COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY

Transcription

1 A Report by: COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

2

3 Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 2.0 Introduction 3.0 Study Area 4.0 Scope of Work 5.0 Deliverables 6.0 Project Goals And Objectives 7.0 Project Timeline 8.0 Public Consultation Process 9.0 Background Data 10.0 Site Evaluation 11.0 Development / Generation of Route Alignment Options 12.0 The Evaluation Framework 13.0 Evaluation Results 14.0 Cost Estimate 15.0 Findings of Property Assessment 16.0 Next Steps Appendices A1 Evaluation Criteria Definitions A2 Evaluation Criteria and Related Factors A3 Evaluation Summary for Long Term Route A4 Evaluation Summary for Near-Term Route A5 Individual Evaluation Scoring Sheets A6 Open House #1 Presentation A7 Open House # 1 Feedback A8 Open House # 2 Presentation A9 Open House # 2 Feedback A10 Stakeholder Workshop Invitee List A11 Stakeholder Workshop #1 Feedback A12 Stakeholder Workshop #2 Feedback A13 ISL Engineering Evaluation Report A14 SESI Environmental Field Assessment Report ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT JULY 27, 2009 i

4 1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction The Coquitlam Fraser Greenway is proposed as an east-west walking and cycling pathway within the Pacific Reach area in southwest Coquitlam that will provide a critical link in the regional greenway network and will provide significant opportunities for non-motorized transportation in the area. This planning study was undertaken to identify the two best Long-Term Route alignment options for a multi-use pathway and a recommended Near-Term Route to provided a commuter cycling connection between the Port Mann Bridge and New Westminster. 1.2 Study Area The study area is bounded by Brunette River to the west, by Highway #1 to the north, by the Fraser River to the south, and by the foot of Port Mann Bridge sidewalk to the east. Additionally, the study area includes the north side of Lougheed Highway between The Cape Horn Interchange and King Edward Street *. 1.3 Study Partners The City of Coquitlam, the BC Climate Action Plan (BC CAP) and Translink are funding partners for this study. Metro Vancouver has also been part of the study. The above four organisations formed a Steering Committee for the study. 1.4 Scope of Work Based on Goals and Objectives developed by the consultants and the Study Partners, the evaluation of trail routing options sought to identify: 1) the two best routing options for a multi-use trail to be developed in the Long-Term (20-year time horizon) from a list of four possible options. The Long-Term Route would be geared to maximizing use by the widest cross-section of cyclists, other nonmotorized forms of transportation and walkers. 2) the best possible routing option for a Near-Term Route ** whose completion could be feasible in conjunction with the completion of the Highway #1/ Port Mann Bridge Upgrades (PMH1 project) and that would be geared toward use by commuter cyclists. * Requests by BC CAP and Translink led to the extension of the study area to include the evaluation of a route connecting the west end of the Port Mann Bridge to the north side of Lougheed Highway extending west to Schoolhouse Street. ** The terminology Near-Term Route has replaced the term Interim Route which was used in the earlier stages of this study. Any references in texts, tables or drawings within the main report or appendices should be read as Near-Term Route. COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY ii

5 1.5 Public Consultation Process Two invited Stakeholder Workshops and two Public Open Houses were held from which comments and feedback on the proposed alignments, the evaluation framework and findings were gathered, reviewed and later assembled as part of this report. A list of stakeholders invited to the workshop is included Appendix Site Evaluation Five route options were identified for evaluation for the Near-Term Route selection process and four routes for the Long-Term Route selection process. The primary factors considered in determining route options included: previously identified corridors in existing City s Plan or Policy Documents, land availability in order of preference, street rights of way, private land considerations and potential connectivity to other routes. As part of the site evaluation, existing land ownership and site development patterns and potential property acquisitions were assessed. The findings emphasized the extremely high costs and time implications associated with property acquisition, in comparison to trail development costs, and the desirability of avoiding private property acquisition wherever possible. Additionally, engineering factors such as roadway geometry, traffic engineering and contractibility were also evaluated and an Environmental Field Assessment was conducted for each of the proposed bike routes to assess potential impacts on watercourses, riparian sites, natural habitat and wetlands. 1.7 Five Routes Selected For Evaluation Based on the site evaluation, the five route options selected for evaluation were: 1. The Rail/Hydro Line Route (yellow route) 2. The United Boulevard Route (orange route) 3. The Mid Site Route (blue route) 4. The Fraser River Route (green route) 5. The Lougheed Route (brown route) Each of the five routes has been divided into seven sections in order to isolate portions of each corridor that reflect a range of different conditions. (See Figure 1) ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT JULY 27, 2009 iii

6 1.8 The Evaluation Framework The Evaluation Framework used six criteria as a basis for screening the various trail options and evaluating the pros and cons. These include: User Demand, Market Capture, Social Benefit, Environment, Implementation / Feasibility and Cost Effectiveness. Two-stage process Based on the observation that various criteria relate differently to the identified goals of the Near-Term and Long Term routes, the evaluation process was conducted by way of a two-stage process where criteria were assigned as either Primary or Secondary to each route evaluation. For the First Level of Assessment each section of each route was assessed against the Primary Criteria and ranked as High, Medium or Low in terms of the ability of the section to serve the primary goal of the route. During the Second Level of Assessment each section of each route was assessed against the proposed Second Level Criteria and ranked as either -1, 0, or +1, with the score indicating whether the assessment influences the choice of the section positively, negatively or in a neutral manner. For each of the two assessment stages, results were added together to provide an overall score per section (measured against all criteria), per criteria (for all sections of each route) and for the overall route. The overall scores for each route were then expressed as the product of the two levels of evaluation, e.g., a route may be evaluated as High in the First Level of Assessment, with a numeric score in the Second Level of Assessment. 1.9 The Evaluation Results The evaluation of the Long-Term Route (Figure 2) yielded the following overall results: Waterfront Route (Green) High / Mid Site Route (Blue) Medium / -2 United Boulevard Route (Orange) Low / Highway Route (Yellow) Low / -2 These results provide clear direction that the Waterfront and Mid- Site routes were the two best Long-Term route options. COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY iv

