Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section C

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $928,920,000 (continued).

The Chair: I want to recognize that I’m participating today from the homeland of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, today known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. We extend our appreciation to them for the opportunity to undertake the work before us on this land.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. Now I’ll ask the minister to open it up.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ll be brief. I know that the critic has a lot of questions and a lot of members who want to ask questions. I just want to acknowledge that I have with me, though you can’t see them, my deputy minister, Grant Main; associate deputy minister, Kevin Richter; and regional executive director, Paula Cousins, to help through this section.

[9:35 a.m.]

I wanted to acknowledge a question that the member asked at our last sitting. Last time, the member was querying intercity bus operations, specifically where we’d seen reductions in service since Greyhound left B.C. as well as any COVID-related route disruptions.

Regarding COVID, of the 28 private companies operating intercity bus routes in B.C., 17 operate year-round, and 11 are seasonal. For the 17 year-round operators, 11 have not maintained continuous operation as a result of the pandemic; however, several of those operators are starting to resume service again as we move through phase 2 into phase 3 of the restart plan.

Regarding services between when Greyhound Canada left B.C., back in October 2018, and when the pandemic hit, 18 months later, in March 2020, only one operator who picked up a route formerly serviced by Greyhound has applied to reduce service frequency, and this was the Highway 1 section of a route between Vancouver and the B.C.-Alberta border, heading to Calgary. The operator was approved to reduce daily round trips down to two round trips a week. However, it should be noted that the same operator later applied to increase the route back up to daily round trips and has received approval to do so.

D. Clovechok: Thanks for this opportunity. I want to recognize that I’m speaking today from the shared traditional territory of the Shuswap and Ktunaxa First Nations, as well as the home of the Métis Nation.

I’ll also take a second to recognize our regional MOTI staff for the work that they do. Specifically, I want to recognize Ron Sharp, Hilary Barnett, Jason Templeton and Cory Schmidt. These folks are absolutely consummate professionals, and I personally want to thank them for the service that they provide to our shared constituents.

I also want to thank all the women and men who work for Mainroad and Emcon and recognize the great job they are doing to keep our constituents safe.

It’s hard to believe that it’s been almost three years since I first spoke to the minister in estimates about the Trans-Canada Highway Kicking Horse Canyon project. At that time, the minister used words like “accelerate” and “expedite” when it came to the project getting into the ground. Yet here we are today, three years later, and the Kicking Horse Canyon project is still not in the ground and it’s $151 million more than it was three years ago. Yeah, that’s $151 million more of taxpayers’ money.

Will the minister share with us the reasons it has taken three years to accomplish what was actually ready to go three years ago?

[9:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you so much for acknowledging the hard work of the staff, who are so diligent in ensuring that the roadworks continue, that the investment in the province continues and that the maintenance contracts also happen. So I would like to thank the member for recognizing staff.

I’d just also like to acknowledge that we do have now, because we’re talking about Kicking Horse, Mike Lorimer, who is the executive director for the project, with us, as well as Amanda Farrell, the president and CEO of TI Corp.

Just to the member’s question, this is a misapprehension that we have to deal with quite a lot in the TransCanada projects. It wasn’t ready to go three years ago. It was announced in 2016, when we were able to get the federal funding. So it was announced as a joint federal-provincial project, but it was definitely not ready to go. The engineering hadn’t been completed. There hadn’t been due diligence. There was a lot consultation that still had to happen. As the member well knows, it’s a hugely technically challenging area. There was a lot of work, really, that needed to be done.

It was an announcement to acknowledge the federal funding. It was not an announcement that this project was anywhere near ready to go.

D. Clovechok: The readiness to go could be debated, but we don’t have time today. Can the minister please help us understand why that project has increased by $151 million over the past three years?

Hon. C. Trevena: Of the $151 million increase, $23 million is a reallocation of interest during construction, which was previously carried centrally within the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.

The net increase since 2016 — as said, when it was announced without due diligence being done — is $128 million. Most of this has been driven by technical changes in the project scope: higher price of materials, in particular, steel; additional costs related to CP Rail protection — I think the member is well aware that we’ve got CP Rail corridor through there; utility relocation; traffic management — it’s going to be very complex; technical project management support; archeological investigation; consultation with Indigenous groups; and higher contingency based on the risk and complexity of the project.

The reasoning is, I think, very clear why it has gone up in costs. Again, it comes back, I think, partly to the fact that many projects were announced back in the 2015-2016 period when we hadn’t been able to do full due diligence, and we didn’t know the full scope of the project cost.

D. Clovechok: Well, thank you for that, Minister. Could the minister give us a hard start date in terms of the actual construction starting?

[9:45 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re still in the proposal phase of the procurement process. Obviously, it’s a complex project; we want to get this right. Work on site will begin sometime this fall. In the meantime, there is a lot of work going on around the region in preparation — for instance, work on the roundabout in Radium to ease traffic flow there. There’s work going on in Golden and been working on Highway 95.

There’s been a lot of preliminary preparatory work. The work on actually the project itself will be in the fall.

D. Clovechok: Can the minister confirm that the addition of the CBA agreement has added $50 million to the overall cost? If not $50 million, then what’s that number?

Hon. C. Trevena: The member is not accurate. The figure that we have been looking at is 5.8 percent of the budget, which is a total of $35 million. However, I’d like to remind the member that this is still in procurement, so it will be built in to the project cost. I know that there’s a very active and very hungry market, and we’ll see what those companies that are bidding on the project come up with.

D. Clovechok: Let’s talk a little bit about the CBA very quickly. The minister always refers to these projects in the frame that it’s always about people, jobs and training. So on that line, can the minister tell us today how many jobs were created as a result of this project?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are obviously talking about CBA and people very regularly, because it’s very important. It’s very important to our government that we are investing in the people of British Columbia when we are investing in infrastructure.

[9:50 a.m.]

I think, at this time, when we’re working our way out of COVID and we’re into the restart phase, that people would expect that of our government — that we are investing. We are looking at how we can ensure that people get jobs, how people can get training and how people who don’t usually have an opportunity on certain fields will have the opportunity. I think CBA really creates that opportunity. It is very exciting, and that’s why we talk about it a lot.

On the Kicking Horse project itself, and I think this is what the member was talking about, we’re still in the procurement phase. The work is working in the background. But when we get working, depending on what part of the construction phase we’re in and, obviously, depending on the season — the member is well aware of the seasons through that area — there will be between 100 and 300 people working on site.

There are, obviously, people who are not working on site. It’s going to be a complex project. There’s lots of support work that will be happening, whether it’s engineering, planning, administrative. It’s a complex project. But on site, when we’re up and running, it will be, approximately, between 100 and 300 people.

The Chair: I recognize the member for a follow-up.

D. Clovechok: Part of the CBA process speaks about apprenticeships and potential apprenticeships. Will the minister confirm that her ministry has been in direct contact with the main campuses of College of the Rockies, Okanagan College or Selkirk College in relation to offering apprenticeship training?

Hon. C. Trevena: That would be BCIB, B.C. Infrastructure Benefits, the Crown that’s responsible for the employment side. That is under the Ministry of Finance. So you might want to ask the Minister of Finance that specific….

D. Clovechok: Can the minister explain in what ways the Shuswap and Ktunaxa First Nations, as well as the Métis people, have been involved in the planning of the project?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you very much for the question.

