Section 2

SECTION 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Environmental Assessment Certificate Application for the RichmondAirportVancouver Rapid Transit Project
2
2.1
Project Description
Project Need and Context
The GVRDs population, currently just under two million, is steadily increasing, with projections of an additional 620,000 people between 2001 and 2021(City of Vancouver 2004). Most population growth to date has occurred in the regions low density suburban municipalities where the increasing demand for new residential and commercial development, as well as supporting infrastructure, has resulted in the fragmentation and loss of productive agricultural and forest lands. Concomitant growth in the number of private vehicles used by suburban residents to commute to and from urban centres has led to traffic congestion and delays throughout the road-based transportation network, with adverse effects on the environment, community livability and the economy. Vehicle ownership is growing at a faster rate than population, resulting in approximately 20,000 more cars per year, despite an overall absence of new road capacity. Increasing traffic congestion and travel times are significant impediments to the efficient and reliable movement of goods and people along the regions trade and transportation corridors. In the Lower Mainland, about 500,000 people travel daily between downtown Vancouver, central Richmond and the Vancouver International Airport along the busy traffic corridor that includes Main, Cambie, Oak and Granville streets. On a typical weekday, this involves approximately 288,000 vehicles and 19,000 transit riders. Since 1988, travel time along these routes has increased by 20% to 60%. Population increases of 50% and 75%, projected in Vancouvers downtown peninsula and in Central Richmond, respectively, by 2021, are expected to result in a 35% increase in the number of daily commuter trips to, from, and within downtown Vancouver. The expansion of roads and bridges to accommodate this traffic is neither practical nor desirable. Long-term plans to address population growth while maintaining livability at the regional level and in areas serviced by the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver corridor include those set out in the GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) (1996), the City of Vancouvers CityPlan (1995), the City of Richmond Official Community Plan (OCP) (1999), and the VIAA Master Plan (1996). Each of these documents envisions a rapid transit corridor, generally consistent with the proposed RAV alignment, as a viable means of addressing the challenges associated with
2-1
December 2004
increasing commuter traffic (i.e., the need to reduce reliance on and use of single-occupant vehicles)1. TransLinks most recent amendment to its Strategic Transportation Plan, the 2005 2007 Three-Year Plan and Ten-Year Outlook (2004), briefly describes the social and economic impacts associated with increasing transportation demand, identifies the completion of the GVRDs rapid transit network as a high priority in the next decade, and specifically refers to the RAV line as the next component of this network to be constructed. A brief description of each of the above plans, in the context of and with reference to the proposed RAV line, is presented below.
2.1.1
The GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan
The GVRDs LRSP builds on earlier regional plans and expresses a broad vision of regional growth management for member municipalities. The Plans four strategies for regional growth management are: protection of the Green Zone (i.e., major parks, watersheds, ecologically important areas, resource lands, farmlands) creation of self-sufficient communities realization of a compact metropolitan area provision of additional and varied transportation choices, with focus on transit-oriented options
In addition to providing for the use of intermediate capacity transit facilities (including light rail transit, SkyTrain and high-capacity busways), the LRSP describes a conceptual transit route from downtown Vancouver to Richmond that roughly coincides with the proposed RAV line route. It also provides for a bus lane connecting the Airport and Sea Island to this corridor. Although neither Richmond nor Sea Island are located within the Growth Concentration Area defined in the LRSP, it should be noted that population and employment growth in those areas have been above the regional average since the Plans adoption.
For a list of land use and transportation planning documents relative to the RAV corridor, see Table 4.1.
December 2004
2-2
2.1.2
Vancouver City Plan
Under the Vancouver Charter, Vancouver City Council is responsible for creating and enforcing development plans and zoning bylaws that provide for and manage city growth and development. To this end, in 1995 City Council approved CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver, the goals of which included:

strengthening of neighbourhood centres improvement of safety and increased focus community services reduction of reliance on private vehicles improvement of the environment increase in the variety and affordability of housing definition of neighbourhood character diversification of parks and public places creation of a diverse economy and jobs close to home involvement of people and redirection of resources.
In addition to CityPlan, other recent City of Vancouver planning documents that are of relevance to the RAV Project include: Vancouver Transportation Plan (1997) Downtown Transportation Plan (2002) Vancouver Transit Strategy (2002) Central Area Plan (1991) Oakridge Langara Policy Statement (1995)
Both the Vancouver Transportation Plan and the Downtown Transportation Plan stipulate that there will be no increase in overall road capacity into downtown Vancouver above the present level, that increases in peak period trips to downtown are to be accommodated by transit, and that light rail transit is to be established along high density corridors such as Broadway and a north-south route to downtown Vancouver. Much of the Central Area Plan, adopted by City Council in 1991, was incorporated into the CityPlan. The Central Area Plan envisioned two major office districts: the downtown central business district, and the uptown medical-civic district on Broadway between Cambie Street and Oak Street. The establishment of compact business districts in close proximity to
2-3
December 2004
residential neighbourhoods was intended to facilitate more effective and efficient transit service, while balancing and encouraging growth in jobs and the resident workforce. The Oakridge Langara Policy Statement, approved by Vancouver City Council in 1995 and amended in 1998, describes how an anticipated increase in population of approximately 35% in the area south of 37th Avenue between and including Cambie and Oak streets, is to be accommodated. The policy statement identifies a number of sites that may accommodate population growth through rezoning and redevelopment and indicates preferred building forms and densities for many of these sites. In addition to anticipating a rapid transit line along Cambie Street, it contains several associated policies to: ensure that the arterial street system along this corridor continues to provide flexibility for the expansion of transit service ensure the routing and technology of any future transit line to Richmond takes into account public concern about potential community impacts encourage multi-modal use of any transit bridge across the Fraser River to allow for pedestrian/cyclist access evaluate areas around potential rapid transit station locations to determine whether additional sites should be considered for changes in land use and/or density (City of Vancouver 2001)
2.1.3
City of Richmond Official Community Plan
The City of Richmond adopted a new Official Community Plan in 1999 that provides a vision for development and growth management to the year 2021 that is consistent with the GVRD LRSP. This vision includes basic elements of Richmonds 1989 OCP, such as protection of agricultural land, maintenance of a single-family character and direction of urban growth to the Richmond City Centre sub-area. New direction provided by the 1999 OCP includes dramatic improvements to transit services, provision of more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly streets and development of a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented City Centre. The OCP contemplates a Richmond/Sea Island/Vancouver transit corridor for either a fast bus or light rail transit service running along No. 3 Road to the core of the Richmond City Centre area. The RAV corridor runs through two of 13 planning areas described in the OCP: Bridgeport and City Centre.
December 2004
2-4
Within the Bridgeport plan area, the transit corridor would run through the Van Horne and West Bridgeport sub-areas. The stated plan objective for the Van Horne sub-area is to maintain and enhance the viability of the area for industrial uses (City of Richmond 2002). The Bridgeport Area Plan does not mention the need for a rapid transit corridor in this area. In contrast, the OCP envisions that the West Bridgeport sub-area would be serviced by a major transit station site accommodating transfer between an Airport/Vancouver and a Richmond/Vancouver line, transfer between bus services and the RAV line, and a park-and-ride facility. The Bridgeport Area Plan notes that the West Bridgeport sub-area has substantial redevelopment potential in the near future and that this potential will be influenced by use of the VIAA third runway and the location of the rapid transit route and station (City of Richmond 1999). Richmond has postponed further planning for this sub-area until such time that there is greater certainty regarding these impacts. Light rail transit linking Richmond City Centre to downtown Vancouver is a key component of the OCPs City Centre Area Plan. Although no particular route is specified, the Area Plan sets out criteria for selection of a light rail transit alignment to link key business areas within the City Centre, as well as local bus, shuttle services and road networks (City of Richmond 1999). Along No. 3 Road, the City Centre Area Plan includes a policy to support the use of conventional light rail transit which can operate at grade and complement the high-amenity, pedestrian character of the downtown district (City of Richmond 1999).
2.1.4
Vancouver International Airport Master Plan
In 1992, the VIAA assumed airport management and operation from Transport Canada under the provisions of a long-term lease. VIAAs current Master Plan, adopted in 1996 and approved by the federal Minister of Transport, provides for substantial growth in air passenger and air cargo traffic, as well as ancillary services, over a 20-year planning horizon. Elements of the master plan of particular relevance to the RAV Project include provision for a central corridor from the Arthur Laing and Moray Channel bridges to be used for ground access, including a future mass transit corridor, and consideration of transportation demand management initiatives to encourage the use of public transit and discourage the use of private vehicles (VIAA 1996).
2-5
December 2004
2.1.5
TransLink Strategic Transportation Plan
TransLink's most recent amendment to its Strategic Transportation Plan (STP), the 2005-2007 Three-Year Plan & 10-Year Outlook, describes measures to be used to address the range of negative economic, environmental and socio-community impacts associated with increasing demands on regional transportation infrastructure. Within the planning framework of the GVRDs Sustainable Region Initiative and LRSP, the 10Year Outlook identifies the following objectives: Make transit a real option Reduce gridlock especially for goods movement Maximize economic potential Maintain and enhance the environment Share benefits and costs equitably.
Both the Three-Year Plan and the 10-Year Outlook advance TransLinks support for the LRSP, GVRDs Air Quality Management Plan and the regional economy (TransLink 2004). The 10-Year Outlook also refers to the opportunity provided by the 2010 Olympics, and the sustainability theme of the Olympics, to showcase regional transportation initiatives and innovations. In the STP amendment, the proposed RAV line is identified as one of the specific actions to be taken by TransLink in the category of rapid transit. The line is expected to result in a significant increase in regional transit ridership, significantly relieving traffic congestion to the benefit of all those who rely on the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver corridor. TransLink estimates that 90,000 to 100,000 people per day will use the RAV line, shortly after it becomes operational in 2009.
2.2
Project Alternatives
At present, traffic demand on the three available bridge links between Richmond and Vancouver the Arthur Laing, the Oak Street and the Knight Street bridges exceeds operation capacity during morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. As a result, the bridges act as choke points, often resulting in traffic congestion that translates into lengthy delays for commuters. It is recognized that operation
December 2004
2-6
of a rapid transit line between Richmond and Vancouver would significantly reduce traffic demand on these bridges and associated roadways.
2.2.1
Alternative Means
In 2010 and beyond, without the RAV system, increasing traffic congestion would continue to adversely affect many transportation routes within the RAV corridor. Due to projected increases in population, substantial further investments in local and regional bus transit services would be required to address increased demand in ridership along routes between Richmond, the Airport and Vancouver. Additional priority measures would likely include further road and transit improvements on Granville Street and on bridge approaches, southward expansion of the bus lane on Highway 99 and an expansion of park-and-ride capacity, possibly involving a parking structure. Table 2.1 describes the incremental increase in hours of bus service and the number of additional buses required in 2010 and 2021 in the absence of the RAV system. Table 2.1 Requirements for Incremental Increase in Hours of Bus Service and Size of Bus Fleet without the RAV Rapid Transit System 2010*
Hours of Bus Service Total Buses (peak and spares) *Assumes 10 Year Outlook 107,000 60
2021
198,000 94
2.2.2
Alternative Corridors
Over the last 30 years, various technical studies have evaluated several corridors along which a rail rapid transit line could be constructed between Richmond and Vancouver. These studies identified Arbutus and Cambie streets as the two most viable corridor options south of False Creek. Ultimately, the Cambie Street corridor was selected as the preferred option because: It is shorter.
2-7
December 2004
Many more employment, educational, commercial and other centres (e.g., Vancouver Hospital, Langara College, Oakridge Shopping Centre, Vancouver City Hall, etc.) are located in close proximity to the alignment, resulting in greater potential ridership and revenues to cover operating costs. It has greater potential for future ridership growth. The City of Vancouver Transportation Plan identifies Cambie Street as the primary north/south arterial for Vancouver. The Vancouver Transit Strategy (2002) supports a regional subway system linking Vancouver, Richmond, and the Airport generally along the Cambie corridor to serve important institutional, employment and retail destinations.
2.2.3
Alternative Alignments
In 2002/2003, the following reports were commissioned to identify the preferred alignment within the Cambie Street corridor: IBI Group. Cambie Corridor Rapid Transit Service Optimization Project June 19, 2002 Sandwell Engineering Inc. and Hatch Mott MacDonald. Technical Study Vancouver Segment (Volumes 1 and 2) - July 2002 and Supplementary Report - January 2003 ND Lea Consultants Ltd. Fraser River Crossing Study - August 1, 2002 IBI Group. Technical Study Richmond Segment - August 1, 2002 Stantec Consulting Ltd. Technical Study Airport Segment. Final Updated. February 4, 2003 ND Lea Consultants Ltd. Alignment Review Marine Drive to No. 3 Road - February 1, 2003 ND Lea Consultants Ltd. At-Grade Operation Review Granville Mall February 1, 2003 ND Lea Consultants Ltd. Alignment Review Elevated False Creek/Robson Option - February 1, 2003 ND Lea Consultants Ltd. Cambie Corridor King Edward to Marine Drive Non Subway Options - February 2003
These reports led to the selection of the reference alignment described in SECTION 2.3.1.
December 2004
2-8
2.3
Project Description