7 The evaluation of the Near-Term Route (Figure 3) yielded the following overall results: Waterfront Route (Green) Low Mid-Site Route (Blue) Medium United Boulevard Route (Orange) Medium / Low Highway Route (Yellow) Medium / Low Lougheed Route (Brown) Low Note that the Lougheed Route, (Brown) was added to the scope of work for the project at the request of BC CAP and Translink for the Near-Term Route assessment only. The results of the Near-Term Route assessment did not provide clear direction for the selection of one outright winning route, as high scoring routes were deemed to be unachievable in the short term due the need for extensive private property acquisition in some sections of all routes. This lead the consultant team to propose a Preferred hybrid route, (the red route), that used a combination of sections from several of the five corridors. The hybrid route provided the most direct route possible, and utilized sections from several route options that did not require land acquisition and were therefore more likely to be buildable within the Near-Term and within reasonable costs Cost Estimate A cost estimate was produced based on approximate route lengths per section and unit rates per kilometer for trail construction, excluding property costs. The estimate showed a range of cost across the 5 route options of between $7.8 million and $10.2 million for a long term route, and approximately $ 7.8 million for the Recommended Near-Term Route Next Steps As part of the report an implementation schedule for the completion of the Near-Term Route was recommended with a target date for construction at the end of ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT JULY 27, 2009 v

8 LEGEND Figure 1: Coquitlam Fraser Greenway Five Route Options COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY vi

9 LEGEND Figure 2: Coquitlam Fraser Greenway Long Term Route - Best Routes ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT JULY 27, 2009 vii

10 LEGEND Figure 3: Coquitlam Fraser Greenway Near-Term Route - Recommended Route COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY viii

11 2.0 Introduction 2.1 The Coquitlam Fraser Greenway is proposed to enhance east-west walking and cycling connectivity within the Pacific Reach area in southwest Coquitlam. 2.2 The greenway has been identified as a key element of the regional transportation and recreation network and is included in Coquitlam s Strategic Transportation Plan (STP) and Master Trail Plan (MTP), TransLink s Regional Cycling Network Planning and Metro Vancouver s Regional Parks and Greenways Plan. 2.3 The City of Coquitlam and its partners have undertaken this planning study to identify the two best Long-Term Route alignment options for a multi-use pathway. In addition, the study has identified a recommended Near-Term commuter cycling connection between the Port Mann Bridge and the border of New Westminster, to be implemented in conjunction with the completion of the Highway#1 / Port Mann Bridge Upgrades in this location. The Request for Proposal for this study used the terminology of Long- Term and Interim routes. Toward the conclusion of this study, the Steering Committee decided to change the term Interim to Near-Term. It was concluded that the term Interim route suggested that the trail would be temporary. Rather, the intent of the RFP was to identify a route that could be implemented in the near-term. Any reference in texts, tables or drawings in this report or appendices to interim Route should read as Near-Term Route. 2.4 The pathway will provide a critical link in the regional greenway network and will provide significant opportunities for nonmotorized transportation in the area. 3.0 Study Area 3.1 The study area is bounded by Brunette River to the west, by Highway #1 (including the Cape Horn Interchange) to the north, by the Fraser River to the south, and bounded by the foot of Port Mann Bridge sidewalk to the east. A change in the scope of the project, explained later, require an extension of the study area to included the north side of Lougheed Highway between The Cape Horn Interchange and King Edward Street. 4.0 Scope Of Study 4.1 The Coquitlam Fraser Greenway Study has required the consultant team to evaluate trail routing options within the Pacific Reach study area as follows: ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 1 JULY 27, 2009

12 4.2 To identify the two best routing options for a multi-use trail with the assumption that this facility would be developed in the long term, with an approximate 20-year time horizon. The Long Term trail would be geared to maximizing use by the widest cross section of cyclists, other non-motorized forms of transportation and walkers. The two Long Term trail options would be selected from a list of four possible options. 4.3 To identify the best possible route option for an Interim trail whose completion could be feasible in conjunction with the completion of the Highway #1/ Port Mann Bridge Upgrades (PMH1 project) and that would be geared toward use by commuter cyclists. 4.4 All trail options would pass through the Pacific Reach site area and connect planned bike and pedestrian facilities at the west end of the Port Mann Bridge to existing or planned bike and pedestrian routes within Coquitlam to the North and New Westminster to the west. 4.5 During the project process, TransLink requested that the study evaluation process be widened to include a bike connection planned as a part of the PMH1 project. The route in question connects the west end of the Port Mann Bridge to the north side of Lougheed Highway extending west to Schoolhouse Street. This extended the study area and introduced a route that would not directly serve the Pacific Reach area. 4.6 Public Consultation The study scope also includes conducting a stakeholder consultation process with two invited Stakeholder Workshops and two Public Open Houses to obtain comments and feedback on the proposed alignments, the evaluation framework and the preferred route. Details of these consultations are provided later in this report. 5.0 Deliverables The main deliverables of the evaluation process have been: Stakeholder and Public Open House display materials Steering Committee presentations Technical Paper on the Evaluation Process Final Report Planning level cost estimates for each of the two preferred Long Term routes Planning level cost estimates for the recommended Interim options routes Digital and hard copy of maps showing potential route alignments COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 2

13 6.0 Project Goals And Objectives 6.1 The consultants and the City of Coquitlam and its partners developed the following Goals and Objectives for the project. Goals To complete an important link in the regional greenway network serving pedestrians and cyclists To promote an increase in non-motorized modes of transportation and a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. Objectives To evaluate four potential route options for a permanent multi use trail and identify the two best route options for further design To locate one interim commuter cycling route to be available on completion of the Port Mann Highway 1 improvements To determine which routes best integrate with the future cycling connection improvements to King Edward Overpass, Cape Horn Interchange & United Boulevard Extension To identify opportunities to connect to the existing transportation, cycling and pedestrian networks in Coquitlam and New Westminster 7.0 Project Timeline 7.1 The project commenced in January 2009 with a scheduled end date of May The schedule has been amended through the process mainly to allow for more workable meeting dates and to provide more time for the drafting and review of the Final Report. The approximate timeline for the project was: Project start Jan Stakeholder Workshop #1 February 4, 2009 Open House #1 March 12, 2009 Stakeholder Workshop #2 April 29, 2009 Open House #2 May 7, 2009 Final Report submission July, 2009 ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 3 JULY 27, 2009

14 8.0 Public Consultation Process and Project Stakeholders 8.1 The Coquitlam Fraser Greenway evaluation process has been carried out with the benefit of publication consultation including two invited stakeholder workshops and two public open houses. The open houses were advertised by newspaper advertisements and delivery of fliers in the study area. The City also maintained an on-line comments form for the public to contribute feedback to the project. 8.2 Stakeholder Workshop #1, February 4 th, 2009 The first Stakeholder Workshops was held early in the evaluation process in order to gain input from key stakeholders prior to the 1 st Public Open House. Approximately 30 people attended plus staff and consultants. The first stakeholder meeting involved: Initial presentation of the project - Over-view of project scope - Presentation of four selected route - Description of proposed evaluation criteria Discussion Groups - Bike Facilities Planning, - Local Knowledge, - Environment and - Engineering Issues. Feedback Session 8.3 Stakeholder Workshop #2, April 29 th, 2009 The second Stakeholder Workshops was held later in the evaluation process to present the finding of the project and gain input from key stakeholders prior to the 2 nd Public Open House. Approximately 10 people attended plus staff and consultants. The second stakeholder meeting involved: Introduction Project up-date presentation Presentation of five final selected routes and seven sections Presentation of recommended two best Long Term routes Presentation of recommended best overall Near-Term Route and Recommended route Presentation of two-stage evaluation process COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 4