We had extensive consultation with the identified Indigenous communities in the region. We continue to do so, both in planning and throughout the whole project. There are a number of agreements that are still being worked on as we move forward. Obviously, this is something that I think is…. There are some that will be completed and some that will be continued conversation.

We’re working with identified Indigenous groups on employment, on training and on economic benefits. As with every project that we do in this ministry, we are working very closely with Indigenous communities where the project impacts.

D. Clovechok: Thank you to the minister.

A very real and very concerning danger that comes from the re-routing of the traffic that will happen through Kootenay National Park and then down through Radium Hot Springs is the hazard that it’s going to be bringing for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. The increased traffic represents a huge risk to this incredibly iconic species.

To that, I’ve struck a task force that includes the village of Radium, the Shuswap and Ktunaxa First Nations, the regional district of East Kootenay, FLNRORD, MOTI, the conservation officer service, the RCMP, Parks Canada, rod and gun clubs, the Member of Parliament and many other community members. Just in this last few months, several sheep have already been killed because of speed and traffic. The increase of traffic is a huge concern for these animals.

[9:55 a.m.]

Can the minister share with us her ministry’s plans to mitigate the potential increased death of these sheep during the re-routing of the Trans-Canada Highway through Radium?

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question from the member. It’s, obviously, a concern to him, and it’s a concern to us. There’s no question. We’re very aware of the importance of the bighorn sheep. We’re very cognizant, I think, around the province, of how we can protect both wildlife and vehicles hitting wildlife. I think it’s a serious concern.

A number of things that we’ve been doing to try to ensure that the sheep can be protected…. One is that for some time now — I think a number of years — we’ve had a community liaison group that has been working both with the fish and game club and with Wildsight to try and find solutions.

As a result, we have got a lot of signage through the corridor as one of…. Ministry staff said it’s basically bright with orange. There are lots of updated, large, high-visibility signs. We are looking at how we can make sure that these signs are observed. They are LED signs. They are warning signs. I think we will also be using social media, encouraging people to drive very cautiously through the area because of the sheep.

When the project is complete, it will be fully wildlife fenced, and there will be a number of wildlife crossings. In the meantime, through the section that the member is talking about, we are looking at monitoring and having these very high-visibility signs to ensure that they’re as safe as possible and, I’ll just say, working with partners on how best to stop the interaction between vehicles and sheep.

[10:00 a.m.]

D. Clovechok: I’ve got one more question, in respect to my colleagues that are behind me. I could spend the entire day talking about this project.

On August 15, 2018, the minister was sent a letter from Bruce Hamstead, who is the president of Panorama Subdivision Owners Association — a letter, I might add, that was never responded to by her ministry. The letter outlined multiple concerns regarding the general safety of the Toby Creek Road, including ingress and egress issues; the concern that the road is not adequate in terms of evacuation orders; pedestrian safety, lack of speed control; signage in general; and the state of the road and the ditches. The road issue was brought to the minister’s attention by the RDEK area F director at UBCM last year as well.

The minister might not know that the world ski championship in 2022 has been awarded to Panorama Resort, which will host 65 countries from all over the world, with 650 athletes plus their families as well as international, national and local fans. This will be the first time it’s ever been in western North America. This is an opportunity for B.C. and Canada and Columbia River–Revelstoke to impress the world. Yet the Panorama road is not only treacherous in the wintertime; it’s been compared to being nothing more than an upscale goat trail.

Given the public safety concerns, first and foremost, and of course the upcoming world event, what plans does the minister have in making the road safe and accessible for the people who live there and the thousands of visitors that will use it today and in the future?

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re just looking at the fact that the 2022 games…. Let’s hope that they can happen. I think it’s going to be very exciting if they do.

I think the member is well aware that this is a very, very mountainous area. It’s very steep. It’s very difficult. We are looking at it. We have put in approximately $1 million over the last three to four years, and we continue to assess design solutions.

To be honest, there is no easy answer to this, but it is something that we are looking at. And we are very cognizant that there will be the world junior championships being held there, which is a boon for the region and a boon for B.C. As I say, let’s hope they can be held there.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for doing estimates virtually.

I’m here in the middle of Kelowna–Lake Country in Central Okanagan on behalf of all the constituents in the Central Okanagan, with my colleagues from Kelowna West and Kelowna-Mission, to say thank you to the government for investing in the repaving of the Big White access road. Much appreciated. We are looking forward to having that work done and having a smoother ride for all the residents of the Central Okanagan and visitors, of course, to Big White — whether they’re skiing during the winter or they are enjoying the summer activities up in Big White.

Thank you for that. Thank you to all the staff that serve us in the Central Okanagan — those that work for the ministry and of course those on contract. We very much appreciate their work.

[10:05 a.m.]

Minister, if I may, a couple of questions on one project that lies directly in the Kelowna–Lake Country riding, and that’s the intersection of Glenmore Road, Beaver Lake Road and Highway 97. We have gone through a public consultation process looking at different design options over the last probably two or three years, it seems like. I just wanted to know when the public might get the final recommendation from that process. When might we see it?

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that this is an area of concern for residents, an area of concern for the member, obviously. It’s a quick change in speed limit. It’s always very difficult when you go from 90 to 60.

We have been studying it for a couple of years. It is underway. We’re looking at medium- and long-term solutions in the study. That will be out in the fall.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. The recommendations will be out in the fall.

Is it safe to assume, then, that there is…? Let me change into a different kind of question. Is there any money currently in the three-year capital plan set aside for this project?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are, obviously, doing the study. We’re not doing a study just for the fun of it. We are doing it because it is, obviously, serious work. We’ll be, when we have the study, looking at medium- and long-term solutions. When that comes out, we’ll see how it matches other priorities both in the region and, obviously, provincially. Our capital plan is evolving. We are looking at how we can make sure that these sort of studied works actually come to fruition.

N. Letnick: This will be my last question, Chair, on this. Again, I appreciate your work and the work of the ministry and the minister.

I will gather from that answer that, no, there is currently no funding in the three-year capital plan for the mid-term or long-term solutions that will be announced this fall. Would it be safe to assume, therefore, that the first opportunity for realizing what the government’s vision is for funding for this project will be in the next provincial budget, slated to be released in February of 2021?

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes. As I said, we are good to weigh up how it matches other needs, other priorities in the region. The budget continues to evolve. Our next budget will be in the spring of 2021.

B. Stewart: Minister, I just want to talk to you about a road that I’m sure you’re familiar with. It’s Westside Road, between West Kelowna and Vernon, with Highway 97C, I believe, at the north end. This is a project that came to me when I first got elected in 2009. It had been a project that the former MLA had been working on because of the seriousness of accidents that occur on this road. This road has been named many times as B.C’s worst road by BCAA.

I am extremely appreciative of your staff who have worked on this. Currently Steve Sirett and Eric Lachmuth, who work in the Okanagan, have been very helpful. We’ve had a number of other issues, slides on this particular road and other things that seem to go with the territory of the weather and things like that.

The last phase that is on your website is Pine Point to Four Mile Creek. It’s estimated to be $15 million.

Part of the motivation in doing this wasn’t just because it was named B.C.’s worst road. It was because of the fact that there are over 5,000 residents that live along this road who use it on a daily basis. There are hundreds of school children who travel by bus to all the schools on a trip that, on a good day, is over an hour. Of course, winter….