The RAV Project will provide a rail rapid transit connection between downtown Vancouver, Vancouver International Airport and Richmond City Centre, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. The RAV system will be approximately 19.5 km long and will include 18 stations: six in Richmond2, four on Sea Island and eight in Vancouver. Additional stations may be considered in the future. Generally, the line will serve major employment and commuter destinations including Richmond City Hall, Richmond Hospital, Richmond Centre, Lansdowne and Aberdeen Centre shopping malls, the Vancouver International Airport, Langara Community College, Oakridge Shopping Centre, Vancouver City Hall, Vancouver Hospital, BC Cancer Agency, Central Broadway business district, downtown Vancouver business district, and Canada Place and cruise ship facilities. Although the RAV line will not involve a direct rail connection to the existing rapid transit systems, it will include a station located near the Waterfront SkyTrain Station with a pedestrian concourse connection to existing transit services. In this manner, it will contribute to, and further enhance, the transit network within the Greater Vancouver Region. The 2000 Speech From the Throne included a Federal government commitment to work with partners to improve public transit infrastructure. To assist in this task, Transport Canada commissioned three studies to identify the needs and priorities of the transit industry and to provide a better understanding of urban transit issues from environmental and sustainable development perspectives. One of these studies, entitled National Vision for Transit in Canada to 2020 and prepared by IBI Group in association with R. M. Soberman (2001)3 sets out four First Principles that a transit system must satisfy before it can be considered sustainable. According to these principles, the system should be (IBI Group and Soberman 2001):
Includes Capstan Way Station, which may be postponed if RAV line is at-grade in Richmond (see Table 2.3). 3 This document is available on line at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/urbantransportation/transitstudies/docs/Vision. pdf
2-9
December 2004
Capable of providing the necessary speed, capacity, frequency, coverage and connectivity to provide access to all activities in the urban areas with service that is safe, comfortable and convenient; Compatible with liveable communities that support a vibrant economy, walkable streets, people-friendly places, and a high quality of life; Conserving of energy and other natural resources and clean in terms of waste products; and Cost-efficient in terms of efficient service delivery, appropriate and affordable transportation pricing, and adequate, predictable funding arrangements.
The RAV line, in conjunction with additional improvements planned for the TransLink transit system in the next decade, as well as other provincial and local government initiatives to discourage the use of private vehicles and promote the use of transit, walking and cycling, are consistent with the National Visions four First Principles, as well as most of the 15 associated urban transit policy goals.
2.3.1
Reference Alignment
To arrive at the selected project identified in Table 2.2 and to be described in an Application Supplement to be submitted by RAVCo to the BCEAO in December 2004, RAVCo first defined a reference alignment based on a set of design parameters (see SECTION 2.3.2) and Contributing Agency requirements (see SECTION 2.3.6). The reference alignment identified for the RAV line will connect Richmond Centre at the south, the existing Vancouver International Airport terminal at the west and Waterfront Station at the north. The RAV line will follow No. 3 Road in Richmond, Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island, Cambie Street to False Creek, and Davie and Granville Streets in downtown Vancouver. City of Vancouver policy contemplates a regional transit service to Richmond along the Cambie Street corridor, under False Creek and through downtown Vancouver to a northern terminus in the vicinity of Waterfront Station. To connect the Vancouver and Richmond segments of the line, it will be necessary to construct a new bridge over the North Arm of the Fraser River, downstream of Mitchell Island and upstream of the Oak Street Bridge.
December 2004
2-10
Figure 2.1 Proposed RAV line Reference Alignment
2-11
December 2004
The City of Richmond has identified No. 3 Road as the preferred corridor to provide regional access to commercial centres and institutions in Central Richmond. This corridor has been established for the existing B-Line bus service and is available to accommodate construction of the RAV line. The VIAA has identified a corridor along Grant McConachie Way on Sea Island, which will connect the line to the international and domestic terminal buildings. To connect the Richmond segment of the line to Sea Island, a bridge will be built across the Middle Arm of the Fraser River upstream of the existing Airport Connector and Moray Channel bridges. The process and rationale used to identify and establish the reference alignment in Vancouver and Richmond and at the Vancouver International Airport on Sea Island are described below.
2.3.1.1
Reference Alignment Vancouver
In Central and South Vancouver, from 6th Avenue to Marine Drive, the reference alignment follows Cambie Street. Slight deviations from a direct Cambie alignment were examined as part of the Sandwell/Hatch Mott MacDonald Report (2002) but none were considered to present any significant advantages. Finding an alignment through downtown Vancouver was significantly more challenging. Many of the options identified in earlier studies have been precluded by new development, particularly on the Concord Pacific lands on the north shore of False Creek. The overriding factor in defining the route was the need to provide good connectivity with existing transportation facilities, including SeaBus, SkyTrain and WestCoast Express. The Sandwell/Hatch Mott MacDonald Report (2002) documents the alternatives evaluated leading to the choice of Davie and Granville as the reference alignment. The alignment supports the City of Vancouver objective of providing greater rapid transit coverage for downtown by providing a station in the southern Granville/Yaletown area. An alternative alignment through the downtown core, using Cambie Bridge to access Smithe and Nelson Streets, was examined but this was eliminated due to excessive traffic impacts.
December 2004
2-12
The work identified the need for a more comprehensive study of the waterfront area at the north end of Granville Street. This area is already a major transfer facility; the site of SeaBus, West Coast Express, SkyTrain, commuter and Airporter buses, cruise ship facilities at Canada Place, and Helijet and float plane connections to Vancouver Island. With the introduction of the RAV line, this area will become the major transportation hub in the Lower Mainland. RAVCo, the City of Vancouver and the Port of Vancouver jointly funded a specific study of this area to identify optimized solutions (VIA Architecture 2003).
2.3.1.2
Reference Alignment Richmond
Selection of No. 3 Road as the reference alignment in Richmond is consistent with City of Richmond policy and follows from the major investment that TransLink has made in developing the dedicated transit right-of-way that is presently being used by the 98 B-line rapid bus.4 The major challenge in Richmond was to identify a corridor and alignment between the Fraser River and No. 3 Road. A report prepared by IBI Group (2002) recommended a corridor that follows the former CN Rail right-of-way, with a Bridgeport Station between Charles Street and Beekwith Road. Subsequent investigations undertaken by BC Hydro identified serious conflicts with major electrical distribution facilities in this area, on both the north and south sides of the Fraser River. RAVCo commissioned a supplementary study to examine alternative crossings of the river and connections from the crossing to No. 3 Road. This work was undertaken by ND Lea Consultants Ltd., the firm that had undertaken the initial crossing study (2002). The supplementary report (2003a) concluded that a crossing slightly downstream of the original choice was preferred, together with a corridor and alignment south of River Road to No. 3 Road.
City of Richmond staff noted an alternative alignment for a grade-separated system, but agreed No. 3 Road would remain the reference alignment.
2-13
December 2004
2.3.1.3
Reference Alignment Vancouver International Airport
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2003) undertook a study to define the reference alignment along the systems Airport segment. Major considerations in determining this alignment related to future expansion of the airport terminals and the development of vacant lands on Sea Island. The Airport Master Plan is currently under discussion. A corridor along the north side of Grant McConachie Way was selected as being the optimum alignment to connect existing and future destinations.
2.3.2
Design Parameters
Design parameters define the physical imperatives within which a rapid transit rail system can be configured along the reference alignment. These were translated into specific requirements in the Request for Proposal (RFP) documents and form the guidelines within which Contractor Teams developed their solutions. The principal variable between segments of the reference alignment is the vertical profile (i.e., whether the rail line will be above street level (elevated), at the street level, or below street level (in trench or tunnel)). In determining the range of vertical options within each segment that would be considered acceptable, the following criteria were applied: Technical feasibility Options were eliminated where technically not feasible or practical, such as tunneling in Richmond. Traffic impact Options were eliminated where the impacts to traffic would cause excessive delays or congestion. Urban incompatibility Options were eliminated where structures would not be compatible with existing urban form such as elevated guideways along Granville Street in downtown Vancouver. Environmental Impact Options were eliminated where severe environmental impacts would result.
December 2004
2-14
2.3.3
Project Technology and Components
Rail technology refers to different types of rail systems. These systems fall on a continuum from, at one end, a system that resembles a street car running on the street in mixed traffic, to, at the other, a system that is fully separated from the street (like the SkyTrain system in Greater Vancouver or heavier rail subway systems in Toronto or Montreal). Within this broad range, there is a subset of systems that would be suitable for the RAV line, including those that are fully separated from street traffic (i.e., elevated or located in a tunnel or a fenced right-of-way). These types of systems, of which SkyTrain is an example, are often automated. In the Greater Vancouver region, these systems are sometimes referred to as Automated Light Rail Technology (ALRT). Also within this subset are rail systems that operate with varying degrees of separation from street traffic. On the RAV corridor, these systems would generally operate in a separate lane or right-of-way, but would interact with street traffic at intersections. These systems may be partially separated, meaning that there could be segments of the line at street level, as well as segments that are elevated or in a tunnel. If any portion of the line intersects with street traffic, the train must be manually driven. There are numerous suppliers of this type of system. In this region, these systems are sometimes referred to as light rail or conventional light rail systems. Fully grade-separated options are more expensive to build than at-grade options, and when situated above street level, have greater visual impacts. However, underground and above street level systems are less expensive to operate and are faster, safer and more reliable than street level systems because they do not cross road intersections. The project technology selected as a result of the Best and Final Offer (BAFO) technical evaluation (see SECTION 2.6.3) is described in Table 2.2. A description of the project proposed by the selected Concessionaire, SNCLavalin/SERCO Group Limited, including project design elements and an overview of construction methods, will be described in a Supplement to the Application to be submitted by RAVCo to the BCEAO in December 2004.
2-15
December 2004
Table 2.2
Elements of Selected Project Horizontal Alignment