15 Evaluation Summary results of the Interim and Long Term routes Pros and Cons for each route Break and review of Materials Question, answer and feedback session 8.4 Stakeholder Input Feedback from the various stakeholder groups focussed on several issues. The Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition (VACC) emphasized it s desire for as direct a commuter route as possible, and voiced support for the inclusion of the Lougheed Route in the project. Port Metro Vancouver stressed the importance of protecting waterfront industrial land and was opposed to any trails in conflict with this goal. Canadian Pacific Railway noted that it was not in support of routes within or next to the current rail ROW. Several stakeholders voiced concerns about contamination levels at the Domtar site. A more detailed record of the feedback received at the two stakeholder meetings is included in Appendices 10 & Public Open House #1, March 12 th, 2009 The first Public Open House was held at Coquitlam City Hall early in the evaluation process in order to gain input from the public prior to carrying out the evaluation process. The presentation materials used at the open house and a record of comments received is included in Appendix 7 to the report. 8.6 Public Open House #2, May 7 th, 2009 The second Public Open House, held at Coquitlam City Hall later in the evaluation process to present the finding of the project and gain input from the public prior to completion of the project. The presentation materials used at the open house and a record of comments received is included Appendix 9 to the report. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 5 JULY 27, 2009

16 8.7 Project Stakeholders Steering Committee The Coquitlam Fraser Greenway evaluation process has been reviewed by the project steering committee comprising: City of Coquitlam Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure s Climate Action Program TransLink Metro Vancouver Parks By completion of the project the Steering Committee will have met with the consultant team on four occasions. The Steering committee has: 1. Reviewed the scope of the project and schedule at the commencement of the project. 2. Reviewed progress on the project after the first public open house. The four routes to be evaluated and the proposed Evaluation Methodology as set out in a Technical Paper were discussed. Input was received with respect to the Lougheed Route currently required as a part of the Gateway project. The relevance of this route to the study was discussed. TransLink requested that this route be included in the study. 3. Reviewed the progress of the project prior to the second stakeholder workshop and public open house. Recommendations for the preferred Interim and Long Term routes were presented along with tabulated results of the evaluation process. A final meeting will be held to receive this final report. Funding Partners This study has been funded by: City of Coquitlam TransLink Provincial Government through the Climate Action Program COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 6

17 Additional Stakeholders of the project include: City of New Westminster CP Rail Port Metro Vancouver VACC Como Creek Watershed 9.0 Background Data 9.1 City of Coquitlam Southwest Area Plan Jan 2009 The Southwest Coquitlam Area Plan (SWCAP) is a part of the Coquitlam Official Community plan and is the City s statement of its long-term vision for the future planning of Southwest Coquitlam. The plan addresses residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational and utility uses. The plan identifies the existing and planned uses within the study area and is useful reference in anticipating the future context of the proposed trails..1 The bulk of the Pacific Reach site area is zoned Industrial, which allows for a mixture of industrial and industrial retail and restaurant uses depending on the specific zoning..2 The Fraser Mills site is zoned as Waterfront Village indicating the future mixed used development of this site..3 The lands north of United Boulevard, between King Edward Street and Fawcett Ave. and some parcels south of United Boulevard are zoned Highway Retail Industrial..4 Two sites south of United Boulevard, including the Great Canadian Casino sites are zoned General Commercial..5 The Eagle Quest Golf Course site is zoned Extensive Recreation. Maquebeak Park, the Fraser River Foreshore Linear Park and Don Roberts Park are identified on the plan..6 Other than the Waterfront Village zoning for the Fraser Mills site, the SWCAP typically represents the current land uses. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 7 JULY 27, 2009

18 9.2 Strategic Transportation Plan Dec The Strategic Transportation Plan is a City wide policy document that recommends transportation improvement for all modes of travel within the City for the next 20 year period. Among other issues, it recommends facilities and programs to increase the attractiveness of cycling and walking within the City. The document guides the City s decision making for capital plan spending and in setting priorities. The STP is comprised of: The Road Network Plan The Transit Service Strategy The Bicycle Network Plan The Pedestrian Network Plan The STP Implementation and Phasing Strategy identifies planned transportation improvements over the next 20 years..2 The Road Network Plan identifies two major improvements within the study area, namely, King Edward widening and Schoolhouse overpass. The RNP recognizes United Boulevard and King Edward Street as Major Road Networks, Long Term Transit Corridors and Provincial MRN Truck Routes. Fawcett Road, a portion of Hartley Avenue and Leeder Avenue are identified as Municipal Truck Routes..3 The Bicycle Plan recognizes the increasing use of bicycles as a means of transportation and recommends ways to integrate bicycles within the municipal transportation system. The Plan outlines conceptual on-street alignments for future consideration. A key part of the plan is to provide connection to bike routes in adjoining municipalities to allow for regional bike trips..4 Within the study area, an off-street waterfront route (as per the Master Trail Plan) is indicated running along the riverfront. An Near-Term Route is identified running along United n the west portion of the site and Hartley Avenue in the east. A north-south connection is shown along King Edward Street..5 The Pedestrian Plan indicates the need to provide for pedestrian movement along United Boulevard between King Edward Street, west to the Brunette River. This route is identified as a Priority Sidewalk Need. COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 8