There’s a section, which is the most costly, which has been left to the variant. It’s about a 1½ kilometre section that requires 40-metre rock pits.

Anyway, a key thing in this is that people live there — obviously, the school children — and then the fact that this is an alternative route between two of British Columbia’s busiest provincial parks, Fintry and Bear Creek Provincial Parks. You can imagine travelling with a travel trailer, as park use has increased.

This narrow section, which I know from work that the ministry did…. The lidar survey shows that this road is below standard for two vehicles of just the minimum width to actually pass, and that’s the problem.

This section is the critical part. It is the most expensive. I know that it says that you’ve done the design work. When are you going to find the money, Minister, to be able to move this ahead?

[10:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question. I’m very cognizant of the fact that West Side Road has had the unfortunate labelling of the worst road in B.C. That’s why, over the last number of years, we have invested $40 million in it, in a number of areas. On the section that the member is talking about, we did, last year, a number of short-term improvements.

As the member is very well aware, and as he described, it is narrow. There are very steep slopes. It’s right by the lake. It’s a very problematic area. We know that it is going to be a very costly area to fix. We’re looking at how we can best deal with it, how we can look at it as sequential projects, perhaps, or look at bite-sized chunks.

We acknowledge the fact that it is a road that is serving approximately 5,000 people and that there is a need there, but it’s very, very challenging.

B. Stewart: Thank you very much. I know how challenging it is. I know, having travelled the road with a number of deputy ministers that preceded the current deputy…. They know that these projects just constantly have to be chipped away at. I appreciate that you’re still looking at that.

Minister, my second area of status update is on the design work for the Highway 97, Boucherie Road and Westlake Road intersections. I know that this is in progress. I have seen a number of presentations. I just would like to know if the planning is still on target for these two intersections to be complete this fall.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question. It’s an important area.

We’re meeting with First Nations at the moment — that’s coming up — and we’re continuing to meet with stakeholders. The simple answer to the member’s question is yes. We are still on schedule.

[10:20 a.m.]

B. Stewart: Thank you to the minister for that. Glad to see that everything is on track, as they usually are with Transportation — probably some of the best people working across government, organized and highly disciplined.

The last thing I’m going to ask you about, Minister, is the…. In 2009, 2017 and ’18, there was significant wildfire pressure in and around the West Kelowna area in the Glenrosa neighbourhoods. This particular area, regardless of how it’s designed, has really only one access and exit out of that neighbourhood. There is a forestry service road called Jackpine Road. I know that we’ve talked about this with the minister in the past.

Recently the residents again are complaining about the condition of the road. I know that it is a forestry road. However, with the shutdown of Tolko in Kelowna and the fact that active harvesting is not going in the area, there is no intention by them to spend money on grading it.

Last year, when I drove the road, it was marked. I’m not certain who did the marking, but it was marked as an evacuation route right out to the Coquihalla. I’m just wondering: is there any way of some limited funds within the ministry’s budget to do some minor grading out to where this road connects with the Coquihalla as an emergency evacuation route as we enter forest fire season?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I thank him for the question. I understand there are about between three and six forest service roads in the area that serve especially for evacuation routes, so for bypasses when there is a problem. The issue is that they are forest service roads. They’re not within our jurisdiction.

I would suggest to the member that he raises this with the Minister of Forests in their estimates. We will also, obviously, talk to the Minister of Forests. But it is a forest service road.

A. Olsen: I’m not going to expect any answers to this. I just want to briefly read into the record a couple of questions. I’ll follow up with the minister. Hopefully, we can maybe sit down when we’re in the session.

I also want to raise my hands to staff in our riding. We’ve got incredibly challenging roads and highways issues in the Gulf Islands, as the minister well knows. Don Legault, Mike Pearson and Ryan Evanoff have worked very closely with our office.

Like all my colleagues that we’ve heard, there are substantive challenges with roads and highways in our riding. Unfortunately, Saanich North and Islands is not exempt from that. Some of the challenges, I think, are elevated expectations of what the roads should be. Some of it’s the frustration of decades of effort, and some of it is simply a desire to bring their community infrastructure into line with the ministry’s active transportation goals.

[10:25 a.m.]

We’ve heard from north to south, east to west, my colleagues highlighting the deficiencies and desires for our provincial transportation network. Our roads and highways are what connect our communities and unite our province. They’re the surface that our economy rides on.

For the most part, they were designed and built decades ago to perpetuate a culture that worships the car. I raise my hands to the many advocates in my communities, in my riding, for patiently persisting with their effort to get different outcomes.

However, Pauquachin First Nation youth continue to wait for the school bus by standing in the ditch on West Saanich Road. The long-sought-after bus stops on the Pat Bay Highway at Mt. Newton are still long sought after.

Roads and highways continue to be treacherous in the southern Gulf Islands. Piers, Saturna, Galiano, Mayne, Pender and Saltspring each have a long list of issues. Non-existent road bases, deteriorating surfaces, eroding shoulders, fading lines, messy road allowances, increasing liabilities — and that’s just to accommodate the vehicles.

Every community I represent wants to invest in active transportation. Some want to create more walkable communities — in Ganges, with a bypass. There’s a strong desire for walking and cycling paths in every community.

The Salish Sea trail network could provide critical cycling infrastructure on Saltspring while adding it to a broader trail network connecting 14 ridings. Moving Around Pender has presented the ministry with a comprehensive list of needs on the island, and there’s a pressing need to enhance safety of foot and bike traffic between the community school and Magic Lake, the densest neighbourhood on the Gulf Islands.

As I see it, the province is managing barriers and obstacles, trying to balance incredible pressures on limited resources in an effort to placate communities. It feels like it’s a losing battle, and something has to give.

I just want to ask the minister — and leave this for a future conversation but honour the incredible work of the constituents in my riding — what the ministry is going to do to better engage community members in the situation where we don’t have municipalities but the roads are very much important to the community members. To engage community members to be part of the solution — that’s the first question.

The second question is…. I think that there’s a relationship problem here in our riding. The province owns the roads. The province is responsible for the roads, except the people who live in the communities feel a sense of ownership over their transportation infrastructure. So I’d like to ask the minister: as a result of this frustrating disconnect, what is the ministry doing to engage the creative solutions that are coming out of the communities?

Finally, and then I’ll stop talking, other than the obvious need for proper cycling lanes on both sides of Fulford’s Ganges Road on Saltspring Island to complete the Salish Sea trail network, there are other options for smaller communities — one being advisory shoulders, for example, that would help achieve the goals of increasing active transportation on rural roads in a much more cost-effective way than widening them. Would the ministry pilot advisory shoulders for cycling and pedestrian traffic on the southern Gulf Islands? This is one that Pender Island is keenly interested in.

I’m going to leave that and step away now. I thank the minister for the opportunity to continue the conversation.

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that the member was not asking as a question; he wanted something read into the record. I’d like to actually respond on the record to the member.

I hear what the member is saying about the sense of ownership when you live in an island community. You’ve got the sense of: “These are our roads.” They are provincial roads.

It’s something…. We are looking at how we can make sure that our whole infrastructure — whether you’re in the southern Gulf Islands, the northern Gulf Islands, Haida Gwaii, any of the more remote communities — matches the needs of the communities. There is community ownership. There is public ownership, and one would hope that the public ownership and the community ownership are one and the same.