Centre of Granville Street Centre of Granville Street; then east to Davie Street Centre of Davie Street; then under False Creek East side of Cambie Street (beneath northbound lanes) East side of Cambie Street (beneath northbound lanes) East side of Cambie Street (beneath northbound lanes) East side of Cambie Street (beneath northbound lanes) If at-grade in Richmond: hybrid automated/manual high floor light rail vehicles for entire RAV system Train control system is by Alcatel (i.e., same as SkyTrain)
Segment
VANCOUVER Waterfront at Cordova to south side of Georgia South side of Georgia to Granville near Davie Davie near Granville to 2 2 Ave to 11 Ave
nd th nd
Vertical Configuration
Vehicles
Power
Underground side-byside cut-and-cover tunnels Underground twin-bore tunnels
If elevated in Richmond: automated high floor light rail vehicles for entire RAV system
If elevated in Richmond: electrified third rail for entire RAV system If at-grade in Richmond: overhead catenary wires for entire RAV system
Ave
Underground twin-bore tunnels Underground side-byside cut-and-cover tunnels
11 Ave to 31 Ave
th
st
Underground stacked cut-and-cover tunnels
31 Ave to 37 Ave
st
th
Underground side-byside cut-and-cover tunnels
37 Ave to 63 Ave
th
rd
Underground side-byside cut-and-cover tunnels
December 2004
2-16
Segment
63 Ave to North Arm RAV bridge
rd
Elevated
Horizontal Alignment
Centre of Cambie to Marine Drive; cross over Marine Drive; west side of Cambie to Kent Street; cross over Kent Street; cross industrial lands to North Arm
Vehicles
Power
RICHMOND
North Arm to Bridgeport Elevated Southwest across industrial properties and River Road; under Highway 99 / Oak Street Bridge south approach to Bridgeport Bridgeport to Capstan Way Elevated Southwest to cross over Charles Street; west to cross over River Road; south along west side of No. 3 Road to Capstan
2-17
December 2004
Segment
Capstan Way to Richmond Centre
Elevated or at-grade
If elevated: east side of No. 3 Road from Capstan to Richmond Centre If at-grade: centre of No. 3 Road in existing 98B-line alignment from Capstan to Richmond Centre; all but four of eleven cross street intersections closed
Vehicles
Power
YVR
Bridgeport to Middle Arm Elevated Southwest to cross over Charles Street; west to cross over River Road; west to cross over LeHigh Cement Yard to new Middle Arm RAV bridge Middle Arm to YVR terminals Elevated Cross over south approach to Arthur Laing bridge; north of
December 2004
2-18
Segment
highway interchange across open field to Templeton Road; cross Templeton road and south to Grant McConnachie Way; west along north side of Grant McConnachie way to terminals
Vehicles
Power
2-19
December 2004
2.3.3.1
Stations / Station Locations
Table 2.3 describes the location and key features associated with proposed stations on the RAV alignment in Vancouver and Richmond, and at the Vancouver International Airport.
2.3.3.2
Operations and Maintenance Center
Two potential sites for the Operations and Maintenance Centre (OMC) are being considered: on the Kent Street industrial lands on the Vancouver side of the North Arm of the Fraser River; and on the River Road industrial lands on the Richmond side of the North Arm
Final selection of the OMC site will be based on ability to meet project schedule. The two potential sites are shown in Figure 2.1.
2.3.3.3
Construction Staging and Pre-Cast Concrete Yard
During construction, part of the Kent Street site may be developed as a temporary pre-cast concrete yard for tunnel components. This site may also be used as a temporary equipment storage and/or construction staging area. Another potential pre-cast site on the Vancouver side of the North Arm is located on industrial lands at the foot of Fraser Street. A temporary pre-cast concrete yard for elevated components may be established at one of two sites on Sea Island, both of which have been previously developed and used by VIAA for this purpose.
2.3.3.4
Bus Integration
When the RAV rail service is introduced, the existing bus-based system will be reorganized to ensure that the two transportation modes are fully integrated. Many bus services will be improved to connect with the rail line and to accommodate increased ridership, while those that duplicate the rail service will be discontinued. As well, new regional bus services will be added to provide better connections between Richmond and regional destinations such as Burnabys Metrotown Centre, North Delta and Surrey.
December 2004
2-20
Table 2.3 Station