19 .6 The Implementation and Phasing Strategy provides an implementation strategy for the 2o year time horizon of the plan. Within the study area of the Pacific Reach the following upgrades are identified A pedestrian connection along United east of King Edward 0-5 years A bicycle facility improvement along King Edward Street north of United Boulevard 5 10 years The riverside greenway years 9.3 City of Coquitlam Master Trail Plan Spring 2005 The Master Trail Plan document (MTP) provides a comprehensive Master Trail Plan (MTP) that guides the provision of the City-wide, off-road, network of trails located within parks and open spaces. The MTP is complimented by the Strategic Transportation Plan (STP), which provides a system of on-road trails. The report comprises: Trails Classifications and Design Guidelines Trail Network Plan Implementation Strategy.1 The plan identifies approximately 90km of existing trails and an estimated 88km of proposed trails. Of the 88km, approximately 45km are expected to built by the City and the remainder built through redevelopment..2 The Trail Network Plan identifies the Fraser River Greenway and Brunette River trails within the study area..3 The Fraser River Greenway is identified in the plan as a waterfront greenway located along the riverfront connecting the Colony Farm Trailhead in Maquabeak Park to the Brunette River at the west edge of the Pacific Reach site area. North-south connections are indicated approximately at the east edge of the Domtar site and in alignment with King Edward Street..4 The Master Trail Plan shows the Fraser River Greenway as a series of connected trails extending east west along the riverfront between King Edward and the New Westminster Boundary, along United Boulevard and along the north side of the golf course. These trails are linked by north south connections between the river and the highway along the extension of King Edwards Street and along the Municipal Boundary..5 The report describes the Fraser River Greenway as a regional link and as a potential excellent multi-use recreational facility. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 9 JULY 27, 2009

20 9.4 TransLink s Regional Cycling Strategy.1 TransLink is currently developing a Regional Cycling Strategy to be completed by The strategy will identify strategic directions and the roles of various agencies with respect to planning and investments in bicycle facilities and programs throughout the region..2 One key aspect of the strategy is to facilitate a real increase in the mode share for bicycles within the region. Key to achieving this goal is to attract the Interested but Concerned segment of the potential cycling market. For the purpose of this study this goal is critical in that it emphasizes the need for off-road trail facilities that are routed to support likely trips by this group..3 Furthermore, statistics show that the median trip distance by bicycle in the region is 3.6km, and two-thirds of bicycle trips are less than 5km in length. However travel patterns for longer-distance trips are often given equal (or even greater) emphasis when planning bicycle routes. Similarly, while high densities and mixed land uses are more conducive to cycling, the majority of bicycle route kilometres in the region are in other, lower density areas..4 This report summarizes the Policy Documents developed by the City of Coquitlam, as outlined above, and provides known statistics for cycling use within the City. 9.5 Metro Vancouver s Regional Parks and Greenways Plan.1 Metro Vancouver s Regional Parks and greenways plan provides direction and priority for parks and greenways in the region over the next 10 years. The report sets out a Vision Statement supported by detailed Goals, Strategies and Actions. Within the Pacific reach Area the Green Spaces Plan identifies the Brunette Fraser greenway and Colony farm..2 The Northeast Sector Recreational Greenway (Report - March 2000) identifies the Fraser Greenway as an important regional trail that would connect Colony Farm Regional Park to the Brunette River Greenway and corridor in New Westminster. The route is identified as having a potential staging area for Fraser River access and a possible water crossing launch site. 9.6 The Gateway Project Reference Design.1 The Port Mann Highway #1 Upgrade project involves the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and extensive road works in the Cape Horn Interchange, including alterations to the eastern portions of United Boulevard within the study area. The COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 10

21 Reference Design for the project includes the following components of relevance to this study: A multi use path on the new bridge deck A multi use path connecting the west end of the bridge to the north side of Lougheed Highway and extending to Schoolhouse Shoulder Bikeways along Lougheed leading towards Coquitlam Centre Shoulder Bikeways along Mary Hill By-Pass from United Boulevard An overpass with bike lanes and sidewalks at King Edward Street Realigned rail lines on the south side of Highway #1 Multiple on/off ramps affecting the north edge of the study area generally east of Brigantine Drive Realignment and reconfiguration of United Boulevard east of Schooner Street involving acquisition of industrial site north of United Boulevard east of Leeder Ave..2 This project has significant impact on the Fraser Coquitlam Greenway study and in particular will influence the timing and details of the implementation of the Near-Term Route in the northeastern portions of the site. 9.7 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure s Climate Action Program. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure s Climate Action Program was created in December 2007 to facilitate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in BC s transportation sector and contribute to BC s target of reducing greenhouse gases by 33% by 2020 and 80% by To that end, the Ministry s BikeBC program s goal is to increase the province s cycling mode share by encouraging cycling as an alternate mode of transportation to the commuter vehicle. Specifically, Bike BC s goals in Metro Vancouver area are to cost share with local and regional authorities on the development and construction of: High class regional commuter cycling facilities Local network connections to the regional network, Local and regional network connections to transit nodes, and End-of-trip cycling facilities Site Evaluation 10.1 As noted above the project required the consultant to evaluate possible route alignment options for a Long-Term Route and an Near-Term Route and to select two preferred route options for each for more detailed investigation. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 11 JULY 27, 2009

22 10.2 At the commencement of this process the consultant team identified four initial route options based on review of background information and field investigation. The assumption was that the four possible alignments would yield the two best Long-Term Route options and a recommended alignment for the Near-Term Route. As noted above a fifth route alignment option for the Near- Term Route was added to the project at a later date While many factors were considered in determining the initial route options, the primary selection factor for the routes were: Previously identified corridors in existing City s Plan or Policy Documents Determination of start and end points Land availability in order of preference, Publicly owned greenspace or other sites, Street rights of way, Other rights of way, Edges of private land or, Central portions of private land. Directionality, primarily east west corridors, heading to / from start and end points Connectivity, potential to connect to other routes Existing Land Ownership and Development Patterns The site is heavily developed with a wide mix of industrial, commercial, retail, municipal and some recreational and park uses. The street grid is oriented north south and east west with only one continuous street right of way in an east-west direction along United Boulevard. Two other intermittent east-west street rights of way are located in the eastern portion of the site. There are series of north-south streets that, with the exception of King Edward Street, terminate at the Fraser River to the south and the highway in the north The current patterns of land-use and development provide few options for diagonal movement across the study area. The river edge is occupied by a wide variety of activities including some areas of public and green space Conventional urban design philosophy would identify the river as a very significant asset of the site that should drive future planning in the area. In the long term development that focuses on the riverside location and provides public access to the riverfront would support the notion of the long-term trail in this location. COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 12

