
|
|
|
1.
|
With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), Leo Chan, Vice President, Canadian High-Speed Rail Research Institute, and Frank Zhu, President, Canadian High-Speed Rail Research Institute, spoke on the potential for high-speed rail from Richmond to Chilliwack and provided the following information:
|
|
|
|
§
|
the Canadian High-Speed Rail Research Institute has been doing research on various sections of the high-speed rail plan since December 2016;
|
|
|
|
§
|
Currently the fastest train has a test speed of 605 km/h;
|
|
|
|
§
|
the fastest high-speed train in operation has a speed of 350 km/h;
|
|
|
|
§
|
the proposed high-speed rail (HSR) would have five stops: Richmond (YVR), Surrey, Langley Township, Abbotsford (YXX), and Chilliwack;
|
|
|
|
§
|
the implementation of the HSR may generate 40,000 direct and indirect job opportunities;
|
|
|
|
§
|
it is estimated that approximately 8,700 individuals per day may ride the HSR;
|
|
|
|
§
|
there is strong public support for HSR from Vancouver to Chilliwack;
|
|
|
|
§
|
the HSR is estimated to cost $6 billion to complete; and
|
|
|
|
§
|
the Institute hopes to (i) obtain $1,500,000 for research funds, (ii) collaborate with the Southeast Jiaotong University, (iii) link rail transportation or engineering institutions in Asia and Europe with Vancouver, and (iv) establish an HSR industry in Richmond.
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Chan noted that more research is required to implement the HSR plan and that support from the City would be valuable.
|
|
|
|
Discussion took place on the various stakeholders that were consulted and manners in which the City can support the Canadian High-Speed Rail Research Institute with their research.
|
|
|
|
As result of the discussion, the following referral motion was introduced:
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded
|
|
|
|
That staff liaise with the Canadian High-Speed Rail Research Institute to (i) examine previous rail proposals, (ii) explore route options, and (iii) provide more information on high-speed rail.
|
|
|
|
CARRIED
|
|
|
|
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
|
|
|
2.
|
TransLink Southwest Area Transport Plan – Final Plan
(File Ref. No. 01-0154-04) (REDMS No. 5684886 v. 2; 5688976)
|
|
|
|
Donna Chan, Manager, Transportation Planning, introduced Geoff Cross, Vice-President, Planning and Policy, TransLink, and Rex Hodgson, Senior Transit Planner, TransLink.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Cross advised that (i) this is the first time TransLink is initiating a multi-modal plan that takes into account transit, roads, cycling and walking and how they fit together, (ii) this plan looks at the long term needs, (iii) citizens and staff were involved and feedback was important in creating this plan, and (iv) the plan will be implemented following Council consideration.
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Cross advised that the Canada Line has exceeded TransLink’s projections and despite some inconveniences, the change in bus patterns from Delta to downtown Vancouver has been beneficial.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Hodgson advised that since the Canada Line as exceeded projections, TransLink has purchased new rail cars and examining increasing its capacity during peak hours.
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, advised that it is recommended that the speed limit between No. 4 Road and Garden City Road be reduced from 60 km/h to 50 km/h to eliminate the need for a pull-out bus bay at Alderbridge Way west of No. 4 Road. He advised that staff and TransLink are actively examining different concepts and exploring opportunities to potentially incorporate a bus exchange in Steveston.
|
|
|
|
In reply to a query from Committee, Ms. Chan advised that Steveston Highway does not currently have a cycling path, however she noted that staff are examining the potential to update the cycling network plan next year.