VANCOUVER Waterfront
Location and Key Features of Proposed RAV Stations Location

Granville/Cordova
Key Features
Interchange with SeaBus, WestCoast Express, SkyTrain and local buses. Serves Convention Center, Central Business District (CBD), Canada Place, Cruise Ship Terminal.
Robson Davie Broadway
Granville/Robson Davie/Pacific Boulevard Cambie/Broadway
Interchange with local bus. Serves CBD service. Interchange with local buses. Interchange with east/west bus services and with possible future extension of Millennium Line. Serves Broadway Business District, City Hall and hospitals.
King Edward Oakridge 49 Avenue Marine Drive RICHMOND Bridgeport

th
Cambie/King Edward Cambie/41 Avenue Cambie/49 Avenue Cambie/Marine Drive

th st
Interchange with east/west bus service. Serves Queen Elizabeth Park, hospitals and Nat Bailey Stadium. Interchange with east/west bus services. Serves Oakridge Mall and surrounding community. Interchange with east/west bus services. Serves Langara College and surrounding community. Major bus terminal with services to southern Vancouver communities. Serves southern Cambie residential and commercial communities.
River Road/Garden City Way
Major bus terminal with services to areas south of Fraser River. Major Park-and-Ride facility. Serves River Rock Casino Resort and Bridgeport community. Junction with Airport line.
Capstan Way Cambie
No. 3 Road/Capstan Way No. 3 Road/Cambie
If at-grade in Richmond. Serves adjacent commercial developments.
2-21
December 2004
Station
Alderbridge Westminster Richmond Centre
Location
No. 3 Road/Alderbridge No. 3 Road/Westminster Highway No. 3 Road/Cook
Key Features
Interchange with east/west bus services. Serves Lansdowne Mall and adjacent commercial/retail businesses. Interchange with east/west bus services. Serves central Richmond residential/commercial/retail center. Major bus terminal with services to south/east/west Richmond. Serves Richmond Centre Mall, City Hall, and adjacent residential/retail developments.
VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Airport Station 1 Airport Station 2 Airport Station 3 Airport Station 4 Templeton/Grant McConachie Way Jericho/Grant McConachie Way Future Terminal International Terminal/Domestic Terminal FUTURE STATIONS 2 Avenue 33 Avenue 57 Avenue
th rd nd
Interchange with bus services to south terminal. Will serve new airport developments/facilities. Serves Air Canada and other service/commercial facilities. Will integrate with and serve future terminal. Direct service to International and Domestic terminals.
2 Avenue, west of Cambie, Vancouver Cambie/33 Avenue, Vancouver Cambie/57 Avenue, Vancouver
th rd
nd
December 2004
2-22
New bus exchanges will be constructed at the following RAV stations: SW Marine Drive Bridgeport Richmond Centre
2.3.3.5
Park-and-Ride Facility
A 1,200 stall park-and-ride facility will be constructed in Richmond at the Bridgeport Station. This location will allow vehicle owners to leave their vehicles in Richmond when traveling to Vancouver, reducing traffic on the Fraser River bridges, the most congested links in the road corridor network.
2.3.3.6
Waterfront Transit Hub
The northern terminus of the RAV line will be the Waterfront Station, which has become the transit hub for central Vancouver. As described in Table 2.3, the RAV line will integrate with the following public transportation facilities at this hub: existing SkyTrain to Burnaby, New Westminster and Surrey WestCoast Express commuter service to the Fraser Valley SeaBus to North Vancouver passenger ferry service to Vancouver Island HeliJet services to Vancouver Island and other destinations local bus services float plane services.
2.3.4
Implementation Strategy
SNC-Lavalin/SERCO Group Ltd., the selected Concessionaire for the RAV Project, is a leader in the rapid transit industry. In its proposal submission, this team advanced the most current, reliable and innovative technology available to best serve the needs of the Project. The innovative P3 project delivery method presents a new concept for the delivery of transit projects in North America. The selected Concessionaire will provide the rail technology proposed and agreed upon, and will design and construct the system. The Concessionaires commitment to quality
2-23
December 2004
design and construction will be assured through a requirement that it operate and maintain the RAV system for approximately 35 years.
2.3.5
Performance Standards
Payment of the Concessionaire during the RAV Project operation period will satisfy the performance standards shown in Table 2.4.
2.3.6
Contributing Agency Requirements
The Provincial Government, TransLink and the Vancouver International Airport, as Contributing Agencies, have directed that the following specific requirements be included in the RAV Project scope: 1. 2. 3. The Service Commencement date must be on or before November 30, 2009; Milestone payments must not exceed the capital cost contributions of the Contributing Agencies; The net new revenues generated by the system, together with the operating and debt service savings from reduced bus services and other Contributing Agency contributions, will cover the Availability Payments and Quality Payments during the Operating Period; The proposed system must provide: (a) a high standard of design; (b) a high level of safety and security; and (c) minimal community and environmental impacts; The vertical alignment will conform to the following: (a) from the southern terminus at Cook Road/Park Road at No. 3 Road to the Bridgeport Station, either at-grade or elevated along No. 3 Road; (b) cross the railway tracks near Bridgeport Station, elevated; (c) from Bridgeport Station to the Airport Terminus, elevated;
4.
5.
December 2004
2-24
Table 2.4
RAV Project Performance Standards
MAXIMUM TRAVEL TIMES