23 10.7 Engineering Factors ISL Engineering and Land Services were members of the consultant team and were responsible for providing engineering expertise to the team. ISL s separate Engineering Evaluation Report is attached in Appendix 13. The report includes: Transportation Context Pathway Assumptions Engineering Evaluation - Traffic Engineering - Roadway Geometry - Bridges - Municipal Services - Constructability - Cost Estimation 10.8 ISL contributed to the route evaluation scoring process providing input on the Cost and Implementation criteria. The Class D Planning Level cost estimate is include in ISL s report and is summarized below for ease of reference Environmental Factors Sartori Environmental Services Inc. (SESI) was retained as a member of the consultant team to carry out field assessment of the environmental aspects of the site and to contribute to the route evaluation process. Their Environmental Field Assessment Report dated 20 May 2009 is attached in the Appendices. The report presents the findings of the environmental field observations made during site assessment process along each of the proposed bike routes. SESI s evaluations are included in the Evaluation Score Sheets included in Appendix 14. Methodology Digital aerial photography and environmentally sensitive areas mapping was obtained from the City of Coquitlam and drawings showing the proposed trail alignments from PWL to assist in the environmental assessment. Aerial photos were reviewed for environmental features including watercourses, riparian sites (sites falling under the Riparian Area Regulation (RAR) within the 30 metres of high water mark RAA - Riparian Assessment Area), natural habitat (defined as large undisturbed sites of vegetation or significant trees) and wetlands. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 13 JULY 27, 2009

24 10.10 An environmental specialist then assessed environmental sites in the field. Some previously identified sites, such as the concrete processing facility at the foot of Leeder St., were inaccessible due to private property access issues and therefore were not included in the report, but should be assessed in the future, once trail alignment has been confirmed. Each of the environmental sites was assessed for potential habitat impact from trail construction. Site photos were also collected at each of the field sites The aerial assessment identified 6 watercourses (Fraser River, Brunette River, Nelson Creek, Como Creek, Dawes Hill Creek and Popeye Creek) and two natural habitats located on the shore of the Fraser River at Sites 6 and 16. These sites potentially could be impacted by the proposed alignment of the bicycle routes. Also, the proposed route along Lougheed Highway has the potential to impact the watercourse that flow parallel to the road Nelson Creek, Como Creek and Dawes Hill Creek have all been realigned historically to accommodate for commercial and industrial development, therefore have largely disturbed riparian areas. The Fraser River and Brunette River banks have also been developed and only small sections remain undisturbed within the study area Field observations found that many proposed watercourse crossings have existing structures that could be used or expanded with minimal further impact to the environment. These sites include: Site 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 and At proposed crossing locations where there is no existing structure, it is recommended that clearspan structures with abutments above the high-water mark be installed in order to conform to Fisheries and Oceans Operational Statements and not be considered harmful alteration of fish habitat. Sites that would require new structures are: Sites 8 and 9. Significant habitat improvement opportunities exist with the proposed foreshore route along the Fraser River, with the potential reduction of impervious surfaces and riparian planting. Read in conjunction with the Environmental Field Assessment Report in Appendix Property Impact Analysis Property Assessors were included on the consultant team to provide input on the status of private lands through which the various trail options were routed. Once the four route options to be evaluated were established, the assessors identified potential property impacts. The assumed route corridor for this analysis width was 8m The property analysis assume that, unless noted otherwise, wherever a proposed route passes centrally through a private land parcel, property acquisition would be required. COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 14

25 10.17 For the Long Term route, the general assumption is that where routes pass centrally through private parcels, or cut-off a site from current waterfront industrial operations, these route portions could only be achieved through a change of use and acquisition of rights of way or land dedication through a redevelopment process Where routes impact land at the edge of a property without affecting the current use of the land, then land acquisition would be a more realistic solution to develop the trail For the evaluation process, the property analysis highlighted the extent of the private property impacts of the four routes. This information has emphasized the costs and time implications associated with property acquisition, in comparison to trail development costs, and the desirability of avoiding private property wherever possible In the evaluation scoring process for the Near-Term Route, all private property acquisitions resulted in negative evaluations thereby guiding the project away from such route options. For example, both the United Boulevard and Highway route would require land purchases or right-of-way negotiations, with multiple land owners, along the south edge of United Boulevard and the south edge of the rail line respectively. These issues downgraded the scoring for these routes For the Long Term route evaluations, the assumption was that over time, land uses may change and as City and regional policy supported off-street bike routes in this area, that land could be acquired incrementally through development. In this longer timeline, private property conflicts were seen as less problematic In the evaluation scoring process for the Near-Term Route, all private property acquisitions resulted in negative evaluations thereby guiding the project away from such route options. For example, both the United Boulevard and Highway route would require land purchases or right-of-way negotiations, with multiple land owner, along the south edge of United Boulevard and the south edge of the rail line respectively. These issues down graded the scoring for these routes For the Long Term route evaluations, the assumption was that over time, land uses may change and as City and regional policy supported off-street bike routes in this area, that land could be acquired incrementally through development at more modest costs. In this longer timeline, private property conflicts were seen as less problematic, e.g. the blue route through the Domtar site and the waterfront site through sections 6 and 7 both assumed implementation would be possible over time through future development The property assessment work has provided valuable data, identifying information on private property potentially impacted by the proposed routes and providing a base line for potential costs. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 15 JULY 27, 2009

26 11.0 Development / Generation of Route Alignment Options 11.1 Five Route Options Based on the site evaluation process described in Section 10.0, four preliminary route options were selected for evaluation. A fifth route was added mid-way through the study process at the request of the requests of BC CAP and Translink. The routes were: 1. The Rail/Hydro Line Route (yellow) along the north edge of the site in or adjacent to the rail and hydro right of ways. This option was selected because of the continuity of the open space corridor along the edge of the site, its directness and continuity and direct connection to the Port Mann Bridge. 2. The United Boulevard Route (orange). This option was selected to utilize the existing United Boulevard right of way that provides east west continuity and direct connection to the start and end points. 3. The Mid Site Route (blue). This option was selected to utilize the existing street rights of way in the east portion of the site, proposed open space corridors within the Fraser Mills development plan and potential east west routes, subject to future potential redevelopment in the western portion of the site. 4. The Fraser River Route (green). This option was selected to utilize existing fragments of park and other green space along the river and on the assumption of future redevelopment that faces the river and allows for public access. 5. The Lougheed Route (brown). This option utilizes a planned route included in the Reference Design for PMH1 project that connects the west end of the Port Mann bridge to the north side of Lougheed Highway via a combination of at-grade and elevated route sections both adjoining and separated from roadways. The route would extend along Lougheed Highway to King Edward Street where it would connect to the orange route via the planned King Edward overpass. The five considered alignments are presented on Figure 4. COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 16

27 11.2 Each of the five routes has been divided into seven sections. The sections have been defined in order to isolate portions of each corridor that reflect a range of different conditions. Assessment of a route by section prevents significant positive or negative evaluation factors from distorting the assessment of the overall route Typically the boundaries of each section have been drawn along road rights of way or north south green space to allow the potential for a route to be detoured, temporarily or permanently, from any given route alignment to another, should circumstances provide a road block, for development, in one section. The north south routes will be assessed separately, only if the findings of the overall assessment indicate that certain north south portions become critical to achieving the trail. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 17 JULY 27, 2009