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
That TransLink’s Southwest Area Transport Plan, as attached to the report titled “TransLink Southwest Area Plan – Final Plan,” be endorsed for implementation;
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
That a copy of the report titled “TransLink Southwest Area Plan – Final Plan” be forwarded to the Richmond Council-School Board Liaison Committee for information; and
|
|
|
|
(3)
|
That Traffic Bylaw No. 5870, Amendment Bylaw No. 9816, to revise the posted speed limits on sections of Alderbridge Way and Garden City Road to support the planned transit improvements, be introduced and given first, second and third reading.
|
|
|
|
CARRIED
|
|
|
3.
|
Public Bike Share - Proposed Pilot Project
(File Ref. No. 10-6500-01) (REDMS No. 5754120 v. 4)
|
|
|
|
Sonali Hingorani, Transportation Engineer, provided an update on staff consultation with local bike shops and noted that (i) staff sent a letter to bike shop owners for feedback with respect to the bike share program, (ii) two bike shops stated that they are optimistic that potential bike share operators would engage them, (iii) bike shops indicated that rentals are not their primary business, and (iv) bike shops wish to provide feedback and be consulted following the implementation of the pilot program as it relates to its effect on their business.
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. Hingorani provided the following information:
|
|
|
|
§
|
the recommendation is for a request for proposal to seek a potential bike share provider for a trial period in order for staff to further assess the programs feasibility;
|
|
|
|
§
|
the cost to the host city is negligible as the benefit of a dockless bike share system is that there is no need for permanent fixtures to affix the bikes to;
|
|
|
|
§
|
staff have been approached by a variety of proponents in the area to launch the program;
|
|
|
|
§
|
if endorsed by Council, staff would develop the request for proposal, provide a report for Council’s consideration;
|
|
|
|
§
|
recent bike share pilot programs have been launched in urban centres of cities, as this area is dense with high traffic congestion;
|
|
|
|
§
|
staff do not want to open the pilot program city-wide as they want to learn from the initial phase; and
|
|
|
|
§
|
staff wish to see a viable program and the concentration of population, amenities and residents in the City Centre area lends itself as an appropriate trial location.
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
That staff be directed to issue a Request for Proposals for the development and operation of a public bike share system as a pilot project, as described in the staff report dated February 28, 2018, from the Director, Transportation; and
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
That staff report back on the responses to the above Request for Proposals with further recommendations prior to the award of any contract(s) and implementation of the pilot program.
|
|
|
|
CARRIED
|
|
|
|
ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
|
|
|
4.
|
Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784, Amendment Bylaw No. 9774
(File Ref. No. 10-6060-03-01) (REDMS No. 5523527 v. 6; 5720988)
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Lloyd Bie, Manager, Engineering Planning, advised that (i) once the water use restriction is in place, residents may use water as long as it is from a soaker hose or handheld hose, and (ii) there are permits for residents with regard to watering new lawns.
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded
|
|
|
|
That the Water Use Restriction Bylaw No. 7784, Amendment Bylaw No. 9774 be introduced and given first, second and third readings.
|
|
|
|
CARRIED
|
|
|
5.
|
2018 Clothes Washer Rebate Program
(File Ref. No. 10-6650-02) (REDMS No. 5742106)
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, John Irving, Director, Engineering advised that to date over 700 rebates have been allocated through the program and, should the program prove to be successful, staff would bring forward a request for additional funds.
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
That the City of Richmond partner with BC Hydro to the end of 2018 to offer a combined rebate of $100 for the spring campaign and up to $400in the fall campaign, equally cost shared between BC Hydro and the City, for the replacement of inefficient clothes washers with new high efficiency clothes washers;
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
That the scope of the existing Toilet Rebate Program funding be expanded to include clothes washer rebates; and
|
|
|
|
(3)
|
That the Chief Administrative Officer and General Manager, Engineering and Public Works, be authorized to execute an agreement with BC Hydro to implement the Clothes Washer Rebate Program.
|
|
|
|
CARRIED
|
|
|
6.
|
Odour Regulation in British Columbia
(File Ref. No. 10-6175-02-01) (REDMS No. 5760322 v. 4)
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Peter Russell, Senior Manager, Sustainability and District Energy, advised that there are certain emission types and various technologies and techniques to determine an odour.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Irving advised that Metro Vancouver uses a ‘sniff test’ to detect odours, however it is a subjective technique and staff are continuously speaking with experts to determine a more reliable technique.