Stations Waterfront to Richmond Centre Waterfront to Airport MAXIMUM TRAIN INTERVALS Approximate Time Span 0700-0900 Mon-Fri 1500 1800 Mon-Fri 0900 1500 Mon-Fri 1000-1800 weekend and holiday 1800-2300 all days Start of service all days End of service all days 20 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 20 Richmond Waterfront Airport Waterfront Combined BridgeportVancouver Minutes between Trips 15 20 5 6 Airport Bridgeport Combined BridgeportAirport Travel Time 30 minutes 25 minutes
Time Period
Peak Periods Mid-day (all days) Evenings Early Morning Late Night
7.5 10
15 15
7.5 10
15
15
7.5
15
SYSTEM CAPACITY The system will deliver a capacity that is 15% greater than the forecast peak demand at the maximum load point (defined as the AM peak leading into the Broadway Station in the northbound direction). The system must be capable of expansion to accommodate 15,000 people per hour per day.
2-25
December 2004
6.
7.
8.
(d) from Bridgeport Station to 63rd Avenue on Cambie Street, elevated to cross the Fraser River, Marine Drive and other streets and railways; (e) for a fully grade-separated system, in a trench between 63rd and south of 49th Avenue on Cambie Street; (f) for a partially grade-separated system, at grade between 63rd and 46th Avenues; and (g) from 46th Avenue (or 49th Avenue if a fully separated system) to the Downtown Vancouver terminus, in tunnel; For a partially grade-separated system, at-grade pedestrian and vehicle crossings must be maintained at Cambie Street and 49th, 57th and 59th Avenues, with additional at-grade pedestrian crossings in the vicinities of 54th and 62nd Avenues. For a fully grade-separated system, gradeseparated pedestrian and vehicle crossings must be maintained at Cambie Street and 57th and 59th Avenues, with additional pedestrian crossings in the vicinities of 54th and 62nd Avenues; There will be no net loss of green space on the Cambie Heritage Boulevard in Vancouver and the heritage landscape and urban design values of the Cambie Heritage Boulevard should be retained5. Any trees removed must be replaced with trees of a species and diameter approved by RAVCo; The RAV system will be designed to accommodate future stations at: (a) 2nd Avenue and Cambie Street; (b) 33rd Avenue and Cambie Street; (c) 57th Avenue and Cambie Street; and (d) Capstan Way. In addition, the system will be designed so that it can accommodate a future direct train service between Richmond and the Airport without the need to transfer;
A Cambie Corridor Assessment and Statement of Significance, prepared by Donald Luxton & Associates (2004) on behalf of RAVCo, describes the heritage characteristics of the Cambie Boulevard. The boulevard is valued as an early Canadian example of urban design and planning, reflecting the influence of both the English Garden City and U.S. City Beautiful movements. It was first envisioned in the 1929 Plan for the City of Vancouver, developed by the well respected U.S. urban planning firm of Harland Bartholomew and Associates. Some of the mature trees, such as the alternating Sequoias and Golden Elms at the northern end of the boulevard, are considered particularly unique. In addition, the boulevards large scale, form, and prominence on one of Vancouvers main transportation corridors, further contribute to its significance.
December 2004
2-26
9. 10. 11.
12.
13. 14.
15.
16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
The RAV system must meet or exceed the performance standards listed in Table 2.4. Stations will be designed to accommodate the possible future installation of ticket gates; Modal Integration: (a) off-street bus facilities will be provided at the following stations: (1) Marine Drive Station; (2) Bridgeport Station; and (3) Richmond Centre Station; (b) the layout of other stations will be such that easy transfer to onstreet buses is facilitated; (c) a 1,200 car park-and-ride facility will be provided at Bridgeport Station; and (d) the Broadway Station will be designed so as to allow for a future transfer connection to either an underground extension of the existing Millennium Line or an at-grade light rail line on Broadway; Every train will have dedicated spaces for two bicycles, and bicycle storage at stations, including racks and lockers, will be provided where appropriate, given likely demand and available space; The RAV system will be fully accessible to people with disabilities; The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (TransLink) will market and brand the system and specify the system identifiers that will be located at stations and on train vehicles; The first level of security will be provided by the Concessionaire. A second level of security, such as policing, will be provided by TransLink or some other competent authority as determined by TransLink; The Richmond Centre Station will be designed in a manner that will not preclude a future extension of the system; At stations on the Airport line, VIAA will maintain control of advertising and commercial activities and receive associated revenues; There will be no charge to passengers for rides that start and end on Sea Island; Uniform and consistent pricing must be applied to similar works across all Cost Centres; Construction activities will be scheduled so as to be consistent with an orderly testing and commissioning plan. No section of guideway or
2-27
December 2004
21. 22. 23.
station will be completed on a schedule that results in an extended period of inactivity before further works commence; All work will comply with the requirements of all permits, including those required by VIAA; Design and operation of the RAV system will consider the needs of airline passengers, including the accommodation of baggage; and Design of the system will consider the needs of cruise ship passengers moving between the Airport and cruise ship terminals in downtown Vancouver.
The project proposed by the selected Concessionaire, SNC-Lavalin/SERCO Group Ltd., satisfies all of the Contributing Agency requirements.
2.3.7
Project Budget and Financial Information
The RAV Project is being financed as a Public/Private/Partnership (P3). Public sector funding committed to date includes (funds shown in 2003 $): Government of Canada Province of British Columbia Vancouver International Airport Authority Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority $ 419 million $ 304 million $ 297 million $ 300 million $1,320 million
In addition to this public sector funding, the Concessionaire will also partially finance the project. The exact amount of private funds to be contributed to the project is the subject of ongoing negotiations. Additional funds may also come from in-kind contributions from municipal partners and related development opportunities. Further information regarding project cost estimates will be provided in the Application Supplement describing the selected project, to be issued in December 2004. When considering the budget, there are certain defined items within which the RAV Project must be delivered. These are as follows: RAVCo Procurement Budget This covers all costs incurred by RAVCo in the selection of a Concessionaire and includes certain technical tasks such as mapping,
December 2004
2-28
geotechnical investigations, and estimation of ridership. It also includes the financial and legal costs associated with structuring the Concession Agreement. Construction Budget The Contributing Agencies will contribute a defined amount of money toward RAV system construction. Any shortfall between the actual cost of constructing the system and the RAVCo construction budget must be provided by the Concessionaire to be repaid during the period when the Concessionaire is operating the system. RAVCo will retain a fixed amount of agency funding to cover its own costs during the implementation phase, including the purchase of property. Operating Budget The Concession Agreement will include a payment schedule during the operating period to cover operating costs, debt repayment and margins. These payments will come from both TransLink and the Province, with the later payments being in the form of deferred funding. These payments will not be determined until the Concession Agreement is signed.
2.4
Characteristics of a Linear Project in an Urban Setting
The RAV Project will consist of a series of almost identical structural elements (i.e., guideway spans, columns, stations, bridges, tunnels, etc.) repeated in a linear corridor through a highly developed urban area. It is very important to note that the natural environment along this corridor has been completely altered due to many decades of industrial, commercial and residential use, as well as the presence of a complex network of utilities and transportation infrastructure. Further, by remaining in the Cambie Street right-of-way to 63rd Avenue, the RAV line will avoid disturbing adjacent landscaped areas, including Queen Elizabeth Park and Langara Golf Course. Tree removal on the Cambie Heritage Boulevard south of 63rd Avenue will be addressed by the Concessionaire and RAVCo, in consultation with the City of Vancouver (see SECTION 20.4.8). In Richmond, with the exception of the Fraser River crossings, the construction of which may
2-29
December 2004
disturb riparian and marsh habitats on the foreshore, and a small amount of short grass habitat on Sea Island, the line will follow existing transportation corridors through highly disturbed urban areas. A number of biophysical features occur in proximity to the RAV alignment that merit site-specific assessment, environmental design, and construction mitigation. These include: watercourse and drainage crossings, including the North and Middle Arms of the Fraser River riparian habitats vegetation stands and, in some cases, associated wildlife habitat land use areas that are sensitive to the effects of noise and/or air quality impacts archaeological and heritage resource areas.
Site-specific assessments and recommendations for impact mitigation and compensation for these areas are detailed in SECTIONS 6 to 15 of this Application. RAV Project Commitments and Assurances for construction and operation of the RAV line are described in SECTION 21 and, with the addition of any mitigation measures agreed to as conditions of project approval, will be transferred to the Concessionaire in the Concession Agreement. The Concessionaires Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which will contain detailed mitigation and compensation measures for application during construction, will reflect these commitments and assurances. Outlines for EMP components, prepared by RAVCo, that will be used to guide the preparation of the Concessionaires Plan are included in SECTION 20.4.
2.5
Traditional Project Delivery vs. the Design Build Operate Maintain Process
Procurement Methods
2.5.1
Projects can be procured through a number of different methods including: Traditional Procurement: Design, Bid, Build Design Build
December 2004
2-30
Design Build Operate Maintain Design Build Finance Operate Maintain6
Based on a consideration of many factors, including risk assessment and the public sector strategy to develop new bases for contracting, the Design, Build, Partially Finance, Operate and Maintain procurement method was chosen for the RAV Project. A brief overview of the Design-Build procurement method, for the purpose of providing background, and a description of the DBFOM approach are provided in SECTIONS 2.5.2 and.2.5.3, respectively. Regardless of the selected procurement methods, there are no known specific procedures for allocating environmental management responsibilities among parties involved in project development. The responsibility for managing environmental issues depends entirely on negotiated agreements between Owners, contractors and regulatory agencies, as well as the selection and application of the most relevant environmental management model for that project.
2.5.2
Design Build (DB)
The DB approach to project development allows integration of the design process with the practical realities of construction. The DB Contractor, is responsible for detailed design and construction, as well as the implementation of environmental management requirements and specifications. The frequency with which this procurement method is used has increased in recent years. Owners, having spent considerable time and money in arbitrating agreements between designers and contractors, have realized that it is possible to mitigate the risks associated with design by awarding a single contract for both design and construction. Such an arrangement also allows for Contractor involvement early in the design process, which can result in more cost-effective and innovative solutions, particularly where construction methods heavily influence costs. Schedule advantages can also be achieved
DBOM in which the Concessionaire assumes responsibility for financing all or part of the projects capital costs.
2-31
December 2004
by overlapping design and construction activities. This is particularly advantageous in the case of transit projects, which traditionally involve numerous design and construction contracts.
2.5.3
Design Build Finance Operate Maintain (DBFOM)
To prevent the selection of proposals offering the lowest capital cost solution, often at the expense of life cycle operating and maintenance costs, many DB contracts are now extended into DBOM and DBFOM Concessions. In the latter case, in addition to assuming responsibility for operation and maintenance, the Concessionaire contributes to project financing. The longterm consequences associated with the transfer of these cost risks gives the Concessionaire an incentive to address life cycle issues during design and proposal development. Returns on the capital invested can be made subject to performance over a long period. Typically, the Concessionaire puts at risk the private capital invested, including all debt and equity. In addition, there may be insurance and bonding instruments in place, and/or guarantees of the parent companies that form the Concessionaire. The sum of the capital, bonding and guarantees should be sufficient to protect the assets in the event of poor performance. While design parameters in a DB procurement are tightly specified, those in a DBFOM procurement focus on system performance or outputs. In the case of the RAV Project, for example, rather than specifying project aspects such as train technology, method of tunneling and location of stations, performance parameters relate to journey times and train frequency, leaving the Concessionaire with more freedom to be innovative. The DBFOM model is being applied to the RAV Project.
2.5.4
Allocation of Risks
Table 2.5 outlines the typical allocation of risks under DB and DBFOM contracts and how they differ. The substantial differences associated with a DBFOM contract are:
December 2004
2-32
Construction Period risk and responsibilities of public and private sectors for environmental approvals, ground conditions and utilities relocation are negotiated and set out in the Concession Agreement; and transfer of systems integration risk to the Concessionaire. Operating Period transfer of system performance and operations and maintenance cost risk to the private sector; and payments to the Concessionaire during the Operating Period to compensate for operations and maintenance costs, and a return on private sector capital, would be fixed in real terms for the entire Concession Agreement, transferring all such risk to the private sector. Table 2.5 Apportioning of Risk in DB and DBFOM Contracts Risk
Owner* Construction Period Environmental Approvals Land / Right-of-Way Acquisition Construction Ground Conditions Utilities Diversion Civil Works and System Integration Operating Period Ridership and Revenue System Performance Operations and X X X 90% 10% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
DB
Contractor*
DBFOM
Owner* Contractor*
Maintenance *Note that assignation of specific percentage weights for risk depend entirely on the agreement between the Owner and DB or DBFOM consortium.
Table 2.6 describes procurement alternatives for large transit projects and identifies the parties with primary responsibility for key project components.
2-33
December 2004
Table 2.6
Procurement Alternatives and Project Responsibilities for Large Transit Projects Procurement Alternatives Large Transit Projects Traditional Design Build Design Build Finance Operate Maintain
Number of Prime Contracts:
Many (i.e., 25 50)
Number of Contract Packages: Type of System Specifications:
One or more (unlikely to be able Two (Contractors and Owners to package civils and systems Agent) under a single contract) Many (i.e., 50 100) One or more Two (Contractors and Owners Agent) Detailed technical specifications Performance specifications for Performance specifications for the entire system. for the system elements or the system elements or components of the system components of the system elements elements (plus acceptance testing, no guarantees of performance over the long term)
Party with Primary Responsibility for: Right-of-Way Acquisition: Utility/Other Relocations: Preliminary Engineering: Final Design: Procurement/Contracting: Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner or Contractor Owner Contractor(s) Owner for prime contracts; Contractor(s) for sub-contracts Owner Owner or Concessionaire
Construction Management: Construction: System Integration:
CM/Owner Contractor(s) Owner
Owner (concept only) Contractor Owner for DBOM contract; Concessionaire for subcontracts Contractor(s) Concessionaire Contractor(s) Concessionaire Owner/Contractor [Contractors Concessionaire
December 2004
2-34
Procurement Alternatives Large Transit Projects Traditional Design Build Design Build Finance Operate Maintain
Quality Assurance: Testing and Start-up: System Warranty: System Operations: Owner Owner System Suppliers Owner /Operator role marginal] Contractor(s)/ Owner Owner /Contractor System Suppliers Owner / Operator (at Owners risk) Owner/Operator Owner Owner N/A Concessionaire Concessionaire Concessionaire Concessionaire
System Maintenance: Project Financing: Operating Subsidies: Operating Payments:
Owner/Operator Owner Owner N/A
Concessionaire (up to a 35year period) Owner N/A Owner
2-35
December 2004
2.6
The Public/Private/Partnership Process for the RAV Project