28 LEGEND 12.0 The Evaluation Framework rk Figure 4: Coquitlam Fraser Greenway Five Route Options COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 18

29 12.1 The study has required the consultants to develop an Evaluation Framework as the basis for screening the various trail options and evaluating the pros and cons against a variety of criteria The Request for Proposal (RFP) for the project provided a preliminary list of evaluation criteria as follows: Customer Service (including directness, minimal grade change, connectivity to cycling network, traffic considerations, transit and pedestrian connectivity etc.) Socio-community (connections to community and businesses, proximity to recreational and activity centres) Environment (environmentally sensitive areas, effect on flora and fauna) Financial (capital costs, property acquisition, operating costs, ease of implementation etc The RFP required the Consultants to review the above list, advise on other criteria that might be considered and develop an Evaluation Process. The above list was reviewed by the consultant team and modified to a series of six criteria each with their own evaluation factors: User Demand Market Capture Social Benefit Environment Implementation / Feasibility Cost Effectiveness 12.4 Each Criteria was stated in terms of a question that framed the issues to be considered in carrying out the evaluation and a list of factors, provided per criteria to add further definition, e.g. Market Penetration Question: To what proportion of the potential cycling/walking community would the route appeal? Factors affecting assessment: route safety motor vehicle conflicts rail conflicts user conflicts CPTED issues accessibility See Appendices 1 & 2 for the definition of each Criteria and Criteria Factors. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 19 JULY 27, 2009

30 Two Step Process 12.5 Initial experimentation with the Evaluation Criteria quickly demonstrated that, even with the use of prioritized criteria, the evaluation process tended to provide results that did not match the Consultant team s best judgment as to which route would best serve the primary goal of the project. The team s best judgment is derived from the collective professional opinion of landscape architects, bicycle facilities planners, transportation engineers, civil engineers, property and environmental experts For example, for the Long Term route assessment, despite the weighting of criteria, issues such as implementation / feasibility and costs tended to decrease scores for route options that the team felt, in the long term, would serve the primary goal of the study, i.e. to attract the broadest cross-section of users and the largest number of trips with resultant reductions in greenhouse gas emission. In other words, a route that is easy and cheap to build may do little to serve the primary goal of the project Also, for the Near-Term Routes, issues such as social benefit or environment tended to decrease scores for route options that the team felt, in the Interim would serve the primary goal of the study, i.e. to serve commuter cyclists in the short term and to be feasible for implementation in the proposed timeframe The consultant team s conclusion was that an evaluation process utilizing a string of criteria of varying importance tended to give greater weight than was appropriate to less significant issues and as a result diminishes the importance of the most critical issues In a process where routes are scored against criteria and each criteria is weighted to distinguish relative importance the weighting process can only be subjective, e.g., there are no practically objective ways to give numerical value to the relative importance of personal safety of trail users versus the potential environmental impact or benefits of a route In effect, with this methodology, assessors tend to adjust the prioritization or numerical weighting of the criteria until such time as the results match the professional judgment of the assessors In conclusion, the consultant team proposed a two-stage evaluation process that could be used to assess both the Long Term and Near-Term Routes. In both cases, the routes would be assessed in the first stage against criteria that were of direct relevance to the primary goal of the route and secondarily against the remaining criteria. COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 20

31 Primary and Secondary Criteria Long Term Route The primary goal for the Long Term multi-use trail is to maximize use by the widest cross-section of cyclists, other non-motorized forms of transportation and walkers. The trail will be implemented over the long term In this scenario, when evaluating various route options, much greater emphasis should be given to the criteria and factors that will truly impact the primary goal, such as connectivity to other trails, homes, work and destinations. Lesser emphasis should be given to criteria that would not impact the long-term goal such as current land-use or ownership issues, or implementation issues such as impacts on the current road system. The Primary and Secondary Criteria for each trail were proposed as follows: Long Term Route Primary Criteria - User Demand - Market Capture Secondary Criteria - Social Benefits - Implementation/Feasibility - Cost Effectiveness - Environment ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 21 JULY 27, 2009

32 Primary and Secondary Criteria Near-Term Route The primary goal of the Interim Trail is to achieve a routing that can be completed by 2013/14 to primarily accommodate bicycle commuters. In this scenario, implementation related issues and the ability of the route to serve commuter cyclists should take priority over all other considerations. Other criteria such as wider social benefits, connection to green space etc. would be given lesser emphasis in the evaluation process. Near-Term Route Primary Criteria - Implementation/Feasibility - Cost Effectiveness - User Demand Secondary Criteria - Market Capture - Social Benefits - Environment Assessment Method for Interim and Long Term Routes First Level of Assessment For the First Level of Assessment each section of each route was assessed against the First Level Criteria and ranked as High, Medium or Low in terms of the ability of the section to serve the primary goal. Standard evaluation sheets were developed to gather scores from the consultant team and to be able to provide the transparent background data for the results Scores of High, Medium and Low were provided for each section of the route for each criteria. Scores were then added to provide an overall score per section (measured against all criteria) and per criteria (for all sections of each route) Second Level of Assessment Similarly, during the Second Level of Assessment each section of each route was assessed against the Second Level Criteria and in this case ranked as either -1, 0, or +1, where, -1 means the assessment negatively influences the choice of the section 0 means the assessment is neutral +1 means the assessment positively influences the choice of the section COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 22

33 12.18 Results of this evaluation were added together to provide an overall score per section (measured against all criteria), per criteria (for all sections of each route) and for the overall route Overall Results The overall score for each route are then expressed as the product of the two levels of evaluation, e.g., a route may be evaluated as High in the First Level of Assessment, with a numeric score of between -3 and +3 in the Second Level of Assessment. A negative second stage scores will downgrade the first stage rating for a route whereas a positive score will upgrade the result. For example, in the evaluation of the Near-Term Route, the Waterfront Route gained a Low overall rating in the first level of assessment and an overall score of 14 in the second level assessment to provide an overall score of Low When comparing Overall Scores for alternate routes, High scores beat Medium scores, which in turn beat Low scores irrespective of the secondary scoring. Two matching first level scores, e.g. two High scores would be settled by the second level score, e.g. High +3 would beat High This method ensures that the first level rating provides an assessment purely based upon factors that affect the ability of the route to achieve the primary project goal and the second level rating provides modifying scores that indicate positive or negative factors about each route that might influence the final conclusion Evaluation Results 13.1 The results from the evaluation process for both the Long Term and Near-Term Routes are illustrated on Evaluation Summary sheets on the adjoining pages. In addition, individual Evaluation Score Sheets are included in Appendix 5 and provide the individual scores and explanatory commentary for the evaluation of each route section against each criteria The following section of the report provides an explanation of the results and a summary of the key findings and should be read in conjunction with Evaluation Score Sheets mentioned. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 23 JULY 27, 2009

