CONTENTS

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................................1 Results at a Glance ........................................................................................................................................1 Survey Promotion..........................................................................................................................................1
2. Survey Results ..................................................................................................................................................2 Draft Transportation Mission Statement ....................................................................................................2 Transportation Goals and Objectives.........................................................................................................3 Goal 1 — Manage Congestion and Improve Travel Reliability.................................................................3 Goal 2 — Reduce Neighbourhood Impacts from Through-Traffic ..........................................................3 Goal 3 — Promote Local and Regional Public Transit ...............................................................................4 Future Transportation Actions.....................................................................................................................4 Transit Use......................................................................................................................................................4 Traffic Congestion.........................................................................................................................................5 Travel Patterns ...............................................................................................................................................5
3. Additional Comments.....................................................................................................................................5
4. Respondent Demographics ...........................................................................................................................6 Relationship to View Royal...........................................................................................................................6 Neighbourhood Distribution.......................................................................................................................7 Housing Type.................................................................................................................................................7 Age Profile......................................................................................................................................................7 APPENDIX A: Full Quantitative Survey Results APPENDIX B: Full Qualitative Survey Results

1. Introduction

View Royal Transportation Master Plan Update:

Survey 2 aimed to confirm the community’s level of agreement on the draft transportation mission, goals, and objectives, all of which align with View Royal’s Official Community Plan vision and transportation goal related to mobility and connectivity. The survey was open from April 29 to May 21, 2026 and took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 143 survey responses were received.

Results at a Glance

Survey responses indicate that transportation challenges identified during earlier phases of engagement remain significant concerns for residents. Traffic congestion was a key issue, with approximately two-thirds of respondents experiencing it at least weekly and 43% daily. Through-traffic from neighbouring communities also continues to affect local streets and neighbourhoods. The draft Mission Statement received broad support, with 71% of respondents indicating they were aligned or strongly aligned with its direction.

While nearly half of respondents (44%) do not use transit, there was strong support for expanding transportation options in View Royal. Respondents ranked strengthening active transportation connections (47%) and improving public transit (38%) as their highest transportation priorities, suggesting support for a more connected and balanced transportation network that provides alternatives to driving.

The strongest level of consensus among respondents was in support of Goal 3: Promote Local and Regional Public Transit. In particular, the objective to advocate for higher-capacity inter-municipal transit options, including potential light rail, received the highest overall ranking of all draft objectives presented, with 69% of respondents identifying it as a top priority.

Survey Promotion

The survey was promoted across multiple platforms. The paragraph below is from Survey 1 summary. Ivan, can we ask the comms team to provide updated survey promo info? Jason, please confirm where and when the sandwich boards were out.

Sandwich Boards: Sandwich boards providing information about the TMP, with a QR link to the survey, were placed at… for the duration the survey was live.

The Town’s engagement website (engage.viewroyal.ca) recorded 1,020 views from 697 visitors, with 46 new project followers. Social media included 11 posts, complemented by “What’s New” updates on viewroyal.ca on October 17 and November 12, following the initial launch announcement on September 10. The Inside View Royal e-newsletter featured the project in both the October and November editions, and an email was sent to principals at Eagle View, View Royal, and Shoreline Schools on November 7.

On Facebook, the campaign reached 329 unique accounts and received 622 total views. On Instagram, the campaign reached 4,423 unique accounts and was viewed 7,789 times, demonstrating strong visibility. Engagement totalled 31 interactions, including eight reactions, 12 comments, and 11 shares, indicating that the content resonated with the audience. The post generated 404 clicks overall, including 125 link clicks to the survey.

2. Survey Results

Note: Percentages have been rounded and may not add up to 100%.

Survey feedback represents one of several tools meant to inform the Project Team. Responses highlight key thematic areas to consider and explore further. The survey is not statistically representative of the View Royal population, but rather the respondents who participated.

Draft Transportation Mission Statement

View Royal’s transportation network supports our growing community and region with a progressive, affordable, and equitable system that promotes safe, enjoyable multi-modal travel for people of all ages and abilities.

Respondents were asked how aligned they felt with the draft Mission Statement. Overall, the statement received strong support, with 71% of respondents indicating they were either aligned or strongly aligned with its direction. 14% reported being not aligned or strongly not aligned, while 15% remained neutral.