Outline of Process
2.6.1
The procurement of a Concessionaire for the RAV Project was divided into four principal phases as follows: Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) from which four qualified short-listed Contractor Teams were chosen from a total of ten submissions. This stage was completed in April 2003. Request for Proposal (RFP) from which the RAVCo Board recommended two Best and Final Offer Contractors in late March 2004; BAFO from which the GVTA Board will select the Preferred Contractor in November 2004; and Closing Phase during which negotiations will be undertaken with the Preferred Contractor and the Concession Agreement will be signed (by February/March 2005) and Financial Close will be negotiated (by July 2005).
2.6.2
2.6.2.1
Request for Proposal Stage

Proposals
A Request for Proposals was issued to four short-listed Contractor Teams in August 2003. The RFP invited the Contractors to submit proposals for the design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the RAV system under a 35-year Concession Agreement. Subsequent to RFP issuance, one Contractor Team withdrew, leaving the following three Contractors, each of whom submitted a proposal on 23 January 2004: RAVxpress RAVLink SNC-Lavalin/SERCO Group Limited.
December 2004
2-36
2.6.2.2
Approval to Proceed to BAFO
The proposal evaluation process identified three proposals submitted by two Contractor Teams that were considered most capable of delivering the project. In addition, RAVCo demonstrated that project implementation through a P3 arrangement offers advantages over a traditional public sector procurement arrangement. The value for money test was undertaken using a Public Sector Comparator (PSC). A procedure was developed in consultation with the Contributing Agencies for producing the PSC and for advancing recommendations to the RAVCo Board with respect to proceeding to the next phase of procurement, the BAFO stage. The above procedures resulted in the following reports being presented to the RAVCo Board in late March 2004, at the same time that the Proposal Evaluation Report was presented: Public Sector Comparator Report - Provides an estimate or range of estimates for the Project if procured by the public sector Project Funding Report - Describes funding as related to the parameters defined in the RFP (i.e., whether the selected proposals are within the limits of currently available funding). Value for Money Report - Compares the selected proposals with the PSC.
The Contributing Agencies considered the RAVCo Boards recommendations regarding whether or not to proceed to BAFO. Agency approvals were secured before the Project advanced to the BAFO stage.
2-37
December 2004
2.6.3
2.6.3.1
BAFO Stage
BAFO Instructions
Two Contractor Teams, RAVxpress and SNC-Lavalin/Serco were invited to proceed to the BAFO stage. Upon proceeding to BAFO, RAVCo prepared a set of BAFO Instructions that indicated the terms and conditions under which the BAFO submissions were to be prepared, as well as the environmental issues that were to be considered. They also provided further design guidelines, particularly with respect to station design. The guidelines were developed based on the results of public consultation conducted in winter 2003/2004 to spring 2004, and input from the cities of Richmond and Vancouver. The BAFO instructions also incorporated any specific changes to project scope and/or agency requirements.
2.6.3.2
BAFO Preparation
The two BAFO Contractors submitted their Best and Final Offers to RAVCo in late September 2004. Active dialogue between the proponents and RAVCo during BAFO preparation ensured that the BAFO Proposals: were financially, technically and environmentally acceptable; contained as few qualifications and resolved as many commercial issues as possible; and facilitated as short a closing period as possible.
2.6.3.3
Evaluation of BAFOs
BAFO proposals were evaluated according to an established set of procedures, resulting in the selection of a Preferred Contractor.
2.6.3.4
Closing Phase
The Preferred Contractor has been identified. Negotiations will commence shortly leading to finalization of the commercial terms of the Concession Agreement and the financial agreements.
December 2004
2-38
2.7
Partner/Owner Responsibilities
Overview of Draft Concession Agreement
2.7.1
The Concession Agreement will address the design, construction, testing, commissioning, financing, operation and maintenance of the RAV system for the entire term of the Concession. The Draft Concession Agreement will not be finalized until the contract is signed with the selected Concessionaire. Following is an overview of some of the key terms of the Draft Concession Agreement: The Concession Agreement will be between RAVCo (the Owner) and the Concessionaire. The term of the Concession Agreement will commence upon closing of the Agreement and continue for a term of 35 years. The International Olympic Committee has selected the City of Vancouver to host the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, to be held in February and March 2010. Accordingly, the project schedule for the design, construction, testing and commissioning of the RAV system must have a Service Commencement date no later than November 30, 2009.
2.7.2
2.7.2.1
Concessionaire Responsibilities
Design, Construct, Test and Commission
The Concessionaire will have full responsibility for the design, construction, testing and commissioning of all elements of the RAV system, including all fixed facilities, electrical and mechanical (E&M) systems, vehicles and the Operations and Maintenance Centre. The selection of the vehicles, train control and other technologies is to be made by the Concessionaire, but must satisfy the specifications and requirements of the Schedules to the Draft Concession Agreement. Final designs will be as required under the Concession Agreement, and will be subject to a right of review by RAVCo so that it can confirm that prescribed design and operating standards will be met.
2-39
December 2004
2.7.2.2
Operation and Maintenance
The Concessionaire will have full responsibility for the operation, maintenance and repair of all elements of the RAV system for the term of the Concession Agreement. The performance standards to be included in the Agreement are minimum standards for system operation and maintenance. The Concession Agreement will contain financial incentives to promote increased ridership and encourage good performance.
2.7.3
2.7.3.1
RAVCo Responsibilities
Payments
RAVCo will pay the Concessionaire as follows: Milestone Payments during design, construction, testing and commissioning Availability Payments during the Operating Period on the basis of meeting defined scheduling and station availability standards. RAVCo intends that these represent 70% of the total payments projected for the Operating Period Quality Payments during the Operating Period on the basis of meeting defined quality standards. RAVCo intends that these represent 20% of the total payments projected for the Operating Period Volume Payments during the Operating Period based on ridership, intended by RAVCo to represent 10% of the total payments projected for the Operating Period
2.7.3.2
Ownership and Right to Occupy
It is intended that the main line of the RAV system will be owned by the GVTA and the Airport Connector line will be owned by the VIAA. The Concession Agreement and Municipal Access Agreements will provide the Concessionaire with rights to occupy the system as necessary for it to meet its obligations under the Concession Agreement.
December 2004
2-40
2.7.4
Summary of Risk Allocation
In the Draft Concession Agreement, risk allocations have been made, the most significant of which are as described in Table 2.7 and in the following sub-sections. Note that these risk allocations will be negotiated as part of the Concession Agreement, so that the final allocations may differ somewhat from those presented here. Table 2.7 Risk Allocations in the Draft Concession Agreement for the RAV System Risk
Ridership and Revenue Risk Regulatory Approval Risk Land/Right-of-Way Acquisition Risk Construction Risk (cost & schedule) Geotechnical Risk Systems Civil Works Integration Risk Utilities Diversion Systems Performance Risk Operation and Maintenance Risk Contaminated Soil Risk Inflation Risk During Construction Period Inflation Risk During Operating Period Change in Law Risk
RAVCo
Concessionaire
minority
In the case of risks that are to be shared (e.g., regulatory approval, geotechnical, utilities diversion, contaminated soil risk), the aim is to give the Concessionaire proper incentives while achieving efficient pricing by allocating responsibility to an appropriate degree for matters that it can control but not for costs that should properly be the responsibility of RAVCo, as set out in more detail below.
2-41
December 2004
2.7.4.1
Ridership and Revenue Risk
Fares will be established by GVTA. GVTA will bear all of the ridership revenue risk, except in relation to the volume payments based on ridership, as described in SECTION 2.7.3.1, which are intended to provide an incentive for the Concessionaire to maximize ridership.
2.7.4.2
Regulatory Approval Risk
The risk related to obtaining necessary permits will be allocated as follows: RAVCo will be responsible for and will assume the risk associated with obtaining approval for the Project under the BCEAA/CEAA process, as well as the other permits, licences and/or approvals described in SECTION 2.7.5; the Concessionaire will be responsible for and will assume the risk associated with obtaining all permits other than as described in SECTION 2.7.5 (e.g., Section 35(2) Authorizations under the Federal Fisheries Act); except as may be expressly agreed otherwise, the Concessionaire will be responsible for and will assume the risk in complying with all terms and conditions of the BCEAA/CEAA approvals, including the EAC; and the Concessionaire will be responsible for and will assume the risk in providing all required security (e.g., letters of credit, bonds and other financial instruments) as may be required by any Relevant Authority in connection with the issuance of any permits.
2.7.4.3
Land/Right-of-Way Acquisition Risk
System Permanent Structures Permanent RAV structures on the main line and on the Lulu Island portion of the Airport Connector (i.e., that portion of the Airport Connector that is not on Sea Island) will generally be located on road rights-of-way. On Sea Island, formal rights-of-way may not be required since this is mostly Federal land leased to the VIAA. All rights-of-way and rights of access required for all permanent structures in the system will be made available by RAVCo for the use of the Concessionaire.
December 2004
2-42
Lands for Temporary Use The Concessionaire will be responsible for acquiring, at its cost, any land rights temporarily required for construction purposes that are not already provided by the cities of Vancouver and Richmond, or by the VIAA. Operations and Maintenance Centre Land rights required for the OMC will be acquired by RAVCo and provided for the use of the Concessionaire. Construction Risk The Concessionaire will have control of the work methods and procedures, and will bear the risks related to cost of construction and to compliance with the project schedule, subject to express rights for extensions, such as defined events of force majeure, as set out in the Concession Agreement. Geotechnical Risk RAVCo has completed a program of geotechnical investigations along the reference alignment (see SECTION 3.7). A geotechnical report was issued during the RFP stage that summarized preliminary information related to ground conditions along the reference alignment. A summary of the investigation program undertaken by Golder Associates Ltd. (2003) is presented in SECTION 3.7. A Subsurface Baseline Report was issued prior to the commencement of the BAFO Stage that describes the anticipated ground conditions along the tunnel portion of the reference alignment. The Concessionaire will assume all geotechnical risks that may arise during construction. Schedule Risk The Concessionaire will bear all schedule risk relating to construction progress. There are a limited number of event that would entitle the Concessionaire to relief and an associated extension of time. Systems and Civil Works Integration Risk The Concessionaire will bear the full cost risk of proper design and construction integration between the various elements of the system, including the civil works and the other elements.
2-43
December 2004
Utilities Diversion RAVCo will assume the risk of relocating regulated utilities, such as natural gas, electricity, telecommunications and cable by paying the Concessionaires direct out-of-pocket expenses for such relocations. The Concessionaire will be responsible for all temporary works required for the protection of regulated utilities. To provide the Concessionaire with an incentive to minimize the cost of such work, RAVCo will offer payment incentives if the work is completed below established cost estimates. The Concessionaire will assume all risks relating to the protection or relocation of public utilities, including municipal utilities such as sewer and water, as well as all schedule risk related to utilities. Systems Performance Risk The Concessionaire will bear the full risk relating to the performance of system elements, including performance of all systems and controls. Operation and Maintenance Risk The Concessionaire will bear full risks relating to the operation and maintenance of the RAV system. Contaminated Soil Risk The Concessionaire will assume the risks relating to the disposal of any contaminated soils that were identified by RAVCo in advance of BAFO and that the Concessionaire can, therefore, price. If, during project construction, the Concessionaire encounters any contaminated soils that existed but were not identified by RAVCo prior to BAFO, then: the Concessionaire will be responsible for identifying such contaminated soil so that appropriate disposal steps can be taken; RAVCo will assume the risks of increased costs relating to the disposal of such contaminated soil, subject to the Concessionaires duty to minimize these costs and the effect on the Project; and the Concessionaire will assume all risks relating to any soil contamination caused or permitted by the Concessionaire in undertaking the Project, including any contamination resulting from the method of tunnel excavation.
December 2004
2-44
Inflation Risk The Concessionaire will bear inflation risk during the construction period. RAVCo will bear a proportion of inflation risk during the operating period by increasing the Base Payment and other payments during the operating period based on increases in the inflation index. The Concessionaire will bear differential inflation risk with the cost of individual goods and services, such as electricity. Change in Law Risk Subject to a general duty to mitigate, any additional costs incurred by the Concessionaire as a result of a change in law will be shared equally between the Concessionaire and RAVCo except: if such costs exceed an amount to be agreed prior to the execution of the Concession Agreement, the amount of the excess will be for the account of RAVCo; general changes to construction and transportation laws (during the Construction Period) and tax laws will be the responsibility of the Concessionaire; and changes in law directed specifically at the Concessionaire, the Project or projects being implemented as Public/Private/Partnerships will be the responsibility of RAVCo.
2.7.5
Responsibility for Permits, Licenses and Approvals
RAVCo is submitting the EAC Application for the RAV Project to the BCEAO, the agency responsible for coordinating the project review with federal government agencies under a harmonized BCEAA/CEAA agreement. This Application will also be reviewed separately by other Relevant Authorities. RAVCo and DFO have discussed the development of a conceptual framework leading to the issuance of a Section 35(2) Authorization under the Federal Fisheries Act that will permit construction of instream bridge works in the North and Middle arms of the Fraser River. RAVCo has also obtained from Transport Canada, Navigable Waters Protection Division, agreementsin-principle for the alignments and vertical and horizontal navigation clearance envelopes of the North and Middle Arm bridges. The Concessionaire will be responsible for obtaining the Section 35(2)
2-45
December 2004
Authorizations, as well as the Navigable Waters Protection Act approvals, based on the submission of site-specific, detailed bridge design and construction plans.
2.7.5.1
RAVCo Obligations
RAVCo will be responsible for obtaining the following permits: approval under the harmonized BCEAA/CEAA process; development permit from VIAA for the airport segment; approval from the North Fraser Port Authority (NFPA); and approval under the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP).
2.7.5.2
Concessionaire Obligations
The Concessionaire will be required to obtain all necessary project permits, other than those listed above. These additional permits include (but may not be limited to): Section 35(2) Authorizations from DFO under the Federal Fisheries Act for any works involving crossings of Federally regulated water bodies; Navigable Waters Protection Act approvals from Transport Canada for any works involving crossings of navigable waters; Section 9 approvals from Land and Water British Columbia Inc. under the BC Water Act for any works in and about a watercourse; Facility Alteration Permit from VIAA for works on VIAA lands; and municipal approvals, including those related to applicable by-laws such as heritage alteration, tree removal, noise, hours of work, street access and traffic control. RAV stations and the OMC will undergo a review by Municipal staff as part of the design advisory process and construction approval process. In addition, if land-based disposal is not an option for material removed from tunnels or other subsurface excavations, the Concessionaire will be responsible for securing approval from Environment Canada for ocean disposal. Surplus excavated materials, which will primarily be generated
December 2004
2-46
during tunnel and station construction, will be transported off-site by truck or conveyor system to barge loading facilities if it is destined for ocean disposal, or by truck or rail, if it is to be disposed of on land. Prior to loading or disposing of material at sea, the Concessionaire will secure a permit from Environment Canada under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). During the permitting process, the Concessionaire will consult with and submit data to the Regional Ocean Disposal Advisory Committee, indicating contaminant levels, if any, in the excavated material. Since CEPA prohibits the ocean disposal of substances that may be harmful to the marine environment, only materials that have been tested and that meet the Ocean Disposal Regulations and the Disposal at Sea Interim Contaminant Testing Guidelines can be approved for ocean disposal. Should the Concessionaire decide to proceed with ocean disposal of excavated materials using an existing barge loading facility in False Creek and/or the North Arm of the Fraser River, the Concessionaire will prepare a Vessel Traffic Plan for the review and approval of the Canadian Coast Guard and the Vancouver Port Corporation that sets out procedures for the safe movement of barges in and out of False Creek and/or the North Arm of the Fraser River.
2.7.5.3
Background Studies
For the purposes of the EAC Application, RAVCo completed a number of discipline-specific environmental studies, as follows: fisheries and aquatic assessment terrestrial biophysical assessment and arboricultural assessment socioeconomic/socio-community assessment screening level contaminated sites assessment air quality assessment noise assessment archaeological and traditional use assessment historical and heritage assessment electrical and magnetic field assessment
survey
and
2-47
December 2004
The results of these assessments are presented in SECTIONS 6 to 15. In addition, RAVCo also completed preliminary geotechnical investigations, as described in SECTION 3.7.
2.8
Property Acquisition Process