34 The Long Term Route 13.3 The Long-Term Route evaluation sought to identify the best two Long-Term Route options from the four routes evaluated The evaluation of the Long-Term Route yielded the following overall results (see also Table 1): Waterfront Route (Green) High / Mid Site Route (Blue) Medium / -2 United Boulevard Route (Orange) Low / Highway Route (Yellow) Low / Note that the Lougheed Route, (Brown) was not evaluated as a potential Long-Term Route as it does not run through the Pacific Reach area and could not therefore achieve the objectives of the project Conclusions. These results provide clear direction that the Waterfront and Mid- Site routes were the two best Long-Term route options. Both of the routes would be achievable in the long-term through gradual acquisition of land or rights of way, and would serve the longterm goal of achieving an off-road multi-use trail. Detailed Summaries of the evaluated routes are assembled in Appendix 3. Individual Scoring sheets are provided in Appendix 5. COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 24

35 LONG TERM ROUTE SECTION # Waterfront Route Mid-Site Route United Boulevard Highway Route Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 1 High -2 High -1 Medium 0 Low/Med +1 2 Med/High -1 Medium -3 Low/Med -1 Low -4 3 High +4 High +3 Low/Med -2 Low/Med -4 4 High +3 Medium -3 Low -3 Low/Med -4 5 Medium 0 Medium -3 Low -3 Low -1 6 Medium 0 Low/Med -4 Low -4 Low -1 7 High +3 Low/Med -3 Low -3 Low -1 Composite Score RANKING High 1.00 Medium Low Low Table 1: Coquitlam Fraser Greenway Long-Term Route Evaluation Results Summary ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 25 JULY 27, 2009

36 Summary of Findings 13.7 The Waterfront Route (High / +1.14) provides the best overall long term solution to provide a route that is most likely to result in an increase in the total number of trips made and, by virtue of it s off road, waterfront alignment attract the widest range of potential users. The route would be achievable in the long term assuming the use of existing green space corridors or parks, known developments and potential future site redevelopment. The long-term assumption would be that future redevelopment would face the river and provide improving connectivity and surveillance. This route also provides some potential environmental improvements through trail development. Current ownership and uses on the Metro Vancouver Ports site, the Domtar site, the paper plant, the Lafarge site and other smaller waterfront sites would preclude this route being attained without future changes in land ownership and/or use. The west and east ends of this route could in future be extended along the river, outside the study area, to connect with other planned waterfront trails planned in adjoining municipalities The Mid-Site Route (Medium / -2) provides the second best overall Long-Term Route solution although with a significantly lower score than the waterfront route. The evaluation assumes the potential for an off-road route through most of the western half of the site through known and potential future redevelopment. The eastern portion of the route would depend on dedicated trails predominantly adjoining the relatively quiet Hartley Avenue. This is less desirable than an off-road route, hence the lower scoring in the evaluation. This route is centrally located to serve the population of the study area. There were two localized negative environmental impacts identified associated with new bridge crossings. Current ownership and uses on the Domtar site, the paper plant and the Lafarge site would preclude this route being attained without future changes in land ownership and/or use The United Boulevard Route (Low / -2.29) received a low overall score through the first and second level assessments and is not suited as a Long-Term Route alignment. At present, United Boulevard is an established truck route and truck traffic will increase with the completion of the North Fraser Perimeter Road. The extreme levels of traffic along United Boulevard and the many vehicle conflicts at intersections and entrances makes the route undesirable to increase levels of use or attract a wide range of users thereby, even in the long term and through property acquisition, making this an undesirable choice. The inadequate space available within the road ROW in the central portion of the site and the large number of conflicting surface utilities would make the route expensive and problematic to implement. A routing along this busy arterial road would provide little social benefit. Environmental impacts were considered mostly neutral and did not influence the evaluation. The western and eastern portions of the route are less costly and problematic to construct however still have little value in terms of generating greater use or trip types. COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 26

37 13.10 The Highway Route (Low / -2) also received a Low overall score through the first and second level assessments and is not suited as a Long-Term Route alignment. Despite the off-road, straight alignment of the route, this option was not considered to be desirable to attract increased user demand or to attract a wider range of users. The location of the route, behind the properties on the north side of United Boulevard, does not provide good connections to the Pacific Reach Area and serves mainly as a by-pass route. This route suffers from very limited access and natural surveillance with attendant CPTED problems. In the central and east sections the route occupies the existing BC Hydro ROW over private property. While this land could be acquired by the City over time through redevelopment, the key issues of locations, access points and surveillance are not likely to be resolved as future development is most likely to face south towards the road. Environmental impacts in the western sections also negatively influenced the second level assessment Based on the above, this report concludes that the Waterfront Route (green) and the Mid-Site route (blue) are the best routes overall to meet the goals of providing a multi-use trail though the area in the long term. Similarly to the Near-Term Route evaluation, see below, subject to further study and dependent on other related public and private sector developments in the area, the ultimate Long Term route solution may prove to be a hybrid route comprised of sections taken from more than one of the evaluated routes. The Long-Term Route recommendations are presented on Figure 5. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 27 JULY 27, 2009

38 LEGEND Figure 5: Coquitlam Fraser Greenway Long Term Route - Best Routes COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 28

39 The Near-Term Route The Near-Term Route evaluation sought to identify one recommended Near-Term Route that can be built in conjunction with the Gateway project. The evaluation of the Near-Term Route yielded the following overall results (see also Table 2): Waterfront Route (Green) Low Mid-Site Route (Blue) Medium United Boulevard Route (Orange) Medium / Low Highway Route (Yellow) Medium / Low Lougheed Route (Brown) Low Note that the Lougheed Route, (Brown) was added to the scope of work for the project at the request of BC CAP and Translink for the Near-Term Route assessment only. This change was made to allow comparison of the four route options with the route alignment proposed as a part of the Gateway Project Reference Design Conclusions The results of the Near-Term Route assessment did not provide clear direction for the selection of one outright winner. The Mid- Site Route yielded the best score overall by a near margin (Medium -0.57) but sections 1, 2 and 5 of the route were known to be un-achievable in the short term due the need for extensive private property acquisition. Similarly, the United Boulevard Route and the Highway Route required private property acquisition along United Boulevard and the BC Hydro ROW respectively and therefore none of the routes, as evaluated, seemed achievable in the short term. This lead the consultant team to propose a hybrid Preferred Route, (the red route), that used a combination of sections from several of the five corridors. The hybrid route sections were selected from the Evaluation Process for the five routes so that the hybrid route is a composite of route sections that have scored highest in the evaluation process, that are the most easily achievable in the near-term and that provide as direct a route as possible through the study area. Detailed Summaries of the evaluated routes are assembled in Appendix 4. Individual Scoring sheets are provided in Appendix 5. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 29 JULY 27, 2009