The member talks a lot about active transportation in his riding, and I appreciate that. A couple of things. On the last part of the question, we are setting a number of pilot projects for active transportation. This is something that maybe Islands Trust or the capital regional district might want to be part of, in how to do this. Every time we are doing any highway improvements, we are now building active transportation into that. So anything that is happening in any of his constituent communities would include that.

[10:30 a.m.]

He cited, also, a number of places where there is a need for more active transportation. Just to let him know that over the last number of years, there have been a number of projects that have been funded through our active transportation grants — West Saanich Road bike lanes, a couple of phases. A network plan is being funded for North Saanich, and Saltspring is getting a Lower Ganges Road pathway from Booth Canal to Baker Road.

Also, basically, all our improvements are going to be benefiting cycling and pathways. Keating Cross Road — I know this is very close to the member’s heart — is going to have a two-and-a-half-metres-wide shoulder, potentially multi-use pathway. There’ll be a widened pedestrian sidewalk and an adjacent bike lane.

Salt Spring. We are working on Fulford to Ganges Hill. It’s still in the design and land acquisition phase, but that will also include widened shoulders. And we work closely with the CRD and the Islands Trust on trails improvements, close to rights-of-way. We’re looking at license of occupation for rights-of-way. Really, I would say we’re looking at how we can widen shoulders as a best practice.

I acknowledge that the member wanted to get this on the record. I think it’s a greater conversation. I’d be very happy to have the conversation with the member. But just to give him the reassurance that active transportation and the needs of all communities — whether they are rural, island communities or urban communities — are taken into account when we are looking at active transportation or traditional road infrastructure.

D. Ashton: I appreciate this. Good morning, Minister. Nice to see you again.

Two quick things. First of all, I, too, would like to just recognize the incredible staff that your ministry has here in the South Okanagan and in Victoria. Wonderful to deal with, problems are always solved when brought to them, and they’re an incredible asset for the ministry, Minister.

Second of all, the placement and possible placement of barriers between Summerland and Peachland. Is there an update that you would be able to give at this point in time, and if not, if a follow-up could be done with yourself or staff to myself at some time in the near future?

Hon. C. Trevena: Once again, thank you to the member for acknowledging the hard work of the staff. It’s quite an extraordinary ministry, and it’s nice that they are recognized provincewide. Good to see the member too.

Just to let the member know that the Summerland to Penticton barrier project is one of two that we’re looking at in the Central Okanagan. For the member’s riding, it’s nine kilometres of median barrier as well as some side barriers. We are still in the final stage of design on that.

D. Ashton: Minister, that’s Summerland to Peachland. Is that correct? Not Summerland to Penticton?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Having all of us praise the ministry staff, I got very worried that maybe they’re giving me the wrong advice, when the member jumped in there.

When we’re looking at areas for barriers, we’ll use what’s called a warrant system, which basically is an evaluation. It looks at priorities. It looks at accident rates and, really, what those high priorities are. The Penticton to Summerland section does have the highest evaluation, highest priority. Then the Summerland to Peachland section will be assessed in the next stage of warrants or evaluations.

D. Ashton: Thank you. I look forward to that update, if at all possible, from ministry staff.

Second of all, the next question is: Minister, if staff have an opportunity, could we get a briefing on what has been transpiring with the corridor enhancements between Greata Ranch and north of Peachland, up Drought Hill to the four lanes? There is some back-and-forth about the possibility of four-laning that road or a bypass route. It would just be an update by staff.

Minister, just to end, because time is of the essence, on a comment. I would just ask that the staff keep an eye on the contractor. I know it’s a new contractor, but our office last year was deluged by complaints about road conditions. I will give the contractor the benefit of the doubt for being new, but unfortunately, a lot of those staff were retained. We’ve heard the complaints on both sides. So if the ministry could just keep an eye on that, because last winter, it was by far the number one complaint coming in the office.

Once again, Minister, thank you very much. A report back would be greatly appreciated by staff. So have a good day.

The Chair: Minister, did you want to comment on that?

Hon. C. Trevena: Sure, just to say that there will be a briefing arranged for the member. Appreciate that. I thank him and appreciate his comments about the new maintenance contractor. The ministry is aware and working closely with the maintenance contractor.

J. Sturdy: Following up on some of the questions that have come up earlier, specifically around forest service roads, I’d like to raise the issue of the In-SHUCK-ch Forest Service Road, which serves the three First Nations communities of Skatin, Samahquam and Tipella. They actually run a school bus on this road daily.

When we look at it in comparison to some other roads, one which comes to mind, certainly, is the Bamfield road where the province, I understand, is considering making a very significant investment. If one was to look at the safety data along the In-SHUCK-ch Forest Service Road, I think it would not compare well. The contribution that the MOTI makes to this FSR is, I think, small by any consideration.

In recognition of these First Nations communities and the safety issues along this road and the small contribution that MOTI makes to this particular road maintenance package, I wonder if the minister would consider increasing the maintenance component to this forest service road.

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question. I just wanted to let the member know that Bamfield road is an industrial road. It’s not really in our jurisdiction. And the road he’s mentioning is a forest service road. So I would suggest that he take the question to Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development when it’s his estimates.

The Chair: Member, for a follow-up.

J. Sturdy: Yes, I do understand that it’s a forest service road, and I do understand that the ministry makes a contribution to the maintenance of that road because of, in recognition of, the communities that it serves, specifically three First Nations communities.

I think it’s important that the minister does consider the importance of these communities and the safety of these communities in the allocation of resources. But we’ll move on. I just wanted to make note of that and hope that we’ll see some additional resources there.

A couple of other issues along the Sea to Sky. I wondered if there was any update on the expansion of the shoulder from Britannia Beach to Murrin Park. We have, on the northbound side…. In the last government, we got half of that work done, half of that shoulder increased. Now, actually, because of the paving work that was recently done, the shoulder is down to literally six inches wide. It’s on the inside of a curve, climbing a hill, in an area where many, many, many people ride road bikes. So it’s a very significant safety concern.

I know that the ministry is aware of this issue, and I wonder if there are any updates available as to when we may resolve this particular problem.

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question from the member. The ministry has widened the section that it could widen. I think the member is well aware of what…. Again, a challenging piece of road, although it’s much improved over the last number of years.

The issue is, to be honest, utility poles. We’ve got utilities through that area, so we would have to relocate all of the utilities. If there is a time when the utility providers are doing work, we would be able to work with them, and we’d look at that. But at the moment, we have done what we can there.

J. Sturdy: That’s unfortunate. This is a very popular cycling route and a very, very dangerous piece of roadway. So some sort of resolution there would be, I think, quite important.

Carrying on from this, in the district of Squamish, there are three significant intersections along Highway 99: Stawamus forest service road intersection, the Cleveland Avenue intersection to Alice Lake, Squamish Valley Road sections. I certainly do well appreciate the issues around Cleveland Avenue, which is the principal access to the downtown Squamish area. The volume of accidents in this intersection is very significant. I know that the ministry staff certainly are aware of this. The challenge has been around design and land acquisition.

[10:45 a.m.]