Key Findings:

• Strongly aligned - 26%
• Aligned – 45%
• Neutral – 15%
• Not aligned – 11%
• Strongly not aligned – 3%

Please let us know why you feel this way. A total of 34 written comments about the Mission Statement were received. The feedback shows a range of perspectives, with several clear, recurring themes.

The most common theme was concern that the Mission Statement is too vague or unclear, including confusion about terms such as “progressive” and “safe modal travel”. A similarly strong theme focused on traffic congestion and regional flow, with respondents emphasizing bottlenecks, through-traffic, and the need to prioritize vehicle movement and roadway capacity.

Another notable group of responses focused on transportation priorities and mode shift, with some respondents expressing concern that the plan overemphasizes active transportation or reduces road capacity, while others supported a shift toward more multimodal or sustainable options. A smaller number of comments raised issues related to regional growth, rail integration, and long-term transit planning, including calls for light rail or better integration of existing rail infrastructure.

Transportation Goals and Objectives

Respondents were asked to rank transportation goals and objectives to identify the areas they believe should receive the greatest focus in future planning.

Goal 1 — Manage Congestion and Improve Travel Reliability

• Objective 1: Prioritize and enable non-private vehicle forms of transportation such as Active Transportation and Transit use with both infrastructure and non-infrastructure type initiatives.
• Objective 2: Prioritize road network infrastructure improvements that enhance reliability and reduce bottlenecks.
• Objective 3: Prioritize management strategies to improve vehicle flow along arterial and collector streets. Management strategies are non-infrastructure initiatives or Transportation Demand Management actions, such as policies that seek to change travel behaviour by supporting more sustainable forms of travel.
• Objective 4: Prioritize signal timing and intersection operations to reduce delays for all modes.

Priority Ranking (ranked as top priority):

• Objective 2 - 46%
• Objective 1 – 40%
• Objective 4 – 18%
• Objective 3 – 8%

Goal 2 — Reduce Neighbourhood Impacts from Through-Traffic

• Objective 1: Minimize and manage the impacts of through and non-local traffic on residential streets while maintaining local and regional connectivity. Focus on accommodating regional traffic.
• Objective 2: Consider route hierarchy, and diversion strategies to protect neighbourhoods and reduce regional through traffic volumes. Focus on reducing and/or managing regional traffic.
• Objective 3: Monitor, manage and prioritize through traffic mitigation measures near schools, parks and community facilities.
• Objective 4: Refine guidance for commercial vehicles to minimize conflicts within residential areas.

Priority Ranking (ranked as top priority):

• Objective 2 – 43%
• Objective 1 – 34%
• Objective 3 – 32%
• Objective 4 – 6%

Goal 3 — Promote Local and Regional Public Transit

• Objective 1: Continue fare affordability and pricing strategies, including lower fares and targeted discounts, to reduce cost barriers and encourage greater transit use.
• Objective 2: Upgrade transit stop infrastructure with shelters, seating, lighting, weather protection, real-time information, and secure bike parking.
• Objective 3: Support regional transit use by improving mobility hubs.
• Objective 4: Advocate and plan for higher-capacity inter-municipal transit options, including potential light rail.

Priority Ranking (ranked as top priority):

• Objective 4 – 69%
• Objectives 1 – 19%
• Objectives 2 – 13%
• Objective 3 – 11%

Future Transportation Actions

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of several transportation actions on a scale from 1 (most important) to 5 (least important).

Priority Ranking (ranked as top priority):

1. Strengthen Connections to Regional Active Transportation Networks (47%)
2. Promote Local and Regional Public Transit (38%)
3. Seek to Manage Traffic Congestion Through Policy (26%)
4. Reduce Regional Through-Traffic Volumes with Traffic Calming (26%)

The results indicate strong support for investments that improve transportation choices and regional connectivity.

Transit Use

Respondents were asked how often they use public transit on average.

Key Findings:

• Do not use transit - 44%
• Use transit less than once per month - 28%
• Use transit one to three times per month – 11%
• Use transit one to four times per week – 12%
• Use transit daily – 5%

Transit usage among respondents was relatively low, with many residents relying primarily on personal vehicles for daily transportation. Despite relatively low transit usage, respondents ranked public transit improvements among the highest priorities for future transportation planning.