Responsibility for Property Acquisition
2.8.1
RAVCo will maintain responsibility for acquiring all lands and land rights required for the completion of the RAV Project. The property rights and interests to be acquired to satisfy alignment requirements will include a combination of property interests ranging from fee simple, permanent easements, volumetric easements, and subsurface easements, to licenses and temporary construction areas. No federal land transfers will be required. RAVCo, through its parent company, TransLink, will have the statutory power to expropriate all required land interests, if necessary, and will maintain direct contact with the Concessionaire regarding property issues during all phases of the project, particularly design and construction. In addition to individual property rights through, over or under private lands, the project will enter into several major Access Agreements or Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the cities of Richmond and Vancouver, VIAA, and land use authorities through which the project is to be constructed. These agreements will address the terms of reference for land use, approvals, deposits, mitigative works and any other related elements involving public lands, such as road allowances, parks and water lots.
2.8.2
Property Acquisition
As soon as RAVCo has confirmed the need to acquire private property, a representative will contact the owner and seek to obtain a consensual transfer of the property or interest for the Project. Where consensual transfer of a parcel is not possible, an expropriation process will be initiated. In BC, the expropriation process is governed by the Expropriation Act. The Act requires that notice be served on the Land Title Office for notation on the title as well as service on all of the owners on title. In the case of a partial
December 2004
2-48
taking in fee or statutory right-of-way, a legal survey plan must also be prepared and registered. In addition to the service of notice of expropriation on the owner, it is also necessary to physically place a notice on the property to be expropriated. The service on the owner(s) includes a copy of an independent appraisal of the interest being acquired, as well as an advance payment of appropriate compensation for the lands/interest as indicated by the appraisal. The Expropriation Act sets out the steps and sequence of notices and approvals to affect the expropriation. Depending upon the co-ordination of the necessary steps and approvals, the process can take between three and eight weeks. RAVCo will be granted access but negotiations will continue in an attempt to reach an amicable financial settlement. If no settlement is reached, then the terms will be settled through a hearing of the Expropriation Compensation Board. Partial takes from single residential owners are the most straightforward types of transactions. Multiple strata ownership makes the transaction more complex due to particular requirements of the Strata Act. Commercial acquisitions take the longest because of the requirements for business owners to find alternative property and to re-establish their operations at that property.
2.8.3
Site Contamination Issues
During the project planning phase, RAVCo retained Pottinger Gaherty Environmental Consultants Ltd. to undertake a screening level contaminated sites assessment for the proposed RAV corridor (see SECTION 10). The purpose of the study was to evaluate the risk of encountering soil and groundwater contamination during project construction. Where site-specific work is planned, or where property transaction negotiations require more detailed assessment of contaminant risk, more comprehensive environmental assessments or soil/groundwater investigation may be necessary. As part of RAVCos due diligence measures, Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments are being undertaken by RAVCo on subject properties. Once the final design configuration is determined, as part of its overall Environmental Management Plan, the Concessionaire will prepare a
2-49
December 2004
Contaminated Sites Management Plan for areas with moderate to high contamination risks (see Plan outline in SECTION 20.4.2).
2.9
Construction Scheduling and Sequencing

Schedule
2.9.1
Revenue service along the RAV system will commence on or before November 2009. The target date for commencement of construction is 31 August 2005. A number of key activities have to be completed for this construction start date to be achieved. A summary outline schedule for pre-construction and design/construction activities is presented in Table 2.8. Table 2.8 Summary Outline Schedule for the RAV Project Pre-Construction Project Stage
Procurement Proposals received RAVCo Board recommendation re: BAFO Proponents & proposals Agency approval to proceed to BAFO BAFOs received Select Preferred Proponent Financial Close Notice to Proceed Property Acquisition Define property requirements Commence acquisition Complete acquisition Municipal and VIAA Access Agreements Conclude agreements - cities Conclude agreements - VIAA 30 Nov. 04 30 Jan. 05 30 July 04 4 Oct. 04 31 Aug. 05 30 June 04 27 Sept. 04 19 Nov. 04 23 Feb. 05 31 Aug. 05 23 Jan 04 26 Mar 04
Date
December 2004
2-50
Pre-Construction Project Stage

Environmental Assessment Submit EAC Application for BCEAA/CEAA review VIAA Environmental Review NFPA/FREMP Approval EAC Issued CEAA Approval Letter Issued NWPA Agreement-in-Principle NWPA Approval Final DFO-35(2) Authorization Final
Date
19 Nov. 04 29 Apr. 05 29 Apr. 05 29 Apr. 05 (approx.) 29 Apr. 05 (approx.) 8 Sept. 04 30 June 05 30 June 05
Design/Construction Project Stage

Prepare bridge designs Prepare station designs Commence construction Complete construction Testing and commissioning Mar. 05 to Dec. 05 Jul. 05 to Sept. 06 31 Aug. 05 Nov. 09 30 Nov. 09
2.10
References
City of Vancouver. 2004. Regional Growth. Riley Park/South Cambie RPSC. City Plan. Available online at: http://www.city.vancuver.bc.ca/commsvcs/planning/cityplan/Visions/rpsc/f actsheets/141regional.pdf [Accessed August 30, 2004] Golder Associates Ltd. 2003. T16A Geotechnical Investigations Vancouver Segment. Prepared for Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Vancouver, B.C. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (TransLink). 2004. 2005 2007 ThreeYear Plan and TenYear Outlook. Strategic Transportation Plan Amendment. IBI Group. 2002. Technical Study Richmond Segment. Prepared for Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Vancouver, B.C. August 2002.
2-51
December 2004
IBI Group. 2002. Cambie Corridor Rapid Transit Service Optimization Project. Prepared for Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Vancouver, B.C. June 2002. IBI Group, in Association with R. M. Soberman. 2001. National Vision for Transit in Canada to 2020. Final Report prepared for Transport Canada. Available online at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/urbantransportation/transitstud ies/docs/Vision.pdf. [Accessed 2 September 2004]. ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003. Alignment Review - Marine Drive to No. 3 Road. Prepared for Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Vancouver, B.C. February 2003. ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003. At-Grade Operation Review Granville Mall. Prepared for Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Vancouver, B.C. February 2003. ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003. Alignment Review Elevated False Creek/Robson Option. Prepared for Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Vancouver, B.C. February 2003. ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002. Fraser River Crossing Study. Prepared for Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Vancouver, B.C. August 2002. Sandwell Engineering Inc. and Hatch Mott MacDonald. 2002. Technical Study Vancouver Segment (Volumes 1 and 2). Prepared for Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Vancouver, B.C. July 2002. Sandwell Engineering Inc. and Hatch Mott MacDonald. 2003. Technical Study Vancouver Segment. Supplementary Report. Prepared for Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Vancouver, B.C. January 2003.
December 2004
2-52
Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2003. Technical Study Airport Segment (Final Updated). Prepared for Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Vancouver, B.C. February 2003. Vancouver Transit Strategy. 2002. Cited in Richmond/Airport/Vancouver (RAV) Rapid Transit. 2003. Project Definition Report, Final Draft, February 2003. VIA Architecture. 2003. Vancouver Downtown Transportation Hub Study (Draft). Prepared for Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Vancouver, B.C. February 2003.
2-53
December 2004

Section 2 - Dec 2004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 2 - Dec 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan

Vancouver City Plan

City of Richmond Official Community Plan

Vancouver International Airport Master Plan

TransLink Strategic Transportation Plan

Figure 2.1 Proposed RAV line Reference Alignment

Reference Alignment Vancouver

Reference Alignment Richmond

Reference Alignment Vancouver International Airport

Project Technology and Components

Elements of Selected Project Horizontal Alignment

Underground side-byside cut-and-cover tunnels Underground twin-bore tunnels

Underground twin-bore tunnels Underground side-byside cut-and-cover tunnels

Underground stacked cut-and-cover tunnels

Underground side-byside cut-and-cover tunnels

Underground side-byside cut-and-cover tunnels

Stations / Station Locations

Operations and Maintenance Center

Construction Staging and Pre-Cast Concrete Yard

Table 2.3 Station

Location and Key Features of Proposed RAV Stations Location

Robson Davie Broadway

Granville/Robson Davie/Pacific Boulevard Cambie/Broadway

King Edward Oakridge 49 Avenue Marine Drive RICHMOND Bridgeport

Cambie/King Edward Cambie/41 Avenue Cambie/49 Avenue Cambie/Marine Drive

River Road/Garden City Way

Capstan Way Cambie

No. 3 Road/Capstan Way No. 3 Road/Cambie

If at-grade in Richmond. Serves adjacent commercial developments.

Waterfront Transit Hub

Contributing Agency Requirements

RAV Project Performance Standards

MAXIMUM TRAVEL TIMES

16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23.

Project Budget and Financial Information

Characteristics of a Linear Project in an Urban Setting

Design Build Operate Maintain Design Build Finance Operate Maintain6

Design Build (DB)

Design Build Finance Operate Maintain (DBFOM)

Number of Prime Contracts:

Many (i.e., 25 50)

Number of Contract Packages: Type of System Specifications:

Construction Management: Construction: System Integration:

CM/Owner Contractor(s) Owner

System Maintenance: Project Financing: Operating Subsidies: Operating Payments:

Owner/Operator Owner Owner N/A

Concessionaire (up to a 35year period) Owner N/A Owner

The Public/Private/Partnership Process for the RAV Project

Request for Proposal Stage

Approval to Proceed to BAFO

Operation and Maintenance

Ownership and Right to Occupy

Summary of Risk Allocation

Ridership and Revenue Risk

Regulatory Approval Risk

Land/Right-of-Way Acquisition Risk

Responsibility for Permits, Licenses and Approvals

Property Acquisition Process

Site Contamination Issues

Construction Scheduling and Sequencing