I wondered if we can expect to see some action on the improvements, specifically, of Cleveland Avenue. And I would also be very interested in understanding what resolutions or considerations are in place for Alice Lake as well. As we see increasing traffic at Alice Lake Provincial Park…. On that particular section of road, the backup of traffic is very significant. The type of travel there, also, is a recreational travel or recreational vehicles and many children. It’s a bad area.

I wondered if the minister has any updates on those two intersections in particular. Staff could perhaps get back to me on Stawamus at another time.

Hon. C. Trevena: I don’t know whether the member could see me gesticulating, but we were just trying to work out different angles of where the roads were coming from.

I just wanted to let the member know that on Cleveland, yes, this has obviously been identified as a problem area. It’s an area where we need to work on safety. It’s been identified in our work with ICBC on intersections. We are working on design for improvement of that intersection.

For the rest, for Alice Road…. That’s where I was working it out and just reminding myself of where that turnoff is. We’re working on the rest of the corridor with the district of Squamish, and I think this is going to be very helpful. We’re working on, really, whether we can do a corridor-wide approach. It’s still in the early stages. We’re going to be working on getting a consultant on board.

It’s how to look at that whole corridor. Obviously, it’s getting increasingly difficult for Squamish. I mean, it’s getting much more popular. I think this summer, as we see more and more British Columbian tourists on the road, we’re going to see it getting even more popular. I can understand the difficulty that Squamish must feel.

We are working with the district. We’re working on whether, as I say, a corridor-wide approach can happen. We’ll be getting a consultant on board. It’s still early stages, but it is a commitment that we will continue with them.

[10:50 a.m.]

J. Sturdy: Well, certainly the Cleveland Avenue intersection has long been understood as being a problem. As the minister points out, ICBC is well aware of it. The comparison that the district of Squamish has made on numerous occasions is that the payouts that ICBC is having to make for that particular intersection in a year could pay for the cost of improvements in that area.

Certainly, a preliminary design was completed. One would hope that we’re going beyond preliminary, that we actually have a design and that we’re acquiring land. Fundamentally, that’s what needs to happen.

The district has also highlighted these particular intersections to me on numerous occasions. For them to hear that we’re now resorting to a corridor-wide approach, I don’t think will be something that the district will be particularly happy about. They have asked me to follow up on these intersections and any changes, improvements, that could be made. There’s a fairly significant level of frustration, which I think is important for the minister to understand. We’d love to see some action here.

Beyond that, there’s one other issue I’d like to touch on here. As the minister is well aware, she implemented, or actioned, a rural highway safety and speed review, which resulted in the reduction of speed limits between Horseshoe Bay and Pemberton in 2018. My read of the data certainly didn’t suggest that these reductions were warranted — certainly, not based on the data. Regardless, we won’t debate that right now.

I wonder if the minister could provide me with collision and fatality data and contributing factors for ’17-18, ’18-19 and ’19-20 on these three segments where we saw the reductions in speed limits. I’d like to see that there was value in making those changes.

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the member’s concern. Just to follow up on the first one. We are working on Cleveland Avenue. So I think the member can feel comforted that there is going to be work done there. That is actually happening.

On the approach to the other intersections. It’s the district that wants us to look at a corridor-wide approach. I think that the district is happy with our approach, and we’re working very closely with the district. I think that this is something…. We’re very cognizant of the problems facing the district, and that’s why we’re very pleased the district wants to work with us on a corridor-wide approach.

As far as the reduction in speed limits, this was done as a result of our traffic engineers looking at safety on our highways and as a result of the increased speed, recognizing that the number one priority for our highways is safety. I know that the Sea to Sky Highway is a very popular highway for driving and for people who like driving. It is a very enjoyable highway to drive. However, we have to look at safety as the number one priority. So the assessments that were done were done by our traffic engineers who assess safety.

We don’t have the figures that the member is looking for in front of us, but we’ll get them to the member.

J. Sturdy: Thank you.

L. Throness: Good morning to the minister.

Minister, I just have two issues to bring today. The first is the seismic upgrade of the Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge. In March of 2017, we announced $36 million for seismic upgrades to be done. One pier of that bridge has been strengthened because the water was flowing against it. But that’s all that has been done in the last three years. The work is going to inconvenience all traffic, and 7,000 people live just north of that bridge.

I want to keep on top of this. Can the minister update me with respect to the scope of the work yet to be done, the cost of that work and the estimated time for starting and completing the work?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I neglected to acknowledge the fact, when we’ve been talking about the southern region, that we have Ashok Bhatti, who is the regional director for the southern region — I may have got the title wrong — and Janelle Staite, who is the deputy regional director. I apologize for the titles. These are the people who are very informed and are giving me the advice as we answer this. Obviously, we want to make sure that the member does get as clear an answer as possible.

First thing. I’d like to acknowledge that the structure is safe. That bridge is safe. What has been happening is…. We did tender for a seismic upgrade. Unfortunately, we just got a single bid that came in, and it was significantly higher than we had budgeted for. So we’re looking at, basically, almost breaking it down into components, sections that can be done. The first of those will be going out next year for tendering. We will be looking at how we can make sure that the work happens, but it won’t be an all-in-one upgrade. It will be section by section.

The $36 million figure is no longer the figure that we are working on. We are working on how we can…. It’s effectively an assessment-based approach. We look at each section and move on each section, as we go forward.

[11:00 a.m.]

Just to give the member the confidence…. I know he would like to see a new bridge. He’d like to see a multi-use pathway along it and a lot of improvements. We are doing it section by section. I can assure the member and his constituents that it is a safe bridge.

L. Throness: Thank you, Minister. I’d just like you to bear in mind that it is a great inconvenience — one lane of that bridge will be closed — if we’re doing it section by section. It could take years for that to happen. We would like it to happen in one go, if we could, so that we inconvenience people for as short a time as possible. It is a major highway as well.

My second question deals with the Columbia Valley Highway, which runs along the east side of Cultus Lake. A few weeks ago there was a young man, with his two daughters, travelling on the road in his pickup. He was cut off, and he drove into the lake. They all escaped with their lives but just barely.

I asked ministry officials to assess that area of the road and to put in barriers. Apparently, they use a point system to rank these things. They only came up with 85 of the 90 points required. So there are not going to be barriers put in there.

Cultus Lake is a very popular place. There are millions of people who come there every year. The south end of Cultus Lake is developing very rapidly, residentially, and traffic is increasing. People are driving faster. The road is not in good shape. Somebody else is going to go into that lake, and the consequences are going to be tragic.

Can I appeal to the minister for low-cost concrete barriers along the dangerous parts of that road? Road upgrades should follow in the future, but we need, immediately, low-cost concrete barriers along that part of the road.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member’s comments on the concerns about this section-by-section approach on the bridge. I understand his eagerness to get it done all in one. It would be terrific, but we think this is the best way forward.

Every time we are doing this sort of work, there are, obviously, very robust traffic management plans to make sure that traffic can still flow. We know the importance of our highways. They are public highways, and we want to make sure the public still has access on them.

As far as the Cultus Lake issue…. I was talking to his colleague the member for Penticton a few minutes ago. What we have, as the member just noted, is an evaluation. It’s a warrant system. If it hasn’t met, for whatever reasons, that number, it isn’t up on the priority. It’s based on traffic volume. It’s based on speed through the corridor. It’s also based on: is there space for it? Is there space to put in a concrete barrier? Is it going to create access issues? Is this section of road too narrow for that?

