1. Transportation decisions and investments should be shared by all levels of government, and guided by a Transportation Hierarchy: a) Walking; b) Cycling; c) Public Transit; d) Goods and Commercial Services; e) High Occupancy Vehicles; f) Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV).
2.  Highway expansion and twinning the Port Mann Bridge ignore the hierarchy, prioritizing the SOV over all other modes of transportation.
3. Urban development guided primarily by compact, efficient land use planning rather than the expansion of transportation capacity to meet increasing travel demand;
4. The capacity expansion of the highway and bridge are completely opposite to using compact and efficient land uses to guide transportation planning.
5. Infill and redevelopment within mixed-use neighbourhoods and communities with residential and employment densities sufficient to enhance the viability of higher priority transportation modes (35 people and/or jobs per hectare);
6. Infill is facilitated by multi-modal transportation options, not through auto-centred road capacity expansion. Sprawl negates the potential for transit.
7. The use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that reduce congestion and decrease commuting costs by encouraging drivers to choose alternatives to traveling in private automobiles;
8. Using TDM in concert with other measures such as transit priority, HOV lanes, and off-peak travel incentives are more effective at alleviating congestion and reducing auto-dependence.
9. Transportation decisions designed to support land use and economic objectives as opposed to relieving short-term congestion problems caused by low density development;
10. Expanding capacity of roadways allows ‘latent demand’ (the people who don’t drive now because it is too inconvenient who then express their demand once the capacity supply is provided) to quickly fill up roadways. The result is the same level of congestion in a matter of years.
11. Transportation spending that facilitates economic activity, rather than aiming to generate jobs and investment;
12. Complete compact communities generate economic activity through location efficiencies.  Sprawl decreases economic efficiencies due to distance between retail, consumers and producers.
13. Transportation infrastructure improvements designed to provide all citizens with safe, convenient and affordable access to most daily needs, including employment, education, shopping, personal services and recreation;
14. Increasing road capacity for SOVs will increase average speeds and overall number of vehicles using roadways. Sprawl increases per capita spending on transportation.
15. An informed citizenry that understands the implications of transportation investment trade-offs and advocates for a balanced approach to infrastructure spending.

Presentation to GVRD Board

• Land use impacts and the principles in the LRSP
• Experience from other highway expansion projects
• Examination of options

1. a prevalence of automobile-oriented (low-density, segregated land uses) development resulting in dispersed travel patterns and  predominantly single-occupant vehicle travel;
2. inadequate transit service due to lack of funding as well as low density development that does not support transit

1. Increased traffic congestion – it may reduce congestion on the Bridge and on Hwy 1 in the short term, but it will inevitably lead to traffic congestion on a much greater scale in the long term, and it will spread to feeder roads and intersections. The impacts of this decision may not be realized for years, but the legacy of an ever more sprawling and congested region will rest with your position.
2. Negative health impacts – air pollution from the increased number of vehicles, compounding of the physical inactivity and obesity problems due to non-walkable communities.  Our recent study “Promoting Public Health through Smart Growth” available on our website (www.smartgrowth.bc.ca) clearly outlines the many serious health problems associated with automobile-dependent land use.
3. More poorly planned, sprawling, automobile-dominated communities, not just in the GVRD, but in the Fraser Valley, leading to more traffic going through your communities.

• $500 – 600 million dollars
• will increase traffic on adjacent or linking highways (I-5 and Hwy 26)
• increase traffic congestion during construction delays
• projected maximum time savings of 3.5 minutes of average travel time (if traveling the complete length)

1. Net Regional Highway Congestion Benefits: A determination of the net highway congestion relief provided by widening the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1, incorporating: (1) reduced travel times as a result of the expansion; (2) delays on the Bridge and Highway 1 during construction; (3) increased or decreased congestion feeder highways and roads as a result of increased traffic on the Bridge and Highway 1 attributable to the expansion.
2.  Congestion Relief Cost Comparisons to Other Regional Projects: Comparisons of the costs per person/hour of highway congestion relief for widening the Bridge and Highway 1, including related improvements to interchanges, arterials and etc., relative to other regional transportation investments, past, present or future, for which such comparisons can reasonably be made.
3. Impact on creating a livable region by implementing the current and updated Livable Region Strategic Plan, as measured by new jobs and housing located in regional and town centers, at transit station areas and along other transit corridors and arterials.
4.  Environmental benefits and costs, such as air pollution, water and noise pollution benefits and costs, and not just on the Bridge and Highway, but including impacts from increased development.
5.  Health impacts of increased traffic, more automobile dominated development, non-walkable communities.

• Interchange improvements-only alternative, e.g., ramp metering that allows priority vehicles to enter the highway and discourages SOVs;
• Arterials-only alternative, that examines improvements to a wide array of arterials that might deliver equal or better congestion relief and other benefits; 
• Queue-jumper lanes for buses and high-occupancy vehicles.
•  Transit alternatives, including options that have the effect of reducing congestion on the highway even if they are in different alignments or areas, but that are roughly comparable in cost for the benefits delivered.
• Tolling, when considered as part of a financing system for a new facility.  But it should also be studied separately from additional lane capacity in order to give the public and policy makers some way of measuring the true value to travelers;
• Other transportation demand management techniques and incentives, such as congestion pricing, implemented on a scale comparable to the cost of the proposed additional lanes and interchange improvements;
• Projects designed to deliver maximum jobs and housing to growth centres, to prevent the current SOV demand from dispersed employment centers such as business parks;
• Transportation system management investments, including intelligent transportation systems, implemented on a scale comparable to the cost of the proposed additional lanes and interchange improvements;
• Job location and relocation incentives, and incentives for working hours that result in off-peak commutes, as implemented on a scale comparable to the cost of the proposed additional lanes and interchange improvements;
• Investment in rail and water infrastructure for movement of goods; expand light rail services to south of the Fraser communities and expand other commuter rail opportunities.