40 NEAR-TERM ROUTE SECTION # Waterfront Route Mid-Site Route United Boulevard Highway Route Lougheed Route Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 1 Low +2 Low +2 High 0 High -1 High 0 2 Low +1 Low -1 Medium -2 Low -3 Medium -2 3 Medium +3 Medium +2 Low -1 Low -3 Low -3 4 Medium +2 Medium -1 Low -2 Low -3 Low -3 5 Low +2 High -1 Low -2 Medium -2 Low -2 6 Low +2 Low -3 Medium -3 Medium -2 Low -2 7 High +2 High -2 Medium -2 Medium -2 Medium -2 Composite Score Low 2.00 Medium Med/Low Med/Low Low RANKING Table 2: Coquitlam Fraser Greenway Near-Term Route Evaluation Results Summary COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 30

41 Summary of Findings The Waterfront Route (Low +2.00) is aligned over numerous private waterfront industrial properties and could not therefore reasonably be proposed for implementation in the immediate future due to cost and land acquisition issues. Sections 3,4 and 7 are more achievable to implement but are insufficient to make this route a viable option. Notwithstanding the user benefits of this route, it is not considered a practical contender as the Near-Term Route The Mid-Site Route (Medium -0.57) yielded the best overall score despite some sections being problematic for implementation and cost. The relatively direct alignment and partially off-road alignment provided good scores for User Demand. The central sections of the route, i.e. sections 3,4 and 5 and section 7 in the east, yielded Medium and High scores whereas the remaining sections yielded Low scores by virtue of the alignment over private property. In short, this route comprises good and bad sections and despite it s best score overall is not achievable in all its sections in the immediate time-frame. The middle section 3 would utilize the Fraser Mills site and would be relatively low cost to build and off-road. Section 4 and most of section 5 would use the Hartley place ROW and although more costly to build would be achievable in the interim. By contrast sections 1, 2 and 6 are not achievable, as they would depend on acquisition of land through occupied and actively used sites. There were two localized negative environmental impacts identified associated with new bridge crossings The United Boulevard Route (Medium / Low -1.71) yielded a similar score to the Mid Site route. The directness of the route provided good scores for User Demand (for commuters) and the western and eastern sections (1,2,6 and 7) were typically cost effective and achievable. However, the central sections of the route received low scores for Cost and Implementation due to lack of space in the road ROW (requiring land acquisition) and high construction costs and difficulties associated with building along the edge of United Boulevard. Environmental impacts were considered mostly neutral and did not influence the evaluation. Again, this route comprises good and bad sections The Highway Route (Medium / Low -2.29) yielded a slightly lower score than the Mid-Site and united Boulevard routes. The western section 1 and eastern sections 5, 6 and 7 all received Medium or High scores and were considered cost effective and possible to implement. This conclusion assumes reconstruction of United Boulevard in the eastern sections 5, 6 and 7 as a part of the Gateway project resulting in a less constrained and less costly trail construction. The trail would run along the north side of the reconstructed United Boulevard in these sections. The central sections of the route were again compromised because of the need to acquire rights of way or ownership of private land along the hydro ROW in sections 2,3 and 4. This route received good scores typically for User Demand for commuters given its straight alignment and direct connection to the bridge. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 31 JULY 27, 2009

42 13.19 The Lougheed Route (Low -1.86) yielded the lowest score overall. This route received good scores for User Demand, for commuters, but scored poorly for cost and implementation given the extensive elevated sections of the route required to cross the rail line and Highway #1 at elevation. This route, being outside the Pacific Reach Area, and located through the Cape Horn interchange and along the north edge of Lougheed Highway yielded poor scores for Social Benefit and Market Capture. Environmental issues were also identified mainly in section 3 where the route runs adjacent to Como Creek on the north side of Lougheed Highway As stated above, the Proposed Route (red) for the Interim Trail alignment is a composite route using sections from several of the five evaluated routes. The Preferred route comprise: Section 1,2 and part section 3: Utilizes the United Boulevard Route. In these sections of the road right of way there is room to build the trail without land acquisition and there are relatively few conflicts with intersection, crossings or utilities. This section of United Boulevard will be upgraded as a part of the North Fraser Perimeter Road Project and the trail can be built in conjunction with this project. Section 3: Utilizes the Fraser Mills site. Initial discussions with the land owner suggest that they would be willing, subject to final resolution of alignment to allow an interim trail to be built and maintained through their site. The route may use existing sections of pavement and would need to worked out so as not to compromise planned temporary uses for the site and the proposed phased mixed-use development. Section 4: The Waterfront Route and the Mid-Site routes offer two alternatives alignments in this section. The Mid-Site route offers the advantage of a more direct connection through the area along Hartley Avenue. This route provides direct access to businesses along this road. This option would be built adjacent the road rather than through open space and as a result would be more costly and less desirable for users. In addition, the bridge required to cross Como Creek to connect this route is not required as a part of the Fraser Mills development until a much later phase of development. The Waterfront route provides a less direct route with less direct access to businesses in the area but has the advantage of being off road and utilizing an existing green space corridor. If built, this section would also form part of the Long Term route in this section. The bridge required to cross Como Creek for this section will be built in phase 1 of the Fraser Mills development therefore providing a benefit to this option COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 32

43 Section 5: Utilizes the Mid Site route Schooner St. and Fawcett Road. From here, the route would travel north to United Boulevard. This section would be built adjoining the road. Section 5 (east portion), 6 and 7: Utilizes the United Boulevard Route. As noted above, the Reference Design for the Gateway project anticipates reconstruction of United Boulevard in this area. Property on the north side of the road would be acquired and there would be room to locate the trail on the north side of the road thereby minimizing conflicts with entrances and existing surface utilities. The waterfront route in section 7 also offers a viable alternative utilizing existing green space however, the location of this section in relationship to the bridge renders this section unworkable in terms of directness for the Near-Term Route. The Preferred Route (Red) is therefore the recommended Near-Term Route for the Coquitlam Fraser greenway. Figure 6. presents the recommended alignment for the Near-Term Route. ROUTE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 33 JULY 27, 2009

44 LEGEND Figure 6: Coquitlam Fraser Greenway Near-Term Route - Recommended Route COQUITLAM FRASER GREENWAY 34