[11:05 a.m.]

However, staff will look at what we can do for some interim safety improvements to make sure that, at least, the area is well flagged, that people are aware of this.

I thank the member for the question and for raising this with us.

The Chair: Members, are there any other questions?

M. Hunt: I would introduce the member for Abbotsford-Mission to ask a question.

The Chair: The member for Abbotsford-Mission.

S. Gibson: Greetings, Chair. Good to see you.

Minister, good to see you again. Thank you very much. I do want to acknowledge, at the outset, my appreciation for your staff. They’ve been very helpful. They’ve had communication with my office, and it’s gone very well.

I have a voluminous list, but my time is limited. I understand I only have two hours. Ten minutes, pardon me.

I think if there’s one artery that calls and cries out for attention provincewide — in particular, I speak for my colleagues in Chilliwack-Kent, Chilliwack, all three Abbotsford ridings, including my own, Langley East and Langley — it’s the Highway 1 artery. As the minister will know, there were some announcements earlier. Things seem really languid. The public is, I think, fearful that nothing is going to happen. Some announcements have been made.

I implore the minister. Please, let’s get moving and really improve the highway. There are no other alternatives. Safety issues are profound. When there’s an accident, the highway is blocked. It’s hugely complicated for transportation, for the environment, for air pollution.

Minister, please, I would appreciate you enumerating what your plans are for Highway 1 between Langley and Chilliwack.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to talk about a couple of things for the member and for his colleagues, if he’s asking questions on behalf of all his colleagues.

On Highway 1, the work from 202 to 216 is progressing very well. We’ll be completing that on schedule. I think the member is well aware that we announced, with the federal government, last spring that we’re going to be widening 216 to 264, with HOV lanes all the way through. That is going to really relieve the pressure on the highway. That is an engineering phase, and we will be moving on with that. Then we continue to look at 264 onwards to Mt. Lehman and what can be done there.

With the break from the budget — we introduced our budget, and then we’ve had this long break — I haven’t had the opportunity to talk as much as I would like to have done about the work that we’re doing in the Fraser Valley, which is going to be, I think, a game-changer for the Fraser Valley.

[11:10 a.m.]

While we’re doing this work increasing the number of HOV lanes on the Trans-Canada to ensure that we do get people moving more quickly and more easily, we are also doing an integrated transportation study for the whole of the Fraser Valley, which is taking us, effectively, right from Surrey through to Chilliwack. It’s looking at how we can maximize the corridor, how we can be using the highway but also how we can be using rail, how we can be using transit and how it integrates.

It’s not simply a transportation project per se; it’s a lot more holistic. I think one of the things we see in all of this is quality of life. People do not want to be stuck sitting in traffic. People want to be either getting home to their families or getting to their jobs easily. People want to be able to move comfortably through the region. It’s why we’re doing this study.

We’re working on how we can ensure, for the whole of the Fraser Valley — which, as we well know, is a very quickly growing area — that people within the Fraser Valley can actually access it, through the valley and places beyond. Oftentimes we’re finding that it’s people going from Chilliwack to Abbotsford or Abbotsford to Langley. It’s not necessarily going all the way from Chilliwack through to Vancouver or beyond. It’s actually these smaller connections.

We’re very excited about this. We are just starting work on it, and I think it is going to be a game-changer, looking at how we can integrate transportation and make life better for people living and working in the Fraser Valley.

S. Gibson: That sounds encouraging. The urgency of the situation, I think, is something we need to stress. Would the local MLAs be consulted? Would they be able to serve on any consultation with regard to this study?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question. We’re, obviously, talking to all stakeholders. We’re still in the data-gathering section, but we will be talking to everyone who is concerned about making sure that people can travel much easier through the Fraser Valley than they can at the moment.

S. Gibson: Could the province provide the ability for local governments to include their portion of upgrading new highway interchanges using DCC bylaws?

Currently, I’m advised, this is not permitted, because these improvements are not on municipal land but on provincial land. If that could be changed, Minister, it’d be very helpful for local governments to include those improvements in their DCCs. As you know, interchanges are really expensive. They go up to $30 million to $45 million. This would be very helpful to local governments. This question was given to me by one of my communities in my riding.

Hon. C. Trevena: I understand the issue. I understand the complexity of it and, obviously, the member’s passion and the representation for his community that wanted this addressed. I suggest that the member take this to the estimates of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which, I understand, is starting either later today or tomorrow.

S. Gibson: Well, Minister, I would appreciate, with respect, if you could pursue this as well, because it is directly related to your ministry. I think this would be really advantageous to some of those larger, growing municipalities that you know about and that have spoken to you.

[11:15 a.m.]

A few quick items. I’m not sure what time I have left here. Probably a minute or so.

Mission is in my community. As you will know, the Highway 7 and Highway 11 interchange is causing considerable concern to local council and the community. It’s becoming more and more problematic — your staff have been very gracious in listening to my appeals when they’ve come by the office, and I’m sure that you’ve heard about those — as is the Murray Street overpass. Your staff are advising me that the overpass definitely is getting close to the end of its life.

I’m just wondering if you could, perhaps, speak very briefly — I know we’ve got lots of other items on the agenda today — on the Highway 7 and Highway 11 interchange, or the intersection. What are your plans, Minister, for your staff and also for the Murray Street overpass? It is becoming increasingly problematic and not really a safe alternative for traffic travelling through the community of Mission.

Hon. C. Trevena: First off, the Murray Street overpass is on the…. Anytime we’re talking about an overpass or a bridge, you want to underline safety. It is a safe bridge. It is on our five-year rehabilitation plan. There are challenges, and I recognize it’s important. That’s why it’s in the rehabilitation plan. But for the moment, it is safe, and we will continue to monitor what happens, but we’ll be working on it over the coming years.

On the Highway 7 and Highway 11 intersection, I think the member is aware that there was some work done a couple of years ago on that, but space is very tight. We continue to monitor it every year just to see traffic volume, to see what can be done. I hear the member’s concerns, but we do monitor it, really very much in light of the growth of the region. In light of that, I think the member is also well aware that we’ve been doing a lot of work on Highway 7, some of which is in his constituency, some of which is without it.

[11:20 a.m.]

The work between Nelson and Silverdale on Highway 7 is wrapping up. It’s on time, and we’ll be completing that this fall, so that’s really good news, I think, for the people from Mission who are using that route as a highway. Likewise, we are doing engineering work on what we can do on 266 to 287. Again, I think people in Mission who are looking for relief will be very relieved to hear that that is very much, literally, on the drawing board. We are doing the engineering work.

The Chair: I’ll recognize the member for Surrey–White Rock.

T. Redies: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very nice to see you and the Minister of Transportation.

Over the past three years, I’ve had a number of opportunities to ask the Minister of Transportation about issues relating to the transport of dangerous goods through our riding via the BNSF rail train. During that three years, we’ve had one fatality, sadly, and more than a dozen slides on this track, any one of which could have derailed the train and killed thousands of people if one of the tanks carrying the hazardous goods had exploded.

During that time, the minister has declined to provide $300,000 to fund a study to look at relocating the train. The Premier also reneged on his original promise to help my riding with funding for this study. But both he and the Minister of Transportation managed to come up with $600K, I think, or more, to fund a high-speed train between Seattle and Vancouver. My constituents are wondering why the funding of a high-speed train is more important than ensuring their safety.