Traffic Congestion

Respondents were asked how frequently they become trapped in vehicular traffic travelling less than 10 km/h on a main road in View Royal.

Key Findings:

• Experience congestion daily - 43%
• Experience congestion once or twice per week - 23%
• Experience congestion one to three times per month – 17%
• Experience congestion less than once per month – 11%
• Never experience traffic congestion – 5%

Approximately two-thirds of respondents experience significant traffic delays at least weekly, highlighting congestion as an ongoing transportation challenge.

Travel Patterns

Respondents were asked when they predominantly travel within View Royal.

Key Findings:

• Travel primarily during weekday peak periods (AM and PM rush hours) - 47%
• Travel during weekday off-peak periods - 43%
• Travel primarily on weekends - 7%
• Other – 2%

These findings indicate that transportation demand is concentrated throughout the workweek and closely linked to commuting and daily activities.

3. Additional Comments

Respondents were asked if they had questions or additional comments about the future of transportation in View Royal. A total of 102 written comments were received. Many comments included multiple topics and are themed accordingly.

Feedback Themes:

1. Traffic congestion, bottlenecks, roadway capacity, and traffic flow – 48 comments
   • References to the Colwood Crawl, Island Highway, Admirals Road, Helmcken Road, Burnside Road, Six Mile Road, signal timing, lane capacity, and construction-related delays.
2. Bike lanes, traffic calming, or reducing road space for vehicles – 19 comments
   • Concerns that these measures could worsen congestion and reduce roadway capacity.
3. Rail, light rail, commuter rail, or rapid transit – 17 comments
   • Rail was identified as the preferred long-term solution to regional congestion and population growth.
4. Intersection, signal timing, and operational improvements – 16 comments
   • Left-turn signals, traffic light timing, intersection redesigns, and roundabouts.
5. Public transit – 15 comments
   • Improve service frequency, new routes, better regional connections, bus shelters, park-and-ride facilities, and transit affordability.
6. Cycling and active transportation infrastructure – 14 comments
   • Support for protected bike lanes, safer cycling facilities, trail connections, and improved walking and wheeling routes.
7. Pedestrian and cycling safety – 11 comments
   • Concerns related to crosswalks, speeding, trail conflicts, dangerous intersections, and protection for vulnerable road users.
8. Neighbourhood traffic, speeding, and through-traffic – 9 comments
   • Concerns about the impacts to local streets and residential areas.
9. Regional coordination and inter-municipal planning – 8 comments
   • Calls for collaboration with neighbouring municipalities, the Capital Regional District, and other levels of government.
10. Environmental, tree canopy, climate resilience, and nature-based design – 5 comments
    • Support for incorporating green infrastructure, street trees, biodiversity, and climate adaptation into transportation planning.

4. Respondent Demographics

Relationship to View Royal

Key Findings:

• View Royal residents – 73%
• Access recreation or activities in View Royal - 42%
• Shop in View Royal - 41%
• Work in View Royal - 16%
• Business owners – 5%
• Students – 4%

Most respondents have a direct connection to View Royal as residents, although many also work, shop, or participate in recreational activities within the community.

Neighbourhood Distribution

Key Findings:

• Live outside View Royal, including First Nations communities – 22%
• Helmcken - 20%
• Harbour – 12%
• Thetis 12%
• Atkins – 11%
• Craigflower - 11%

Responses received from people living in neighbourhoods throughout View Royal and the surrounding areas.

Housing Type

Key Findings:

• Live in a single detached house - 65%
• Live in a townhouse or rowhouse - 13%
• 11% live in an apartment or condominium - 11%
• Live in a secondary suite – 5%

Most respondents live in low-density housing.

Age Profile

Key Findings:

• Ages 35 to 54 - 47%
• Ages 55+ – 37%
• Ages 20 to 34 – 16%

Survey respondents are primarily middle-aged and older adults.

APPENDIX A:

Quantitative Survey Responses

APPENDIX B:

Qualitative Survey Responses Note, some comments have been blacked out to protect identifying information.