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
That a letter be sent to the BC Minister of Environment requesting that:
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
The definition of odour as an air contaminant be included in the BC Environmental Management Act and in the BC Organic Matter Recycling Regulation;
|
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
The BC Organic Matter Recycling Regulation include a specific Odour Management Regulation establishing criteria and standards related to concentration and frequency of odorant emissions from composting facilities and define performance criteria for composting facility operations; and
|
|
|
|
|
(c)
|
They define a specific standard for how odours shall be measured, monitored, managed, treated, and discharged in a manner that minimizes impacts associated with odorous air contaminants;
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
That a letter be sent to Metro Vancouver requesting that:
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
Metro Vancouver update its bylaws and regulations related to composting facilities to establish criteria and standards with clear limits in terms of concentration and frequency for odorant emissions from composting facilities; and
|
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
Metro Vancouver appropriately resource its permit procedures with criteria and standards for composting facility permits to bring facilities into compliance with industry best practices for Composting Facilities.
|
|
|
|
CARRIED
|
|
|
|
(i)
|
Referral from Community Safety Committee on traffic safety enhancement measures on River Road
|
|
|
|
Mr. Wei referenced a staff memorandum dated March 15, 2018, noting that no action on traffic safety enhancements will be taken on River Road including the installation of speed humps, until after the RCMP complete their traffic enforcement activities at the end of the summer. He commented on signage installed along River Road, noting that it is consistent with national guidelines and standards and certain signage is appropriate given the narrow nature of River Road.
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Wei advised that a previous referral motion directed staff not to implement any safety enhancements along River Road until after the RCMP has conducted their traffic enforcement. He noted that as part of the RCMP’s enforcement efforts, speed radar stations will be set up along River Road.
|
|
|
|
Discussion took place on implementation of all safety enhancements except speed humps and in reply to queries from Committee, Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, advised that it may be appropriate to direct staff to provide a report detailing the feasibility of implementing the various safety enhancements measures, with the exception of speed humps, and report back to General Purposes Committee, at the earliest opportunity.
|
|
|
|
As a result of the discussion, the following referral motion was introduced:
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded
|
|
|
|
That staff provide a report back on the feasibility of implementing the various traffic safety enhancements on River Road, with the exception of speed humps, prior to RCMP reporting back on its enforcement efforts in Fall of this year.
|
|
|
|
Lynda Parsons, 2491 No. 8 Road, noted that the traffic radar data collection units were part of a previously passed resolution in 2015 and have yet to be installed along River Road. Ms. Parsons expressed concern with the resolutions passed in June 2017 and September 2017, and noted that the survey distributed to area residents found that 60% were against the installation of speed humps. Ms. Parsons requested that the signage currently installed be taken down and replaced with other signage and that road markers be reinstalled.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Erceg clarified that no speed humps will be installed until after the RCMP’s enforcement is completed and that staff can communicate with residents and bring forward a report to General Purposes Committee. It was further noted that the next General Purposes Committee meeting was scheduled for April 3, 2018, and that it was a tight timeframe to complete the report.
|
|
|
|
Yves Trividic, 22600 River Road, expressed concern with the survey distributed to residents, noting that 60% of the survey respondents were against the installation of speed humps, and residents’ opinions were not taken into account when decisions were made.
|
|
|
|
Trudy Haywood, 22610 River Road, spoke to the cement blocks on River Road that were damaged, and was of the opinion that large trucks using River Road damaged the cement blocks while turning. She spoke to the signage along River Road, noting that she believes there are too many signs along the road. Ms. Haywood expressed concern with the cyclists along River Road, remarking that residents and cyclists need to be educated on proper cycling protocol.
|
|
|
|
Arlene Trividic, 22600 River Road, expressed concern with improper cycling protocols along River Road, noting that she has documented poor cycling habits every weekend. She then spoke to the signage along River Road, and was of the opinion that they were misleading and not displaying proper information to cyclists.
|
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was then called and it was CARRIED.
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded
|
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (5:57 p.m.).
|
|
|
|
CARRIED
|
|
|
Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Public Works and Transportation Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Wednesday, March 21, 2018.
|
|
_________________________________
|
_________________________________
|
|
Councillor Chak Au
Chair
|
Sarah Kurian
Legislative Services Coordinator
|
|