Could the minister explain why funding a high-speed train is more important than working to ensure that the people in my riding are safe from the 20-plus trains carrying hazardous goods through our community every day?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s good to see the member back and in a fighting spirit. It’s good to see that she’s got her full energies back here.

I’d like to say to the member that with all due respect, there are two separate issues here. There is the rail relocation question, and there is the innovative concept of a high-speed train. While it may feel very easy to conflate the two, they are very, very separate.

[11:25 a.m.]

If I might take the rail relocation one first. As the member notes, we have had many discussions about this. Each time, I have referred the member to the federal government. It is a federal responsibility. They have indicated no interest in funding a feasibility study for relocating the rail line. We’ve been working with local governments, as the member well knows, to make sure that they are well aware of the funding that is available for mitigation, for emergency preparedness, and so on and so forth. That is the work that we have been doing there. But the rail continues to be a federal responsibility.

The feasibility study for high-speed rail comes under the remit of what was Jobs, Trade and Technology and is now Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness. So I would suggest that the member talk to the minister there in her estimates. The feasibility study, the investment in the study, came through that ministry. It is a very different kettle of fish than the BNSF. As I understand it, it would not be using the same rail line.

I think the member is looking for answers about the progress of that study. She would be best advised to address the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I’m actually not conflating the two.

I think the issue is more of what the government thinks is a priority for funding. It appears to my riding that the government — which includes, I guess, the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness — seems to value the so-called innovative concept of a high-speed train. This, of course, has been around for decades. That’s a whole other discussion. They seem to think that funding something like that is more important than protecting the lives of 20,000 to 25,000 people.

I won’t go on — we’ve talked about this a lot — but I do want to get this on record. I continue to have questions about it, and I think it’s still quite astounding that the government doesn’t provide funding for looking at this study.

One of the mitigating solutions to the safety issues…. The Premier and the ministry are responsible for the safety of people in my riding, I believe. One of the opportunities is to extend this current speed boundary that is ten kilometres through the White Rock side of the train track to the Surrey side, through Crescent Beach. Right now when the train goes around the corner, it speeds up to 40 kilometres an hour.

For the safety of pedestrians and people who are traversing the track in South Surrey, it would be very helpful if the Ministry of Transportation or the minister would advocate to the Ministry of Transportation federally that this should take place. It’s a simple thing to happen. It just requires an extension of the speed boundary.

Minister, this would be very appreciated by my riding, and I’m hoping that you would agree to have a discussion with the Minister of Transportation on this and recommend that the speed boundary be extended.

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that rail is a concern for the federal minister. In fact, before COVID, he did have a ruling which slowed down the speed of rail, the speed of trains through [audio interrupted] the transfer of oil through communities. However, I have comparatively regular meetings with the Minister of Transportation — the federal minister, Minister Garneau — and will raise this concern with him.

T. Redies: Thank you very much, Minister. I really appreciate that. I know my riding will appreciate it, because it’s an important issue.

[11:30 a.m.]

My colleague from Delta South is going to be talking to you about this. Before I go, I just want to make one comment that one of the biggest issues that I had in my riding prior to COVID-19 was the issue with respect to the George Massey Tunnel and the transportation backlogs that occur every day on that. I hope we’ll be able to get some more information about when this is going to be resolved and the solution that is going to be put in place.

I. Paton: Good morning, Minister. Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Upon my first glance at the Ministry of Transportation budget, I was not surprised to, once again, see zero dollars put towards a replacement project for the George Massey Tunnel. I now see that the government is going to spend roughly $40 million on some maintenance work for things such as upgrades and lighting. Of course that will be totally inconsequential to the thousands of cars that, at times, are trying to merge five vehicles into one lane to get through the tunnel.

Lighting and road improvements on the asphalt aren’t going to do anything to solve the congestion of the George Massey Tunnel. My constituents have waited way too long for this replacement, and they’re demanding something to happen sooner than later. I’m eagerly awaiting the minister’s announcement of a replacement and the business case to follow later this year.

How much money is being set aside for replacement cost? What is the funding plan for the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel? When will we hear of the official chosen structure, the cost and the completion date of this replacement of the George Massey Tunnel?

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the questions from the member.

Just to help the member along, the member is incorrect. The Massey project is in the transportation investment plan. If the member looks at the three-year fiscal plan, page 45, he will see that the George Massey crossing is there. It says:

“George Massey crossing: The province is committed to proceeding with a new toll-free crossing to replace the aging George Massey Tunnel. Budget 2020 includes moving forward with three phases of the project — implementing the immediate safety improvements,” to which he referred; “planning and design for phase 1 interim congestion relief and transit priority projects; and advancing the planning, engineering and continued Indigenous consultation on the phase 2 replacement project.

[11:35 a.m.]

“A final business case for a crossing will be completed by fall 2020” — we are still on track for that — “when the province will make its final decision on the scope, budget, delivery and schedule.”

To help the member along a little bit further, also on page 45, there is table 1, which says: “Provincial transportation investments.” If he goes down to “Transportation and trade network reliability,” it has a figure 1 next to it. That figure 1 refers to the bottom, which says: “Includes funding for George Massey crossing.”

The member may want to go along the lines and see the increase in the plan in the years ’24-25, where it increases significantly. I hope that helps the member.

I. Paton: I have a quote here from a Vaughn Palmer article of May 29, 2019:

“He,” meaning the Premier, “insisted that the twin tunnel option would come in at ‘significantly less cost than the proposal that was on the table prior to the election, in the many, many billions of dollars.’

“The B.C. Liberals budgeted the ten-lane crossing at $3.5 billion. The last Transportation Minister in that government maintains that before leaving office, the Liberals had received a low bid for $2.6 billion.

“The twinned tunnel could cost more than either amount — as much as $4 billion. That’s according to Stan Cowdell, the engineer the New Democrats hired to re-evaluate the B.C. Liberal plans for the project.”

I’m wondering about NDP math. How does $4 billion for a new tunnel…? How is that more enticing for eight lanes, rather than $2.6 billion for a ten-lane bridge that was proposed by the previous government?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say that I understand people’s frustration with the congestion, and I know that it’s starting to build up again. I know that people do want to be able to travel easily. They want to be able to get to either their homes or their work, get to their soccer games — whatever it is that they’re doing. I know that post-COVID, we are seeing lighter volumes, but they are building up. I’m very aware that people want a solution, and that’s what we’re working on.

To the member, I think that he needs to maybe look at the independent technical review. It showed that we were not acting irrationally. This was a project…. The initial project was too big for the region. It was not supported by the municipalities. It did not fit in with the regional growth strategy of the municipalities. It was a very complex project.

As I say, that’s what the independent technical review showed. It also showed that other options hadn’t been thoroughly explored.

We are doing the due diligence. We have been talking to Metro Vancouver and continue to talk with Metro Vancouver. We’ve talked with First Nations and continue to talk with First Nations. We want to ensure that we get the project that works best for everyone in the community and works for the region.

[11:40 a.m.]

I think we’re very committed to making sure that people know that whatever we do at the crossing has the support of the region and works for the future development of the whole region. As I mentioned before, as it says in the budget, we are on track to have the business case this fall, when we will obviously be moving full steam ahead.

We know that people want to see this crossing sorted out. I know that the member is very passionate about it on behalf of his constituents, and I think that members from Richmond would be equally passionate about it on behalf of their constituents. Everybody knows that this is a problem area in the Lower Mainland, and we will be working on that business case and ensuring that we actually do it with consultation and that we get the right project for the region.

I. Paton: One more question, if you will.

I have a quote here from an article from a Mr. Ian Ius of May 29, 2020. The quote goes like this: “When it comes to ‘shovel-ready,’ no project in the nation could fit this term better than the cancelled George Massey Bridge project, which also included roughly 30 kilometres of highway upgrades and a true rapid bus system along the Highway 99 corridor. If this project had not been stopped in 2017, it would only be two years away from completion today.”

Instead, this project has flip-flopped, turned and twisted itself into one big pretzel. The worst, though, may be yet to come if the public transit and highway corridor components of this project are severely reduced in scale and value engineered.

Earlier this year the minister commented that a future George Massey Tunnel replacement would not be compatible with light rail. I find this to be deeply troubling, as the previous project included an option for light rail in the future. We need to engage in forward thinking and incentivize commuters to get out of their vehicles and use public transit.

To the minister, do these comments continue to ring true for the minister? Why would we spend $4 billion on a bridge or a tunnel that won’t even allow for the expansion of light rail rapid transit?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, I appreciate the member’s concern on behalf of people who are wanting to move out of their vehicles and use public transportation. I think that our government has made record investments in public transportation.

We want to see a greening of the environment, and there’s no better way than getting people out of their cars, and let’s hope that COVID hasn’t had too much of a dent. I know that all, whether it’s TransLink or B.C. Transit, are feeling the pressure from COVID, as people are shying away a little from public transportation. But let’s hope, as we move forward, that people continue to make that shift.

[11:45 a.m.]

On the specifics of whether or not light rail would be in the crossing, I think that the member…. I’m sure he’s read the independent technical review. The independent technical review questioned that there was really no business case in the project for light rail. That is why our government is doing what the previous government didn’t do, and we’re doing our due diligence.

We’re wanting to make sure that when we make this investment, which is a serious investment for everyone in the Lower Mainland and the province, we get it right. So that’s why we’re working now towards the business case, which will be coming out in the fall.

Obviously, when we’re talking about any transit in the Lower Mainland, we will be working with TransLink on it.

J. Isaacs: Good morning, Minister. Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question.

Minister, we’ve already talked about the Brunette interchange a few times now, both in previous estimates and, of course, at UBCM. That was with the mayor of Coquitlam and some of the council members. If I’m not mistaken, you’ve also spoken to the mayor of New West about the interchange, at last year’s UBCM.

We are now into the ten-year transportation plan, and there has been agreement between Coquitlam and New Westminster for a few years now, yet this critical interchange that, again, was supposed to be completed as part of the Port Mann Bridge project really hasn’t gone anywhere. This interchange is an absolute bottleneck every day on Highway 1. Through that corridor, especially during peak times, the traffic congestion is getting so bad that cars are actually parked out now onto the freeway. This really poses a safety risk, as well, and safety concerns.

Not only do we have to reduce the gridlock, but we do have to improve the safety along that corridor as well. We need to be able to move our goods and services. This is an important interchange. It affects Coquitlam, New Westminster, Vancouver, Langley as well as right out into the Fraser Valley. So the entire movement of goods and services flows through that particular area.

It’s also the route that Coquitlam uses for first responders that takes us straight to Royal Columbian Hospital. So if there is a bottleneck or congestion along there, it could be a matter of life or death.

I’d like to ask the minister…. Can the minister advise if there are any plans in place to finally finish the interchange? And has the cost to complete the Brunette interchange been accounted for as part of the budget for road improvements and infrastructure spending?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question.

The member is most likely aware that we are continuing to talk with Coquitlam and New Westminster and, obviously, TransLink. We have gone to the public, and we’re working on trying to get consensus. There are different options, and there are different interests. I think the member is well aware that there are a number of different interests. So we are trying to find that consensus — working with New Westminster, with Coquitlam, with TransLink. To give the member assurance, we are also extraordinarily mindful that access to the hospital has to be part of any solution.

It’s too early to be citing figures or anything, because we don’t have consensus from the communities and TransLink.

The Chair: If there are any members that have questions, I’ll try to get all of them in. Thank you.

J. Thornthwaite: I have a couple of questions. The first one is if the minister could clarify what percentage of the B.C. transportation budget goes toward active transportation. That would be public transportation, walking and cycling.

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the member’s question. This is why it has taken so long. I know there are members who want to ask other questions, but to be honest, we are incorporating active transportation into everything that we’re doing. Whether it is through our active transportation grants or building a Pattullo Bridge, it includes active transportation.

I mean, we are looking at just trying to put together a sort of grand program through our active transportation grants, through some federal funding that we use towards active transportation, through some other funding. We came on some public transportation funding. We got to one figure, but then, like I say, every highway project that we do now builds in active transportation. Every major infrastructure project builds in active transportation. So while we are issuing grants and working with partners and the federal government, and working with transit, as well, we are looking at other infrastructure projects.

[11:55 a.m.]

It’s very hard to break it down. I can give the member a figure of $45.5 million. That is much lower than our real spend is, because it is built into all our highway and our infrastructure spending now.

J. Thornthwaite: On June 5, I sent a letter to the minister about cycling safety in my riding. One was about requesting the minister, or the ministry, to consider closing one of the uphill lanes in the summertime to vehicle traffic — in the spring and summer. It is a very well used road for cycling infrastructure, and there’s, obviously, not much skiing going on in the spring and summer.

The second question was a very serious concern about the Highway 1 interchange area around Lynn Valley Road. Lynn Valley Road has an issue that if a cyclist is coming and wants to get on the highway, the on-ramp, and go west, they are at grave danger of getting run over by a car, because the cars will go right over the bike lane. Then the next area is on the other side, on the off-ramp of the highway.

The suggestion was that the ministry investigate the installation of an automatic sensor–driven flashing light technology that is used — the same as in the Stanley Park Causeway — to warn drivers of cyclists approaching.

I’m wondering whether or not the minister has read my letter and whether or not she has a response.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her questions. A couple of things. On the Cypress Mountain one, yes, I did get the member’s letter. Apologies if I haven’t responded yet. It is in my file to be responding to, and I am working through the many letters that we get in this ministry.

A couple of things. The Cypress Mountain question. At the moment, there’s adequate shoulder width for cyclists. There is also a speed limit, and there’s pullout. We’re monitoring it, but at the moment, we feel comfortable that it is safe enough.

As I mentioned before, we’re committed to active transportation. Our government brought in “Move, Commute, Connect,” the province’s first active transportation policy. It’s being embraced widely, and we will continue to work with municipalities and others on how to push it forward.

One of the things that we’re going to be doing this fall is to work with the municipalities. I’ve talked to the member’s own mayors about pilot projects for vulnerable road users and how to make sure that they are safe. So I’m very proud of our government’s move on ensuring that we really do boost active transportation.

The Lynn Valley Road one. We will have a look at the possibilities there and hear what the member’s concerns are. We’ll see what possibilities we can explore.

The Chair: Noting the hour, can I ask the minister to move the motion.

Hon. C. Trevena: I move the committee rise and report progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee will now stand adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 12 noon.